A psycho in Norway

Remove all ads!

I agree with Monty. I don't want anyone censored – I want social pressure exerted on the Becks of the world from their own side to dial it down a notch and respect their audience enough not to lie to them so brazenly. A rational conservative counter-argument can be made in opposition to Obama and his policies, and I would welcome it.

The problem is, the right (at least here) is unlikely to do that because they benefit so handsomely from the fanaticism. Crazy gets ratings. You convince a conservative-minded person that Democrats are genuinely Marxist-socialist radicals out to get them (no matter how stupid that is), they'll not only line up to vote R, but they'll listen to your radio show daily (soaking up ad dollars) for affirmation of their worldview, send you donations, buy tickets for your rallies, buy your books, t-shirts, bumper stickers and try to convert all their friends. Not only that, they'll buy all the crap sold by the guy whose show is on AFTER yours, and after his, and so on. It's a tried and true business model that's made Beck an insanely wealthy man. But unfortunately, most of the listeners aren't in on the joke. They take it deadly serious.

That someone might take the hyperbole a bit too seriously and do something drastic is not something they seem at all concerned about – even when it's actually happened numerous times they'll deny having any influence at all. But unless there's a specific on-air incitement to violence, it's also protected first-amendment speech.

 

DR, that is the question that needs to be asked. Do or can we censor someone of this type? Obviously we censor the guy preaching that all people of a specific faith or nationality or culture should be shot down immediately. But we don't censor the guy pushing people down that path? Where is the line drawn? In the letter of the law? If so, do we change that letter of the law?

 

Can we censor? Sure – but we'll cease to be a Republic once that happens. Kiss the first amendment goodbye.

I don't think censorship is the right approach. Unless it's the kind of specific call to violence LKD seems to deem the standard for irresponsible rhetoric, talk like Beck's is protected free speech. Censoring speech it will just send it underground and make martyrs out of the yackers. Think of what would happen if the Obama administration took Beck's show off the radio – he'd become a god on the right.

I don't know that I have a succinct answer for you. But I'd say the best place to start is registering your distaste for such rhetoric on either side (but especially on the right, where it's much more pronounced and entrenched) in favor of more reality-based and well-sourced information.

 

Yeah, I vote also for debunking the false and exaggerated viewpoints rather than outright censoring them. Putting a gag on someone causes martyrdom, getting repeatedly caught on spitting out half-truths and wild accusations without facts backing it up causes the loss of respect from the listeners.. maybe apart from the already totally brainwashed ones, at least.

 

I know many people are affronted by this guy claiming his actions were in the interests of conservatism and christendom, but what shocks me even more, is this.

I like Lord of the Rings, and I can barely imagine how one could use the music to go on such a rampage.
OK, i understand that gansta rap is disqualified as violent background music, because he's an ultranationalist & racist..
But what about hardcore house, or white power rock? Surely he didn't hate all music equally? Was that why he chose classical style music for a killing spree??

 

DR,
I think you underestimate the virulence of some political speech. The problem I see is that protecting seditious speech as free might well lead to a result where the current constitutional order will be meaningless. It's totally awesome to say that you'll cease to be a Republic once you start to censor - you'll also cease to be a Republic when the nutters have their way.

If a Michelle Bachmann had her way in the US with her Christian Reconstructionist ideas of what amounts law these ideas would be found unconstitutional by contemporary standards but, alas, that is nothing a thorough reshuffling of the Supreme Court can't fix. You think a gay rights parade would be legal then? How do you think would 'Socialists', 'Secular Humanists' or 'Liberals' fare, since they after all, too, defy the will of her stern, unforgiving God?

If the free marketplace of opinions was truly reliable in producing reasonable outcomes marketing wouldn't be so darn profitable. There is a point in banning people from selling tapeworm heads as a miracle cure for obesity. There is a political equivalent to charlatanry and quackery, compared to which tapeworm head cures appear outright healthy and reasonable.

 

That sounds expensive as hell, and how would it really work? If someone looks "risky" they get taken away from their family and locked away? I can't imagine that such a practice would be accepted.

How do you really know someone is capable of and planning to perform such an act unless they just come out and tell you? Sometimes a person just snaps, grabs a gun, and goes to town. I don't think you can prevent such tragedies in all cases.

 

You probably DO prefer to firmly believe it, but you'd be kidding yourself if you did ... Get off your darn herd mentality that tells you that the left is out to get the right. If you stick to that, only nonsense will come out of it.

Face it: He is very probably not insane. He is utterly unethical, and evil, but not insane. He simply is a terrorist who killed for political beliefs, and ends. Within the framework of his ideology he is actually frighteningly rational and consequent.

Since he is a terrorist, the question about his ideology is exceedingly relevant, if inconvenient for self professed right-wingers, in particular when they happen to be of the anti-Islamic, anti-'Cultural-Marxist' kind.

Link.

