You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 08, 2016, 05:55:57 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The lie of the left wing/liberal media  (Read 7175 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jude

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #25 on: November 09, 2010, 08:43:45 PM »
You only have to expose conflicts of interest on a case by case basis (per story).  Science is a great example of this:  when a scientist releases a paper he isn't expected to tell his life story along with it in order to expose any potential bias, the methods in the paper largely speak for themselves.  As long as the experiment itself is sound, then generally that is enough.

However, there are instances where it isn't.  Take Andrew Wakefield for instance, he was publishing papers against vaccinations while working for a firm which was trying to trump up a legal basis to sue vaccine manufacturers for such.  That's the sort of conflict of interest which should be exposed, and the media should be held to the same level of scrutiny.

Offline mystictiger

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #26 on: November 09, 2010, 09:38:14 PM »
Science is one area in which I think bias is easy to identify. Mostly because I think that there is an objective truth and good science goes towards trying to find out what that is. It is therefore easy to say Wakefield is wrong because his results do not support his claims.

I don't think that there is such a thing as objective truth regarding questions like:
-Is Obama doing a good job?
-Is Obamacare a good thing?
-Who launched this? Well, maybe not that.

Good in the above questions has very different meanings given your political ideology. It is therefore possible that one person can answer yes truthfully and another can say no truthfully. This is part of the reason I hate now being technically a 'social scientist' - we have intersubjective truth. Yuck.

Conflicts of interest are far harder to identify in other areas. Does the fact that you vote for a given party make you conflicted? Does the fact that you live in a state tradtionally dominated by a given party? That your parents vote a certain way? That your school is very liberal? That you're married to a Mexican? That your wife is involved in Amnesty International? That you drive a Prius? And so on...

In general, regarding bias and agendas:
"I am right. Other people have bias"

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #27 on: November 10, 2010, 05:12:22 AM »
QFE.  It's like when you see 'Paid for by the commission to elect Mickey Mouse' at the bottom of an anti-Donald ad.  If ABC is putting up a dismissive piece on the dangers of a certain amusement park ride, it's helpful to know that their parent company runs amusement parks.  If NBC is putting up sensational reports of the new electric car, it's helpful to know that GE is writing the check.

It gets deeper than that.

There was a story a major news outlet was developing about nuclear power plant leaks here in Minnesota. Now, I know, as an educated person, that radiation is not in and of itself evil, and without it, we would actually die.

But why does the power company here run so many ads? For the same reason that story was never aired.

It works the other way around, too. You can also pay to get positive publicity about your company - have them run a nice piece about you because you advertise with them or some similar thing like that.

I don't think that there is such a thing as objective truth regarding questions like:
-Is Obama doing a good job?
-Is Obamacare a good thing?

In those two cases it's because there are a lot of dimensions to those questions. There are objective answers to specific questions, especially where economics has a solid sense of math behind them like the economic benefit of the 'stimulus'.


Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #28 on: November 10, 2010, 09:53:18 AM »
It gets deeper than that.

I'll admit, I was being deliberately simplistic there. :-)

Quote
It works the other way around, too. You can also pay to get positive publicity about your company - have them run a nice piece about you because you advertise with them or some similar thing like that.

That was the situation I was getting at with the NBC example - that it can go deceptively positive as well.

Offline Hunter

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #29 on: November 10, 2010, 03:02:44 PM »
It's really easy to find information to the contrary.  See below for a couple of links.

Media Research Center

Bias Basics

Offline Jude

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #30 on: November 10, 2010, 04:42:56 PM »
Presenting information about bias from a biased source may not be the best way to contribute to the discussion.  If you want to objectively analyze bias cite particular studies and go from there.  Citing a compilation of cherry-picked statistics from a well-known conservative organization is a great example of what not to do if you're actually looking to ascertain truth.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2010, 04:46:34 PM by Jude »

Offline mystictiger

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #31 on: November 10, 2010, 05:31:55 PM »
Quote
Journalists Vote for Liberals: Between 1964 and 2004, Republicans won the White
House seven times compared with four Democratic victories. But if only journalists’ ballots
were counted, the Democrats would have won every time.

