Arizona Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ) Shot During Public Event

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i dont think the arts were as readily available in the past as you think they were. but i also dont think that this has any relevance to the shooting. the killer, for all his mental instability, seemed to be pretty familiar with things like literature (take a look at his favorite books). but like i said, i was being a smart ass.
[/QUOTE]

Oh I wasn't saying it had anything to do with this particular case. Just that it's part of the divisiveness and why all this hateful rhetoric is so readily latched on to.

There's just a major culture war between the Palin-ites and the "elitists" at the root of all this nonsense. It's a sad world when being an educated intellectual is suddenly a bad thing, rather than something everyone should be striving to be.

And of course arts are more accessible today in someways. But they're also less accessible in some aspects with cutting them from education budgets and curriculum etc. And there are just so many more distractions today than even when we were kids with the rise of the internet, endless TV channels etc. so very few people take the time to read or do anything to enrich themselves. Hell, even I waste way too much time rotting my brain on crappy sites like this one when I could/should be working, or reading or doing something remotely beneficial! But that's really a rant for another thread, so I'll leave it at that.
 
After reading through this thread, I'm left wondering which makes me more sad: that this issue is being politicized at all, or that so many CAG's seem to think it should be.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Oh I wasn't saying it had anything to do with this particular case. Just that it's part of the divisiveness and why all this hateful rhetoric is so readily latched on to.

There's just a major culture war between the Palin-ites and the "elitists" at the root of all this nonsense. It's a sad world when being an educated intellectual is suddenly a bad thing, rather than something everyone should be striving to be.[/QUOTE]

It's always been a bad thing. Hell, intellectuals have always had an uphill fight. Hell up until agronomists showed farmers how to make money they were resistance to anything cooked up at an institution. It's not suddenly a bad thing, it pretty much always was.

@ram: I have racked up quite a bit as well, but not as much as some of my friends who have racked up 2 times more than me.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']It's always been a bad thing. Hell, intellectuals have always had an uphill fight. Hell up until agronomists showed farmers how to make money they were resistance to anything cooked up at an institution. It's not suddenly a bad thing, it pretty much always was.
[/QUOTE]

I don't really agree. There's always been some disdain for intellectuals on some fronts, but I think people used to hold people like professors, doctors etc. in a lot more esteem than they do now. I mean maybe not for things like literature professors etc. who people think have worthless careers etc.

So there's always been negativity, I agree. People are never going to like seeing people they think have easy lives living good while they're breaking their backs and struggling to make ends meet etc. As well as outbursts just being a result of their own insecurities and inferiority complexes etc.

But before I think there was more just envy etc. in that where as now it's an outright culture war that I don't think was there so much before. Or was at least in the fringe and not being so directly instigated by conservative politicians with phrases like "latte sipping intellectuals." This anti-intellectualism has only recently became a political issue I guess is what I'm getting at.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't really agree. There's always been some disdain for intellectuals on some fronts, but I think people used to hold people like professors, doctors etc. in a lot more esteem than they do now. I mean maybe not for things like literature professors etc. who people think have worthless careers etc.

So there's always been negativity, I agree. People are never going to like seeing people they think have easy lives living good while they're breaking their backs and struggling to make ends meet etc. As well as outbursts just being a result of their own insecurities and inferiority complexes etc.

But before I think there was more just envy etc. in that where as now it's an outright culture war that I don't think was there so much before. Or was at least in the fringe and not being so directly instigated by conservative politicians with phrases like "latte sipping intellectuals." This anti-intellectualism has only recently became a political issue I guess is what I'm getting at.[/QUOTE]

Don't forget how conservatives are taught to hate lawyers too.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't really agree. There's always been some disdain for intellectuals on some fronts, but I think people used to hold people like professors, doctors etc. in a lot more esteem than they do now. I mean maybe not for things like literature professors etc. who people think have worthless careers etc.

So there's always been negativity, I agree. People are never going to like seeing people they think have easy lives living good while they're breaking their backs and struggling to make ends meet etc. As well as outbursts just being a result of their own insecurities and inferiority complexes etc.

