Over the years there has been a lot of discussion in talk shows, other media politicians etc about “Hate speech” or similar.
Seems to me that individuals in the media can get nailed with this often enough but rarely if ever politicians do. I’m when does a politicians speech “Cross the line” into something else? AIG is getting death threats yet politicians continue to fuel the flames from congress to the white house. House is that acceptable?
It’s not only on this issue either but many. When will we start expecting our represented officials to act in a calm and more rational manner? How does “Legislating on emotion” accomplish anything?
When will we start expecting our represented officials to act in a calm and more rational manner? How does “Legislating on emotion” accomplish anything?
See, they are REPRESENTATIVES. As long as they folks they are representing are neither calm nor rational (which the vast majority of the population is not) why would you expect them to act that way? And in all honesty, your rep/senator may be a perfectly rational man or woman, but if his or her constituents are crying out for pitch fork wielding mobs, they want to show they understand that sentiment.
I think you make an excellent point. This however goes back to the question, should representatives “Lead” or merely “Represent”?
I think that is a tough question to answer. On one hand you expect them to make decisions and act according to the information they have and research they have done. One would also expect them to have more information and have done more research than those they “Represent” and thus sometimes come to a different conclusion than “the majority”. OTOH you do not want them simply doing “As they please” and disregard the people.
In any case I would question whether the “Representation” extends to behavior or merely legislation. I personally expect representative to behave far better and more calmly than the average person they represent.
I agree. I don’t vote for someone hoping that every vote they have in Congress will reflect my exact wishes, nor do I want national referendums on every issue that comes up. I look at a candidates history, their temperment, what they say, how they say it, etc. and then make a decision based on a combination of all of those factors.
Like you said, you would hope they would have more information and behave better than those they represent (although, there are some crazy folks in Congress, particularly in the House). Unfortunately, with elections every 2, 4 and 6 years (for the House, President and Senators respectively) there is also a balance and doing what it takes to secure reelection. Personally, I would prefer a politician take an unpopular position and then defend why they did, as opposed to just giving in to the will of the people, but most of the time, there isn’t the public patience for such an explanation.
The recent Omnibus spending bill is a good example of this. Obama talked on the campaign trail about earmark reform (although never saying earmarks should entirely be eliminated). This budget which was written last summer and fall now comes across his desk for signature. Obviously, the funding of federal agencies is important (for the work the agencies do, for the employees who work there, the contractors who work alongside them, etc.). However, the bill has a fair amount of earmarks on it. So here is a tough decision, pass a budget that is really needed and take heat because of the earmarks, or veto it because of the earmarks and hurt federal agencies and those who work with and alongside them. Obama signed the spending bill and was criticized for it.
It is nuanced positions and situations like this that the public and the media who feeds the public fail to act rationaly. Everything needs to be dumbed down into black and white, us vs. them, 30 second talking point pieces of information. I think a lot of politicians might take more nuanced stances (which would be more practical and rational) but recognize that they may never get to defend or explain a more complex situation or issue before it gets sent out of the cable news shoes and creates hysteria.
When will we start expecting our represented officials to act in a calm and more rational manner? How does “Legislating on emotion” accomplish anything?
See, they are REPRESENTATIVES. As long as they folks they are representing are neither calm nor rational (which the vast majority of the population is not) why would you expect them to act that way? And in all honesty, your rep/senator may be a perfectly rational man or woman, but if his or her constituents are crying out for pitch fork wielding mobs, they want to show they understand that sentiment.
I can’t help but wonder how you would define rational. Is a person that supports the war with Iraq rational? Is a person that doesn’t believe in evolution rational? Is a person that spends more then they earn rational? Expecting rational thought out of emotional beings is a losing proposition I think. It does make for good scifi ala Mr. Spock but here on planet earth I don’t think you can find much thought I would call rational. Which explains a lot of our problems.
I don’t necessarily expect what I would define as “Rational thought”, I simply expect the “Leaders” to be able to express their thoughts, “Rational” or otherwise, in a manner that is not threatening or “Hateful” unless absolutely necessary.
Instead what I see is an almost concerted effort to actually “Stir shit up”. Of course that may be an irrational thought on my process…but I presented it calmly
Is a person that supports the war with Iraq rational? I would say no, but would be willing to debate the issue and accept a well thought out counter argument.
