Poll of the Day > Tragedy should absolutely be politicized.

(+) Yeah! (+)

That way maybe we could actually get some shit done.

And anyway, what it really means when people say not to politicize tragedy is "Let's talk about this later, when my callous disregard for human life will seem less callous"
---

https://media.giphy.com/media/Xb7qayLT4hqkE/giphy-downsized-large.gif
---

My issue with the whole "tragedy shouldn't be politicized" shtick is that people who accuse the other size of politicizing the tragedy always seem to be doing it in their own way as well.

Currant_Kaiser posted...

My issue with the whole "tragedy shouldn't be politicized" shtick is that people who accuse the other size of politicizing the tragedy always seem to be doing it in their own way as well.

It's just a cheap way of shutting down someone's argument without actually refuting anything. I guarantee the people saying it now won't be saying it the next time there's a islamic terror attack.
---

Currant_Kaiser posted...

My issue with the whole "tragedy shouldn't be politicized" shtick is that people who accuse the other size of politicizing the tragedy always seem to be doing it in their own way as well.

Now is not the time to talk about gun control, then wheeeennn?

KevinceKostner posted...

Currant_Kaiser posted...

My issue with the whole "tragedy shouldn't be politicized" shtick is that people who accuse the other size of politicizing the tragedy always seem to be doing it in their own way as well.

Now is not the time to talk about gun control, then wheeeennn?

Amusingly enough, gun violence like this happens so often nowadays that there's not much breathing room to bring up gun control without being accused of politicizing a recent tragedy regardless of whether you explicitly mentioned it.

GanonsSpirit posted...

Currant_Kaiser posted...

My issue with the whole "tragedy shouldn't be politicized" shtick is that people who accuse the other size of politicizing the tragedy always seem to be doing it in their own way as well.

It's just a cheap way of shutting down someone's argument without actually refuting anything. I guarantee the people saying it now won't be saying it the next time there's a islamic terror attack.

For starters, ISIS is a concrete foreign enemy. The idea that it should be treated the same as a complex debate over American freedoms, mental health laws, and a million other factors isn't just disingenuous, it's outright stupid.
---

Zeus posted...

GanonsSpirit posted...

Currant_Kaiser posted...

My issue with the whole "tragedy shouldn't be politicized" shtick is that people who accuse the other size of politicizing the tragedy always seem to be doing it in their own way as well.

It's just a cheap way of shutting down someone's argument without actually refuting anything. I guarantee the people saying it now won't be saying it the next time there's a islamic terror attack.

For starters, ISIS is a concrete foreign enemy. The idea that it should be treated the same as a complex debate over American freedoms, mental health laws, and a million other factors isn't just disingenuous, it's outright stupid.

Put it this way - Trump, who is busy claiming "now is not the time to talk politics", wasted absolutely zero time getting into politics during the last "America's worst shooting" event. Of course, in that case the perpetrator was a Muslim (sort of) and Trump used it to bellow about his need for a travel ban (even though there was absolutely no indication he was a foreign agent and a lot of information had yet to be sorted out when he started mouthing off).
---

darkknight109 posted...

Put it this way - Trump, who is busy claiming "now is not the time to talk politics", wasted absolutely zero time getting into politics during the last "America's worst shooting" event. Of course, in that case the perpetrator was a Muslim (sort of) and Trump used it to bellow about his need for a travel ban (even though there was absolutely no indication he was a foreign agent and a lot of information had yet to be sorted out when he started mouthing off).

Somehow holding Trump as a role model to justify something rings hollow after you've fiercely criticized him for shooting his mouth. And could you be more specific about the shooting? Are you talking about the ISIS-allied couple who massacred dozens or the ISIS-pledged night club shooter? Because the motives in both cases -- allegiance to America's terrorist enemy -- were pretty well established very quickly after the event. Meanwhile we're still not *why* the Accountant killed anybody (maybe he just really hated watching Ben Affleck portray an accountant!) -- although we're fairly certain he had no outside allegiances -- which makes immediate statements less necessary.

