|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 12, 2015 7:49:55 GMT -5
And attacking me for forming my opinions based on my experience isn't doing a whole lot to convince me I'm wrong. You judged an entire group of people (or at least "most" of them). I said I was hesitant to do the same. I don't think I'm the one who did the attacking here. I don't know, shax. Your gif of Charles Foster Kane applauding made me think that you were pretty enthusiastic about thwhtguardian comparing me to people who hate African-Americans, women, etc. I took that as an attack. It would also help a lot if you guys would use more precise (and more accurate) language in describing my views. I said most conservatives were very bad at defending the "liberal media" talking point. No, I haven't talked to every conservative. But I've talked to a lot of them. I'm just reporting my findings. Let me restate the contentious phrase: "Every single conservative with whom I have ever discussed media bias has gotten angry and refused to discuss the subject further after I told them I disagreed with that talking point and asked them to provide examples of the so-called liberal media that we could discuss. Every single one." There we go. It's a simple assertion of fact. Am I judging them by reporting this fact? Maybe. But it's certainly more accurate (and less inflammatory) to just simply restate what I actually said instead of just saying that I'm judging people when all I'm really doing is reporting on my experiences. Have you been watching the GOP debates? I'm just curious about how closely you are following the campaign. Those guys LOVE the "liberal media" meme. Not one of them would be able to defend it. They respond to questions they don't like not by answering the questions but by attacking the "liberal media." And the crowd loves it! |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 12, 2015 8:31:17 GMT -5
Great timing! Here's Joe Scarborough proving that conservatives can be part-way right about media bias when their assertion is super-obvious: Conservative Joe Scarborough slams Ben Carson for claiming unfair media scrutinyHe's not admitting that the "liberal media" talking point is drivel, of course. That would be way too much (for me) to expect. Your experiences may lead you to different conclusions. And that's OK. I'm certainly not going to compare anybody to racists or misogynists just because they don't agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2015 9:08:46 GMT -5
I worked with them intimately in an environment - a right-wing daily newspaper - Been there, done that. Even though it was known as the Arkansas Democrat when I started there (it's now hyphenated as Democrat-Gazette, thanks to taking over a rival newspaper in 10/91), my old paper in Little Rock couldn't be more Republican. For a couple of years the editorial staff included Tucker Carlson, who I gather has gone on to some prominence as a conservative pundit on TV. And of course even if personal experience is cast aside, the "liberal media" stereotype is utter nonsense. That would be the liberal media that had no room for Phil Donahue because he wasn't properly enthusiastic about a war based on lies, the liberal media that fawned all over the liar-in-chief in the wake of the "Mission Accomplished" photo opp, the liberal media whose Judith Miller worked hand-in-glove with the White House warhawks to promulgate the lies. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Nov 12, 2015 9:45:45 GMT -5
I worked with them intimately in an environment - a right-wing daily newspaper - Been there, done that. Even though it was known as the Arkansas Democrat when I started there (it's now hyphenated as Democrat-Gazette, thanks to taking over a rival newspaper in 10/91), my old paper in Little Rock couldn't be more Republican. For a couple of years the editorial staff included Tucker Carlson, who I gather has gone on to some prominence as a conservative pundit on TV. And of course even if personal experience is cast aside, the "liberal media" stereotype is utter nonsense. That would be the liberal media that had no room for Phil Donahue because he wasn't properly enthusiastic about a war based on lies, the liberal media that fawned all over the liar-in-chief in the wake of the "Mission Accomplished" photo opp, the liberal media whose Judith Miller worked hand-in-glove with the White House warhawks to promulgate the lies. It's a sad truth that the "liberal media" is a much beloved device used by the Republican leadership to try to explain away when newspeople catch them in a lie, or out them on a questionable position/practice, or just catch something bat-crap crazy they say. The Democrats face the same problems with the media (though less so from my observations, which is part of why I vote for them), but they don't have the "liberal media" myth to fall back on. Sexual hijinks like those of Bill Clinton and Gary Hart were media fodder for years. Where was the media's liberal bias then? Contrast that with Republican lawmakers caught playing footsie in airport bathrooms or using the services of male prostitutes while claiming to be anti-gays. First thing out of their mouths is generally how it's been blown out of proportion or outright fabricated by the "liberal media".
And while generalities inevitably go wrong, it's frightening how many otherwise reasonable, everyday people buy into it, just because they hear it so much on TV (which is ironically supposed to be part of the "liberal media").