 

Hope they find him insane though, if they do they can keep him locked up and drugged together with a bunch of loonies for the rest of his life. If he is found sane he will probably be able to be out in a decade or so.

 

I dunno where people are getting the decade bit from. 21 yars is the max penalty here in norway, but we have something called "forvaring", wich means if he is still considered dangerous, he will get another 5 years. And then after those 5 years has come and gone, they will decide if he will get another 5, and so on. Mark my word: he will be in jail for the rest of his life.

 

Ragusa, the left is out to get the right just as the right is out to get the left.
hate GOP machine

completely off topic : Even though norway & japan are roughly the same size(385,252 Sq Km n vs 377,944 Sq Km j) The japanese have squeezed almost 26 times the number of people in their land mass, 5 million vs 128 million.

 

He'll be evaluated after a decade and possibly released depending upon the evaluation. Norway lacks a sentence for life in prison and the maximal sentence is some twenty years if i recall correctly. They have the option though to keep dangerous offenders behind bars for a undefined time. So he might walk out after a decade but I seriously doubt that will happen.

I also think Ragusa has a point. The extreme right talkers have a certain responsibility of stuff like this. Breivik's case is the most destructive attack by the extreme right so far but really Neo-nazis beat up people around Europe all the time and even kill some for their political opinions or skin color. They are a problem and while speakers like Åkersson, Wilders or Halla-aho in Finland only boost their numbers while they themselves are quick to denounce violence.

Beck only has responsibility in America, he's more or less a joke here. We have our own demagogues around here that are a lot more dangerous than he could ever be. I also think it would be a lot more relevant to the case to discuss the extreme right in Europe than to discuss it in America since the two are quite different. Discussing America derails us to matters irrelevant to the original topic.

 

rg58,
I would be more inclined to believe your assertion if there was more fatal left wing violence in the US. Alas, and fortunately, it remains elusive, and rather bears the character of articles of faith (as in: You need to believe in it to see the signs). Also, 'out to get' and 'out to kill' are two different things and not a mere difference in nuance but a difference in quality.

If anyone here can find me 30 people killed in left wing violence in the US since 2008 I may consider to change my mind (and, a snide, pre-emptive precaution on my part, please, don't tell me anything about how many babies are being murdered as a result of supposedly 'left policies' that allow for abortion, or about tree-huggers nailing trees and the odd forest worker getting hurt).

Left wing terrorism has petered out ever since the end of the cold war. The only places where for instance Maoists still throw bombs are in South American backwaters where folks didn't get the news yet, and China's neighbourhood.

Right wing acts of terror however are a quite contemporary phenomenon in the US. I leave it to one from what you will probably and foolishly call the 'angry left' to explain it to you.

 

Well, he did consider himself a hero.

 

Ragusa going by the acts listed on that map of yours, any violent act by a white person or a christian is considered "right wing extremists". By that token, the fort hood shooter was a "left wing extremist" as well as the AWOL soldier they just arrested who had planned to target ft hood a second time.
Trying to blame this nuts actions on a groups words is just lazy.
Just look at the amount of black on white violence that goes on here(we have why to many angry young men)
black mob attacks randon whites
milwaukee mob
only white people can commit hate crimes
venting hate
girl attacked
Now I know that none of these people are what you would call "right wing" now are they? Remember here in the states 90% of blacks are democrats. democrat here usually = left wing.

 

This has struck me in several threads and posts by you rg and it is OT but you are obsessed with colour. It is it because it is such a big thing for a black man in the US? You remind me of all those boring comedians whose entire show consists of "black people do this, white people do this". Maybe it is me who have never been exposed to African-Americans and your situation, maybe you have never been allowed to be "a man" but always "a black man". Either way I find it rather interesting and would love to discuss either here (will probably be shot down by moderators with good cause, PM I think input from others would be interesting or in another thread if you are up for it).

 

I can't speak for rg58 but color is a huge issue here in NA. It's a big determiner of cultural identity (note I'm not saying it's the only one, please put down your weapons) and I would hazard that actually being black -- especially in the Southern US, would make color a huge component of a persons worldview because of the community makeup.

However, I'm just about the whitest guy alive living in a very different region of a very different country.

 

rg58,
I think your response is ... weird.

I still marvel at what you meant when you posted these instances of black people engaging in violence, as if that proved ... something, whatever that may be. I don't quite know what to make of it, except that you apparently make some connection ... which since I don't really get what you want to say may, or may not, read like this little (weird) syllogism: The right is white, the blacks vote D, so they are left, since the left is out to get the right, ergo, the blacks are out to get the whites. It's crude stuff, at best.

What that has anything to do with the subject at hand is anybody's guess, certainly mine. There is not much logic to your argument. I find most striking about the response how emotional is is.

Assuming it is relevant somehow, what does have a black mob', i.e. an ethnically black youth gang or random collection of ethnically black youths attacking white people in Chicago, have anything to do with Breivik's rampage and the ideologues of the so-called 'anti-Jihadi' scene? Indulge me.