The guy who hit Paul Pelosi with a hammer has something to say.

[Subduction Zone]

Tell me again. The cops were just a few feet away from Paul so why didn't he run to the police.
Was it because he was held at hammer point?
But wait... The guy only swung the hammer when the cop told him to put it down. What happened before the cops get there? Why wasn't Paul beat before the cops get there?

No they weren't. They were much further than that. And you expect me to diagnose a crazy person and explain his actions?

Okay, but this is all speculation. At the time his target was Nancy Pelosi. He seemed to think of Paul as an innocent bystander. He was ready to use force but didn't want to do so unless forced. The "See what you made me do?" mentality. As long as Paul seemed to go along everything was fine. That showed in Paul's 911 conversation. He gave 911 enough info that he was being held against his will without screaming fro help. That would have likely set off his attacker.


The attacker was totally irrational, but as long as Paul seemed to be cooperating everything was fine.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would think he would act at least that he was in danger with a strange man breaking into this house. But that's only logical.

If someone broke into my house and they held me at hammer point...when the cops showed up within a few feet, I think I would go toward them.

If one is hoping to defuse a dangerous situation, panic is just about the worst way to begin.

 

[Colt]

Listen for yourself:

 

[Kathryn]

Here's my take:

Sure, release the video and the call. Why not. They've both been released several days and I'm only now looking at them, for the record. I just don't much care about Pelosi or Depape or whatever his name is.

I will say this though, from a completely dispassionate position - I don't blame Pelosi for acting calm at first. It seems pretty obvious to me that he's ACTING calm because the other person is brandishing a hammer - and then attacks him. To me, the video only bolsters Pelosi's story and then the call backs it up. That being said, as I pointed out, I really don't care about either person much.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Should the news be broadcasting his message?

I appreciated hearing it.

For those unfamiliar with the term stochastic terrorism, this was a good example. Get the message out to MAGA that Nancy Pelosi is the enemy and then wait for somebody to kill her for you in the Capitol, or failing that, at her home.

How Stochastic Terrorism Uses Disgust to Incite Violence - Scientific American

 

[fantome profane]

I appreciated hearing it.

For those unfamiliar with the term stochastic terrorism, this was a good example. Get the message out to MAGA that Nancy Pelosi is the enemy and then wait for somebody to kill her for you in the Capitol, or failing that, at her home.

How Stochastic Terrorism Uses Disgust to Incite Violence - Scientific American

Ok, but if you are talking about stochastic terrorism you must at least understand my objection to airing a message from a terrorist saying he “wished he could have done more”.

I think the media has an obligation to consider impact airing such a message could have. And I think the negative impact clearly outweighs any possible benefit.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Why? Is he ill? Is he an ideological/religious radical? What's his motives and agenda? Is this a single, isolated incident or is this a part of a larger movement?

Would knowing if he in particular is part of those groups that we already know exist significantly impact resistance to them or does giving him a platform and media attention do more damage, through incitement and desensitization?

Imo leave that for his doctors and his prosecutors, not the nation at large. We let too many extremists air their manifestos.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Would knowing if he in particular is part of those groups that we already know exist significantly impact resistance to them or does giving him a platform and media attention do more damage, through incitement and desensitization?

Imo leave that for his doctors and his prosecutors, not the nation at large. We let too many extremists air their manifestos.

If it isn't aired how do you call it out and challenge it?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If it isn't aired how do you call it out and challenge it?

You can call out and challenge ideas we know exist and are harmful without platforming all their supporters. Especially when grifters and extremists get more notoriety from bad publicity than critical reception hurts them.

You can't reason people out of a position they didn't arrive at through reason. And I'm fairly certain giving them more breathing room to go off has increased their numbers way more dramatically than if they weren't allowed avenues to get attention.

 

[fantome profane]

If it isn't aired how do you call it out and challenge it?

For rational people, “don’t hit people in the head with a hammer” is not something that needs to be challenged. For irrational people it makes no difference.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You can't reason people out of a position they didn't arrive at through reason.

Yes, you can. Lots of us ex-Evangelicals demonstrate well it's possible.

breathing room to go off has increased their numbers way more dramatically than if they weren't allowed avenues to get attention.

I really doubt it. I very much doubt these yokels haven't been exposed to this stuff before and didn't at least already believe some of it.
All that changed is the got to have a top government official embolden them, tell them it's ok, and assure them they are good people.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For rational people, “don’t hit people in the head with a hammer” is not something that needs to be challenged. For irrational people it makes no difference.

It does seem rational to many people in various situations to hit someone in the head with a hammer. Self defense, culture norms, fear, not knowing any better.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yes, you can. Lots of us ex-Evangelicals demonstrate well it's possible.

I really doubt it. I very much doubt these yokels haven't been exposed to this stuff before and didn't at least already believe some of it.
All that changed is the got to have a top government official embolden them, tell them it's ok, and assure them they are good people.

It wasnt people debating with me that changed me. I dug me heels in for years with the same arguments. If anything trying to debate further entrenched me. I left when *I* decided to be introspective and asked myself why I was holding those views.

The normalization from people like Trump doesn't help, to be sure. But neither does knowing that all all they need to do is do something bad to get all the news coverage they want. And people becoming desensitized to hearing about it also isn't great.

Imho, lock him up, give the manifesto to fbi and watch groups, log his motive with study groups, but don't publish it to the public. It's not making society better to feel like reading it is some sort of due diligence. It's not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Imho, lock him up, give the manifesto to fbi and watch groups, log his motive with study groups, but don't publish it to the public. It's not making society better to feel like reading it is some sort of due diligence. It's not.

Actually there is a due diligence in doing things like reading Turner Diaries. They tell us to read it, they tell us that's how they plan to do it, so, yeah, it needs read to properly combat and recognize any warning signs from buzzwords and dog whistle phrases.

 

[fantome profane]

It does seem rational to many people in various situations to hit someone in the head with a hammer. Self defense, culture norms, fear, not knowing any better.

Not applicable in this situation. (Except “not knowing better”)

 

[Ponder This]

So David DePape has an “important message” he wants to get out.

Should the news be broadcasting his message? CNN just did. If you are expecting me to tell you what that message was or put link to it, that ain’t gonna happen.

I just want to ask, do you think they should have done that? This is not about censorship so don’t even go there. He has the freedom to say whatever he wants. But should national news be amplifying his voice? Do they have an obligation to repeat what he said? Or do they have an obligation to not repeat what he said? It would be one thing to describe or characterize what he said, quite another to play the audio.

What do you think?

Without knowing what his message is, how would I judge if it is appropriate?