Given that farmers tend to vote for Republicans, you might as well say that AGRICULTURE IN AMERICA IS CONSERVATIVE! DON'T EAT CONSERVATIVE CROPS!

Also, the findings are based on a 1981 suvery. I mean, come on. That survey is almost as old as I am.

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #32 on: November 11, 2010, 01:54:20 AM »
They put their most recent data last, because it's their weakest. It's pretty bad.

It's really easy to find information to the contrary.  See below for a couple of links.

Media Research Center

Bias Basics

1) They do not define liberal.
2) They equate democrat with liberal. These are not one and the same.
3) They equate journalist with media. Especially since the rise of Fox, these are not one and the same.
4) They don't even address my point in the slightest, anywhere. Stories also are subject to the whims of advertisers and corporate parents.
5) They equate bias in general with liberal <-> conservative bias, as if there can be no other form.
6) They equate popular perception with truth. This is irrelevant. If the majority of the population believes a lie, that does not make it true. Majorities of many populations have believed many lies at many times. Truth wins, in the end, but not without a fight.
7) The solidarity of their numbers and arguments begins to drop off significantly as times become more recent.
8) They cite Zogby's Internet Polls. Cute. That tells me a lot about how much I can trust their numbers, right away. Zogby has a pretty terrible reputation.
9) They openly brag about dishonest poll questions, such as comparing a group likely to be highly educated about a specific question compared to the population as a whole, for example:

Quote
Two-thirds (67 percent) of journalists opposed prayer in public schools; three-fourths of the general public (74 percent) supported prayer in public schools.

This should be roughly expected. Even I don't mind prayer in schools, so long as the students are not forced to pray and do not force others. I knew this was how the courts were interpreting it in high school, but some of my own teachers didn't.

Quote
Journalists Reject Conservative Positions: None of the surveys have found that news organizations are populated by independent thinkers who mix liberal and conservative positions. Most journalists offer reflexively liberal answers to practically every question a pollster can imagine.

Some 'conservative' positions are flat-out bigotry. Opposition to gay marriage, for example. This may technically be a conservative viewpoint, however, it does not make it the correct viewpoint.

Some 'conservative' positions are flat out authoritarian. Suspension of habeas corpus and warrantless wiretaps, for example.

Some 'conservative' positions are warmongering. The war in Iraq. Even if you agree with it, going to war is -not- a conservative attitude. You're spending a lot of money to enact change elsewhere.

Some 'conservative' positions are simply untrue. Creationism, for example.

Some 'conservative' positions are blatant fearmongering. Opposing the mosque, for example.

Some 'conservative' positions are, flatly, stupid at best and horrific at worst. Supporting torture.

Some 'conservative' positions may be fairly sound - nuclear power, missile defense - but these are not technically conservative.

Now, more of these may be viewed as right-wing - authoritarian movements often incorporate fearmongering, warmongering, and propaganda. Fascism is not something to be proud of any more than anarchy.

Or maybe Colbert put it best. 'Reality has a well known liberal bias'. The media has a significant bias towards the truth, as opposed to batshit crazy and outright lies. Except that's been changing lately, and they've been balancing truth with a lot of batshit crazy and outright lies.

And people are dying for it.

But that argument would paint genuinely honest and sound conservative ideas in a bad light, and that is not the argument I want to put forth. I'd like to see a rational conservative movement.

Offline Hunter

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #33 on: November 11, 2010, 06:56:18 PM »
Presenting information about bias from a biased source may not be the best way to contribute to the discussion.  If you want to objectively analyze bias cite particular studies and go from there.  Citing a compilation of cherry-picked statistics from a well-known conservative organization is a great example of what not to do if you're actually looking to ascertain truth.

