(If you're looking for your homework post, scroll just past this post.)
This is one of the many images that has forced the media and the general public to examine the effects that rhetoric has on us as humans/citizens/voters/etc. What are we to do about this? Should we hold public figures more or less accountable for their rhetoric? Is it right to criticize the rhetoric that may or may not be to blame for terrible social acts like the one in Tucson? Could rhetoric be a possible factor in such instances?
Oh, and there's more:
And...
In times of confusion, society, myself included, look to blame whatever possible as a means of explaining the unexplainable. Rhetoric is a powerful tool, especially in politics, but I feel that in most cases people are really reaching for an answer. Of course, in most situations, especially in the case of the Tuscon Shootings, the sense of irony is almost overwhelming. But that's life. I don't mean to completely wipe out the weight that rhetoric holds in our lives, but I want to suggest that sometimes things are taken too literally. The toughest job to have is to be a politician because you have to TRY to make everyone happy while at the same time keeping your own personal ideas and ethics in mind. Rhetoric is identified differently for everyone and no one person registers a message the same. In conclusion, I do not think it is fair, nor completely logical to blame rhetoric for terrible social acts. The blame falls on the person whose ethics seem not too exist, or in the very least are questionable.
ReplyDeleteIt should be up to those campaigning what they want to use to get their points across but at the same time I think there should be some guidelines and consequences for disregarding those guidelines. Politicians tend to do almost anything to get what they want but they should still know what is and what is not appropriate. There is a way to use rhetoric that is convincing without becoming vulgar or tasteless. If any public figure is qualified enough to make decisions for any group of people then I think they should definitely be held accountable for what they say and do. If they can't think before they speak, then how can we be sure they will think things through when it comes to decisions that affect our own lives? Rhetoric is a part of everything we do, hear and see so it is easy for people to blame rhetoric for disasters such as the one in Tuscon but I think the people who carelessly used the rhetoric are more to blame.
ReplyDeleteI don't think public figures should be more accountable at first thought. Once I think more about it if we say something it stays within a small group of people but when a public figures says anything thousands of people hear it and it has an effect on many people. I think their rhetoric can ignite something in someone that may lead to a terrible act but overall I think the individual was the one that committed the act and should be solely to blame. So therefore I think public figures should be careful with what they say because it does have some influence among the public and it could play a role in why the person thought of or committed the act. The fact that the areas are marked by a gun target probably wasn't the best idea I think it was to try and make the point very clear, and in this case it might have possibly lead to the shooting. This shooting should make public speakers and all realize that their rhetoric can have a huge influence so they need to think twice about certain things.
ReplyDeleteYes, rhetoric can and does have some sort of influence on society but to say that it goes as far as influencing someone to do something as kill innocent people is completely out of the question. If someone has in their head that they are going to commit such a terrible act, nothing that any political figure says, no matter how the rhetoric is, is going to effect the outcome of that persons actions.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that politicians do have to be careful in how they use their rhetoric because it does have some influence on how people see things but they shouldn't have to worry about what they're saying to try and not influence such a terrible act.
What rhetoric does influence is much more than simple actions that people carry out. It influences how people see that figure and how they're conducting what they're saying. It sucks that when something so tragic happens that people have to find something to blame for it and in this case that blame seems to be pointed toward the use of rhetoric. Why can't people just sit down and realize that it may just be the way the person was raised and how stable his mind set is. Just because a political figure doesn't use their use of rhetoric very carefully, doesn't mean that someone is going to go get a gun and kill innocent people.
I don't think there is much we can do, you can't always use humor or entertainment as rhetoric. Especially if your are trying to get a strong message across. And even then as an intelligent people we should understand the context of the rhetoric. For example one of the protesting signs in the said something along the lines that obamacare is poison, when I say that I didn't think President Obama is trying to poison us, And I don't believe that many people would. Only the deranged one's might. There is little point to criticize someone's rhetoric after an act like that. Its a waste of energy. The person is obviously not mentally stable and so who knows why he did it or what he was thinking. What they should be spending their time and effort on is finding ways to prevent more of these tragedies from happening. Rhetoric could be a factor in the tragedy that happened in Arizona but its hard to say how rhetoric will affect everyone. Even mentally stable people will take every type of rhetoric a different way, so how could you prepare your rhetoric with a mentally unstable person?
ReplyDeleteI think that the way in which Sarah Palin displayed her thoughts on the map above is completely the wrong way in showing what she is feeling. The choice to use the pointing of a gun in places that don't agree is the wrong way in putting it. Palin suggests that what has happened in Tucson will happen in everywhere that there are gun cross hairs.I don't think that we should let politicians show their disagreements in a negative threatening way. I think that we should hold more individuals accountable for their rhetoric. Things can be said in many different ways that can still be effective without having a negative outlook.Yes, I do think that rhetoric should be considered when looking at these acts of violence. Citizens feed off of their leaders and in doing so it has caused many problems in our society.
