You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 02, 2016, 11:59:04 AM

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 7164 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mystictiger

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #50 on: November 21, 2010, 09:30:04 AM »
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/)

This view is dangerous. It says that 'we democrats' have a monopoly on the truth. You're either with us or you're a fundamentalist throwback who doesn't understand how the 20th century works, much less the 21st.

Get off your intellectual high-horse. Ditch your sense of intellectual superiority. You are not better than a republican. You have different beliefs. Republicanism is no more stupid than being a democrat. There are stupid democrats just as there are stupid republicans.

Ditch the atitude.

Offline HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #51 on: November 21, 2010, 09:35:38 AM »
No one has a monopoly on truth, only on their own opinion, and every ideology attracts its share of blinkered idiots.

Offline Hellion000

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #52 on: November 21, 2010, 10:32:12 AM »
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.

On the other end of that specific spectrum we have Paul Offit, who at the same time he was working for a pharmaceutical company that made vaccines, was one of the most influential policy makers at the CDC and controlled the group that decided vaccine schedules and what vaccines went on the schedule. Shockingly, the vaccine he owned the patent on was immediately added to the schedule!

Sadly, over all, you can't mention vaccines or the people intricately involved in them without exposing massive amounts of bias on both sides of the fence.
____________________


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.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.

I read your Snopes link, dude. There's evidence enough in it to show that the information I was given was not only dated but also only partially true. Unfortunately for me, that makes me look like an asshole. Fortunately enough for me, I'm not scared to say I was wrong. So, I was wrong.

What interests me the most about your reply to me is where you placed the emphasis. You bolded a comment about the last three years and entirely glossed over the part where I said the bullet points I made were facts to the best of my knowledge.
___________________________


PS: Trying to duck out of a conversation doesn't work when the posts go directly to your Inbox. Heh.

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #53 on: November 21, 2010, 02:18:28 PM »
This view is dangerous. It says that 'we democrats' have a monopoly on the truth. You're either with us or you're a fundamentalist throwback who doesn't understand how the 20th century works, much less the 21st.

Get off your intellectual high-horse. Ditch your sense of intellectual superiority. You are not better than a republican. You have different beliefs. Republicanism is no more stupid than being a democrat. There are stupid democrats just as there are stupid republicans.

Ditch the atitude.

If your view was the accepted one, there would be no reason for political parties. While I agree that it is dangerous to consider yourself better, it is most certainly appropriate to hold yourself to a higher standard, and to make sure that other people know you are holding yourself to that higher standard. If the standards of a political apparatus collapse, it deserves, fully, to be called out for that, and attempting to justify it because "the other side is bad too!" is the sick, insipid logic that has brought about much of the current situation in America.

Offline mystictiger

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #54 on: November 21, 2010, 03:23:37 PM »
Quote
If your view was the accepted one, there would be no reason for political parties. While I agree that it is dangerous to consider yourself better, it is most certainly appropriate to hold yourself to a higher standard, and to make sure that other people know you are holding yourself to that higher standard. If the standards of a political apparatus collapse, it deserves, fully, to be called out for that, and attempting to justify it because "the other side is bad too!" is the sick, insipid logic that has brought about much of the current situation in America.

I entirely agree with this. But at the same time saying:

"Oh, but the other side is too stupid to understand what's best for them" is even worse. Not only is it false, it's also deeply patronising.

By all means disprove the factual assertions that other sides are making. In fact, good debating technique requires you to trash the factual errors in the other side's position. Being less well educated does not make the other side stupid. Rather, it means that they merely have different viewpoints. And... shock horror - different viewpoints are why there is a plurality of political views, elections, and indeed democracy.

I have absolutely no doubt that John Yoo is a -very- intelligent man. I think, however, that his moral standpoint was toxic.

As democrats, you do not have some god- / science- / fate-derived right to rule America. It is your obligation to convince the majority of undecideds that your beliefs (anyone who tells you that politics has anything more than a vague relationship to rational, logical, or objective belief is probably asking for your vote).

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 #55 on: November 21, 2010, 04:18:58 PM »
I think if we turn this on its head a little, it will all resolve.  Calling the other side stupid (or any other dismissive term) implies that 'your' side has no reason to evaluate their own position.  In reality, both sides have an obligation to continually evaluate their position.  Note, I say 'evaluate', not 'change'.  When you look down the street at an intersection, you evaluate whether there's enough room to cross, and if it's legal to do so.  When a new piece of information comes along (a light changes, a car turns onto the cross road, a siren starts in your direction), you re-evaluate - and you might choose to keep your current decision that it is/is not safe to cross.  Then again, that new piece of information might change your mind, if you don't choose to ignore it.


