This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Sarah Palin's camp says depraved liberals blame her for mass murders

Sarah Palin's camp says depraved liberals blame her for mass murders - Comments

Reveille's Avatar Comment 1 by Reveille

"...I do hold Sarah Palin accountable for her irresponsible, selfish and cynical behavior. Ms Palin has been aware of the consequences of her words for a long time now."

I couldn't agree more with this statement. The environment right now, sponsored by folks like Sarah Palin (but not just on the right) is one of division and hate. Many politicians and pundits make it seem like the end of the world if the opposition were to take any actions. This is what attracts the mentally unstable to "take action."

(Edit: spelling)

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:58:32 UTC | #576086

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 2 by Richard Dawkins

Similar points are being made by many journalists, in America and Britain and probably elsewhere. Rather than post the same things many times over, I decided to post this article by Sarah Jones, which seems to me to bring the main points together in one place rather well. Note especially the disgusting quotations from Sarah Palin, and her frantic efforts now to cover her tracks

Richard

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:01:28 UTC | #576088

The Plc's Avatar Comment 3 by The Plc

Why do these right wingers direct their hate at the government so much, when at least it's a limited representative government. Are they not aware that it's the private corporate bureaucratic institutions that is at so much of root of their problems?

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:14:03 UTC | #576094

SomersetJohn's Avatar Comment 4 by SomersetJohn

Sarah Palin comes across as a very religious person to me.

She reminds me of Ian Paisley, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and quite a few other hate filled, mentally degenerate, sociopathic failed human beings, She represents the very worst that America has to offer the world.

At the same time, the assassination attempt, if reports are accurate, showed the best. The woman who, although wounded, managed to snatch a magazine from the nutjob as he tried to reload, the two men who tackled him and apparently prevented more death or injury.

We need to attack (only with words) the Palins' of this world, but let us also remember to give credit where it is due.

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:16:18 UTC | #576095

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 5 by Alan4discussion

Palin and her cronies well illustrate what is rotten in US politics: all venom, aggravation and rhetoric: negligible reasoned argument. Her near pathological denial of responsibility for her campaigns, along with even her spokesperson distancing herself from Palin in making this statement, shows how utterly unsuitable she is to offer any example or leadership.

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:19:46 UTC | #576097

Linda Ward's Avatar Comment 6 by Linda Ward

God, guns & booze are a recipe for social disaster.

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:35:25 UTC | #576105

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 7 by SaganTheCat

she'd make a fine muslim

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:36:17 UTC | #576106

Devil's Sympathiser's Avatar Comment 8 by Devil's Sympathiser

Depraved liberals ???!!! Maybe if she had a brain, she'd have a right to call us names.

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:36:31 UTC | #576107

Neil5150's Avatar Comment 9 by Neil5150

Her devout followers will no doubt remain blinded by their ignorance. My guess is that this money grubbing whore's (no disrespect to real working whores) marketability is done. Charles Manson never killed anyone....

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:39:17 UTC | #576108

Tryphon Tournesol's Avatar Comment 10 by Tryphon Tournesol

the Palin camp has chosen to feel victimized.

mmm I guess I heard that before, maybe a common trait among lunatics..

edit/ps. Neil5150, no need to distinguish her from any working girl, I seriously doubt if anyone sane would like to screw this silly cow, even not with his worst enemy's prick. only the thought of it :(

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:44:05 UTC | #576110

KeithV's Avatar Comment 11 by KeithV

I follow politics in America to the point of near nausea with the irresponsible rhetoric that has become the norm over the last several years. I remember being turned off by the rhetoric of both political parties when I first became eligible to vote prior to the election of Reagan and made the concious decision to become an independent, from which I have never strayed. While, from an independent's studied point of view, it may be true that both sides of the political table use reprehensible language to make their points, it is without doubt the right that has used the most virulent, factually vacuous, and easily arguably violence-inciting language. Yes, most of us are able to (when we can stand to even listen to the crap being spewed forth)distinguish that these fire breathers don't really mean for people to use violence as a means to a political end, but the point is that there are many unstable and easily influenced minds that cannot reason through the hate speech to realize they should not act on their basest emotions. The suspect in this heinous crime seems to be one of these people. I do not expect the right to pull back from this horrible behavior, and the intial response from them supports this. It is no coincidence in my mind that many of these people also use apocalyptic imagery in many of their speeches and screeds as well, it reinforces my thoughts that they are not people of reason!

