Skip

1 down, 534 to go
January 12, 2011 10:31 AM   Subscribe

In the aftermath of the Giffords shooting, most people are falling over themselves to renounce violence. Not so with Travis Corcoran, owner of Heavy Ink, an online comics retailer. He responded to the shooting with a blog post entitled 1 down, 534 to go, referring to the other members of the House of Representatives, adding, "Target only politicians and their staff, and leave regular citizens alone." Corcoran has been called out by websites like Comics Alliance and has had comics creators announce that they will not do business with his company. Meanwhile, on the Heavy Ink forums, there seems to be an equal mixture of people expressing their dismay and people expressing their support for Corcoran (and a lot of misunderstanding of the First Amendment.)
posted by Legomancer (34 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: there's sort of a few open posts about the shootings and it's not so great to reproduce shitty hateful things people say over here if you want a good discussion. -- jessamyn



 
"Target only politicians and their staff, and leave regular citizens alone."

...and dead innocent "regluar citizens" will be referred to as "acceptable losses" or "collateral damage"
posted by BozoBurgerBonanza at 10:34 AM on January 12, 2011


Attention whore gets attention.
posted by mek at 10:36 AM on January 12, 2011 [15 favorites]


Jesus.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:37 AM on January 12, 2011



What he is advocating is treason. He is a traitor.

I don't own firearm to protect myself against an opprosive government. I own them to help defend it from treasonous morons who seek to destroy my Country through pointless and violent revolution.

Also, because pheasant taste good and my dogs like to hunt.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:37 AM on January 12, 2011 [3 favorites]




Link to Warren Ellis' blog post on the subject.
posted by rifflesby at 10:39 AM on January 12, 2011 [1 favorite]


Travis Corcoran will have a fun time in hell with Jack Chick. Can't wait to see what they manage to draw on the stone walls with their fingernails, colored with their own blood and shit.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:40 AM on January 12, 2011


I am not as quick on the "speech causes violence" wagon as some. I didn't believe Marilyn Manson caused Columbine, so I'd be a hypocrite if I said Palin's targets caused the Arizona shooting.

This guy, however, is going to be visited by the FBI. He is inciting violence against specific people, more or less by name.
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:40 AM on January 12, 2011


Maybe I'm wrong here, but I read this as being tongue in cheek rather than the author being dead serious.

Especially coupled with his flowchart which boils down to saying that the author has the following beliefs:

  • believe that assassinating politicians is sometimes valid
  • believe that it’s better to assassinate a small number of politicians rather than kill a large number of draftees
  • agree that it’s sometimes legitimate for citizens to rebel against democratic governments
  • agree that the ends do not justify the means, and are not willing to cause massive war for little purpose
  • agree that the Arizona shooting was a tragedy
  • agree that it is not legitimate to assassinate politicians in the US today
  • have said some tasteless things among friends in your life that had the potential to play very poorly in a different audience

posted by haykinson at 10:41 AM on January 12, 2011


Conclusion:

You, like TJIC,

# believe that assassinating politicians is sometimes valid...
# agree that the ends do not justify the means, and are not willing to cause massive war for little purpose


It's a good thing assassinating politicians never leads to massive war for little purpose!
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:41 AM on January 12, 2011 [1 favorite]


It was titled "1 down, 534 to go" but it was sub-titled: "Small business owner poses as lone wingnut to gain publicity."

Look, I support the 2nd Amendment right to armed revolution as much as anyone (more than most, actually), but attacking individual congresspeople is not the way to do it. You need a coordinated assault on centers of power, cutting lines of influence and control. And that's ONLY AS A LAST RESORT, when all rational discourse, political action, and social advocacy have failed. Once you can prove that there are no other options, only then can you begin to talk about spilling a single drop of blood.
posted by Eideteker at 10:42 AM on January 12, 2011


Travis needs to learn that it's better to be silent and thought to be a douchebag, than to write a blog post and prove that he is in fact colostomy bag of full of pungent shit.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:42 AM on January 12, 2011


What he is advocating is treason. He is a traitor.

How can we bring charges against him?

I'm perfectly serious. Who actually brings treason charges against a given individual? Is that something I can do, something I call and ask my congressman to do, what?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:44 AM on January 12, 2011


Maybe I'm wrong here, but I read this as being tongue in cheek rather than the author being dead serious.

In the context of his past statements and discussions, that seems unlikely. I fear you have fallen victim to Poe's Law here.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:46 AM on January 12, 2011


Goddamn plutocracy supporters.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:47 AM on January 12, 2011


Everybody is taking a "backward Tea Party hick" angle on it, but that couldn't be further from the truth. TJIC is a smart, smart guy who's logicked his way into a political position that most of us find morally reprehensible. Read his follow-up post.
posted by droob at 10:48 AM on January 12, 2011


How can we bring charges against him?

