I feel the need to say something about this, just because everyone else in the world has already:
1. Yes, Sarah Palin is a jackass who inexplicably holds sway over the opinions of a depressingly large number of people.
2. Yes, her SarahPAC poster with crosshairs over various Congressional districts that had earned her displeasure was in extremely bad fucking taste.
3. Yes, her general use of gun imagery in political discourse is also in extremely bad fucking taste.
4. Yes, the use of violent rhetoric is a growing problem in American politics that needs to be addressed.
These things being said, I have something else to add:
5. Sarah Palin cannot be held responsible for the actions of a crazed gunman.
Now, much as I detest this woman and her various political ideas (most of which strike me as irresponsible at best and absolutely reprehensible at worst), I feel the need to defend her on this particular point. The Arizona shooting was the work of an individual who had some serious problems, and we can't really hold anyone else responsible unless they helped plan or fund the attack, or in some way directly and demonstrably encouraged his shooting spree. We are all products of our environment to a certain degree, and there are countless factors that can influence our behavior--but in the end, we are all responsible for our own actions (with a very few exceptions). Charles Manson was inspired by the Beatles and the Columbine shooters played Doom, but it's not fair to blame Lennon and McCartney or id Software for everything that happened in those cases.
It would be incredibly hypocritical if I were to blame Ms. Palin's asinine, inflammatory rhetoric for this tragedy, because I always jump to the defense of video games when people blame them for violent behavior--and most modern video games go way the hell beyond crosshairs on a map. But here's the thing: people don't become sociopathic murderers because they play Grand Theft Auto; chances are they play Grand Theft Auto because of their sociopathic tendencies. But guess what happens if a normal person plays Grand Theft Auto: absolutely nothing. They kill some 3D hookers for a while, turn off the PS2, and go about their daily business. Look at me, for instance! I play Black and Team Fortress 2 and God of War, and I've never committed any murders that I'll admit to in a court of law.
The moral of the story is this: correlation does not imply causation. Unless there's demonstrable evidence that Sarah Palin knowingly contributed to the shooting, people need to stop blaming her--it's really only giving her more of a chance to play the victim card, making this tragedy about her instead of about the people who were injured or killed.
Nevertheless, violent rhetoric is a very real problem. We need to cut out this "Don't Retreat; Reload" bullshit and tell people to STOP BRINGING LOADED FIREARMS TO POLITICAL RALLIES, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. They bring the unspoken threat of violence into the realm of political discourse, and that's utterly unacceptable--especially in a country that prides itself on showing other countries how to do this whole "democracy" thing.
Also, gun control. Background checks. Maybe we could try not giving firearms to sociopaths. Wacky idea, right?
So, to sum up: Sarah Palin is not an accessory to murder. She is, however, a massive bitch and should kindly fuck right off, in the interests of a calmer political climate and the sanity of the general public.
That's all for now. Good night, and good luck.
Difference is supposed violent inspiration from video games, movies, etc. comes about when people can't distinguish the difference between fiction from reality. But pundits and politicians dwell in the real world and are talking about real things, and when Palin says that there's death panels, people believe these are real things in the real world. Their followers are unable to distinguish hyperbole and lies from reality, which is a very different thing. It's not mental illness (or the same kind of mental illness) to believe a lie. They really think there are death panels and FEMA camps. News anchors and Senators and Governors are telling them this - why shouldn't they believe it? Fox News isn't telling them different. This is the difference between a John Hinkley and a John Wilkes Booth. Hinkley was in another world, Booth was in this one and saw it very differently from Lincoln.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree a bit with the parallel you draw between this situation and earlier cases. The "artistic inspirations" supposedly responsible for those shootings did not directly name a target. If Doom, or the music of Marilyn Manson, had called for the assassination of a specific public figure prior to someone actually committing that deed, a civil and/or criminal suit might be in order. It's incitement.
ReplyDeleteBut there's probably an issue of intent there as well. Palin is a moron with terrible judgment, but I doubt anyone could prove that her purpose was for people to die. Also, of course, no one has demonstrated a convincing link between the shooter and the rhetoric. So overall, I agree with you: Sarah Palin's a toadish hagbeast, but probably not legally responsible.
Yes, this guy was a libertarian psychopath and maybe it's just an issue of poor taste. My problem is that, I think, the rhetoric used by Sarah Palin and her ilk is extremely risky. I do not think that they're ignorant enough to believe that people WON'T take them seriously if pushed far enough. There was a Democratic Representative, Steve Driehaus, that I think said it best:
ReplyDelete"But it's not about what you intended — it's about how the least rational person in my district takes it."
I also feel there's a pretty distinct line between violent video games and a politician telling you to fire a fully loaded M16. The entertainment industry is (and should be) held to different standards than politics.
Another thing that bothers me, but doesn't surprise me since the right has a tendency towards glaring hypocrisy: If the right is going to condemn all Muslims for the actions/words of a minority, then perhaps they shouldn't perpetuate similar rhetoric. At least terrorist propagandists don't act totally shocked when one of their followers takes them literally and blows up a train station.
A voice of empiricism: you're right - the most prominent evidence people use to argue that playing violent video games results in violent behavior is correlational. It's about as strong as the correlational evidence indicating that smoking tobacco products results in the contraction of lung cancer. Additionally, there has been experimental research (i.e., in the lab, capable of showing cause and effect) that suggests that watching or playing violent media leads to more aggressive actions towards others and desensitization to violence (see, e.g., Liebert & Baron, 1972; Anderson & Dill, 2000).
ReplyDeleteSo you can believe what you believe with regard to all that, but if avoiding hypocrisy is important to you, then do so.
Regarding legal culpability, I think it would be incredibly difficult - and probably very foolish - to attempt to make a legal case against Palin et al for their violent rhetoric and images, because our criminal justice system is not set up to account for subtle influences, no matter how powerful: as Patty said, the intention to harm is very important. But that doesn't mean that the best we can do is to continue seething in our hatred for the Tea Party and talk about how awful they are amongst ourselves. This is one of those innumerable circumstances in which liberals need to grow fucking spines and stand up to do, I think, one of two things:
1. Make this incident off-limits to any politicization whatsoever. It was a tragedy - let's not make it worse for the victims and their families by using them as pawns in petty Capitol Hill schemes.
2. Do not let this issue drop. Hammer it home to the electorate that, without the inflamed rhetoric of the far right, we might have been spared this violence and loss of life. Make it clear that incitements to violence, however "metaphorical," are unacceptable in the kind of public discourse that America was founded to have - that America needs to have, in order to claim the title of last, best hope. In other words, don't claim that Tea Partiers are legally responsible (don't even bring it up!) but make them politically responsible.
Anyway.