Offline Noelle

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #56 on: November 21, 2010, 04:42:40 PM »
I think you've definitely touched slightly on a larger issue, Oniya. A lot of people are willing to evaluate, but are afraid to concede that they may not have had all the information and that their conclusion may not be correct. Part of making a responsible and informed decision is accepting that what you want may not be what's best or the most beneficial for people at large. It's okay to be wrong or just misinformed -- acknowledging that and adapting for new circumstances and factual evidence is striving towards truth rather than just short-term, quick-gratifying solutions. I've learned a lot about my own views just debating with others on this forum over time, and I appreciate the chance to be able to come to a more balanced view of issues.

Offline mystictiger

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #57 on: November 21, 2010, 07:16:10 PM »
The problem here is that 'truth' isn't the same for everyone. And in certain situations there is no such thing as truth. Or, for that matter, facts. There are arguments and supporting evidence, but  fact, evidence, proof, and truth aren't synonyms.

There are some arguments that can be resolved to completion (e.g. is the moon made of cheese?), there are some that can be explained away (e.g. what is the best way to explay how there are humans?), and there are some that are purely subjective and therefore cannot have an external 'answer' (e.g. what is your favourite political party / food / colour?).

Sure, you'll change your view with time and experience, but I don't think it's a change in the objective, but rather in the subjective.

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 #58 on: November 21, 2010, 07:25:50 PM »
There are some arguments that can be resolved to completion (e.g. is the moon made of cheese?), there are some that can be explained away (e.g. what is the best way to explay how there are humans?), and there are some that are purely subjective and therefore cannot have an external 'answer' (e.g. what is your favourite political party / food / colour?).

Sure, you'll change your view with time and experience, but I don't think it's a change in the objective, but rather in the subjective.

I fully agree with you.  The danger occurs when people stop questioning why they hold a certain view.  Sometimes the 'reason' is simply that 'this is what my parents said', or the even vaguer 'Everyone knows that'. 

Offline Jude

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #59 on: November 21, 2010, 07:55:56 PM »
It's also dangerous when people refuse to recognize that something is a fact and not a political issue.  In my view, politics should deal exclusively with matters of political philosophy that do not have objective answers.  Politicization of issues that have objective answers is becoming disturbingly prevalent in America.

Example:  Global Warming.  Whether or not it is occurring should not be a political, religious, or social discussion.  That's an empirical question and it's being treated like a political one.  How we deal with it (whether or not it needs to be stopped) however is a political question, one that must be informed by scientific evidence.

Offline MercyfulFate

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #60 on: November 23, 2010, 11:07:10 AM »
It's also dangerous when people refuse to recognize that something is a fact and not a political issue.  In my view, politics should deal exclusively with matters of political philosophy that do not have objective answers.  Politicization of issues that have objective answers is becoming disturbingly prevalent in America.

Example:  Global Warming.  Whether or not it is occurring should not be a political, religious, or social discussion.  That's an empirical question and it's being treated like a political one.  How we deal with it (whether or not it needs to be stopped) however is a political question, one that must be informed by scientific evidence.

How it's handled is the biggest issue, for example cap and trade which I hope doesn't happen personally. Also those who don't want to believe it's happening see it as a form of control of their lives, which could actually be true depending on how it's handled.

Offline Jude

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #61 on: November 23, 2010, 06:19:38 PM »
No matter how you handle Global Warming legislation it's going to have to involve things people won't want to happen.  The thing is, no one alive today is going to see any of the tangible, distinct, and negative consequences from Global Warming, we won't live that long, so passing Global Warming legislation is not in the interest of even a single human being alive today.  That's why voluntary compliance won't work; people don't care enough about the abstract future that will never affect them to curb their habits for it.  I'm not saying Cap and Trade is the way to go about it, but I just don't think any way we find is going to please everyone.

Conservatives are aware of this, and I think that's also why so many of them refuse to even consider Global Warming real.  Global Warming is an issue where the continued existence of mankind is at stake, so basically government intervention is required.  This is a mark against the current Republican establishment that likes to pretend as if there are no legitimate roles for government, so their solution to the problem is delusional opposition to scientific fact.

Offline Bayushi

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #62 on: November 30, 2010, 08:23:38 PM »
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.

These are dated definitions, Veks, excluding Authoritarian.

Traditional liberalism seems to long since have died, as it has been seemingly co opted by people who describe themselves as 'Socialists'.  People argue for liberty and the like, then stump for Socialism. I would like to direct everyone's attention to nearly every nation which has gone Socialist in the history of man.

How many succeeded? What's that? None? Or is it that true Socialism can not work in an imperfect world of imperfect humans?  Or hell, maybe Socialism does not work because people like to own things? People are always trying to improve their social status, and amongst a large portion of humanity, the only real way to do that is to improve one's wealth. Something that does not apply in a true Socialist system.

Just as Marxist Communism does not function. When one person (or a small group) has ultimate authority, human nature dictates that it is likely that they will abuse that authority. The former Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are all prime examples of this.

Just as well, nearly every Socialist or Communist nation openly tramples on the liberties of the people. This is a historical fact, and continues to this day. Why the so-called "liberals" seem to be in love with Communist Dictators (have you ever been to a large public University? The Communist Dictator loving kid population is growing) is completely beyond me.