When America's enemies attack, you kinda need to issue a statement. When you're not sure what just happened but you're guessing it was a lone gunman, you have a little time.
---

GanonsSpirit posted...

That way maybe we could actually get some shit done.

And anyway, what it really means when people say not to politicize tragedy is "Let's talk about this later, when my callous disregard for human life will seem less callous"

I hope you feel this way next time an Islamic terror attack happens and people want to kick all the Muslims out of the country.
---

Zeus posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Put it this way - Trump, who is busy claiming "now is not the time to talk politics", wasted absolutely zero time getting into politics during the last "America's worst shooting" event. Of course, in that case the perpetrator was a Muslim (sort of) and Trump used it to bellow about his need for a travel ban (even though there was absolutely no indication he was a foreign agent and a lot of information had yet to be sorted out when he started mouthing off).

Somehow holding Trump as a role model to justify something rings hollow after you've fiercely criticized him for shooting his mouth. And could you be more specific about the shooting? Are you talking about the ISIS-allied couple who massacred dozens or the ISIS-pledged night club shooter? Because the motives in both cases -- allegiance to America's terrorist enemy -- were pretty well established very quickly after the event. Meanwhile we're still not *why* the Accountant killed anybody (maybe he just really hated watching Ben Affleck portray an accountant!) -- although we're fairly certain he had no outside allegiances -- which makes immediate statements less necessary.

When America's enemies attack, you kinda need to issue a statement. When you're not sure what just happened but you're guessing it was a lone gunman, you have a little time.

Guys, can we please stop politicizing the politicizing of tragedies?

Metal_Mario99 posted...

I hope you feel this way next time an Islamic terror attack happens and people want to kick all the Muslims out of the country.

Like we should be able to have discourse in the face of tragedy so we can take steps to prevent future tragedies? I will still feel that way. Unfortunately, it seems you've already committed yourself to a crazy, unconstitutional idea on how to go about that.
---

Metal_Mario99 posted...

GanonsSpirit posted...

That way maybe we could actually get some shit done.

And anyway, what it really means when people say not to politicize tragedy is "Let's talk about this later, when my callous disregard for human life will seem less callous"

I hope you feel this way next time an Islamic terror attack happens and people want to kick all the Muslims out of the country.

The argument is so weak that people don't have to resort to "stop hurting feelings" after terrorist attacks.

Zeus posted...

Somehow holding Trump as a role model to justify something rings hollow after you've fiercely criticized him for shooting his mouth.

When did I hold him as a role model for anything? I simply pointed out his hypocrisy; I never suggested we emulate it.

You're making up your own narratives again, Zeus. What is this, three times in 24 hours?

Zeus posted...

And could you be more specific about the shooting? Are you talking about the ISIS-allied couple who massacred dozens or the ISIS-pledged night club shooter? Because the motives in both cases -- allegiance to America's terrorist enemy -- were pretty well established very quickly after the event.

Funny thing about that - no, they actually weren't.

Let's talk about the nightclub shooter first. He was an NYPD fanboy (had a bunch of their "merch", despite never being employed by them), and generally lived a stereotypical dudebro life. He worked at gyms, supplement stores, as a prison guard, then started working security. He was fired for joking about terrorism and claiming he had ties to Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. He was investigated by the FBI, which found no links to any terrorist groups and concluded he was just talking shit. Similarly, after the Pulse shooting, the FBI checked again and determined he'd never had any contact with ISIS - he was, once again, just blowing smoke.