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:45:35 UTC | #576111

millerseth's Avatar Comment 12 by millerseth

Comment 5 by Alan4discussion :

Palin and her cronies well illustrate what is rotten in US politics: all venom, aggravation and rhetoric: negligible reasoned argument. Her near pathological denial of responsibility for her campaigns, along with even her spokesperson distancing herself from Palin in making this statement, shows how utterly unsuitable she is to offer any example or leadership.

I take comfort in the fact that in the election, McCain (who while having some definite right wing tendencies I still believe to be a man motivated by an honest love for his country) and Palin were defeated by Obama, a man who's views I (mostly) agree with. I also agree with what others on this forum have suggested about him being a closet agnostic.

It's absurd that we have to defend ourselves and our way of life from people like Sarah Palin, but at least we're currently winning the battle.

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:46:37 UTC | #576112

root2squared's Avatar Comment 13 by root2squared

Is there is any evidence to show that the shooter was a Palin supporter or that he was influenced by the cross-hairs graphic?

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:57:07 UTC | #576115

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 14 by AtheistEgbert

Sarah Palin is most definitely dangerous, whether consciously or not. A rational person would find some humility and completely condemn acts or threats of violence. But Palin refuses, and this tells us that she is both completely irresponsible and deluded.

There are parallels to this and Pakistan, where the 'environment' of threats and coded words got Salman Taseer killed. Of course, none of those inciting violence and assassination are directly responsible, because irresponsibility is part such environments. Taseer was both naive and brave, and so too was Gabrielle Giffords. Both knew about the risks, and were clearly both concerned and defiant, and just a little bit wreckless.

I'm reminded of the scapegoating of the Jews in the early days of Nazi Germany, the rhetoric and hatred whipped up, and we know where it leads.

Violent rhetoric provides the environment. It is the fire that sweeps a nation toward evil tyranny and the slaughter of the scapegoats.

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:05:33 UTC | #576116

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 15 by God fearing Atheist

The US right wing use/abuse metaphor as a political weapon. The attempted assassination is a direct consequence of violent words. Pity it won't stand up in court. I just hope US liberals can make the mud stick.

(The unflattering image of Palin above is also an attempt by the left wing to use metaphor to attack her. Hopefully the left are learning. Nasty isn't it.)

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:10:06 UTC | #576118

Roger J. Stanyard's Avatar Comment 16 by Roger J. Stanyard

It's history repeating itself. The God, Guns and Guts militia mentality of the 1990s which produced Timothy McVeigh, is now the movement of Sarah Palin, with equally as nasty consequences.

The finger also points at organised evangelical religion.

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:12:17 UTC | #576119

Roger J. Stanyard's Avatar Comment 17 by Roger J. Stanyard

root2squared asks "Is there is any evidence to show that the shooter was a Palin supporter or that he was influenced by the cross-hairs graphic?"

Nobody is saying there is; read the OP article in full.

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:14:39 UTC | #576121

Roger J. Stanyard's Avatar Comment 18 by Roger J. Stanyard

God fearing Atheist points out "The US right wing use/abuse metaphor as a political weapon. The attempted assassination is a direct consequence of violent words. Pity it won't stand up in court."

It doesn't matter; the issue is whether the Teabaggers can get their position to stand up before the ballot boxes go in place.

Seems to me from this side of the pond that Sarah Palin has just shot herself in the head.

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:20:32 UTC | #576129

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 19 by Richard Dawkins

Google the name of Gabrielle Giffords and you get more than 90 million hits. Salman Taseer rates just over one million. It’s not immediately obvious why the week’s two assassination attempts should receive such unequal coverage. On the face of it, one might think that the successful assassination of a state governor should receive a bit more than one ninetieth as much public attention as the unsuccessful (so far) assassination of a member of the House of Representatives.

The two crimes are worth comparing further. Both were committed with legal guns: legal in the one case because it is the sacred right of every American to be armed to the teeth, even if psychotic; legal in the other case because the murderer was a trusted bodyguard of the man he killed. One killer is an unintelligent nutcase, incited by the sort of violent political rhetoric which, thanks to Rupert Murdoch and others, has become mainstream in America. The other killer is a devout Muslim, incited to do his Islamic duty by mullahs and imams, by whose efforts religiously motivated murder has become a mainstream ideal in Pakistan. He, but not his American counterpart, is now showered with rose petals, and if he ever comes to trial the judge and prosecuting counsel will be in mortal danger. The aftermath to the assassination of Salman Taseer has brought home the fact that the state of Pakistan is in grave danger of religiously inspired descent into chaotic anarchy.