The crazy part is, most of these people vote party line Democrat. I have been forced to rent with some of these individuals in the past, and frankly... just yeah. >.<

The media is biased.

Fox News is blatantly pro-Republican. As such, I do not use it as a news source.
MSNBC is blatantly pro-Democrat. As such, I do not use it as a news source.
CNN is blatantly pro-Democrat. As such, I do not use it as a news source.
NBC is not blatant in either direction, but appears to lean Democrat.
CBS is not blatant in either direction, but appears to lean Democrat.

...I can go on. This is the impetus behind the cries of the "liberal media". I cannot help but agree, while disagreeing. I agree that the media is pretty obviously in the tank more towards one party than the other, which is disheartening, as there may be intelligent and good representatives from either major party; while only one seems to be represented.

Some people cry about Conservatives being bigoted.

EXCUSE ME?!

Kind of hard to be a bigoted Conservative when I myself am lesbian. I am for same-sex marriage, but against "gay" marriage. People of the same gender should be able to marry, however, we do not need the "gay" agenda pushed down people's throats. Not all homosexual and lesbian folks are "gay". Being "gay" is a particular lifestyle and/or a political belief. Many of these "gay" crusaders scream for their own rights, while trying to deny rights to heterosexuals in the same breath.

I am a Fiscal Conservative, while more Socially Liberal. Which, in essence, makes me a Libertarian.

Not all of us are bigoted or racist. A lot of us desire a smaller government, lower taxes, and greater personal freedoms. We need less government in our lives, with more personal responsibility.

Less generalizations, folks. Generalizations and grand sweeping statements make one look foolish.

All in all, I agree with Veks' original post, while disagreeing with small details. The intent is spot on, while the minutiae may be argued. I'd rather not get dragged down in minutiae, thanks.

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #63 on: November 30, 2010, 09:01:36 PM »
Less generalizations, folks. Generalizations and grand sweeping statements make one look foolish.

Exactly. I mean, generalizing about, for example: liberals, or socialists, or gays...well, that would just make someone look like a moron...

Akiko is correct though that there needs to be less generalization and labeling. On both sides. The above is a perfect example of the kind of hypocrisy that needs to be avoided in proper discourse. The US vs. THEM mentality is good for inducing short term competition, but is a losing proposition in the long term. Which is something the current political climate makes perfectly clear.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2010, 09:03:05 PM by DarklingAlice »

Offline Noelle

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #64 on: November 30, 2010, 11:21:25 PM »
These are dated definitions, Veks, excluding Authoritarian.

Traditional liberalism seems to long since have died, as it has been seemingly co opted by people who describe themselves as 'Socialists'.  People argue for liberty and the like, then stump for Socialism. I would like to direct everyone's attention to nearly every nation which has gone Socialist in the history of man.

How many succeeded? What's that? None? Or is it that true Socialism can not work in an imperfect world of imperfect humans?  Or hell, maybe Socialism does not work because people like to own things? People are always trying to improve their social status, and amongst a large portion of humanity, the only real way to do that is to improve one's wealth. Something that does not apply in a true Socialist system.

Yes, there have never been any first-world, industrialized countries who have ever used a socialist sys-- oh wait, there's pretty much the entire European continent. Or maybe I missed the memo where they were actually all barbarians who had no possessions, no innovation, and no rich people? I always knew those dirty Frenchmen were up to something!

But seriously, what? All we have to do is get more money? That's about as intelligent as saying all the people living in ghettos need to do is pick up and get out of the projects and it's that easy for all their problems to go away. I don't agree with a purely socialist state, but I also don't agree that capitalism has all the right answers, either, as evidenced by both Europe and America being in a financial crisis right now.

Quote
Just as Marxist Communism does not function. When one person (or a small group) has ultimate authority, human nature dictates that it is likely that they will abuse that authority. The former Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are all prime examples of this.

Just as well, nearly every Socialist or Communist nation openly tramples on the liberties of the people. This is a historical fact, and continues to this day. Why the so-called "liberals" seem to be in love with Communist Dictators (have you ever been to a large public University? The Communist Dictator loving kid population is growing) is completely beyond me.

Socialism =/= Communism. Wikipedia it if you must. Please do not use those terms interchangeably.

Also, if you're going to quote so-called "historical facts", please provide a reference to a credible source (or any source at all, for that matter). Until then, you should also not consider your point of view a 'fact', but rather an opinion. Your generalizations and buzzwords are hardly substantial -- in fact, they're grossly inaccurate, unfounded, and hypocritical to boot. You freely throw around buzzwords like "communist dictator" and "socialism" and I frankly have yet to see your understanding of it. If you're going to make extreme accusations and insulting generalizations (College kids worship communists, huh? That's weird, my friends and I just graduated and I don't think any of us have the sickle and hammer sewed on our jackets anywhere...) , you should probably be prepared to provide some pretty shocking evidence to point towards it. Until then, resorting to mud-slinging and ridiculous stereotypes is doing nothing for your point.

