"An obvious nut job" would likely be more susceptible to public rhetoric not less. We don't know if the bomber is actually "an obvious nut job." But if he's incapable of discerning right from wrong, then he'd have trouble dismissing public figures' verbal attacks as just trollinghttps://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1055835847570817024 …
-
-
I go back to my point about blaming speech for the actions of others. I don’t think there is a straight line cause and effect. Especially, if this person has a mental illness.
-
Everyone is responsible for their own actions. When someone commits violence, they bear primary responsibility. But it’s naive to think prominent figures’ speech never influenced anyone. Both are true. It’s not either/or.
-
Well, it’s designed to influence others... who are sane. Do we really think we have to adjust our speech to accomodate the mentally ill, who will interpret even benign language through a sick filter?
-
Public figures should consider how their speech will be received by various audiences. Won’t always get it right, but should try. To the extent that speech influences mentally ill people, I’m skeptical that peaceful and violent images influence them to violence at similar rates.
-
Jodie Foster did not say anything to influence the assasination attempt on Reagan... Neither did anyone else, as I recall. Same for Sanders with the assasination attempt of Scalise and others. I don’t think you can draw a cause and effect.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.