I'm curious how the data was compiled. A "threat" means what and who must it be reported to to be included in the data? How long have they kept such data, and was it compiled pre-1996. Do they register the likely daily threats posed by various terrorist groups around the world and include that in the data?

It just sounds vague to me. If there has been a recent decision to take the threats more seriously and to investigate them more closely, I would expect there to be a rise in the number they are investigating. It's like if there is an initiative to reduce drunk drivers, we should expect to see a sudden rise in the number of suspected drunk drivers, but that arises not from the increased drunk driving, but just from the increased efforts to identify them and prosecute them.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting that these numbers can't be correct, nor am I suggesting that Trump might not have sparked some to make these threats, but I don't feel like I can do much with the data provided.

What I do agree with is that I feel Trump has a moral duty to deter others from violence, and that can be accomplished by stressing to his supporters the need for non-violence and civility, something Trump has steadfastly refused to do. I don't think the response should be to stifle free speech rights or to subtract any personal responsibility from the ones who have actually made the threats and impute it on Trump. It's enough for me to just state that Trump is morally bankrupt and unfit for a leadership position. What I would hope is that democratic rule eventually gets this right and removes him from a position of power.

Does another’s inflammatory words convince you to do evil, jorndoe?

Maybe congress is just that terrible. These people are worthy of contempt. They make shitty laws, spend vast sums of taxpayer dollars on pork and boondoggles, and represent only the worst of society.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the ...
Veracity of statements by Donald Trump (Wikipedia)
... has played a role, i.e. inflammatory bullshit, lying, or whatever. If so, then would there be an argument somewhere here against false agitational speech or abuse of free speech? — jorndoe

Why would we suppose such a thing? That seems like the first leap to justify.

The overall crime rate has increased in the UK. Suppose this is the result of my new hat purchase, would this be an argument to prevent me from buying any more hats?

You need to make the link first. Speculate on the solution second.

, not sure how to thoroughly verify the numbers; admittedly I tend to take Reuters seriously (among the links).
Another factor could be the pandemic, though it didn't really take off until early 2020.
(Our neck of the woods, typically rather laid back, even had pandemic-related political incidents.)

FYI, one motivation for this post was Musk taking over Twitter, promising no censorship, trying to figure out where (if anywhere) free speech ends or should end.
Free speech can be "self-destructive" if you will, because it allows speech against itself, and, more directly, might incite harm or violence — then it becomes real.
As of typing, there are places where such freedom is stomped out to a wretched degree, and other places where it's abused ("weaponized" dis/mal/misinformation, whatever).
Middle grounds?

Free speech can be "self-destructive" if you will, because it allows speech against itself, and, more directly, might incite harm or violence — then it becomes real.
As of typing, there are places where such freedom is stomped out to a wretched degree, and other places where it's abused ("weaponized" dis/mal/misinformation, whatever).
Middle grounds? — jorndoe

Words can harm. Intentionally shout “fire” in a crowded gathering so that a stampede results due to the lie, prank, or whatever it might be, such that the stampede leads to people getting trampled on and even dying … and that word was the cause of perceptible, physical harm. (This leaving the emotional harm which words can cause out of the issue. Sometimes serious enough to add to increasing suicide rate, imo) Arguably, in at least some sense regarding intent and outcome, this person is as culpable of the resulting physical harm as they would be if the person were to physically assault those harmed. And yet so falsely shouting is considered perfectly legal in the USA.

Your topic is akin to equally difficult topic of tolerance: when there is tolerance of intolerance, what results is the disappearance of tolerance and the universalization of intolerance among a people.

As to laws, they’re as good as those who make them. Get corrupt or tyrannical lawmakers in charge - say, which are elected by corrupt or tyrannical voters - and laws will be implemented against those who might otherwise be deemed ethical in what they desire to freely speak about. In turn giving more power to the corrupt/tyrannical voices only.

Btw, as a distantly related apropos, a working sustainable democracy is typically envisioned dependent on an informed, educated, and civil society. This being the principal reason why, for example, public education was once introduced. I figure whether a democratic republic remains or perishes is mostly, if not fully, up to the constituents. On whether, for example, individual constituents come to be accepting of, or even in some way emotively endorse, the shouting of “fire” in crowded gatherings when no such fire occurs (so its said, for no sensible reason). In sum, to my mind its an issue of individual and cultural ethics. Laws can only follow suit.

Don’t have a ready solution to the issue. Just chimed in with this post because I do feel the issue’s importance is one worth endorsing.

