Does Rhetoric Lead to Violence?

David:
There has been much talk in the past week about the inflaming rhetoric that now saturates our media and social media environments. Do you think it's the worst it's ever been? Does rhetoric lead to violence? What should be done about it?

Doug:
Do I think that there is more rhetoric-leading-to-violence than there ever has been in the history of the world? No. Can rhetoric lead to violence? Of course. Rhetoric can lead to peace, toast, war, money, time shares, and sex. Well, you'd have to have some pretty good rhetoric to lead you to toast. What should be done about what?

A Fox Talking Head is just asking questions about VIOLENCE FROM THE LEFT. What can be done about it?

David:
Perhaps I should rephrase the question for your rigid thinking: Is the current state of angry political rhetoric causing violence, or leading some to commit violence? While there certainly has been angry rhetoric throughout the country's political history, very few times has it lead to violence towards legislators, or supporters of those legislators. Can or should anything be done about it?

Doug:
I think that there has always been people that have been inspired by talk to commit violence. But I admit that I have never heard presidential candidates advocating violence like this last campaign. Do I think something can be done? Yes! Get better candidates into such positions. And perhaps keeping people with mental health issues from being able to operate dangerous mechanical devices that can kill people. And get better support for people with mental health issues!

David:
You've touched on two potential issues/solutions. Better candidates seem unlikely in our current system of primaries. I believe we've discussed this before. The only voters who show up for primaries are the base of each party. That means the candidates that often emerge from the primaries are those who are farthest from the center, or those who are furthest towards the right or the left. Bernie Sanders had an excellent chance of securing the Democratic nomination for that reason, but Democratic leadership intervened to get a candidate they thought would run better in the general election. Perhaps we should abandon the old primary voting system, and just have candidates selected by party officials from each state.

Doug:
If the Republican Party had "intervened" in the Republican primaries, you would have had a much better candidate. But if you think that Bernie Sanders would have had a better chance at beating Hillary, then you don't understand the last election. The truth is that the system is designed to try to balance individual wishes with those of the establishment. That is not necessarily a bad thing.

David:
Funny. The Republicans would have benefited from such a system, even though their candidate won, and yet I'm the one who doesn't understand what happened during the last election.

Doug:
Yes, the Republican candidate won. But was he the best that the Republican field had? No. I like to make that distinction. I want a qualified president, regardless of the party affiliation. Will Trump have a long-lasting negative effect on the future of the Republican party? We'll see.

David:
You still seem to be mixing your thoughts on the subject. You feel that Trump was not the best candidate, nor is he qualified, yet you think the system works? Since Trump won, that means that Clinton, the best that Democrats had to offer, couldn't beat a mediocre Republican? What long-lasting effects will 2016 have on both parties?

Doug:
There is a system in place (that the Democrats used in the primaries) in order to attempt better candidates from the establishment. The Republican national committee did not use that. If they had, you would have had a better candidate (literally any of the other candidates). The fact that Trump won means that we need to get more of the population (the US population, not Russian population) to vote.

David:
The second point you bring up is about keeping "mentally disturbed people" (your original words, before you edited them to "people with mental health issues") from "operating dangerous mechanical devices". When you talk about "mentally disturbed" individuals, about whom are you speaking? If you're talking about persons with a diagnosis found in the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)? That would include not only those with schizophrenia or paranoid disorders, but also those with depression, ADHD, transgenders (gender dysphoria), PTSD, anorexia, and even some people with insomnia. If you are talking about guns, then you are advocating removing  constitutionally-guaranteed rights to certain people because of their medical condition.

Do you mean to restrict the rights of people who are currently suffering from untreated mental illness, or people who are controlled with medications as well? What about those who only have a history of mental illness, like someone who had a temporary bout of depression, or was once treated for suicidal thoughts? What about a veteran with PTSD? Can that veteran no longer have access to a hunting rifle? Should a transgender person not be able to purchase a gun for protection just because they're transgender?