So a liberal source is fact but a conservative source is propaganda?  Because that's exactly what I'm hearing said.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #34 on: November 11, 2010, 07:24:06 PM »
There have been a few posts, including mine, that have stated that all sources have some bias or other.  Also, since liberal and conservative are relative terms, what is liberal to one person might be conservative to someone else.  I know I'm more liberal than my parents (who still have issues with mixed-race couples), but I'm not the most wildly liberal person out there (marijuana legalization should have some restrictions).  Political beliefs are not, as the pundits want us to believe, black and white - it's a continuum.  The best way for someone to be well informed is to examine as many different sources as possible.

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #35 on: November 11, 2010, 08:26:43 PM »
So a liberal source is fact but a conservative source is propaganda?  Because that's exactly what I'm hearing said.

I actually hadn't considered the alternative factor to my point.

If you take bigotry and lies to be the conservative viewpoint, I think that's insulting to genuine conservatives. You did not link to a conservative source, you linked to a set of liars claiming to be conservative.

If you want your viewpoint to be respected, it must first be respectable. If you want to show that your viewpoint has a rational basis that can present solid policy opinions without resorting to dishonesty, demagoguery, or bigotry, then work to develop and promote that.

You are not aided by associating with liars and bigots. For crying out loud, there are citations they make that are objectively discernible:
Quote
Nearly half of the journalists surveyed agreed that “the very structure of our society causes people to feel alienated,” while the authors found “five out of six believe our legal system mainly favors the wealthy.”

That statement is objectively discernible. You can analyze, for example, conviction rates for people who have public defenders versus those who can afford to hire a lawyer on their own (Edit: Normalized using data from e.g. the Innocence Project, for example). You can alternately analyze legal settlements forced by class action lawsuits compared to those obtained by wealthy individuals.

But they make no effort to do this. Just declare a position that can be verified by objective analysis to be 'liberal'.

That is not a good road to go down, Hunter. By assigning the conservative viewpoint to be the viewpoint of liars and worse, that is what you are going to be painting them as.

And that's how people will view you.

Is that really what you want to be?



It's not like there are not crazies on the side generally viewed as liberal. The difference, however, is that people viewed as liberal are policing themselves for dishonesty. And get lauded for it by their readership.

When David Frum tried to do the same thing, he was branded as a traitor.

If you insist on avoiding the truth, it is eventually going to come around and smack you in the face.

The truth wins. Always.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2010, 08:30:29 PM by Vekseid »

Offline Jude

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #36 on: November 12, 2010, 12:41:55 AM »
Instead of focusing on what we disagree on -- which doesn't actually matter that much, I'd like to focus on what we do agree on.  Check this out:

Ed Schultz Calls Out Rush Limbaugh Over "Mr. Ed" Crack

Can anyone tell a difference between these two?  I can't.

Offline MercyfulFate

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #37 on: November 13, 2010, 09:53:39 AM »
I just ignore the mainstream media and go to other sources, regardless of real or imagined politicial affiliation.

Offline Cibille

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #38 on: November 20, 2010, 11:18:15 AM »
Sorry for my post being all over the place..

"Some 'conservative' positions are flat-out bigotry. Opposition to gay marriage, for example. This may technically be a conservative viewpoint, however, it does not make it the correct viewpoint."

So because I may be against gay marriage, I naturally hate gay people? Or maybe I have a phobia about them? Since I'm  against the mosque at Ground Zero, I'm just a paranoid fear-mongerer?

Demonizing a position for it's idea or creed is considered bigotry. Just because you think you're correct or you have the moral high-ground doesn't mean you can call someone a neo-nazi, baby-eating, bible-thumping redneck for disagreeing with you.

"Some 'conservative' positions may be fairly sound - nuclear power, missile defense - but these are not technically conservative."

A strong defense/high budget has always been a tenant of conservatism, from the Old Right to the New Right. The same cannot be said of the left, generally speaking.

As for the other ones, I don't support them.  While Neocons (who are mostly disillusioned progressives that decided to become "conservative" in the 1960s) are the more authoritarian, interventionist branch of conservatism; there sure as heck are statist, interventionist Liberals, or things like the PATRIOT Act wouldn't have been reauthorized in 2009.

I'm curious as to what your definition of a true conservative is. Especially considering the fact you said "conservative" and "liberal" are two very broadly defined groups, nor do you come off as a "conservative" in general.