Nothing about this guy makes a lick of sense. He claimed allegiance to Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and ISIS - if you know anything about anything when it comes to Islamist terrorist groups, you know that those three all hate the fuck out of each other and were busy fighting each other in Syria at the time the shooting went down (Hezbollah on the side of Assad, ISIS and Al Qaeda as rebel groups, with the former being a breakaway from the latter that eventually went through a messy divorce). And considering the guy may have been gay himself (multiple men came forward and said he was a regular at Pulse and used Grindr), the idea that he was a fanatical Muslim jihadist seems pretty far-fetched. Everything about him seems to point less to a hyper-religious maniac and more to a testosterone-supercharged asshole who name-dropped terrorist groups because he thought it made him look tough.

So no, the motives for this guy were never crystal clear, and certainly not in the immediate aftermath of the event (some of these details - like his potential homosexuality - were emerging within hours of the shooting). Not that you knew that, apparently, given that you seem to have taken one glance at the media story, safely concluded "ISIS" the exact same way Trump did, and were content that the case was closed even though the odds that this guy was an actual radicalized ISIS fanatic are pretty close to zero.

As for the San Bernardino couple (who, BTW, killed 14, not "dozens"), I'm not sure why you even brought them up, given that I never mentioned them (the Trump outburst I referenced above was in response to Pulse; I'm not even sure he said anything about these clowns, nor do I care enough to check).
---

GanonsSpirit posted...

Tragedy should absolutely be politicized

That way maybe we could actually get some shit done.

I suspect you'd probably think differently if someone whose politics you disagree with attempted to politicize a tragedy that happened to you personally.



GanonsSpirit posted...

And anyway, what it really means when people say not to politicize tragedy is "Let's talk about this later, when my callous disregard for human life will seem less callous"

Or what some people might actually mean is "Maybe we should attempt to be sympathetic towards and supportive of people who have suffered a significant loss rather than immediately exploit their for our own purposes before the bodies are even cold."

Most politicizing of tragedy doesn't give a single shit about those people or what they think/feel, and is just attempting to score points with a convenient manipulable example. If anything, I find that FAR more callous than the alternative.



KevinceKostner posted...

Now is not the time to talk about gun control, then wheeeennn?

Maybe when people are actually thinking logically and rationally, and discuss the actual merits and flaws of a given issue, rather than reacting viscerally with knee-jerk emotional responses.

Unfortunately, American politics are almost entirely emotion-driven these days anyway, so very few decisions we make as a voting populace are sane and rational at this point. Especially with the Internet basically becoming a culture of outrage, where everyone is turning into a pitchfork-wielding mob just looking for things to be pissed at.


---

KevinceKostner posted...

Now is not the time to talk about gun control, then wheeeennn?

Around 100 years ago.
---

GanonsSpirit posted...

That way maybe we could actually get some shit done.

It should be publicized, not politicized.

Anytime somebody tries to politicize a tragedy, I just think they show their immaturity. For example, I honestly thought the Patriot Act and TSA should have been proof enough that no one in congress, the white house, or the supreme court during 9/11 should ever have a job in government. If your reaction to a national tragedy is to restrict freedoms, then you have no right to opine on politics.
---

the issue is that every time there is a shooting the left does the typical left thing and demonizes the opposing argument. "IF YOU DONT SUPPORT GUN CONTROL YOU DONT VALUE HUMAN LIFE!"

they stand on the graves of the deceased and point their finger at anyone who owns a gun or who supports the second amendment screaming "evil!"

honestly, its ass backwards. the second amendment allows the ownership of firearms in order to combat government tyranny. "the right are fascist nazis who want to take over the country and tyrannize us! Lets get rid of all our guns so that if that day does come, we are completely defenseless!"
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Or what some people might actually mean is "Maybe we should attempt to be sympathetic towards and supportive of people who have suffered a significant loss rather than immediately exploit their for our own purposes before the bodies are even cold."

Most politicizing of tragedy doesn't give a single shit about those people or what they think/feel, and is just attempting to score points with a convenient manipulable example. If anything, I find that FAR more callous than the alternative.

If you haven't changed your profile pic to a rainbow gun overlay in front of the Las Vegas flag you don't actually care.

Okay Rahm. You've done such a great job taking care of Chicago...