Both countries have nuclear weapons. In Pakistan there is a very real risk that these may fall into the hands of those who incited the murderer of Salman Taseer and showered him with rose petals. In America, it would be nice to think that there is no immediate risk that the much larger nuclear arsenal will fall into the hands of those responsible for inciting the murder of Gabrielle Giffords. Yet it is impossible to forget that one such individual was the Republican candidate for Vice President in the recent election.

Richard

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:29:09 UTC | #576131

T. S. Elliott's Avatar Comment 20 by T. S. Elliott

It is irresponsible to blame Palin for this tragedy, her actions and words while in poor taste and reprehensible are not to blame.

It is equally irresponsible to think that the culture of aggression and violent metaphors that have been spawning from the right wing did nothing to exacerbate the problem either. The Palins, Becks and Angles that have been spewing literal call to arms against the government have been drying up the leaves in the bush. They won't create the spark, but they're providing adequate kindling. To entirely blame the right would also miss the point, the assassinate Bush crowd of earlier years were a prime example of this from the left... but they were nowhere as mainstream, they were rightly marginalised.

The true spark behind it was (and I say this knowing all the facts have not yet come in) likely to be mental disorder. The young man in question was unbalanced, a view of his online rants easily give them impression. Distrust of government, ramblings about the gold/silver standard are all familiar ideas... then there is the bizarre notion of government using grammar to control people. There's little question that the spark here was a paranoid individual, someone who was unhinged and liable to go off. But the violent rhetoric, the aggressive personalities on the news, the insidious insinuations ("second amendment remedies", "if we can't win with ballots we'll win with bullets") is there any doubt that this added fuel to the fire metaphor? Add in the easy access to a gun, and you have an explosive mix.

Surely, I would conclude that this was hardly political. It was not someone who was so incensed by the political position of the congresswoman that he wanted to assassinate her. It was an unbalanced individual whose paranoias were stoked by this violent political culture. You can't point at a particular party and say "it was the left who did this" or "it was the right who did this". You can point at the fact that the media seems to give the most airtime to the nutjobs, the people who stir up this kind of madness because aggression brings ratings. The more shocking the better, only the most outrageous are given airtime.

I would once again state that my analysis of the event is only based on the news reports and interviews to date. Any new information that comes out could radically change what we know of the facts.

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:30:57 UTC | #576133

mirandaceleste's Avatar Comment 21 by mirandaceleste

The violent rhetoric of the Tea Partiers and their ilk absolutely needs to stop. They'll undoubtedly respond to any such suggestion with "but we have the right to say whatever we want!" And, yes, they do (although the First Amendment isn't absolute), and I'd never suggest that such speech should be outlawed. However, with rights come responsibilities, and, in the case of the First Amendment, one of those responsibilities is being aware of the potential consequences of what you say.

This is especially true of those who have power, influence, and receive a great deal of coverage by the mainstream media. When such individuals use rhetoric that expresses hate and bigotry, and when they directly and/or indirectly condone and encourage violence, they contribute to an atmosphere in which hate and violence are both tolerated and normalized. And although the vast majority of individuals within this atmosphere of vitriolic and violent rhetoric will never commit violent acts, there exists a small minority who are eager to express their rage and hatred, and need only the tiniest amount of encouragement in order to commit violent acts that have horrifying real-life consequences.

Regardless of whether or not this particular murderer was directly influenced by the atmosphere of hatred and violence that the Tea Partiers have created, there's no denying that he, and all Americans, now live in a society in which the fringe has become mainstream, and in which violent rhetoric is no longer treated with the disdain it deserves. For this reason (and for many others), the violent rhetoric must stop. And, until it does, the Tea Partiers and their ilk must not be allowed to deny that they are, however indirectly, partially to blame for these horrifying acts. Their rhetoric has real-life consequences, and they need to realize that before this gets any more out of hand.

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:33:39 UTC | #576135

liberalartist's Avatar Comment 22 by liberalartist

Unfortunatley, Palin's response is an indication that the rhetoric will not be dialed back. Things may just get worse. So much for that Rally of Reason I attended a few months ago...

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:39:14 UTC | #576136

Zurak's Avatar Comment 23 by Zurak

Comment 19 by Richard Dawkins :

Google the name of Gabrielle Giffords and you get more than 90 million hits. Salman Taseer rates just over one million. It’s not immediately obvious why the week’s two assassination attempts should receive such unequal coverage. On the face of it, one might think that the successful assassination of a state governer should receive a bit more than one ninetieth as much public attention as the unsuccessful (so far) assassination of a member of the House of Representatives.