As for corporate bias in the media or even by lobbyist groups...of course it exists. But it's pretty self-evident to me some are clearly left or right-wing, or maybe Democrat and Republican would be more accurate.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #39 on: November 20, 2010, 11:24:54 AM »
Please explain your viewpoints further.

Offline Hellion000

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #40 on: November 20, 2010, 11:54:52 AM »
I'm really shocked by the fact that this is a 2 page thread. Ultimately what it comes down to is a simple statement of fact:


The vast majority of politicians are in it for themselves and their close associates, not We The People. Therein lies the distinction between being a politician and being a statesman.

We need more old school classic statesmen and fewer politicians.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, both Republicans and Democrats as a whole have failed us; and Liberals and Conservatives have gotten wrapped up in their personal war and forgotten the people they're supposed to be serving.

Offline Hunter

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #41 on: November 20, 2010, 12:13:18 PM »
If you insist on avoiding the truth, it is eventually going to come around and smack you in the face.

The truth wins. Always.

No, it doesn't.  If a lie is repeated often enough then it will be treated as truth.

Offline Noelle

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #42 on: November 20, 2010, 01:30:40 PM »
I'm really shocked by the fact that this is a 2 page thread. Ultimately what it comes down to is a simple statement of fact:


The vast majority of politicians are in it for themselves and their close associates, not We The People. Therein lies the distinction between being a politician and being a statesman.

You say 'statement of fact' without actually providing any evidence to give any actual weight to this. As far as I'm concerned, this is your opinion. Yes, there are politicians who are total dicks, but I don't see a lot of difference in the way they lobby for their ideas and the way any given person talks about their own. They campaign for issues that they think should be the direction of the country and it's typically without regard to compromise to anyone or what would be best for others -- mostly how they think the ideal world should be and how they would run it. I've heard it plenty of times, old men in bars who think they have all the answers. All we have to do is get a giant truck and round up all the immigrants and that problem magically goes away. All we have to do is build a bigger fence, get bigger guns, kill gay people, impeach Obama, let kids pray in school, inject more religion into our government, inject less religion into our government, tax less, tax more, work harder, eliminate welfare, euthanize the poor, etc...

It comes from both sides. No, not every person who opposes gay marriage is automatically the worst person ever, I'm willing to listen to reasoning as to why you would oppose gay marriage that isn't rooted in biblical reasoning, but I have yet to see a convincing argument from anyone, politician or average person alike, as to how denying gays the right to legally join is a realistic and overall beneficial decision for the future. Denial of rights and oppression typically does not last forever -- history has shown this. Equally, I also don't agree with the "my way or no way" attitude that many liberal gay marriage supporters take without regard to the fact that social change is slow-moving, no matter how loud they yell about it.

Quote
We need more old school classic statesmen and fewer politicians.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, both Republicans and Democrats as a whole have failed us; and Liberals and Conservatives have gotten wrapped up in their personal war and forgotten the people they're supposed to be serving.

You're romanticizing things I...assume you've never experienced. Every era in politics has had its share of problems even if people like to ignore it for their own idealized version of history. Many conservatives seem to dream about an era perpetually caught up in the 1950's, about how great things were when X or Y was in office or when Z happened.

What's really at the end of the day is that you are denying any and all responsibility of the same "We the People", so to speak, that you claim more politicians need to work for. But who do you think elects those people? Liberals and conservatives alike aren't some big one-minded entity that has one singular goal to corrupt and destroy -- this hardly makes sense if you're going to say "not all liberals/conservatives are the same"...it's comprised of many individuals, and if we don't hold anyone to a higher standard, if we keep electing people we feel don't give a shit about us, then aren't we ultimately just shooting our own selves in the foot? People like to think they don't have any say in what goes on, that they're totally and utterly severed from what happens "in Washington" or even in their local governments, but can often be the same people who stress how important it is to go out and vote and only assume civic duty for the personal ego-boost and sticker it gets them one day every few years or so.