But before I think there was more just envy etc. in that where as now it's an outright culture war that I don't think was there so much before. Or was at least in the fringe and not being so directly instigated by conservative politicians with phrases like "latte sipping intellectuals." This anti-intellectualism has only recently became a political issue I guess is what I'm getting at.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean? In the 50's we called them communists and derailed their whole lives. Even the 60's had a pretty big backlash against intellectuals like McNamara. Hell, every populist movement is always concerned with controlling intellectuals and making them work for the people one way or another. But it was still there in the 80's and 90's through our pop culture, not just rap but also in areas of music such as rock and pop. To me its always been around, just as the latte sipping intellectual has been changed from the the booky looking nerd of the 20's in populist rags. But I will admit it has gone from a stream to a full on flood.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Jeez that guy's mugshot is CREEPY[/QUOTE]

I concur.

ht_loughner_mug_110110_main.jpg


This case just keeps getting more and more bizarre...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jared-loug...gunman-appears-court/story?id=12580344&page=1

"Every federal judge in the southern district of Arizona recused themselves from the case because one of Loughran's alleged victims was federal judge John Roll." I mean, that makes sense, but it does make me wonder where the heck they're going to conduct the trial. The defense wants to move the case out of Arizona (which is smart), but that just doesn't set right with me.

The whole skull stuff is pretty creepy too. :shock:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/10/2011-01-10_chilling_shrine_in_madmans_yard.html
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']It's Uncle Fester![/QUOTE]
For some reason I went to Hannibal Lecter.

Heyes.jpg
 
[quote name='KillerRamen']I concur.

ht_loughner_mug_110110_main.jpg


This case just keeps getting more and more bizarre...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jared-loug...gunman-appears-court/story?id=12580344&page=1

"Every federal judge in the southern district of Arizona recused themselves from the case because one of Loughran's alleged victims was federal judge John Roll." I mean, that makes sense, but it does make me wonder where the heck they're going to conduct the trial. The defense wants to move the case out of Arizona (which is smart), but that just doesn't set right with me.

The whole skull stuff is pretty creepy too. :shock:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/10/2011-01-10_chilling_shrine_in_madmans_yard.html[/QUOTE]

Dude looks like De Niro from Taxi Driver.
1257813999-robert-deniro-taxi-driver-photograph-c101033101246640326.jpg
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']premeditated attempt at an insanity defense.[/QUOTE]

Fortunately AZ, which will eventually charge and try him under state laws(right now there are only fed charges), has just about the strictest definition of insanity possible under the Constitution. Here, insanity is only a defense if at the time of the crime, he had a mental defect of such severity that he did not know right from wrong. He'll have to prove it by clear and convincing evidence. While it appears he had some serious issues, it would be incredibly difficult to show he did not know what he was doing was wrong, especially given he reportedly wrote "please don't be mad at me" to his friends on his myspace page.
 
you know who really needs to stfu in all of this is the damned sheriff. He is coming across as a crazy "back in my day" coot. I hope he enjoys his last term as sheriff.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568

ii2Q2.png


If this isn't a target list specifically targeting Giffords made by democrats...[/QUOTE]

That's a target symbol, not a crosshair; completely different things. Just admit the obvious that Palin's photo is a hit list, thus she is responsible for the massacre, PERIOD. All the press agrees and legislations are already being proposed to indict her for her crimes.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']you know who really needs to stfu in all of this is the damned sheriff. He is coming across as a crazy "back in my day" coot. I hope he enjoys his last term as sheriff.[/QUOTE]

Umm he's the one doing the investigation and has concluded that Sarah Palin and her tea party was responsible. His conclusion has much more weight than yours.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy'] telling people what they can and can't say = forcing them to give up their rights.[/QUOTE]

Everyone is saying to everyone else, 'take it down a notch'. That's not the same thing as forcing them because they have every right to say what they want.

Let's use the GZ Mosque analogy. You think it's insensitive and douchy and stabby in the eye to build it near GZ, but they have every right.

Similarly, it's insensitive and douchy and eye stabby to say 'if ballots dont work use bullets', 'second amendment remedies', etc, but they have every right to say that.
Maybe you're talking about Brady's anti-free speech bill. In that case I would agree with your statement. But I'm pretty sure you're talking about taking it down a notch.
 
[quote name='rumblebear'] Just admit the obvious that Palin's photo is a hit list, thus she is responsible for the massacre, PERIOD. All the press agrees and legislations are already being proposed to indict her for her crimes.[/QUOTE]

You do understand you can't pass a law and then prosecute a person ex post facto, right?

What am I saying? -of course you don't.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']But I will admit it has gone from a stream to a full on flood.[/QUOTE]

That was mainly my point.
 
[quote name='IRHari']If you haven't realized by now that rumblebear is a troll, there's something wrong with you.[/QUOTE]
I was compiling a "greatest hits collection" of his posts and quit because I was laughing so hard (and I had to shovel off my stoop). I'm still not sure, I would be certain of it if his posts weren't so inline with plenty I've read other places.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']I was compiling a "greatest hits collection" of his posts and quit because I was laughing so hard (and I had to shovel off my stoop). I'm still not sure, I would be certain of it if his posts weren't so inline with plenty I've read other places.[/QUOTE]Hm that's a good point. There's a few people who began posting here who are like that but on the other side, literally regurgitating whatever Glenn Beck talked about the past week.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Hm that's a good point. There's a few people who began posting here who are like that but on the other side, literally regurgitating whatever Glenn Beck talked about the past week.[/QUOTE]

most people here regurgitate shit they heard somewhere else, regardless of political persuasion.
 