Quote
Some people cry about Conservatives being bigoted.

EXCUSE ME?!

Kind of hard to be a bigoted Conservative when I myself am lesbian.

Sorry, but being a minority isn't a 'get-out-of-bigot-free' card and never will be a valid excuse. It's akin to saying "I'm not homophobic, I have a gay friend..." or "I'm not racist! I work with this black woman..."

Overall, your post would do well to listen to your own advice --

Quote
Less generalizations, folks. Generalizations and grand sweeping statements make one look foolish.

You should probably examine the way you think and speak about "the other side" before you demand respect for your own. I should note that I'm not saying that some liberals don't do the same thing, but if both sides sit with their backs turned and go I'LL GROW UP WHEN THEY GROW UP...Well...nobody ever really gets past a playground political mentality.

Offline Bayushi

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #65 on: December 01, 2010, 02:18:56 AM »
But seriously, what? All we have to do is get more money? That's about as intelligent as saying all the people living in ghettos need to do is pick up and get out of the projects and it's that easy for all their problems to go away. I don't agree with a purely socialist state, but I also don't agree that capitalism has all the right answers, either, as evidenced by both Europe and America being in a financial crisis right now.

My beef is largely with unnecessary government intervention in our markets.

I do not believe that capitalism has all the answers, either. Yet it is obvious that a regulated version of capitalism with some socialist aspects works better than a true socialist system does.

Much of the problems we have now were systemic, as caused by bad laws written and foisted upon our capitalist market. I grudgingly accepted TARP, but did not see the need for either 'bail out' since then. Not for political reasons, but for economic reasons. Most of the corporations that were bailed out should have been left to fail.

Then there is GM. Got bailed out, then declared bankruptcy anyways. Yeah... that bail out worked wonders, didn't it?

Socialism =/= Communism. Wikipedia it if you must. Please do not use those terms interchangeably.

I did not use them interchangeably. Communism is/was a perverted form of socialism. At least Marxism is. True Communism is an ideal form of governance, but it requires a perfect world with perfect people. Sucks about that 'perfect' part, huh?

There are a number of pseudo-socialist European nations now, but look where that got them?

If you're going to make extreme accusations and insulting generalizations (College kids worship communists, huh? That's weird, my friends and I just graduated and I don't think any of us have the sickle and hammer sewed on our jackets anywhere...) , you should probably be prepared to provide some pretty shocking evidence to point towards it. Until then, resorting to mud-slinging and ridiculous stereotypes is doing nothing for your point.

Where did I generalize? The population of kids at colleges that seem to adore Communist Dictators IS on the rise. I see them more and more every day. I did not say ALL college kids are like this. I attended University. I am attending University again, now.

It's sad. Practically everywhere I go in this town (college town), there's some kid wearing a bedamned Che Guevara T-shirt. Not quite sure what's so "cool" about Che Guevara.

I mean, seriously? You're wearing a shirt with the face of a communist mass murderer on it? Good Work, Douche bag! I constantly hear about how we're hurting people in Venezuela by not going along with Hugo Chavez's insanity. Not sure if people pay attention to the news, but the guy is jailing anyone who disagrees with him. Yeah, class act there.

Then there was the former White House Press flunky, Anita Dunn. Her favorite philosopher was Mao Tse Tung. Who directly or indirectly caused the death of over EIGHTY MILLION of his own countrymen. (Not counting the revolution itself)

Mind you, I am not sure if it's purely a University thing, or a combination of it being a University thing coupled with living in one of the more "Liberal" areas of the country? (Oregon)

Sorry, but being a minority isn't a 'get-out-of-bigot-free' card and never will be a valid excuse. It's akin to saying "I'm not homophobic, I have a gay friend..." or "I'm not racist! I work with this black woman..."

Not only am I a "minority" as a lesbian, I am also a woman, and I am a minority by ethnicity. As for "being homophobic", umm, are you even paying f**king attention? I am a LESBIAN. I DO NOT FEAR MYSELF.

Duh?

You should probably examine the way you think and speak about "the other side" before you demand respect for your own. I should note that I'm not saying that some liberals don't do the same thing, but if both sides sit with their backs turned and go I'LL GROW UP WHEN THEY GROW UP...Well...nobody ever really gets past a playground political mentality.

I'm open to both sides, socially. I am not open to both sides fiscally. I've studied both sides already, as I used to be an accountant, and dealt with money daily. I have a very good idea on how money works.

For instance, do you have any idea how retarded the US Tax Code is? I am pretty sure that if the US Tax Code was printed, in 10 point font on 8.5x11" pages, single side, it would fill the entirety of the nine-bedroom house I am living in, and still over flow into the back yard and front porch.

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 #66 on: December 01, 2010, 02:44:32 AM »
Just a note, but bigotry can go from the minority to the majority as well.  There's just not a spiffy name for it when someone says they hate men (misogyny is a hatred of women, but misanthropy is the hatred of humankind), or white people, or straight people.  I believe that was the point Noelle was trying to get across - not that you, specifically, were homophobic or racist; those were examples of the commonly cited 'Some of my best friends are _____.'  The sticking point with that statement is that, despite the speaker claiming that his/her 'best friends' are 'whatever', those friends are still categorized as 'whatever', instead of just being 'friends'.