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 12, 2015 9:46:45 GMT -5
I worked with them intimately in an environment - a right-wing daily newspaper - Been there, done that. Even though it was known as the Arkansas Democrat when I started there (it's now hyphenated as Democrat-Gazette, thanks to taking over a rival newspaper in 10/91), my old paper in Little Rock couldn't be more Republican. For a couple of years the editorial staff included Tucker Carlson, who I gather has gone on to some prominence as a conservative pundit on TV. And of course even if personal experience is cast aside, the "liberal media" stereotype is utter nonsense. That would be the liberal media that had no room for Phil Donahue because he wasn't properly enthusiastic about a war based on lies, the liberal media that fawned all over the liar-in-chief in the wake of the "Mission Accomplished" photo opp, the liberal media whose Judith Miller worked hand-in-glove with the White House warhawks to promulgate the lies. The publisher would see some extreme right-wing anti-Obama gibberish on the Internet or in his in-box, print it off and ask for an unsigned house editorial on the subject. I would look at it, do a Google search, fact-check and show my immediate supervisor that it was bollocks and that it should be embarrassing to the newspaper to print it at all, let alone as an the unsigned editorial representing the position of the newspaper. The publisher didn't care, he would order us to print it anyway. And everyone would be mad at me. "Why are you causing us so much trouble? You should just leave it alone." To which I responded, "Are you telling me to stop fact-checking? It's supposed to be my job." And no one wanted to be the person who actually said, "Yes. Stop fact-checking." I already had a pretty low opinion of conservatism. But that job made it go even lower. I would love love love to think that 80% of conservatives are merely slightly confused people looking at things from a slightly different perspective. The preponderance of the evidence tells me otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Nov 12, 2015 9:51:45 GMT -5
Do you even have in the US a national TV network owned by the state and not dedicated to profit, like in most european countries? PBS is sort of like that but it doesn't have the prominence that the national networks have in Europe. PBS would be the closest equivalence here in the states as it's non-profit, but while it gets some government support, it's not state owned. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Nov 12, 2015 10:02:59 GMT -5
For any that would like to answer ....
I took that test awhile back that someone posted here in this thread, where it would ask you questions on policies and social issues, to see (where at the time) if the test could predict who the tester might vote for. That part wasn't what interested me. I took it and found that I was conservative on policy and liberal on social issues. Which kind of didn't surprise me as I know how I feel on matters even though I keep my politics to myself.
However, I was wondering what, for people that may be split in a similar fashion, wins out? If one is divided on conservative and liberal, then what is more important? Policy or social issues? And this is just curiosity, if one wants to share. I read this thread every time I log on I just don't participate much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2015 11:00:06 GMT -5
Purely random coincidence, of course, but damn if this Onion piece from a couple of weeks ago isn't set in my extremely obscure & very small hometown (that of course happens to be about 20 miles from Huckabee's hometown, Hope) --
STAMPS, AR—Whistling “Hail To The Chief” as he flipped the coin into the air and caught it in his palm, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee confirmed Friday that he had earned a nickel for his campaign by painting an elderly widow’s picket fence. “Hoo golly, when Ol’ Widow Parker said she’d pay me to whitewash her fence, I was nearabout gladder than a possum in a punkin patch,” said a smiling Huckabee, kissing the nickel before dropping it into an empty mayonnaise jar with the letters “PAC” scrawled on the side. “Widow Parker always tried to do right by me, tanned my hide a mess of times when I started raisin’ Cain, but she done civilized me. So faster than all get-out, I changed from my Sunday-go-t’meetin’ clothes, fetched my brush and pail, and painted that fence top to bottom, lickety-split.” Huckabee later confirmed that, on account of his speedy work, the widow had tipped him with a heaping plate of chitlins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 12, 2015 11:28:52 GMT -5
Purely random coincidence, of course, but damn if this Onion piece from a couple of weeks ago isn't set in my extremely obscure & very small hometown (that of course happens to be about 20 miles from Huckabee's hometown, Hope) -- STAMPS, AR—Whistling “Hail To The Chief” as he flipped the coin into the air and caught it in his palm, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee confirmed Friday that he had earned a nickel for his campaign by painting an elderly widow’s picket fence. “Hoo golly, when Ol’ Widow Parker said she’d pay me to whitewash her fence, I was nearabout gladder than a possum in a punkin patch,” said a smiling Huckabee, kissing the nickel before dropping it into an empty mayonnaise jar with the letters “PAC” scrawled on the side. “Widow Parker always tried to do right by me, tanned my hide a mess of times when I started raisin’ Cain, but she done civilized me. So faster than all get-out, I changed from my Sunday-go-t’meetin’ clothes, fetched my brush and pail, and painted that fence top to bottom, lickety-split.” Huckabee later confirmed that, on account of his speedy work, the widow had tipped him with a heaping plate of chitlins.Thanks, Dan B., for reminding me that I like to give credit where credit is due. Good job, Republican base, on roundly rejecting Mike Huckabee, that bloodthirsty, bible-brandishing, psychopathic, hypocritical grifter. Perhaps there is hope? They don't seem to like Santorum much either. Baby steps. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 12, 2015 11:29:43 GMT -5
You judged an entire group of people (or at least "most" of them). I said I was hesitant to do the same. I don't think I'm the one who did the attacking here. I don't know, shax. Your gif of Charles Foster Kane applauding made me think that you were pretty enthusiastic about thwhtguardian comparing me to people who hate African-Americans, women, etc. I took that as an attack. I was enthusiastic about his in-depth, compassionate, and non-inflammatory explanation of why he feels it's not okay to judge entire groups of people. My expressing that enthusiasm was not an attack, nor was his point that I (or Charles Foster) was applauding. You might not like that we both strongly disagree with you, but there is no attack. I don't accept your viewpoint and judgments. I think you are wrong. that's pretty much it. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 12, 2015 11:48:07 GMT -5
It's not the depth of your disagreement that I don't like.