Is a person that doesn’t believe in evolution rational? I would say no, and unlike the above situation, don’t really have any patience for the other side of this debate.
Here’s an easier example though, is an elected representative advocating suicide for employees of a private company who received bonuses rational? I think just about everyone could agree that isn’t rational.
I agree with your statement about a lack of rational thought explaining a lot of our problems. And I also concede that there are certainly “shades of gray” about issues like the war, global warming, etc. But public officials basically encouraging pitch fork wielding mobs, that seems to pretty clearly fall on that outside of the “shades of gray” scale.
My statement about being rational was specifically targetted to the topic in the original post. I am all for well supported discussions, debates, nuanced arguments, etc. But the topic of the OP was “hate speech.” There is certainly a growing and ugly sentiment of resentment, anger, etc. in a lot of the population. Elected officials feeding into this is not helpful. However, they represent the population where this sentiment is growing so I am not suprised to see some of the same sentiment expressed from elected officials.
Its okay to hate someone for being an asshole, basically =)
Over the years there has been a lot of discussion in talk shows, other media politicians etc about “Hate speech” or similar.
Seems to me that individuals in the media can get nailed with this often enough but rarely if ever politicians do. I’m when does a politicians speech “Cross the line” into something else? AIG is getting death threats yet politicians continue to fuel the flames from congress to the white house. House is that acceptable?
It’s not only on this issue either but many. When will we start expecting our represented officials to act in a calm and more rational manner? How does “Legislating on emotion” accomplish anything?
Its okay to hate someone for being an asshole, basically =)
And “Asshole” is very loosely interpreted to “Anyone I don’t like”. So it’s ok to hate anyone you don’t like. However be assured that anyone who likes those people will jump all over you for “hate speech”.
So I like business people, I have no problem with bonuses. So I declare congress and the white house to be using “Hate speech” for the express purpose of creating hate and putting people in harms way
What I love. I have XM in the Audi - on the comedy station they say things all the time, and have as they are uncensored. Now, few days ago some guy was on (making black jokes as he was black).
So, this guy uses the words
Fuck
Cunt
Disk
Pussy
Tits
Bitch
Whore
And in all kinds of colorful ways…
But, on XM they beep out the word “nigger”…even when Chris Rock is on…huh
How does “Legislating on emotion” accomplish anything?
I think you might be missing the point. The politicians are putting on a show for the benefit of the public. The public requires a few sacrafices, because they are pissed off. They’ve milked the Madoff thing all they could… now it is time to find a new scapegoat to get all riled up about. AIG bonuses are an easy target.
This all allows people to identify and “feel” as though some kind of justice is being served.
OK. I think the Rep. was just speaking extemporaneously and really didn’t mean what he said BUT he did reflect what a lot of us are thinking… Because this is an emotional issue. Paying people big $$$$ while their companies performance sucks and unemployment is skyrocketing has PO’d a lot of people. If we could vote on this, i.e. would you be in favor of hanging these SOB’s, I think the Yeas would win. Again, not rational, but not unexpected either.
I’m not sure I’m missing the point or trying to point out the absolute absurdity of both the politicians to act in such a manner and the general populous for wanting the politicians to act in such a way.
Point is that people actually WANT hate speech. They just want hate speech towards those that they hate.
If it’s an AIG executive that’s being called out by congress or the president, that’s ok. If it’s Rush Limbaugh calling out Auto workers or politicians, that’s hate speech.
The fact of the matter is that both are “Valid” discussions and should be approached in a manner that would be condusive to discussion rather than conflict. I don’t see that happening.
well yes people are always free to abuse logic, no matter what the argument.
it however remains that there are good reasons to hate people, and bad reasons.
as a legal concept hate speech as stupid, due to aforementioned problems with people abusing logic.
Its okay to hate someone for being an asshole, basically =)
And “Asshole” is very loosely interpreted to “Anyone I don’t like”. So it’s ok to hate anyone you don’t like. However be assured that anyone who likes those people will jump all over you for “hate speech”.
So I like business people, I have no problem with bonuses. So I declare congress and the white house to be using “Hate speech” for the express purpose of creating hate and putting people in harms way
As the nominal head of the pitchfork-wielding mob, he added: ‘Should the mob succeed, I get $165 million. But if we fail, I get nothing. Except my bonus, $165 million.’