ReplyDeleteI think that there should be a lot more control on guns in our society because of our past history with the use of guns. There have been way too many innocent people killed because of the access of guns to people who don't necessarily need them.There should be a more intensive process of acquiring a gun.
I feel like criticizing rhetoric in this case is not the right way to go about it. Sarah Palin's image of the United State was to show people what is happening in the world around us, not to blame certain people. I don't think we should hold people accountable for this type of rhetoric, it makes me see and understand better whats going on with the whole shooting in Tucson and any other events. On the other side of it, i can see why people would get bent out of shape about it because it can changes peoples point of view, meaning the political side on it and the parties more than likely don't want that to happen because they could lose votes.
ReplyDeleteI believe with the technology and the constant coverage of politicians it's very important to hold politicians responsible for all rhetoric whether it be a formal speech, a twitter post, and yes ad's like the one above produced by Sarah Palin. That being said i am firm believer in the freedom of speech for everyone, so it's hard to put restriction on what a politician can say or produce. Overal i believe when a politician or someone aspiring to become a politician through the democratic election process must understand that like celebrities or athletes they are constantly being watched and analyzed and they have a responsibility and civic duty to represent themselves and ideas in a appropriate manner. It's unfair to blame one person for an others action, but we as one of the most powerful countries in the world always need to analyze what's being said in relation to what has happen. If we don't i firmly believe we can't start taking steps to move our world in a more peaceful direction.
ReplyDeleteAll these political videos are everywhere in the world. Whether you agree with it or not, it's still out there for everyone to see. No, I don't think we should hold public figures accountable for their rhetoric. They are just speaking what they believe and what morals they were grown up to have. Sometimes, I think that terrible acts (like the one in Tucson) happen due to these political videos. People who are already mentally sick and confused may see these things, and become so angry that they just take their anger out on innocent people by going around and shooting and taking people's lives even if it's for no reason. For example, like not agreeing with what the politics on television are saying.
ReplyDeleteYes we should hold public figures less accountable for their rhetoric because with so many people in the world it is going to be hard to please everybody. There are millions of people in the world, but only so many are public speakers. Furthermore, i also think that it is not right to blame rhetoric for the tucson tragedy because we see here months before the shooting, Sarah Palin released an image mapping out areas where gun laws are not acceptable. She reached out to the public before the shooting and tried to tell us that Arizona gun laws need reform.
ReplyDeleteCriticizing rhetoric and regulating it are two different things. Anyone has the right to hold and voice their own opinions. It so happens that with high-profile individuals, such as politicians, musicians, and other celebrities, their opinions and rhetoric are so well-known that they often attract blame for certain tragedies. On the other hand, if a middle-aged conspiracy theorist produced the same propaganda in his Montana basement, hardly anyone would know, let alone care. It all comes back to political correctness. We tend to expect more out of celebrities as role-models as if they were parental figures to the general public. In reality, they have the same First Amendment rights as every other citizen. So while the media does have a right to scrutinize and critique Palin's rhetoric, the fact of the matter is: that's just too bad. It happens with any tragedy; Americans want to look for a scapegoat.
ReplyDeleteI do believe it is very important for people to watch what they say and what actions they make. It is even more important for politicians. Anyone should be able to say whatever they please, but they must be responsible for what they do. People need to realize that even if they are not intentionally trying to cause harm or discomfort to others, they could still be doing this. Although the topic being discussed was gun control, it was unnecessary of Palin to use crosses to mark the map. There are many other ways to indicate the point that she was trying to get across. Even if she was not trying to threaten anyone, it is easy to see how people could be offended by her actions. In such instances as the shootings in Arizona, all aspects need to be looked at in order to try to understand any possible reason for such a terrible act to be committed.
ReplyDeleteYes I think public figures should take more responsibility for their rhetoric, but not because of the events this weekend it Tucson. I think as long as crazy people have guns, they'll find a reason to point them at people that don't deserve to be shot.
ReplyDeleteThe example that comes to mind is the assassination attempt on Reagan. John Hinckley tried to kill Ronal Reagan, not because he was an extreme liberal or because he disagreed with his policies, or even because Reagans opponents used violent rhetoric. It was because Hinkley was confused diluted man who was in love with the actress, Jodie Foster. I suppose one of his favorite Jodie Foster movies was "Taxi Driver" in which Robert DiNero attacks a local politician as apart of his attempt to rescue a 12 year old prostitute played by Jodie Foster. Hinckley got it in his head that killing Reagan would somehow attract Jodie Foster to him. Is director Martin Scorsese to blame for Reagan's injuries? No, "Taxi Driver" is actually a really good movie. People like Hinkley will always exist and every once in awhile they'll get their hands on the wrong equipment and get the wrong idea in their brains.
