Ms Giffords failed to tender a satisfactory reply to "What is government if words have no meaning?", was judged a fake, and...and Mr Loughner shot her in the head.
At this point, there is simply no sound reason to believe this deranged young man was fired up by "toxic" or "eliminationist" conservative rhetoric from Michele Bachmann or whomever. Why are we even having this conversation? It's nuts. It's offensive. Is there any, you know, evidence that political rhetoric is now more vitriolic or incendiary than usual? Maybe there is, but I know of none. A feeling in Mr Krugman's gut doesn't cut it. Doesn't it seem at least as likely that a 22-year-old would be inspired to an act of high-profile atrocity by violent video games or films? As far as I know there's no evidence of that, either.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Krugman's toxic rhetoric
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
This is similar to the argument used by the anti-pornography lobby. Because no one can prove that showing pictures of naked women is direct incitement to rape the claim is that these pictures somehow “dehumanise” all women and make it more likely that they will be raped.
I think that determinism underlies all of this talk about "climate of hate" etc. If you are constantly exposed to violence (or to “violent” words, speech, video games etc...), you will be somehow programmed to commit violence, if not now, then at some time in the future. On the other hand if one is constantly exposed to pacific rhetoric, one will always be disposed to peaceful demonstrations of agreement or opposition.
such is their perverted logic
Post a Comment