Doug:
You ask many unrelated questions. You forgot people who are afraid of spiders. You forgot drunk people. You forgot people who have a history of abuse. You forgot children, for whom shootings are the third leading cause of death. But I think that you have convinced me that guns (and other dangerous mechanical devices) need more technology to help prevent deaths.

David:
All of my questions are related. You apparently just don't understand how. That's a problem.

All of the things I listed are various mental illnesses. Alcoholism, and other addictions, is a mental illness. The other things you listed are not. Children killed by other people is a tragedy. A fear of spiders is only a mental illness if it causes irrational behavior. But you failed to answer the question I posed to you with your diversionary tactic. Mental illness covers a great scope of medical conditions. Is the entire debate about "mentally disturbed" people just a red herring to try to ban guns? Or do you have any serious thoughts about what mental conditions fall into a category that patients who suffer from them need to have their rights restricted?

Doug:
I didn't say that people with mental health issues lead to violence. But you have to admit that if you want to kill innocent people, then, by definition, you have a mental health issue.

David:
Interesting. This poll indicates that 84% of Americans believe an unborn baby is an innocent "person".

You have selected people with mental illness as a group to target for certain restrictions. I'm trying to tell you that the issue is much more complicated than the current narrative suggests. Mental illness covers a very broad and divergent group of illnesses. Patients can be in a gradient of incapacitation within each diagnosis. My question is how do you determine which patient, or which diagnosis, makes the list? Who gets to make that decision? I fear that legislators will put political expediency ahead of thoughtful discussions (as usual).

Your choice of the phrase "dangerous mechanical devices" is curious, but accurate. Do you mean trucks or automobiles, which have been used in numerous recent terrorist attacks. Should someone with mental illness not be issued a driver's license? Would that even make a difference? What about knives, or axes? There are many questions that would need to be sorted out in the mental illness debate. There are issues that many have not thought through yet.

Doug:
Do you consider a knife to be a "dangerous mechanical device"? If so, there is your problem: your concepts aren't very well defined. I think it would be quite useful to have many devices become inoperable if the mental state of the operator is in question. That way, even if rhetoric does lead to violent actions, the damage can be minimized.

David:
So says the man who believes a fear of spiders is on the same scale as paranoid schizophrenia.

Doug:
I think I see your problem.

David:
I chose knives as an example of a dangerous weapon that isn't mechanical. Shouldn't we consider them in the discussion as well? (although a switchblade is technically mechanical).

Doug:
No.

David:
Yes, it's true. A switchblade is mechanical.

You seem to be making an argument that someone with a diagnosed mental illness shouldn't be allowed to drive? Can they have a job where they use power tools?

Doug:
You seem to be suggesting that the advice "don't operate heavy machinery" when your mind is not operating as usual is not good advice.

David:
There are already laws on the books about driving while impaired. Just ask Tiger Woods. What we're discussing at the moment is banning guns, or other "dangerous mechanical devices", from people with mental illness, just because they have mental illness.

Doug:
Why do you jump to "banning guns"? I said they need better technology that disabled the device.

David:
The "device" gets disabled when someone gets a mental illness? Which mental illness? How does the "device" know? Come on, brother, you're talking about banning guns.

The question is do you restrict someone's rights because of a diagnosis. But does that include someone under treatment? What about someone who is currently being treated, but decides not to take their medications? Should doctors or psychiatrists be the ones making the decisions? Do they have liability if the patient disagrees with their evaluation? What if two doctors disagree?

You claim my concepts aren't very well defined, using the example of a knife, but you have no answers at all to the very serious questions I'm posing. You fling words like "mental disturbed" around without understanding how difficult the underlying questions really are. You really have not put forth any serious answer at all to how we should categorize or even document these people. Should the federal government access your medical records to deny you a gun permit? Who in the federal government should that be? A local official or a desk clerk like at the BMV? Can you imagine, "I'm sorry, sir, but you can't get a gun because you're mentally disturbed" being announced at the sporting goods store?