I'm perfectly serious. Who actually brings treason charges against a given individual? Is that something I can do, something I call and ask my congressman to do, what?


Well, the US Gov't would bring the charges, but I imagine that advocating treason isn't treason, and would be, in fact, protected free speech. IANAL.
posted by The Michael The at 10:50 AM on January 12, 2011


Wait. A comic-book guy expressed an unsupportable position?

I'm shocked.
posted by clvrmnky at 10:50 AM on January 12, 2011 [1 favorite]


I didn't believe Marilyn Manson caused Columbine, so I'd be a hypocrite if I said Palin's targets caused the Arizona shooting.

That analogy doesn't hold up, IMO. Marilyn Manson didn't paint a target on anyone's head and say, "Getting rid of this specific person will make your life better."
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:50 AM on January 12, 2011 [1 favorite]


I take his flowchart to mean that he is admitting he was just mouthing off, just as I might say "what do you call 1000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start!" with a nasty sense of humor but without any malice.

On a more serious note, the US's founders were quite exact in defining treason, and even this doesn't qualify.

I still think he's an ass.
posted by tyllwin at 10:52 AM on January 12, 2011


When this story came up on another forum I hang out at, someone brought up some very salient points on the guy's own blog, saying in part:
I bring up the example of Posner and Easterbrook mainly to pose a question to the OP–just how hostile to ‘regulation’ are you asking people to be? Moreso than the man who has advocated replacing government-regulated adoption with a free market in babies? Where do we set the ‘you must be at least this libertarian not to get shot in the fucking face’ bar?
This about says it all for me. Uber-libertarian advocates violence, people get shocked, and he smirks with "Well, guess those liberals aren't as tolerant as they claim to be". It's like something out of the Turner Diaries.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:52 AM on January 12, 2011 [1 favorite]


Wait. A comic-book guy expressed an unsupportable position?

Hey! Don't you blood libel us!
posted by Artw at 10:53 AM on January 12, 2011


And that's ONLY AS A LAST RESORT, when all rational discourse, political action, and social advocacy have failed. Once you can prove that there are no other options, only then can you begin to talk about spilling a single drop of blood.

the problem with that statement, i think, is how you perceive & define 'last resort.' because, obviously, that varies from one person to the next; perhaps moreso when mental instability is involved.
posted by msconduct at 10:53 AM on January 12, 2011


Especially coupled with his flowchart which boils down to saying that the author has the following beliefs:

If he would have started with "it was only a tasteless joke", that would have saved a lot of time and probably a metafilter thread. That flowchart was him being a blowhard trying to prove that his worldview is correct.

He changed his name to add Ignatius. I find that totally appropriate.
posted by Gary at 10:55 AM on January 12, 2011


Also,

On a more serious note, the US's founders were quite exact in defining treason, and even this doesn't qualify.

I think a mass assassination of the House of Representatives qualifies as "levying War against [the United States]", so at the very least he's advocating treason.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:55 AM on January 12, 2011


Yeah, but who would win in a fight?
posted by blue_beetle at 10:56 AM on January 12, 2011


Step 7: Next question: Have you ever in your life said something tasteless to friends in your living room, in an email sent to more than one person, in a sports stadium rest room, or in a bar after three drinks?

You have an obnoxious, egotistical, and overly elaborate way of apologizing for making a tasteless joke.
posted by nathancaswell at 10:57 AM on January 12, 2011 [2 favorites]


TJIC? I think this guy was on a mailing list (silent-tristero) I was on once, back in the day when people used mailing lists.

I don't recall him being conspicuously batshit insane.
posted by acb at 10:58 AM on January 12, 2011


On a more serious note, the US's founders were quite exact in defining treason, and even this doesn't qualify.

Nonsense. We are a nation at war, and you're either with us or against us.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:59 AM on January 12, 2011


It's pretty obvious he was was being sarcastic. Not very articulate or coherent, but that's probably why he's selling comics instead of writing them.

Any author so obtuse as to knee-jerk over this probably writes schlock I wouldn't be interested in reading.
posted by clarknova at 10:59 AM on January 12, 2011


For some people, Ayn Rand is like a hand grenade of stupid, and there is no way they're going to be able to avoid pulling the pin.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:01 AM on January 12, 2011 [2 favorites]


You'd think that someone who deals with graphic art on a daily basis could do a little better than an unmodified Twenty Ten theme.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 11:02 AM on January 12, 2011 [1 favorite]


That analogy doesn't hold up, IMO. Marilyn Manson didn't paint a target on anyone's head and say, "Getting rid of this specific person will make your life better."

neither did Palin.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 11:02 AM on January 12, 2011


I'm sure he appreciates this mention on a major weblog and a link to his site.
posted by HuronBob at 11:02 AM on January 12, 2011


« Older Who Is Paying Your Doctor?   |   Say What? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post