Zeus posted...

For starters, ISIS is a concrete foreign enemy. The idea that it should be treated the same as a complex debate over American freedoms, mental health laws, and a million other factors isn't just disingenuous, it's outright stupid.

"Americans who shoot lots of other Americans" is about as concrete an enemy as ISIS, and the approach to protecting Americans from ISIS involves just as much debate over American freedoms, racial profiling, and many other complex factors. The only disingenuous thing here is giving up on the gun control issue because it's hard, while promoting hasty, superficial "solutions" to other issues that are no less complex.
---

adjl posted...

"Americans who shoot lots of other Americans" is about as concrete an enemy as ISIS

Actually, that's sort of the opposite of concrete.

With ISIS, you can theoretically point to a group with professed goals and a sense of shared identity. Yes, someone in ISIS can theoretically pretend to not be part of ISIS, but they're still motivated by and connected to that group identity.

Whereas "people who shoot people" is an amorphous collective of radically different people across almost the entire spectrum of human existence doing what they do for entirely different reasons. There's no core identity, no real sense of purpose or ideology that can be addressed or predicted. Whether it's the kid who got picked on, someone with a political agenda, or just some guy who went off his meds, they're not so much a concrete group as much as they are a list of people with a similar methodology.



adjl posted...

The only disingenuous thing here is giving up on the gun control issue because it's hard, while promoting hasty, superficial "solutions" to other issues that are no less complex.

Considering giving up on issues because they're hard, and instead pursuing easier superficial "solutions" is basically the entire modus operandi of the US government when it comes to nearly every major issue, it's hard to call bullshit on gun control as an issue specifically.

I've used the phrase "like slapping a band-aid on gangrene" way too many times over the last decade or two, and it's never been in reference to gun control - but it's always been appropriate. The way the electoral system in the US is designed and the fact that it is mostly populated by career politicians renders almost any difficult long-term solution to any problem nearly impossible to implement, because the moment you ask for personal sacrifice without immediate gratification you aren't getting reelected.

And that applies to politicians on both sides of the aisle. It's not a Democrat or Republican problem, it's a politics problem. And even if you gave total control of the entirety of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency to a single party (either one), very little would change for the positive.

If anything, a huge part of the problem for gun control in the US is that most previous "solutions" HAVE been simplistic as fuck (because the real issue is incredibly complex and interwoven with other issues). A lot of it boils down to passing knee-jerk laws that don't necessarily solve the problem, then not enforcing those laws effectively anyway. The end result being that there's an illusion that government is attempting to solve the problem, while not actually doing a single thing that actually solves the problem - and creating entirely new problems for law-abiding citizens to wade through that repeatedly fuck them over in various ways (see also, the health care debate, border and travel security, economic bailouts, educational standards, poverty, etc).


---

Taking propper action to prevent future tragedy shouldn't depend on politics. It should depend on doing what is right and making sure those who died didn't die in vain.
---

Zeus, I consider myself to be pretty conservative but you are a goddamn moron.
---

GanonsSpirit posted...

Metal_Mario99 posted...

I hope you feel this way next time an Islamic terror attack happens and people want to kick all the Muslims out of the country.

Like we should be able to have discourse in the face of tragedy so we can take steps to prevent future tragedies? I will still feel that way. Unfortunately, it seems you've already committed yourself to a crazy, unconstitutional idea on how to go about that.

You mean like your crazy, unconstitutional idea about banning guns?
---

https://youtu.be/RH7wMFrWYoA?t=1m58s

The way I see it, if it's acceptable for companies to take advantage of consumers to make some extra buck, then it's OK for political platforms to take advantage of tragedies to push their agendas
---

Metal_Mario99 posted...

GanonsSpirit posted...

Metal_Mario99 posted...

I hope you feel this way next time an Islamic terror attack happens and people want to kick all the Muslims out of the country.

