From: [identity profile] passaddhi.livejournal.com


Yeah, just heard about that. Nice. I wonder if Grassley can be charged for inciting a death?

From: (Anonymous)

coincedence


Hum, when was the last time some killed themselves after being involved in a scandal and receiving a subpoena. Does Vincent Foster ring a bell. Sounds like the usual playbook. If the feds get to close to the truth and it can hurt the administration, people start killing themselves.

From: [identity profile] mazzie.livejournal.com

Re: coincedence


the only thing I like better than a conspiracy theorist is an anonymous one.


From: [identity profile] etinterrapax.livejournal.com


He must understand it, since he just basically did exactly that.

From: [identity profile] farranger.livejournal.com


Well...so what if they are related? Should people never make satirical statements because they might be taken literally by someone?


From: [identity profile] farranger.livejournal.com


I didn't say you were, but I'm afraid people are going to criticize Grassley for what his statement, which was (I hope) made in jest.


From: [identity profile] mazzie.livejournal.com


He has since called it rhetoric, but it was pretty harsh. I think/hope it was in jest, too.

I think criticism is a healthy part of our burgeoning democracy. :)

From: [identity profile] verymelm.livejournal.com

Your mileage may vary, of course.


I think even if it was made in jest, it was in poor taste. That level of hyperbolic rhetoric is more and more frequent and people think nothing of saying so-and-so should die without really understanding how it can (and likely is) eroding how much we as a society value human life. This has been on my mind of late - the idea that how we speak and talk about those who so something we disagree with reflects a decaying societal respect for our individual personhood - and it's admittedly an extreme example, though I wonder if it would have gotten any notice at all had Mr. Kellerman's demise not coincided with it. It is just part of accepted rhetoric at present, which in my opinion is a shame.

From: [identity profile] mazzie.livejournal.com

Re: Your mileage may vary, of course.


I agree wholeheartedly that it was in poor taste, even if it was rhetoric, satire, jest, or whatever he chooses to label it after the fact. It did get press at the time though, and was met with criticism and outrage.

I don't think the way we talk about those with whom we disagree has undergone a substantive overall change of late. Ad hominem has been around (and cheered and jeered) as long as differences of opinion have. we might be more frequently subjected to it with the onslaught of the internet and everyone now not only having an opinion and an asshole, but also a keyboard. And it's clearly in vogue in certain circles.

From: [identity profile] verymelm.livejournal.com

May be triggery; obviously delete if you find it so.


Yes, it has been. I'm trying to sort out why it seems different, or more omnipresent now. The best I can come up with at the moment is that during the period of the American Revolution when people were shouting things like "Death to the Tyrants" they actually meant it - not that it makes it better, but I think (which is speculation, of course, as I wasn't around at that time to know) they weren't using it as rhetoric so much as they actually wanted the English aristocracy to die and would often create effigies demonstrating just how violently. They understood the power of the violent act - it was, in fact, used for precisely that reason and they *meant* it to be that vicious.

Now references to such violent acts are used so much for rhetoric that the true gruesomeness of the actual act is overlooked. I had an acquaintance who frequently used (or uses as I'm sure he still does) the term "rape" as an expletive, often in combination with other descriptors, in situations where he feels, for instance, that he's been charged too much for something. I cringed every time I heard it, and asked him to stop using it, which he objected to as my attempting to censor him. He is, suffice it to say, no longer an acquaintance that is welcome in my home. But I hear it - and read it - more and more frequently from more sources, along with exclamations of how someone who's annoyed someone else should "die". It's that kind of thing - that it seems that we've become so inured to the trauma of violence that we use the language in common parlance as if it were nothing - that is, I think, what upsets me.

From: [identity profile] fafou.livejournal.com


When I first heard about this I thought to myself that this is sad.


I reminds me of the folks that purportedly killed themselves after the Crash of '29.

From: [identity profile] mazzie.livejournal.com


Yeah, it makes me sad, too. I honestly don't have any idea whether his suicide was related to his work, but suicide is almost always heartbreaking.

From: [identity profile] starcat-jewel.livejournal.com


Related? Only if we find a bunch of harassing e-mails from Grassley and other Senators on the guy's Facebook page.

I don't think Grassley was too harsh at all; he did leave them the option of simply resigning, which seems to be about all we ever demand of people who have done horrible things in a corporate environment. Me, I'd push for "resign and then face criminal charges".

I have to wonder what a full audit of the Freddie Mac books would turn up. But we'll probably never be allowed to know.

From: [identity profile] mazzie.livejournal.com


Of course I have no way of knowing if they are related. The former was just the first thing I thought of when I heard the latter.

I agree with [livejournal.com profile] verymelm though. I feel like we're generally not shocked enough or over sensitized to actually wishing harm/death on other people. I think Grassley was way too harsh.
.