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #67 on: December 01, 2010, 04:08:11 AM »
Oniya, hatred of men is called misandry.

These are dated definitions, Veks, excluding Authoritarian.

I consider the concept of working to change the meaning of a word for no purpose other than political gain to be the province of very disgusting people, and I have no problem with working against very disgusting people.

The 'dated' definitions are simple, to the point, and relatively bullshit free. I think we would do well to use them as such.

Quote
Traditional liberalism seems to long since have died, as it has been seemingly co opted by people who describe themselves as 'Socialists'.  People argue for liberty and the like, then stump for Socialism. I would like to direct everyone's attention to nearly every nation which has gone Socialist in the history of man.

Like Norway? Sweden?

You throw the word out there like it's some demon word that scares people into submission.

Quote
How many succeeded? What's that? None? Or is it that true Socialism can not work in an imperfect world of imperfect humans?  Or hell, maybe Socialism does not work because people like to own things? People are always trying to improve their social status, and amongst a large portion of humanity, the only real way to do that is to improve one's wealth. Something that does not apply in a true Socialist system.

Considering the sheer economic starvation the United States is forcing on Cuba, I'd say they're doing pretty well. They could be doing better, but central planning does work on small scales (what do you think a corporation is?)

China is no less communist now, and it's quite successful. They've learned to run their country like a business and are applying that to great effect. They've even got a major American media outlet on their side (Fox, if you're wondering).

Quote
Just as Marxist Communism does not function. When one person (or a small group) has ultimate authority, human nature dictates that it is likely that they will abuse that authority. The former Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are all prime examples of this.

The first sentence of your paragraph has no relevance with the rest. Common elements of oppressive regimes are
1) Anti-intellectualism - demeaning and eventually persecuting the 'intellectual class'
2) Lack of transparency. People behave better when watched.
3) Ideology. Alter or ignore the facts to suit your position, rather than the other way around.
4) Fearmongering. Scare people into performing actions, rather than giving them positive reasons to.

Quote
Just as well, nearly every Socialist or Communist nation openly tramples on the liberties of the people. This is a historical fact, and continues to this day. Why the so-called "liberals" seem to be in love with Communist Dictators (have you ever been to a large public University? The Communist Dictator loving kid population is growing) is completely beyond me.

Yes, Sweden and Norway are so oppressive.

And yes, the outright communist population is growing. Some republicans are trying to sweep this under the rug, others are so scared shitless of it they think Obama was going to be the one to activate that sentiment.

Quote
The crazy part is, most of these people vote party line Democrat. I have been forced to rent with some of these individuals in the past, and frankly... just yeah. >.<

The Progressive Caucus was the only Democratic caucus to actually gain strength this election.

Most people (regardless of party) view the choice as being between bad and worse. The Republican Party's name has been mud amongst this crowd since roughly 2004, and for good reason.

There's a rumor that Bloomberg is going to help launch a new political party sometime this month... we'll see how that turns out.

Quote
The media is biased.

Fox News is blatantly pro-Republican. As such, I do not use it as a news source.
MSNBC is blatantly pro-Democrat. As such, I do not use it as a news source.
CNN is blatantly pro-Democrat. As such, I do not use it as a news source.

CNN? Seriously? They've taken a sharp right turn and their ratings plummeted for it.

Regardless, you're making the same equivalence that I've been ranting about since the first post. Democrat does not mean liberal.

Quote
...I can go on. This is the impetus behind the cries of the "liberal media". I cannot help but agree, while disagreeing. I agree that the media is pretty obviously in the tank more towards one party than the other, which is disheartening, as there may be intelligent and good representatives from either major party; while only one seems to be represented.

Some people cry about Conservatives being bigoted.

EXCUSE ME?!

I referenced that some of the 'conservative opinions' in Hunter's links were bigoted. I did not say that conservatives were themselves bigoted, however, by promoting studies with data drawn from bigoted opinions, Hunter risks promoting the concept that conservatives are bigots. This is easily solved by shunning bigoted sites and studies.

Similarly, Hunter's link also considered empirically verifiable facts to be matters of liberal versus conservative opinion.

This, at best, runs the risk of equating conservatives with being ignorant. At worst, it runs the risk of equating conservatives with being liars.

If you refuse to hold your sources accountable, you are going to be tainted with those sources. This should not be difficult to understand.

Offline Jude

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #68 on: December 01, 2010, 08:44:59 AM »
It's true that a person's political philosophy cannot be plotted on a one-dimensional number line between conservative and liberal despite what a good portion of the United States believes.  Republicans have as much in common with Libertarians as Democrats do, just as true Authoritarian-Fascists incorporate the Social tenets of Republicans and Fiscal policies of Democrats.  Political philosophy consists of two intersecting dimensions, one which concerns itself with governmental intervention in the economy and another that is focused on moderating the behavior of individuals.  There is typically very little overlap in each component of ideology, but ever since the Industrial Revolution there's been conflict between the rights of the individual and the freedom of the market.