Politicians aren't some superhuman breed of people. They're the same homo sapien as you and I, they're subject to the same faults and mishaps as anyone else, and to pretend like they're these supervillains that can't be defeated is a farce. "The people" aren't helpless and "the people" really need to stop passing every ounce of the blame off to some mythical, single-minded, vague monster they label as "Washington" or "politicians".

Offline Hellion000

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #43 on: November 20, 2010, 02:29:46 PM »
Noelle,

Rather than break down your post point by point as you chose to do with mine, I'm going to point out that you appear to have made a point to argue what I have to say for no particular reason, going so far as to make claims for me that I haven't made. Specifically romanticising things- something I didn't do at all, in any way.

I'm completely disinterested in attempting to have any measure of political discourse with someone who is so blatantly interested in 'winning' rather than 'discussing'.

You seem to me to be using the same methods of argument as the people who frequent the Huffington Post- which is to say automatically marginalizing anyone who doesn't feel inclined to chase down (usually) suspect links to support their claims. That methodology is why I no longer post on HuffPo. Saying 'You're wrong because you don't have links of "facts" to substantiate your claims.' doesn't make your points any more valid than mine do, even when I agree with the majority of your post.

You want a couple of 'facts' that illustrate my claim that politicians aren't concerned with us, before I duck back out of this thread?

1.) Members of the Congressional arm of the government do not now, never have, nor ever will have to pay into Social Security. Nor do their spouses or children, if I recall correctly.
2.) Members of the Congressional arm of the government have a private and secure retirement fund that is automatically adjusted for cost of living expense on a regular basis. It pays out to them until they die, and then pays out to the spouses until their spouses die.
3.) Members of the Congressional arm of the government have (with the exception of the last 3 years) have voted themselves a regular and healthy raise AND cost of living increase on a nearly yearly basis while simultaneously blocking a minimum wage increase regularly.

Those three facts (and to the best of my knowledge, they are facts) show an utter and absolute gap between them and us that is instituted and maintained by them.

Offline MercyfulFate

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #44 on: November 20, 2010, 03:00:56 PM »
I'm really shocked by the fact that this is a 2 page thread. Ultimately what it comes down to is a simple statement of fact:


The vast majority of politicians are in it for themselves and their close associates, not We The People. Therein lies the distinction between being a politician and being a statesman.

We need more old school classic statesmen and fewer politicians.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, both Republicans and Democrats as a whole have failed us; and Liberals and Conservatives have gotten wrapped up in their personal war and forgotten the people they're supposed to be serving.

This is true, hence why I ignore both major parties. People who blindly follow one or the other parties just confuse me.

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #45 on: November 20, 2010, 03:01:48 PM »
Sorry for my post being all over the place..

"Some 'conservative' positions are flat-out bigotry. Opposition to gay marriage, for example. This may technically be a conservative viewpoint, however, it does not make it the correct viewpoint."

So because I may be against gay marriage, I naturally hate gay people? Or maybe I have a phobia about them?

No, being against gay marriage, while supporting state sanctioned marriage, means you wish to assign more rights to yourself than to another class of people, for no empirical reason.

Quote
Since I'm  against the mosque at Ground Zero, I'm just a paranoid fear-mongerer?

Considering the only mosque ever at Ground Zero, or with plans at Ground Zero, was destroyed in the attacks, I'd call using language like that fearmongering.

If you have an issue with Islam and/or religion directly, you can criticize its tenets directly. It has no particular empirical sacredness over any other religion.

Quote
Demonizing a position for it's idea or creed is considered bigotry.

This sentence is nonsense on its face. You are claiming, here, that opposing any atrocity, anywhere, at any time, for any reason, is bigotry.

Quote
Just because you think you're correct or you have the moral high-ground doesn't mean you can call someone a neo-nazi, baby-eating, bible-thumping redneck for disagreeing with you.

Please cite where, prior to this post in this thread, I - or anyone save yourself - used one of the following terms:
1) Nazi
2) Thumping
3) Redneck
4) Eating

Quote
"Some 'conservative' positions may be fairly sound - nuclear power, missile defense - but these are not technically conservative."