Like we should be able to have discourse in the face of tragedy so we can take steps to prevent future tragedies? I will still feel that way. Unfortunately, it seems you've already committed yourself to a crazy, unconstitutional idea on how to go about that.

You mean like your crazy, unconstitutional idea about banning guns?

I want to know if there's coffee and donuts at your meetings, kkk?
---

joemodda posted...

The way I see it, if it's acceptable for companies to take advantage of consumers to make some extra buck, then it's OK for political platforms to take advantage of tragedies to push their agendas

Neither are okay.
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

the issue is that every time there is a shooting the left does the typical left thing and demonizes the opposing argument. "IF YOU DONT SUPPORT GUN CONTROL YOU DONT VALUE HUMAN LIFE!"

Kind of like the right does with abortion?

Troll_Police_ posted...

the second amendment allows the ownership of firearms in order to combat government tyranny

And how's that been working out for you? Not at all, from what I can tell.

The joke of this "logic" is that about ten seconds of thinking will reveal the huge hole in it, namely that the government(s) have a series of entities under their control that are far better armed and organized than any civilian militia can ever hope to be, namely law enforcement and the military.

If the US's democratic systems ever failed and a tyrant rose to power (itself an event so unlikely in this day and age that it seems paranoid to the point of comedy to even consider it), their success or failure would not be predicated on the ability of civilians to own firearms, but on whether or not the military (and, to a much lesser extent, law enforcement) supports them. Let's be real here, much as we like the popular image of a civilian populace rising up to overthrow a dictator, shit like that doesn't happen unless the military allows it to (either the domestic military by participating or standing by and allowing it to happen, or a foreign military to back up the rebels) - you can see recent examples of this in Syria, Libya, Ukraine, and Egypt.

If the US military supported a tyrant, the civilian militia would be woefully outclassed and swiftly defeated. If they didn't, then the militia is rendered redundant by the fact that the military outclasses them in every respect.

This line of thinking also ignores the fact that there are dozens of peaceful, democratic nations out there with much tighter gun control regulations that somehow manage to stave off government tyranny without waving a shotgun in the air.
---

ClarkDuke posted...

Metal_Mario99 posted...

GanonsSpirit posted...

Metal_Mario99 posted...

I hope you feel this way next time an Islamic terror attack happens and people want to kick all the Muslims out of the country.

Like we should be able to have discourse in the face of tragedy so we can take steps to prevent future tragedies? I will still feel that way. Unfortunately, it seems you've already committed yourself to a crazy, unconstitutional idea on how to go about that.

You mean like your crazy, unconstitutional idea about banning guns?

I want to know if there's coffee and donuts at your meetings, kkk?

Oh, so now everyone who doesn't support the banning of all guns is a KKK member? Yeah, that's liberal logic for you.
---

I can see you're really defensive Mario, reading into a simple key getting stuck, ok?
---

Tragedy should absolutely be politicized, when it suits my particular political agenda and not when it goes against it, otherwise people are just being emotional and irrational and it's not right to manipulate them in that state.
---

It depends on how its done. If you're bringing up a tragedy only to score political points and smear your ideological rivals, then it's pretty shameless and stupid. But starting a discussion on gun violence and what role government might play, without getting self-righteous, I can't think of a better way to cope with loss than that.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Considering giving up on issues because they're hard, and instead pursuing easier superficial "solutions" is basically the entire modus operandi of the US government when it comes to nearly every major issue, it's hard to call bulls*** on gun control as an issue specifically.

I've used the phrase "like slapping a band-aid on gangrene" way too many times over the last decade or two, and it's never been in reference to gun control - but it's always been appropriate. The way the electoral system in the US is designed and the fact that it is mostly populated by career politicians renders almost any difficult long-term solution to any problem nearly impossible to implement, because the moment you ask for personal sacrifice without immediate gratification you aren't getting reelected.

The voters have almost no say on what actually gets made into law anymore. It all traces back to the donors. The more money you make, the more say you have.