At first this conflict was ignored, and corporate abuses of individuals and our environment ran rampant.  Progressivism was the first philosophy that attempted to resolve this problem, and for a long time it was assumed to be the right way of moderating the interests of the individual and the interests of business.  With Reagan came a countering philosophy:  the gospel of deregulation.  The pendulum swung back the other way, and overnight Republican Progressives basically vanished.  Now being progressive is associated solely with being liberal, any Republican with progressive sympathies is expunged in the name of ideological purity, and even some liberals have signed onto the deregulatory bandwagon.

In a lot of ways the question of for deregulation versus progressivism has started to define political affiliation more than underlying ideology.  Republicans claim to be for the individual, but their deregulatory and business-centric rhetoric favors large businesses far more than the individual.  The counterpoint they always talk up is the entrepreneur, but really given their relative scarcity compared to everyone else, that's an extremely poor argument.  I find it totally mystifying that they beat up on the Democrats for a year over their support for a health care plan that the majority of Americans did not like, yet they've adopted an opinion on tax cuts which is in opposition to the majority.  It just goes to show how utterly disingenuous their criticism of the Democrats really was.

I think one of the points Vekseid was trying to make is that arguments against deregulatory philosophy are largely muted on the corporate news scene because the philosophy of deregulation benefits corporate news.  There are plenty of individual commentators who take the business world to task, but they always seem to do it from a wholly predictable angle.  There are deeper arguments to be had regarding copyright, intellectual property, network neutrality, and other issues that are practically invisible on the national level.

I know that a lot of my post paints the deregulatory philosophy in a negative light, but I recognize there is a purpose to the presence of such principles in our system.  I certainly don't agree with the way that European Countries handle these issues -- their legally mandated retirement ages, maternity leaves, and number of vacation days certainly has a negative effect on industry.  I don't want to see every profession unionize, endless minimum wage increases are a recipe for inflation and lower the standard of living for people just above the poverty line, and if you always favor the individual to business, then we'll have wonderful laws which protect people from being exploited by non-existent corporations (as they will have all left the country for greener pastures).

You would think that the collapse of the Real Estate Market being linked to the repeal of Glass–Steagall (which by the way was a bipartisan effort) would have served as an inflection point in favor of Progressivism.  At first it seemed like it was going to have a long-term effect, it was definitely part of what got Obama elected, but the pendulum has already swung back in the opposite direction.  It seems like America has taken a stance trending in favor of deregulation over time, something that I find utterly mystifying.  A good balance of the two with both ideals held up as important to consider as congress legislates is, without a doubt in my mind, the preferred alternative.

But, switching topics a bit, it's absolutely true that not every conservative is a bigot.  Generalizing will always fail when whatever characteristic you are assuming to be omnipresent is not an intrinsic part of whatever group you are judging.  Bigotry is not a standard conservative position, so conservatives are not necessarily bigots.  However, if you look opinions that are widely held and a dominant part of the party platform, then make judgments from a matter of prevalence, it's impossible to deny that bigotry is running rampant in the Republican Party.  The presence of a few log-cabin types does not dissolve the Christian Right's ownership of the Conservative brand in the United States.

If you don't like being lumped in with individuals that are in opposition to gay rights, regularly display xenophobia, and are thoroughly guilty of WASP ethnocentrism, then it's probably not a good idea to tie yourself to the popular Conservative Movement in the United States.  There are plenty of smaller outfits with a more Libertarian mindset that eschew the Christian Right to latch onto.

There's definitely a larger point here though, nothing about Conservativism is intrinsically bigoted.  Conservatism, at least our form of it, opposes rapid cultural change and it just so happens that the culture we are transitioning out is bigoted.  In time Conservatives will accept the new norm.  Every time that Conservatives lose a major election I hear rumblings that such a shift is coming, and although it never seems to and the pace of change is glacial, it will happen.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2010, 08:48:14 AM by Jude »

Offline Noelle

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #69 on: December 01, 2010, 11:20:06 AM »
Much of the problems we have now were systemic, as caused by bad laws written and foisted upon our capitalist market. I grudgingly accepted TARP, but did not see the need for either 'bail out' since then. Not for political reasons, but for economic reasons. Most of the corporations that were bailed out should have been left to fail.

Then there is GM. Got bailed out, then declared bankruptcy anyways. Yeah... that bail out worked wonders, didn't it?

The feedback on the bailout has been mixed, at best, sure. Your brief summation just there doesn't exactly tell the whole story, though. It is hard to say that leaving them to fail wouldn't have been more catastrophic to the economy than it already was, and that was the fear that was prevalent when they were trying to decide which course of action to take. It's not like there was a meeting of evil socialist masterminds to figure out how to instate their wicked agenda. We're talking about more than just a singular business here, we're talking about a huge chunk of an entire industry. Imagine if the food industry was starting to go under -- are you really going to let them collapse? Pretty sure the aftermath would be devastating.