A strong defense/high budget has always been a tenant of conservatism, from the Old Right to the New Right. The same cannot be said of the left, generally speaking.

Because Herbert Hoover was known for his warmongering, and FDR for his pacifism.

...for crying out loud, Edmund Burke, founder of modern conservatism, was not exactly against the American Revolution.

...

Conservatism, in a nutshell, is about maintaining the status quo, or returning to an older status. A large military can be a tool for maintaining the status quo, or enacting a great deal of change. It is more appropriately regarded as an authoritarian structure.

Quote
As for the other ones, I don't support them.  While Neocons (who are mostly disillusioned progressives that decided to become "conservative" in the 1960s) are the more authoritarian, interventionist branch of conservatism; there sure as heck are statist, interventionist Liberals, or things like the PATRIOT Act wouldn't have been reauthorized in 2009.

Democrat does not mean liberal. Obama has been very keen on keeping expanded executive powers, and organizations like Fox have been very quiet on that front.

Quote
I'm curious as to what your definition of a true conservative is. Especially considering the fact you said "conservative" and "liberal" are two very broadly defined groups, nor do you come off as a "conservative" in general.

See above.

Conservative: Maintain current status quo, or return to an older status quo.
Progressive: Opposite of conservative: progress from the current status quo, prevent returning to an older one
Liberal: Support individual liberty and egalitarianism.
Authoritarian: Opposite of liberal: Subject personal freedom and individual rights to an authority.

None of these are flat out, by definition wrong. We accept limitations on personal liberties, we do not accept limitations on others, we accept that some things should change. We accept that some things should remain the same.

I believe that muddling with these definitions has a lot to do with why politics in America is so messed up, so to speak.

Quote
As for corporate bias in the media or even by lobbyist groups...of course it exists. But it's pretty self-evident to me some are clearly left or right-wing, or maybe Democrat and Republican would be more accurate.

Fox is a republican-oriented political operation.

MSNBC is more supportive of democrats, but it hasn't reached the level of a full-blown, authoritarian political propaganda machine the way Fox has.

There are organizations that are well-placed to become new media mega-empires, that certainly have heavily liberal tendencies. Google and Facebook, to name two.

No, it doesn't.  If a lie is repeated often enough then it will be treated as truth.

Repeating a lie does not change the truth, no matter how it is being treated. And for crying out loud, there are still global warming deniers in America, but policy wise, America is going full bore into preparing to stake its claims under the collapsing Arctic icecap.

I'm really shocked by the fact that this is a 2 page thread. Ultimately what it comes down to is a simple statement of fact:


The vast majority of politicians are in it for themselves and their close associates, not We The People. Therein lies the distinction between being a politician and being a statesman.

We need more old school classic statesmen and fewer politicians.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, both Republicans and Democrats as a whole have failed us; and Liberals and Conservatives have gotten wrapped up in their personal war and forgotten the people they're supposed to be serving.

As bad as things may seem now, its really hard to find an era where you can definitively say the world was better off. You peel back the painted, silvery veneer people place on history and you find a lot of horrific facts, and get an epiphany about just how far we've come.

Offline Noelle

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #46 on: November 20, 2010, 03:20:54 PM »
I'm completely disinterested in attempting to have any measure of political discourse with someone who is so blatantly interested in 'winning' rather than 'discussing'.

Great, thank you for being so condescending. Obviously writing five thoughtful paragraphs in response to something you said that I disagreed with and wanted to discuss apparently isn't discussion. I must've missed the memo where giving your opinion in rebuke is "wanting to win". And speaking of which...

Quote
You seem to me to be using the same methods of argument as the people who frequent the Huffington Post- which is to say automatically marginalizing anyone who doesn't feel inclined to chase down (usually) suspect links to support their claims. That methodology is why I no longer post on HuffPo. Saying 'You're wrong because you don't have links of "facts" to substantiate your claims.' doesn't make your points any more valid than mine do, even when I agree with the majority of your post.