I don't like it when my views are misrepresented. And I don't like being compared to people who hate African-Americans, women, etc.
My dislike for the conservative ideology is based on my experiences with conservatives.
And comparing someone to racists and misogynists isn't an attack? OK. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Nov 12, 2015 11:49:26 GMT -5
I tell you what, thwhtguardian. If I ever have a political conversation with a conservative where I'm not bombarded by name-calling, talking points, straw man arguments, hypocrisy, double standards, slippery slopes and other rhetorical devices, I'll let you know. I don't much appreciate the way you're mischaracterizing my original statements about discussions with conservatives. I have not said they are all terrible people. Some of them are very good people with many wonderful qualities. That's part of the tragedy, that the conservative movement has been hijacked by awful, greedy leaders. I don't even understand your "I know which ones are X" remark. I was talking about people I have talked to about politics who identify as conservatives. I was not saying "I just know which ones are conservatives" and it's unfortunate you did not give me the benefit of the doubt over this misunderstanding. You made a broad negative generalization about a large group of people based on interactions with a small percentage of those people, what did I mischaracterize? Heck, you just did the same above, believing that the likelihood that you will meet a conservative who can have a sensible political conversation with you to be pretty slim. This isn't an attack on you at all, it's an attack on your line of reasoning; the point of the experiment wasn't to say, "See, you're the same as a racist." it was supposed to be a tool to illustrate that your line of argumentation was not rationally sound, just like the arguments often made by bigots and their ilk are not rational. By making sweeping generalizations you in no way support your cause, it doesn't bolster your point, it only makes it easy for others to ignore you because it's an obvious logical fallacy, allowing the opposition to easily side step any and all rational points you may also raise. Why do that to your argument, especially when it's the kind of negative tactic that you deplore when the other side does it? I'm very sorry that what I said came off as an attack on your person, I have nothing but respect for you Hoosier, and I hope that with this clarification that you'll better understand my intention. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 12, 2015 11:57:23 GMT -5
And I don't like being compared to people who hate African-Americans, women, etc. My dislike for the conservative ideology is based on my experiences with conservatives. But that second point is EXACTLY what my father used to say in defense of his judging all African Americans. I am not saying they are the same thing, but the logic is the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 12, 2015 12:57:38 GMT -5
I will concede that there might be some thoughtful, sensible conservatives.
My point is that, almost 15 years after Sept. 11, 2001, and that period where the Republican leadership was - almost across-the-board - accusing people like me of being traitors, I have seen little evidence that there are conservatives who are thoughtful or sensible when it comes to pretty much any subject that matters in governing. That period when they couldn't accuse too many people of treason too fast? No one in the conservative movement has ever come to grips with that. They have had 15 years for somebody to say "Yeah, we went too far. The attacks on, for example, John Kerry were disgraceful and the GOP should be deeply ashamed of that."
I would be more comfortable with evidence. Fifteen years is a long time to go through without seeing any evidence of thoughtful, sensible conservatives. You guys are saying I'm wrong because I'm making a blanket statement. A better way to show me my mistake would be to point to these thoughtful, sensible conservatives.
So how close have you been following the GOP debates? I asked that a few comments back and nobody responded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 12, 2015 12:58:36 GMT -5
For any that would like to answer .... I took that test awhile back that someone posted here in this thread, where it would ask you questions on policies and social issues, to see (where at the time) if the test could predict who the tester might vote for. That part wasn't what interested me. I took it and found that I was conservative on policy and liberal on social issues. Which kind of didn't surprise me as I know how I feel on matters even though I keep my politics to myself. However, I was wondering what, for people that may be split in a similar fashion, wins out? If one is divided on conservative and liberal, then what is more important? Policy or social issues? And this is just curiosity, if one wants to share. I read this thread every time I log on I just don't participate much. I'm assuming by policy you're talking largely economic policy. Though I suppose it could also include immigration and the environment. If that assumption is correct then I used to be similar, in that I was very liberal on social issues and less so on economic issues. Which made me a classical libertarian (as opposed to the folks who call themselves libertarians now, which pretty much means either whack-a-doo or corporate shill). Early on I tended to vote economics. As I grew older that shifted to voting socially liberal because I was far more concerned about erosion of personal rights that "economic rights". At this point, however, I am no longer remotely conservative or libertarian when it comes to economics. That's because I've watched libertarian/conservative economic policies utterly fail and devastate the middle class in the U.S. as it has become nothing more that a retro-mercantilism that has ushered in a new Gilded Age. I guess that doesn't really answer your question. But ultimately I figure that the economic/policy interests in this country can damn well take care of themselves. But the oppressed social interests actually need my help and my votes. |
|