The truth is I don't know very much about the current situation or the Tucson shooter's motives. But I can guess if he thought doing something like this was a good idea, then he must be at least confused.
Concerning the question, yes, politicians should still be responsible for their rhetoric. These things aren't their fault but they shouldn't be so aggressive.
Honestly, i dont think it would be right to "criticize" the rhetoric of these stories but it may be a good idea to get the public aware of it. Blaming something because their are no other reasons for an event is one thing, its also another thing to just lay the facts out on the table and tell the public "here, look at it and think what you want". But making this a huge national televised debate is kind of ridiculous. I also don't understand why Palin would make a crosshair to pinpoint areas on a map, when she easily could have just dotted the map. Some people may say its coincidence and others may say it was a sign from the heavens. Either way, no-one can really explain why the kid shot all those "innocent people".
ReplyDeletei think that we should hold public figures more accountable for what they say and do. public figures are put there to give guidance to the people/voters in their area. When they cause a fuss in their area and or say something or do something that was wrong it should be their responsibility to own up to it. the events that happened in tucson are to be put on the person who committed the crime not the public figures who are trying to make their area a better place. I do however feel that trying is a big part of that statement, some areas are doing better at keeping their area in good shape. Another factor is that each area is different in their own way, some areas may have bigger cities, a higher crime rate and could just be going through a tough time as an area.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that politicians and talk show hosts should be held accountable for the actions of other individuals because of their rhetoric. When politicians use "war rhetoric" it is metaphorically and I think this often made explicitly clear I think. I do think, however, that this language is not useful in the Democratic process especially when it is not backed by some type of reasoning. I think that this rhetoric being used is used to hide the fact that there is not much reasoning behind it, rather than actually making a critical and analytical statement they use this "war rhetoric" in place of it. Pundits like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and et al, and including those on the left like Keith Olbermann, should probably be ignored regardless of the rhetoric they use anyway, but thats besides the point. While I don't think their rhetoric is useful, I don't think they should be held accountable because it is up to the individual whether or not to do it.
ReplyDeletePublic figures should be held accountable for their rhetoric but it shouldn't be used as a weapon of blame. Rhetoric like the image I believe can play a role in some social events but I don't believe it can be the only factor. The Rhetoric may make individuals think about something in a different way but to say it's the reason for terrible tragedies such as the shooting in Arizona seems unrealistic. I believe there were many events that lead up to what happened in Arizona.
ReplyDeleteRhetoric, just like anything else is subject to what we read about in Allyn and Bacon... the "angle of vision". I dont think that we can all say that one could be held more or less accountable than they are with our current system. The way we take something might be entirely different than what that person ment for us to (especially after someone criticizes their rhetoric). Thats not to say that someone shouldn't be held accountable, but i think that in this day in time. That process is as good as its going to get, in this country.
ReplyDeleteCan we criticize and blame rhetoric? Of course we can! Why wouldn't we, its the reason. The why. Now, obviously the lines get blurred when legal, political, and perhaps psychological factors come into play. But i would like to believe that in most things, when someone does something. There is a lot of rhetoric behind it, and we have to pick it apart and debate it to fully understand what has happened, and maybe figure out what will. What happened in Tucson to my understanding had alot behind it, and if we were to not to blame rhetoric or at least consider rhetoric as a cause, then we would be making a mistake
The sad thing about issues like this is that we can't do anything about it. It is every persons right to have the freedom of speech. Although this is a very good freedom that I enjoy and love unfortunately with every good there comes a evil. I believe that we should hold our public leaders accountable for their rhetoric because they know they influence many people in their job. They should know they can't just say whatever they want to because they need to be professional and with things like using a target to basically point people out Sarah Palin should know that is not right because the image above really looks like a hit list. They can't assume that everyone is perfectly stable and educated they have to realize that there are a select few people that will take obviously not serious things seriously, and politicians need to realize that those selected few can cause a lot of damage. Sadly to me it seem that the right side of politics a lot of times uses fear to make those people afraid so that the right side will get their way. It is perfectly fine to criticizes the rhetoric as long as we do it in a non-violent professional, and mature manner. Last normal people would think that there was no way rhetoric can influence such violent acts. We know the difference between right and wrong and now ad could change our views. Unfortunately like i said earlier there are always a select number of people that don't know that difference. Nobody the same and humans are so unpredictable. Last I think that Sarah Palin should not apologize or act like she cares that is what i hate about people like her they are so strong about their views and they are always right until something goes wrong after that they start kissing ass and it gets annoying.
ReplyDelete