There's a difference between regurgitating facts garnered from a legitimate source vs the shit Glen Beck says.
 
Did anyone notice how the right twisted this tragedy. Instead of a return to civility, ratcheting down of the rhetoric, and denouncing Palin, it's now 'dont take away mah free speech and mah guns'.
 
[quote name='Clak']There's a difference between regurgitating facts garnered from a legitimate source vs the shit Glen Beck says.[/QUOTE]

No doubt. I am only wondering who gets to decide the legitimacy of a source?
 
[quote name='camoor']Did anyone notice how the right twisted this tragedy. Instead of a return to civility, ratcheting down of the rhetoric, and denouncing Palin, it's now 'dont take away mah free speech and mah guns'.[/QUOTE]

the right is the only side trying to make political hay of this whole thing? Come on, man.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']the right is the only side trying to make political hay of this whole thing? Come on, man.[/QUOTE]
I think he's joking. He's channeling his inner rumblebear.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx'] No doubt. I am only wondering who gets to decide the legitimacy of a source?[/QUOTE]

Well for one, I don't know why anyone would take cues on civility from a prick who joked about poisoning Nancy Pelosi and murdering Michael Moore.

Certainly doesn't deligitmize everything he says though.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']the right is the only side trying to make political hay of this whole thing? Come on, man.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, don't see the equivalency here.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Sorry, don't see the equivalency here.[/QUOTE]

cons are pro gun and regularly call for the shootings deaths of political rivals, am I on the right track?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not sure the point of that in response to me, since my post was in regards to the off topic anti-intellectualism discussion. :D

But interesting (and troubling) nonetheless.[/QUOTE]

I have noticed that certain people in this thread are ignoring the case of Jim Adkisson, this is all a byproduct of the fact you cannot tell the "mainstream" conservatives from say the Hutaree Militia.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']cons are pro gun and regularly call for the shootings deaths of political rivals, am I on the right track?[/QUOTE]

Dude, I am pro gun.

I am anti-guns for the mentally ill and anti-being able to buy extended magazines at 7/11.

As for what cons believe and the toxic most of them dwell in, just read about the Mr. Adkisson I referenced.
 
I will read it. Just because I like you.

edit: Yeah I remember that guy. I still think its a stretch to blame anyone but himself for what happened.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='cindersphere']What do you mean? In the 50's we called them communists and derailed their whole lives. Even the 60's had a pretty big backlash against intellectuals like McNamara. Hell, every populist movement is always concerned with controlling intellectuals and making them work for the people one way or another. But it was still there in the 80's and 90's through our pop culture, not just rap but also in areas of music such as rock and pop. To me its always been around, just as the latte sipping intellectual has been changed from the the booky looking nerd of the 20's in populist rags. But I will admit it has gone from a stream to a full on flood.[/QUOTE]

Anti-intellectualism isn't a new thing in the 21st or 20th centuries. That said, *access* is a relatively new thing. Industrialization required specialization training (i.e., education) until it evolved (Weber's rationalization) to a point where the division of labor is so great that you can staff a factory with simpletons who just push the button to make the machine work (ideal/theoretical, not actual, of course).

Pre-industrialization, formal education was not required (let alone mandated), and was considered something of a leisure activity. It was something the upper classes had time to do. Instead of racking up your Xbox gamerscore, you read and discussed literature, philosophy, politics, fine arts, music, etc. People who had to labor for a meager living didn't have time for that nonsense. They worked from sun-up to sun-down.

But, again, industrialization (and the gains made in industrial labor thanks to union action - a minimum wage, safety standards, weekends off and 40-hour weeks) allowed all classes time for leisure activity. Combine access to leisure with the need for education, and you have social conditions where intellectualism is theoretically available to everyone. But that didn't mean that everyone had to accept or believe in it.

But in that time, the mass has always had disdain for aspects of culture considered intellectual, to some degree. It's certainly not fueled completely by class - as class envy fuels many of our cultural trends and purchasing decisions (i.e., culture embraces the clothing, cars, alcohol, and frivolousness of those deemed wealthy, but not intellectual endeavors). There's no status to having a discussion about Marx and Engels to the degree there is status that comes from having a hot car. You certainly ain't gettin' a BJ at the club because you decided to play the cello instead of drive a Maserati.