Watch Christopher Hitchens yell “fire” in a crowded theater here:

:up:

, say, propaganda is around for a reason, lots of words are intended to or can influence, yes? Enculturation/indoctrination could be examples. Otherwise language would be kind of useless. :) I suppose, between words and subsequent actions, we might assign credit or blame, in whatever ways. If that's your drift?

One is left wondering why @NOS4A2 takes such enthusiastic part in an entirely linguistic activity such as forum discussion knowing his words have no effect whatsoever on those to whom they are addressed.

Ought we assume some kind of madness has taken hold?

Would you say propaganda works on everyone, without fail?



It’s nice to know my words have an effect on you. Yours as well. And such an effect they’ve had that we’ve adopted each other’s positions.

It’s nice to know my words have an effect on you. Yours as well. And such an effect they’ve had that we’ve adopted each other’s positions. — NOS4A2

Yes, the cat is looking a bit hungry, maybe I ought to feed it.

Yes, the cat is looking a bit hungry, maybe I ought to feed it.

I didn’t feel anything this time, unfortunately. I suppose a higher quality of sorcery is likelier to have an effect.

suppose a higher quality of sorcery is likelier to have an effect. — NOS4A2

Indeed, I prefer the 20th century English composers too, but I agree Mahler's use of brass is atmospheric.

Linguistic activity does not have the causal effects you claim they do. At best such activity makes concrete what the speaker thinks. Here they reveal what Isaac thinks, nothing more. The effects on me never manifest, however. I’ll be sure to let you know if they do, though.

Inflammatory rant has been in US politics for a long time. That's not the problem. To live in an alternative reality is the problem.

The scary thing is if violence erupts. It's the fringe group toting arms that live in a fantasy World where the "Second Civil War" has already started. Too many automatic weapons in the hands of idiots. And if idiots from opposing sides just meet in the wrong place in the wrong time all hell can break loose. It really takes just a couple. And then the whole media environment is ready to blow it into something larger. The question will be who started it? Who shot first?




Political violence is a very sinister threat to any democracy, once it comes to be normal.

Doesn't all this - threatening politicians - remind you of recent Batman movies?

Doesn't all this - threatening politicians - remind you of recent Batman movies? — Agent Smith

What recent Batman movies remind me was of the incredible scare that Joker would provoke people to riot. Well, it provoked people to go and see a good (which is extremely rare at the present) superhero (or supervillain) movie. Now days good movies seem for some to be toxic.

The preferable attack is by the "lone gunman", as obviously with a plot acted by more than one invites all the tools to combat terrorism thanks to the War on Terror. The murders of Mike McClellan (R) and Clementa Pickney (D), the 2017 Baseball field shooting and the attack on Gabrielle Gifford just show there is a long line of political violence in the US and it's not one sided. But it's not rampant.

At best, the elections can go without any violence, which can very well happen.

There's a spike in violence in the US of A then?

Compared to what era? I think the 60's and 70's were still far more violent.

Corrected for wars I hope.

Perhaps if we narrow the window a trend will jump out at us.

Obviously as there are so rare. But when you take all of the mass shootings, then you can obviously see that something has changed. Naturally just what of them are political is under debate.

And then there's of course the definition problem:

There is no comfort or justification in it, but the fact is that the United States has had some outstanding episodes of violence and threats of violence directed at political persons and institutions (as opposed to violence directed against banks, convenience stores, competing gang members, and collateral victims). To start with, there was the Revolution of 1776. There was a war of property acquisition (the Mexican- American war); the south succeeded from the union and was forced back over a lot of dead bodies. The wars against the American Indians. A century of crude oppression of blacks after the civil war.

In 1856, in the United States Senate chamber, saw Representative Preston Brooks, a pro-slavery Democrat from South Carolina, used a heavy walking cane to attack Senator Charles Sumner, an abolitionist Republican from Massachusetts. Senator Sumner suffered brain injuries.

Labor organizations have been subject to periodic physical attacks -- not just propaganda -- for 150 years. The violence of the 'Red Scare' of 1919-1921 was directed at labor and blacks.

Four Presidents have been assassinated, within less than 100 years, beginning with Abraham Lincoln in 1865. Attempts were also made on the lives of two other Presidents, one President-elect, and one ex-President.

A politically driven gun-fetish has resulted in 1/3 of the population owning guns, everything from small pistols to military weapons.

So... we should not be surprised that anti-democratic violence continues. I don't like it, but the current batch has been bubbling up for 2 or 3 decades.

here the Chad Mitchel Trio satirizes the John Birch Society, a far right political group from the 1960s:



Here's a ridiculously long film about the John Birch society. Sample it at 40:00 minutes.