Ultimately though, there were jobs that were saved -- a lot of them, at that, which is definitely plenty to say given the public has been complaining about the unemployment rate and an effectual collapse of the biggest auto manufacturers would've sent unemployment in the states that rely on it the most skyrocketing, thus plunging our country further into economic upheaval -- GM paid back the money they were lent (so no, the story doesn't really stop at bankruptcy), tax dollars were/will be mostly recouped, and the government got itself out of their business as fast as possible. That's not exactly the government takeover doomsday scenario that naysayers like to predict, and those who are crying OMG BIG GOVERNMENT about it fail to acknowledge this. I'll also point out that the bailout was also initiated by Bush, who is both Republican and conservative, so no, this is not just a liberal or an omgevilsocialist thing. Interesting, right?

Quote
I did not use them interchangeably. Communism is/was a perverted form of socialism. At least Marxism is. True Communism is an ideal form of governance, but it requires a perfect world with perfect people. Sucks about that 'perfect' part, huh?

So why even bring it up? Nobody's talking about going communist or instating Marxist values, so it shouldn't have anything to do with this discussion.

Quote
There are a number of pseudo-socialist European nations now, but look where that got them?

The best ranked health care system in the world? The highest-ranked nations for happiest people? High marks for their quality of life? That's probably not what you were intending, but if you're talking about their financial crisis, well, I hate to point it out, but it's kind of a global problem, socialism or not.

Quote
Where did I generalize? The population of kids at colleges that seem to adore Communist Dictators IS on the rise. I see them more and more every day. I did not say ALL college kids are like this. I attended University. I am attending University again, now.

And obviously because you see something, it must be a fact on a grander scale. You can technically add a single drop of water to the ocean and say that its levels are on the rise, but I think it should be clear why that's kind of a worthless statement to make.

Quote
It's sad. Practically everywhere I go in this town (college town), there's some kid wearing a bedamned Che Guevara T-shirt. Not quite sure what's so "cool" about Che Guevara.

I mean, seriously? You're wearing a shirt with the face of a communist mass murderer on it? Good Work, Douche bag! I constantly hear about how we're hurting people in Venezuela by not going along with Hugo Chavez's insanity. Not sure if people pay attention to the news, but the guy is jailing anyone who disagrees with him. Yeah, class act there.

You're making my own point here. I've seen the idiots wearing Che shirts, I, too, think it's hilariously stupid, but in no way do I equate this with 'worship'. I mean, really, it's about the same as people wearing Bob Marley shirts or Jimi Hendrix shirts even though they don't know anything about them or their music. People wear things all the time without understanding the implication, simply that it's somehow become trendy or has an implication of cool. Fashion trends don't usually make sense -- after all, people who wear army jackets probably don't worship the military. People who wear Spongebob on their shirt probably don't worship in the Church of Squarepants. Why don't you just ask these people sometime what they know about the person on their shirt? I think you'll find that 'worship' is a gross and ridiculous misrepresentation of what's actually going on. I've seen people wear FREE TIBET shirts without the slightest clue of where Tibet actually is. It doesn't necessitate that suddenly there are a bunch of people out there worshiping the Dalai Lama, just that there's a bunch of idiots running around looking for cool, eclectic intelligence points from some invisible jury of hipster peers.

Quote
Then there was the former White House Press flunky, Anita Dunn. Her favorite philosopher was Mao Tse Tung. Who directly or indirectly caused the death of over EIGHTY MILLION of his own countrymen. (Not counting the revolution itself)

And when you buy foreign-made clothing, you help spur on the pain and suffering of underpaid and overworked wageslaves overseas. And when you consume meat products, you support the cruel treatment and eventual slaughter of millions of animals. How many people died under each president during times of war? How many people have died due to Christianity? Islam? Hell, even the Dalai Lama and Mother Theresa have caused more undue suffering/death somehow. A president died supposedly due to the writings of JD Salinger a la Catcher in the Rye. Glenn Beck indirectly made some guy try to kill the president. What's your point?

Quote
Not only am I a "minority" as a lesbian, I am also a woman, and I am a minority by ethnicity. As for "being homophobic", umm, are you even paying f**king attention? I am a LESBIAN. I DO NOT FEAR MYSELF.

Duh?

Why yes, I am "paying f**king attention". Are you? I never used the word 'homophobic' anywhere in my post, thank you. The words 'bigot' and 'homophobe' are not mutually inclusive. You could argue that all homophobes are bigots, but not all bigots are homophobes.

