Democratic Representative Gabrielle Gifford of Arizona, continued

At some point, I have to stop following links; ending up staring in horror at therightfangirl earnestly strategizing about how to defend themselves from the liberals that will totally blame them for this or blankly watching unironic use of this tragedy to earnestly shout about gun control and political capital being amassed because yeah, this tragedy shouldn't be about the people who were actually victims for any longer than absolutely necessary. By that I mean, not at all.

I do get the fact this is probably a politically-motivated crime by someone who may or may not be mentally ill (the youtubes are--IDEK, something). Surprisingly, I'm politically and socially aware enough to realize that yeah, Palin's truly inspired use of gun rhetoric is pretty questionable and the entire rhetoric of violence currently permeating political thought is something that should have been curtailed or hell, at least acknowledged as more than extreme right wing rhetoric when the extreme right has controlled conservative thought for so long I'm not sure they even remember they used to be so much more. It's human nature to want to make sense of what goes pear-shaped and human nature to want it to be prevented. It's human nature to blame and to defend and to be really douchey in the name of politics because politics is the decider of a lot of how we live our lives. It's kind of how we even get to live our lives.

OTOH, there's a very thick and easily-visible line between political consciousness and outright douchery; it's not hard. If within five hours of the attempted assassination of a sitting United States Representative to Congress, your biggest worry is making sure those liberals don't blame you, you're a douche. If within five hours of the death of a nine year old child you're already exploding self-righteously about the evils of guns, do I need to repeat this? It's not like the spectrum of political behavior is moderate or assassin; there's a wide and surprisingly unpopulated in between that can be navigated that balances preventing future tragedies and tracing relationships between rhetoric and reality without fodderizing a woman being shot for her politics and a child dying.

Extremism is dangerous, but it's not just militias and assassinations. Moderate does not mean "Does not shoot people for opposing beliefs" or even "Does not pull a Henry II about meddlesome Democrats." That's not a standard of behavior; that's a fairly clear sign the baseline needs to change. This list does not need to be expanded.

*****

At Huffington it is reported that Representative Gifford has not yet woken up nor spoke to anyone.

In more uplifting news, Daniel Hernandez's role in Representative Gifford's survival is documented here. I'm pretty sure most college interns don't sign up with this in mind, and his actions in the wake of the shooting are everything you hope to see in someone who might one day serve the public.

Comments

[fengi.livejournal.com]

It's natural to have standards of taste and emotion, and make judgmental comments based on them, but these are subjective things, not a "thick and easily-visible line".

Placing events in context - political or otherwise - is a natural human reaction, and what this post is doing as well. Shocking events beyond normal comprehension make people flail for meaning. Appropriate depends on the context - lengthy musings on livejournal is different than public statements by the powerful, or using it to make policy, fundraise, etc.

therightfangirl strategies may be offensive in content, or if it fits a pattern of her having cold responses to human suffering. But musing on how to respond to political fallout from the shooting political figure is shot is not inherently wrong, especially the fallout is swift and strong.

Denouncing knee jerk reactions is also a predictable knee jerk reaction, one I find more problematic as labeling people douches for "using" a shocking event also uses the event, in this case to adopt a superior pose and perhaps dismiss ideas without addressing them.

Again it's natural and cathartic but decorum is subjective and just as politically loaded. Calling for silence and restraint can prevent assessment between valid and invalid ideas - I'd argue it's this decorum which helped The Patriot Act arise from 9/11.

For example, I think discussing gun violence after a horrific act of gun violence is very different from inventing blame when the gunman's motivations are unknown. That the guy was able to kill and injure a lot of people with a gun is not in dispute, even if the meaning is open. I question calling people douches for expressing heartfelt beliefs about guns after someone is shot.

Also, while I freely employ "douchebag" in my profane lexicon, it's interesting it's used her to define unacceptable and morally unclean. Why do things directly related to the vagina - and women - carry more negative weight? Why not just use asshole?

[seperis.livejournal.com]

I question using people as inanimate objects to further a political agenda within hours of a tragedy. It's an act of dehumanization.

Also, while I freely employ "douchebag" in my profane lexicon, it's interesting it's used her to define unacceptable and morally unclean. Why do things directly related to the vagina - and women - carry more negative weight? Why not just use asshole?

...of course if you use it, it's okay. Color me shocked.