This is rather rambling, but I can't figure out how to organize it, as it is just the jumble of my thoughts over the shootings in Arizona.
What is your opinion of the situation? I'm hearing people say "Don't make it political," or "Don't blame the media," or "Consider it a random act of violence."
Random act of violence: But it wasn't, apparently, random.
Blaming the media: I think the media makes a lot of situations worse by the rhetoric they spout on a regular basis. This morning I heard someone say the media didn't do anything to convince him to do what he did, but I kinda think they do.There are certain media groups or individuals that don't say "Go shoot someone," but they do say things that are negatively inciting about groups or individuals they don't like or who have different opinions. I hear things from both extremes that are antagonistic toward other opinions or views. Let's face it, when anyone, including you and me, "talk down" a person or group, we tend to use language, intonation, etc. that is inflammatory. I think it is pretty much human nature to do so. And why do we do that? Because we want to convince people to see things our way, agree with us, and thereby validate our opinions. What many in the media don't get is that their words are taken seriously by some people. I'm not talking about seriously inspiring thought for debate, but seriously taken as "gospel." IMO, that is downright scary.
Is it political: I don't know. I haven't heard anything that says this shooter had a political motive. Keep in mind I avoid most "news" from the media, however, so I may not have heard all the "news" about this incident. I have concern, however, about the probability that politics fit in here some way. There are soo many things that are politically influenced. Hells-bells, friendships are impacted with the political trash that is e.v.e.r.y.w.h.e.r.e these days!! I really wish we could turn the clock back and have political discussions without hubris and acrimony.
And then I found this video on FB. It says a lot. BTW, if Jon Stewart turns you off, please watch/listen, anyway. It is really neutral, thoughtful, and worth the listen.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Arizona Shootings Reaction | ||||
| ||||
And I found this article at http://hotword.dictionary.com/:
After the tragic Arizona shooting, the word “vitriol” was everywhere in the news. What is its literally dangerous meaning?
After Saturday’s shocking attack on Arizona lawmaker Gabrielle Giffords and a crowd of bystanders, an unusual word proliferated through all forms of media. Shortly after the shooting tragedy, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik cited “vitriolic rhetoric” as a potential source for the violence.
This article is not about politics or the relationship of media and violence in American culture. The topic at hand, of course, is “vitriol.” What is it?
Vitriol is an old-fashioned name for one of the most dangerous chemicals you can find: sulfuric acid. This substance is incredibly corrosive, meaning it eats away other substances due to chemical reactions. When sulfuric acid meets water, it produces an exothermic reaction, meaning that the chemical reaction with water produces heat. Reactions between the two are responsible for many horrific burns.
The acid is so corrosive that, even in diluted form, a drop of it will burn through a piece of paper. Medieval chemists named this substance vitriol after the Latin vitrium, “of glass.” In solid forms, sulfur compounds can have a glass-like appearance (like the image of crystallized copper sulfate above.)
Vitriol has been used poetically to refer to harsh speech since the 1700s. Sheriff Dupnik’s remarks are not the first time that the caustic word has been used to describe recent political discourse. In April, 2010, President Obama referred to some politically-themed talk shows as vitriol.Oh, and here's one more interesting read about it: NPR
What'd ya think?
I rarely speak to one of my sisters because she has such strong hateful political opinions.
ReplyDeleteI no longer watch any TV news pogroms. (Because our satellite reception ended in November for them.) and I am more at peace without it.
This tragedy is the result of a mentally unstable young adult obtaining a gun and lashing out. We have no way of knowing what contributed to his actions or why he choose Gabrielle Giffords as his target.
ReplyDeleteMy hope is that this tragedy will encourage politicians to be more civil with those who have apposing views. We need more open minded discussions of the issues and less name calling and caustic remarks.
The tragedy in Arizona is because of a mentally unstable man. It isn't because of immigration, or being on Sarah Palin's hit list. It is a sad situation for both the victims and the attacker's family. Just so sad. She is a very good politician. I just hope and pray that all the victims that are still in the hospital will pull through 100%.
ReplyDeleteI think this guy was just mentally disturbed. Why he chose this woman (or the other people he killed) is anyone's guess. For some reason he was fixated on her and perceived she had done some political wrong. No one can figure out why mentally ill people choose who they choose to lash out at. It could just have easily been a university, church or business. And like John Stewart said, "you cannot outsmart crazy". Unless a specific threat is made and intercepted it's hard to stop. Part of his mental illness was being a narcissist, hence the My Space, videos, etc. I heard one person who claimed to be an acquaintance/friend who said "he was just plain crazy". Sadly I believe that's true. The sad part is these friends always come forward later and said they can't believe they would ever do something like this! While I feel sorry for the Congresswoman and her family etc., the media seemed to gloss over, at least in the beginning, the people who actually lost their lives, many just innocent bystanders, like that 9 year old girl. So sad.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can dismiss the idea that this was a political action. When this crazy kid acted it was not at a target that had hurt or threatened him personally. There were plenty of targets. He didn't attack the army that had rejected him, or the community college rejected him,or even his father who had confronted him earlier that morning. Could his representative become his target because she had been identified by others to be an enemy?
ReplyDelete