Doug:
Regardless of what you think, most of the topics we discuss here have difficult, underlying questions. Mostly you tend to think that they have simplistic answers. Most do not have simplistic answers, like ensuring gun safety for everyone. So, yes, I can fling my rhetoric all over the place, on any topic of my choosing. Can you imagine selling a gun to someone with a known, mental issue? Apparently you cannot imagine not giving that person a gun! And at the same time, you ask: what can be done?

David:
Again, after you just correctly noted that the issue is not simple (which is the point I'm trying to make) you once again lump everyone with "a known, mental issue" into one category. My entire point is that mental illness isn't a single disease. It's a broad category. And each individual disease runs on a continuum, from mild to serious. Yes, I can imagine selling a gun to someone with a mental illness, and I can also imagine not selling a gun to someone with a different mental illness. But the issue needs to be carefully thought out before laws start getting passed.

Doug:
For someone who opposes legislation, why do you jump to the idea that we need to pass laws? I certainly didn't mention that.

David:
Sure you did. You're the one who brought up the idea of "keeping people with mental health issues from being able to operate dangerous mechanical devices that can kill people".

Back to rhetoric. Just this week, Hillary Clinton said that the Republicans are the "party of death". Nancy Pelosi said that "hundreds of thousands of people will die" if the Senate passed their version of the health reform bill. Neither of those things is true, but the hyperbole is extreme. Don't you think that kind of language could trigger someone to commit a crime against Republicans? After all, both Clinton and Pelosi have said that Republicans are out to kill innocent people. Is their rhetoric over -the-top? Should they tone it down a bit,  re-enter the real world, and discuss the actual merits or problems with the bill?

Doug:
Lots of people are saying that the GOP healthcare is going to have an adverse effect on tens of millions of people's lives. You want to prevent "that kind of language"?

David:
See. You've already changed their words to be something more palatable, in order to defend their words. Having an "adverse effect" on their insurance is not the same as "killing" people. By changing their words, you have, in effect, admitted that you think their particular language is over-the-top.

Doug:
Some will die. There. Not over the top.

David:
Not from this bill, they won't. And even now you continue to water down their words, from "hundreds of thousands" to "some". I'm glad to know that at least your sub-conscious won't allow you to share their words. There is hope for you yet.

Doug:
Do people really hate your disparaging comments in the form of supposedly insightful questions? Do they think asking such questions is really a viable argument? Do they believe that tying Clinton to a particular belief will make them hate that belief? Do they believe that the Republicans really want to have a discussion on the actual merits of the bill, while attempting to have a vote in the next day or two? Rhetoric, done well, can be insightful. But asking simplistic questions like "does rhetoric lead to violence?" is just a ridiculous hobby for the privileged.

David:
We've been talking about health care reform for 10 years now. The House passed a bill over a month ago, and the Senate bill is similar in many ways, yet now you think we need to start having a new discussion on what it is we're talking about? Democrats have somehow been caught off guard?

Asking questions is what starts dialogues. And dialogues lead to more questions, and ultimately answers. Complicated problems all start with simple questions.  But as you think all Republicans are simple-minded, it doesn't surprise me that you think my questions are simplistic. Seeking answers to serious problems like the causes of violence seems to be worthwhile, not a "ridiculous hobby".

Doug:
Oh, sorry! I should have asked: Don't you think that asking simplistic questions like "does rhetoric lead to violence?" is just a ridiculous hobby for the privileged? I'm just asking. Now we are making progress! And I appear serious. Win win!

David:
Privilege: A liberal, rhetorical phrase used to disparage someone you disagree with, or their arguments, when you can't debate them with logic. Example: "Don't listen to that old, white man's argument because he's privileged. If you do, you'll be ostracized and shunned from our Antifa tribe!"