Glenn Beck Rant on Tides leads to Violence

[Chuz Life]

Those who dehumanize him. I can't stand him, but he's a person. A rude person, but a person. I don't call him a "demon", a "deviant", a "murderer", or even a criminal.

They aren't legally responsible, no. But to dismiss the power of rhetoric is foolishness. Beck, Limbaugh, and others specifically use these terms for the very reason that they know it has power. Feminist? That's too human. Feminazi! That makes them less than me and my listening audience, therefore they can be dismissed.

Don't agree with liberals? Call them "traitors". Then you can dismiss everything they say as "anti-American".

It's a recognized rhetorical strategy. It's used by the military to dehumanize the enemy so their soldiers can kill.

Patrick Henry, Paul Revere,...

I wonder what the founders would say.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

Patrick Henry, Paul Revere,...

I wonder what the founders would say.

Patrick Henry clearly understood the power of rhetoric. He was one of the best speakers amongst our founding fathers. The danger is in people who use powerful rhetorical tools without understanding the consequences - as many people do today.

 

[Chuz Life]

Patrick Henry clearly understood the power of rhetoric. He was one of the best speakers amongst our founding fathers. The danger is in people who use powerful rhetorical tools without understanding the consequences - as many people do today.

As a matter of perspective,... there were likely those who felt that Patrick Henry, Paul Revere and others were "reckless" in their rhetoric.

The same is true for those who hold opposing views for Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck for their views.

It's all a matter of perspective.

What you might see as an incite to violence, we who agree with their rhetoric see it as a rallying call to vote Your guys out and our guys in.

Some people lack self control and the patience necessary to allow the democratic process time to work,....

That (vigilante violence) is to be discouraged.

But when we allow one person's violent actions to be used to silence our speech (for either side),.... in my opinion, it only adds to the lack of faith in the democratic process.

The violence (revolutionary war / declarations of independence) should be reserved for times when there is no other recourse.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

So did Beck say go out and kill all the liberals you can find? If he didn't your making crap up. It's the same thing people say about music, or video games, or any sort of speech they don't happen to like. Oh, they listened to Manson, he caused it! He played a violent video game, those evil video games caused it! It's all bull.

Those things you mentioned arent political, cept maybe for some marilyn manson lyrics.

 

[Grim17]

I haven't read this thread, nor the 79 responses to it... An I don't plan on it either.

It's nothing more than another pathetic progressive attack to try and silence dissent.

 

[Harshaw]

Those things you mentioned arent political, cept maybe for some marilyn manson lyrics.

So what?

Besides, political speech is the most protected speech of all.

 

[Harshaw]

I haven't read this thread, nor the 79 responses to it... An I don't plan on it either.

It's nothing more than another pathetic progressive attack to try and silence dissent.

And you would be right. At least three posters have dropped not-so-subtle hints that they favor government action.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Patrick Henry clearly understood the power of rhetoric. He was one of the best speakers amongst our founding fathers. The danger is in people who use powerful rhetorical tools without understanding the consequences - as many people do today.

People in Patrick Henry's day couldn't attract millions of dollars in advertising revenues by spouting rhetoric, so the only purpose of it then was to pursuade others to their point of view. Now, things are different.

 

[Your Star]

I haven't read this thread, nor the 79 responses to it... An I don't plan on it either.

It's nothing more than another pathetic progressive attack to try and silence dissent.

Grim generalizing, and not using facts to base his opinion on something! I can't believe it!

 

[Moon]

People in Patrick Henry's day couldn't attract millions of dollars in advertising revenues by spouting rhetoric, so the only purpose of it then was to pursuade others to their point of view. Now, things are different.

But the principle remains the same.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

As a matter of perspective,... there were likely those who felt that Patrick Henry, Paul Revere and others were "reckless" in their rhetoric.

The same is true for those who hold opposing views for Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck for their views.

It's all a matter of perspective.

What you might see as an incite to violence, we who agree with their rhetoric see it as a rallying call to vote Your guys out and our guys in.

Some people lack self control and the patience necessary to allow the democratic process time to work,....

That (vigilante violence) is to be discouraged.

But when we allow one person's violent actions to be used to silence our speech (for either side),.... in my opinion, it only adds to the lack of faith in the democratic process.

The violence (revolutionary war / declarations of independence) should be reserved for times when there is no other recourse.

I don't want yours, Becks, or anyone's else speech restricted.

I simply call for speakers to recognize the power of their words and to remain civil instead of appealing to the base instincts of their audiences and creating a culture of hatred.

Dehumanization has consequences. They should be recognized. It's not about an individual's speech - which should never be restricted. It's about the culmination of insults, degradation, and dishonor.

Please let me repeat: no one's speech - not even the rube Beck - should be restricted; but when your speech begins to influence someone else's action - even wihtout intention, morally you should look at what you're saying and doing. You should be beyong lawsuit and your rights are there. But morally, your influence matters. If Beck wants to say he has no influence, then why does he have a show?

 

[Chuz Life]

Please let me repeat: no one's speech - not even the rube Beck - should be restricted; but when your speech begins to influence someone else's action - even wihtout intention, morally you should look at what you're saying and doing. You should be beyong lawsuit and your rights are there. But morally, your influence matters. If Beck wants to say he has no influence, then why does he have a show?

As I stated,... Beck intends to engage his audience and to motivate them. But it's not to incite them to violence as you and others seem to want to suggest. Beck's words are directed at the apathetic silent majority that he realizes he needs to get to the polls to throw YOUR guys out.