Please don't put words back in my mouth if you don't enjoy having it done to you. If you read back over my post, I never said you were wrong. I said it was your opinion and that you could make it a more substantial claim by finding evidence to the "fact" you never backed up. If you don't want to back up things you are touting as fact because it's just too much of a bother, then don't misrepresent it as one. I might say equally that it's an awfully "Fox News" or "Yahoo news article commentator" thing to do, but since I'm not actually here to win, I don't care enough to sling those kinds of labels around because it's rude and unnecessary.

Providing evidence is what you do in a debate. If you can't or won't back up your opinions, then perhaps you should rethink discussing them with others in a forum where they can be openly criticized.

Offline Alsheriam

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #47 on: November 20, 2010, 03:43:01 PM »
You seem to me to be using the same methods of argument as the people who frequent the Huffington Post- which is to say automatically marginalizing anyone who doesn't feel inclined to chase down (usually) suspect links to support their claims. That methodology is why I no longer post on HuffPo. Saying 'You're wrong because you don't have links of "facts" to substantiate your claims.' doesn't make your points any more valid than mine do, even when I agree with the majority of your post.

That's because educated people back their claims and opinions up with substantiated evidence. People on the right-wing tend to ignore that important tidbit about being educated because they're more used to taking things based on faith, and most of the time only have one source: the Bible. To make things worse, provision of substantiated evidence is all the more important now when you have people like Fox News who have taken the time to sue for the right to lie. (http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/)

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #48 on: November 20, 2010, 03:46:36 PM »
Actually, I've seen that lack on both sides of the political fence.  It's merely the difference between argument and debate.  Some people prefer to argue, others to debate.  Both should read the logical fallacies announcement that is stickied in the forum.

Offline Jude

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #49 on: November 20, 2010, 05:10:31 PM »
You seem to me to be using the same methods of argument as the people who frequent the Huffington Post- which is to say automatically marginalizing anyone who doesn't feel inclined to chase down (usually) suspect links to support their claims. That methodology is why I no longer post on HuffPo. Saying 'You're wrong because you don't have links of "facts" to substantiate your claims.' doesn't make your points any more valid than mine do, even when I agree with the majority of your post.
The thing is, if you don't substantiate the facts that you use to construct your points there is no basis for actual discussion.  I can state my point of view, you can state yours, but unless I actually see how you're arriving at that point of view by looking at your facts, there's no way you have any chance of swaying me.

Argument is two people stating their opinions back and forth; debate requires setting up the premise by laying out the facts then manipulating them.  Resistance to enumerating your facts is a lot like refusing to show your work when it comes to mathematics in school:  if I can't see how you got there, it's gonna be pretty hard to agree or disagree with you.
You want a couple of 'facts' that illustrate my claim that politicians aren't concerned with us, before I duck back out of this thread?

1.) Members of the Congressional arm of the government do not now, never have, nor ever will have to pay into Social Security. Nor do their spouses or children, if I recall correctly.
2.) Members of the Congressional arm of the government have a private and secure retirement fund that is automatically adjusted for cost of living expense on a regular basis. It pays out to them until they die, and then pays out to the spouses until their spouses die.
3.) Members of the Congressional arm of the government have (with the exception of the last 3 years) have voted themselves a regular and healthy raise AND cost of living increase on a nearly yearly basis while simultaneously blocking a minimum wage increase regularly.

Those three facts (and to the best of my knowledge, they are facts) show an utter and absolute gap between them and us that is instituted and maintained by them.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp

I only really addressed the first of your three claims there, because I found serious problems with it after a decent amount of digging, so given that the last two are unsupported and the first was shown to be dubious, I don't think it's necessary for me to spend another significant chunk of my time trying to find a basis for your claims.  I do find the bolded part of your reply interesting however.

The reason why research and backing up your own opinions with fact carefully referenced by links is important is that it ensures that you actually state an opinion based on valid fact.  Many times while debating, I've started out defending one point and changed my position when I stated doing the research to back up that opinion and found that the facts didn't jive with what I was saying.  In this way, debate actually informs you and corrects misinformation you've come to accept as truth before you start communicating that misinformation to others.  It's about responsibility.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2010, 05:14:57 PM by Jude »