There's something more substantive to what I'm trying to say, but I'm kinda tired and stressed today. So...yeah. Much of our political culture is not only uninterested in science and empiricism, as dmaul points out, vehemently against policies based on scientifically-derived knowledge. Culturally, we love our guts more than our scientists.

I've never read Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink," but there's a reason it sells so well: its primary thesis is this you, dear reader, prejudge everyone you meet the moment you meet them. And you're actually better at it than people give you credit for. So keep doing it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Anti-intellectualism isn't a new thing in the 21st or 20th centuries. That said, *access* is a relatively new thing. Industrialization required specialization training (i.e., education) until it evolved (Weber's rationalization) to a point where the division of labor is so great that you can staff a factory with simpletons who just push the button to make the machine work (ideal/theoretical, not actual, of course).

Pre-industrialization, formal education was not required (let alone mandated), and was considered something of a leisure activity. It was something the upper classes had time to do. Instead of racking up your Xbox gamerscore, you read and discussed literature, philosophy, politics, fine arts, music, etc. People who had to labor for a meager living didn't have time for that nonsense. They worked from sun-up to sun-down.

But, again, industrialization (and the gains made in industrial labor thanks to union action - a minimum wage, safety standards, weekends off and 40-hour weeks) allowed all classes time for leisure activity. Combine access to leisure with the need for education, and you have social conditions where intellectualism is theoretically available to everyone. But that didn't mean that everyone had to accept or believe in it.

But in that time, the mass has always had disdain for aspects of culture considered intellectual, to some degree. It's certainly not fueled completely by class - as class envy fuels many of our cultural trends and purchasing decisions (i.e., culture embraces the clothing, cars, alcohol, and frivolousness of those deemed wealthy, but not intellectual endeavors). There's no status to having a discussion about Marx and Engels to the degree there is status that comes from having a hot car. You certainly ain't gettin' a BJ at the club because you decided to play the cello instead of drive a Maserati.

There's something more substantive to what I'm trying to say, but I'm kinda tired and stressed today. So...yeah. Much of our political culture is not only uninterested in science and empiricism, as dmaul points out, vehemently against policies based on scientifically-derived knowledge. Culturally, we love our guts more than our scientists.

I've never read Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink," but there's a reason it sells so well: its primary thesis is this you, dear reader, prejudge everyone you meet the moment you meet them. And you're actually better at it than people give you credit for. So keep doing it.[/QUOTE]

fuck you, hippie!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
There's something more substantive to what I'm trying to say, but I'm kinda tired and stressed today. So...yeah. Much of our political culture is not only uninterested in science and empiricism, as dmaul points out, vehemently against policies based on scientifically-derived knowledge. Culturally, we love our guts more than our scientists.[/quote]

Exactly what I was trying to get at. Where I think anti-intellectualism has taken a severe turn for the worse is from this turn to not just disliking intellectuals out of fear or ignorance etc. to going so far as to think using science and evidence to better society, make policies etc. is a bad thing.

I've never read Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink," but there's a reason it sells so well: its primary thesis is this you, dear reader, prejudge everyone you meet the moment you meet them. And you're actually better at it than people give you credit for. So keep doing it.
Click to expand...

Yep. And it's a good and easy read like all his books. The prejudging is just a part of the idea though. The book also spends a good bit of time on just how good the brain is at making snap decisions (how people excel under pressure etc.). First impressions is just one part of it.
 
Dear Tea Party,

If you fucking paint gun sights on political opponents (not just use words), bring guns to rallies and encourage "2nd amendment" solutions don't be fucking shocked when people look at your Tea Party Bullshit as a cause.

And spare me being offended. You've spent the better part of 2 years playing the false victim, it's crying wolf at this point
 
I'd actually like to discuss the issue of how he was even able to purchase a gun, but then we all know how that will turn out, we'd just be exchanging one issue for another and still having everyone take the same position.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']
uncle%20fester.JPG


C'mon guys, he looks way more like Fester than Hannibal Lecter or De Niro in Taxi Driver.[/QUOTE]I'd need to see a light bulb in his mouth before I can buy that.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Dear Tea Party,

If you fucking paint gun sights on political opponents (not just use words), bring guns to rallies and encourage "2nd amendment" solutions don't be fucking shocked when people look at your Tea Party Bullshit as a cause.

And spare me being offended. You've spent the better part of 2 years playing the false victim, it's crying wolf at this point[/QUOTE]

http://www.frumforum.com/did-pot-trigger-giffords-shooting

Your reaction is almost as ridiculous as Frum's. Congratulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top