I listen to him just about every day. I have the military training and other resources to be receptive to such marching orders,... You might say that as a soldier,... I would find it an easy path to follow. But the words and the sentiment just isn't there.

He (Glenn Beck) has a unique blend of information and entertainment,.... he's clearly concerned and passionate about the direction of the country.

But at the end of the day,... he's just a talk show host and we are just members of his audience. We all have only one vote to cast in most elections and we (most of us) know that for all the hype,... it's not about much more than what we do with that vote.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Equating passionate (if misguided) opposition to incitement of violence is childish and functions on the same amount of paranoia that many critics of Beck accuse him of having.

 

[hazlnut]

I haven't read this thread, nor the 79 responses to it... An I don't plan on it either.

It's nothing more than another pathetic progressive attack to try and silence dissent.

How do you know if you haven't read the thread???

You sound very naive and embracing denial.

Perhaps there are some good points about dissent crossing the line to inappropriate suggestions. or a violent call to action.

Perhaps there are some good points about fringe-right propaganda masked as political speech.

When Nazi's portrayed the Jews as rats and a virus that needed to be exterminated... was that also dissent? Was that what our founders had in mind with 'free press'?

Opinion and spin based on false or misconstrued information is a lie, a deceit.

Lies and damn lies are not covered under the first amendment.

 

[Harshaw]

Perhaps there are some good points about dissent crossing the line to inappropriate suggestions. or a violent call to action.

Perhaps there are some good points about fringe-right propaganda masked as political speech.

There weren't.

Lies and damn lies are not covered under the first amendment.

And yet another call for the government to shut down Fox News and "right-wing" media, just because you don't agree with them. And in the same post where you invoked Nazis.

 

[pbrauer]

Lies and damn lies are not covered under the first amendment.

Of course they are, who is the judge of what is true and what is a lie?

 

[Your Star]

Those things you mentioned arent political, cept maybe for some marilyn manson lyrics.

It doesn't matter they are all speech. Also political speech is the most protected speech out there.

 

[hazlnut]

Question for Beck Fans:

How many violent acts by people with Beck on their bookshelves and Tivo before we (you) admit to a pattern?

A disturbing coincidence? Can you give us that?

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Question for Beck Fans:

How many violent acts by people with Beck on their bookshelves and Tivo before we (you) admit to a pattern?

A disturbing coincidence? Can you give us that?

I'm not a Beck fan, but I'll answer your question anyway. This is like saying, "Because the school shooter has an X-Box in his room, GTA is to blame for his violence." Yeah he has a violent video game, but he already had violent tendencies. Same thing with these extremists; i.e. Joe Stack may or may not have liked Beck, but his problems with the IRS went back to the 80's. These people might be violent, but they probably came to that first, and they only watch Beck because he agrees with some of what they believe in, with the exception of violence. Beck is really irrelevant to their violence. Their viewer-ship is more of an outlet of anti-government feeling than a cause of it. For someone who knocks Beck a lot for his paranoia, you sure display a good amount of it in this thread. You don't like Beck. I get it; neither do I, but that doesn't make an inciter of violence. There was plenty of vitriol against the right with Bush, but I never heard of incitement of violence.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Of course they are, who is the judge of what is true and what is a lie?

Yes, of course they are. I agree.
The listener, and only the listener gets to decide what is a lie and what isn't. All of us get to decide who to believe, and who not to believe. It's not up to the government to say what is true and what isn't.

After all, a lot of lies come from the government, don't they?

 

[hazlnut]

Of course they are, who is the judge of what is true and what is a lie?

Politicfact.com... Duh.

and reasonable people who know that President Obama is neither a socialist nor a tyrant. Reasonable, educated people who know that we have elections every two years and an ingenious system of checks and balances. Smart people who understand that politics is an ebb and flow of idea and policies, things swing one way, then correct themselves.

But mindless sheep who prefer to have their thinking done for them, they're too easily persuaded... and frightened. By lies and damn lies.

 

[Your Star]

Politicfact.com... Duh.

and reasonable people who know that President Obama is neither a socialist nor a tyrant. Reasonable, educated people who know that we have elections every two years and an ingenious system of checks and balances. Smart people who understand that politics is an ebb and flow of idea and policies, things swing one way, then correct themselves.

But mindless sheep who prefer to have their thinking done for them, they're too easily persuaded... and frightened. By lies and damn lies.

This may all be true, but it doesn't matter. Beck has the right to say what he is saying. He isn't inciting violence, he is using his right to free speech. Yeah, ignorant fear mongering speech, but it's still protected.

 

[Josie]

Question for Beck Fans:

How many violent acts by people with Beck on their bookshelves and Tivo before we (you) admit to a pattern?

A disturbing coincidence? Can you give us that?

Your questions are ridiculous.

 

[liblady]

Right-wing bloggers, Fox News and talk radio generally are not anti-government. I cannot think of anyone I have listened to or read that is, actually. Why are they trying to portray them as anarchists?

they are only anti Democratic gov't, that's true. and while of course they do not control the actions of unbalanced individuals, their rhetoric does attract those individuals, BY DESIGN.

 

[liblady]

Please cite references of quotes from Fox News or other media that incited those people to be violent. If you think simply speaking out against certain groups or people incites violence, then you must have a problem with almost everyone in this country on both sides of the aisle.

And who in the media is an anarchist? Please cite your sources.

Thanks.

i belive chappy's question covered both right and left.