The two crimes are worth comparing further. Both were committed with legal guns: legal in the one case because it is the sacred right of every American to be armed to the teeth, even if psychotic; legal in the other case because the murderer was a trusted bodyguard of the man he killed. One killer is an unintelligent nutcase, incited by the sort of violent political rhetoric which, thanks to Rupert Murdoch and others, has become mainstream in America. The other killer is a devout Muslim, incited to do his Islamic duty by mullahs and imams, by whose efforts religiously motivated murder has become a mainstream ideal in Pakistan. He, but not his American counterpart, is now showered with rose petals, and if he ever comes to trial the judge and prosecuting counsel will be in mortal danger. The aftermath to the assassination of Salman Taseer has brought home the fact that the state of Pakistan is in grave danger of religiously inspired descent into chaotic anarchy.

Both countries have nuclear weapons. In Pakistan there is a very real risk that these may fall into the hands of those who incited the murderer of Salman Taseer and showered him with rose petals. In America, it would be nice to think that there is no immediate risk that the much larger nuclear arsenal will fall into the hands of those responsible for inciting the murder of Gabrielle Giffords. Yet it is impossible to forget that one such individual was the Republican candidate for Vice President in the recent election.

Richard

Soo Richy, looks like you have a political agenda here hmmmm>? Yeah the assassin was influenced by the likes of Ruper Murdoch and others with "violent rhetoric" in mainstream America? So where exactly is this violet rhetoric, i don't see anyone calling for the assassinations of anyone. As for the shooter himself Jared Loughner he was certainly NOT influenced by pali or anyone on the right or left. His profile o youtube is hereYou can see that he liked to burn American flags and liked reading the communist manifesto and hitlers mein kampf.

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:39:36 UTC | #576137

Atheist Mike's Avatar Comment 24 by Atheist Mike

She didn’t actually pull the trigger, after all. But she has deliberately and with malice aforethought created an atmosphere of hate, division, fear and paranoia. An atmosphere of white nationalism that according to law enforcement officials, it appears this young man embraced.

Just imagine what she'll do when she'll be president...

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:42:01 UTC | #576138

root2squared's Avatar Comment 26 by root2squared

Comment 17 by Roger J. Stanyard :

root2squared asks "Is there is any evidence to show that the shooter was a Palin supporter or that he was influenced by the cross-hairs graphic?"

Nobody is saying there is; read the OP article in full.

Maybe you should read it again. The implication is clear: that Palin's rhetoric at least in part contributed to this. If that was not implied, then using this to criticize Palin would be a cheap political move, not to mention, senseless.

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:54:24 UTC | #576143

Graxan's Avatar Comment 27 by Graxan

Sarah Palin appears to me to be the personification of the dumbed-down popularist culture that seems to invade our lives. It can be seen on the front of every edition of the likes of Heat magazine and it's insipid celebrities. The only difference between the US and the UK being that here in the UK we're only slightly removed from having an idiot like her in a position of political power. (Although I may be proven wrong on this.)

For me, its the institutionalised stupidity of some our current (I hesitate to use the word 'Western') culture that causes vile opinions like hers to be allowed to flourish. In other words, there is something about our society that seems to allow the eminently stupid and unqualified to ascend to unconscionable levels of popularity, fame, wealth or power. It regularly astounds me.

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:55:46 UTC | #576144

Zurak's Avatar Comment 28 by Zurak

Comment 26 by root2squared :

Comment 17 by Roger J. Stanyard :

root2squared asks "Is there is any evidence to show that the shooter was a Palin supporter or that he was influenced by the cross-hairs graphic?"

Nobody is saying there is; read the OP article in full.

Maybe you should read it again. The implication is clear: that Palin's rhetoric at least in part contributed to this. If that was not implied, then using this to criticize Palin would be a cheap political move, not to mention, senseless.

Soooo, Did Jared Loughner claim that " i was influnced by palins rhetoric!!" yet? i think not.

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:59:21 UTC | #576146

Matt B's Avatar Comment 29 by Matt B

When it's time to panic, will there be a warning? Or is this it?

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:01:08 UTC | #576147

crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 30 by crookedshoes

How does a nutball get armed so heavily??? This blood is on the hands of anyone who has taken money from the gun lobby and voted their way.

Sarah Palin is not to blame, but she sure does SHARE some of it.

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:01:12 UTC | #576148