Quote
big·ot
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

I'm saying that you can still make bigoted decisions and have bigoted attitudes regardless of what you are. You can still be insensitive towards gays while being gay. Your little aside about gays impeding on heterosexual rights, for one, is a baffling attitude. Where exactly have heterosexuals been trampled on in all this? What exactly are straight people losing out on because of the big, evil 'gay agenda'? You've made your own little distinction between gays and homosexuals (or something), which is already a bigoted "us vs them, my views are better" attitude. It's the same kind of "nigger vs. black person" distinction some make, only you've taken a term that wasn't really offensive to begin with (since when has 'gay' been a dirty word? I mean, my choice probably would've been 'fag', if I had to) and made it so, which is possibly even more of an offensive thing to do.

As Jude pointed out, it's true that being conservative or Republican doesn't necessitate that you're a bigot. But generally, I find that this quote of his is especially pertinent --

Quote
If you don't like being lumped in with individuals that are in opposition to gay rights, regularly display xenophobia, and are thoroughly guilty of WASP ethnocentrism, then it's probably not a good idea to tie yourself to the popular Conservative Movement in the United States.  There are plenty of smaller outfits with a more Libertarian mindset that eschew the Christian Right to latch onto.

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 #70 on: December 01, 2010, 11:26:50 AM »
Oniya, hatred of men is called misandry.

Thank you - I've never heard that word used before, but I will surely file it away.  Suffice to say, the term is uncommon enough compared to the female equivalent that it doesn't have the same shock-and-shame impact as misogyny/misogynist.

Offline Zakharra

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #71 on: December 01, 2010, 01:43:54 PM »
Considering the sheer economic starvation the United States is forcing on Cuba, I'd say they're doing pretty well. They could be doing better, but central planning does work on small scales (what do you think a corporation is?)

  I think I wil call on this one. As far as I know, the US is the ONLY nation that doesn't have any trade with Cuba. If that's still true, then blaming the US for Cuba's troubles is wrong. They can trade with the rest of the world and do fine. Any problems they have in of their own making. Not having a trade agreement or relations with one nation out of the entire world will not spell the doom of any one island nation, unless that island nation is fucking itself up.

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 #72 on: December 01, 2010, 02:06:51 PM »
Cuba currently has trade agreements with Russia, Bolivia, Panama, Venezuela and Guatemala (and possibly a conglomerate of Caribbean nations: CARICOM), based on a very quick Googling of 'Cuba trade agreements' and sifting out the ones that referred to how the US does not have trade agreements with Cuba.  So, they have avenues of trase, and through those, there's essentially trade with the rest of the world.  I mean, once we trade goods with another nation, there's nothing preventing them from trading those same goods with Cuba.

Offline Remiel

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #73 on: December 01, 2010, 02:14:00 PM »
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.

Realizing that I'm late to the table, here, one might argue that the opposite of "authoritarian" is libertarian, not liberal.  I've always considered "liberal" and "progressive" to be interchangeable, and have always been amused by the fact that "liberal" seems to have become a four-letter word.   Not, specifically, that right-wingers have painted it as such, but that left-wingers seem to have let them.  I have yet to meet a conservative who does not wear the label "conservative" with pride.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2010, 02:26:27 PM by Remiel »

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: The lie of the left wing/liberal media
« Reply #74 on: December 01, 2010, 05:06:41 PM »
  I think I wil call on this one. As far as I know, the US is the ONLY nation that doesn't have any trade with Cuba. If that's still true, then blaming the US for Cuba's troubles is wrong. They can trade with the rest of the world and do fine. Any problems they have in of their own making. Not having a trade agreement or relations with one nation out of the entire world will not spell the doom of any one island nation, unless that island nation is fucking itself up.

But Cuba isn't doomed. It's survived for fifty years under the embargo, and twenty years under since it's been law, despite shortages of food and medicine it causes. There are some goods that mostly do come from the United States and foreign subsidiaries of US corporations. Some stuff only comes from the United States, and some of it is time sensitive, and prices rise for each middle man gone through.

Realizing that I'm late to the table, here, one might argue that the opposite of "authoritarian" is libertarian, not liberal.  I've always considered "liberal" and "progressive" to be interchangeable, and have always been amused by the fact that "liberal" seems to have become a four-letter word.   Not, specifically, that right-wingers have painted it as such, but that left-wingers seem to have let them.  I have yet to meet a conservative who does not wear the label "conservative" with pride.

I've never seen a major libertarian movement, outside of libertarian socialism, that actively supported rules, regulations and penalties for the imposition of externalities, or limitations on corporate rule over those in its territory. "You're free to sue them after they kill you."

This sort of thing leads to quips like "A Libertarian is an anarchist who wants police protection from his slaves." Not many people alive today know what being paid in company scrip meant. A popular song was written about it. Don't like it? Tough.

I've never seen a libertarian movement that was in complete opposition to authoritarianism. In particular, debt slavery. Libertarian socialists - the original libertarians - oppose it, but wanted to prevent private ownership of production, whereas modern libertarians often consider someone fooled or forced into debt slavery as deserving of their situation.

Liberalism, on the other hand, is essentially "the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of property." Nothing against owning the means of production - but intrinsic in that concept is not forcing or fooling others into giving away their own liberty.