Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AlterNet)   "Authoritarian people have a stronger emotional need for an outlet like Fox, where they can find affirmation and escape factual challenges to their beliefs"   (alternet.org) divider line 329
    More: Interesting, Fox News, dictators, beliefs, PolitiFact  
•       •       •

2675 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Apr 2012 at 9:03 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



329 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-04-09 07:53:59 AM  
farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2012-04-09 08:14:38 AM  
i37.tinypic.com
"no farking shiat."
 
2012-04-09 08:19:18 AM  
www.mediaite.com

oblig
 
2012-04-09 08:20:39 AM  
I really don't know how anyone with a brain can think Fox News is a quality source for news... And I really have no desire to have a political discussion with anyone who's sole source of information is Fox News.
 
2012-04-09 08:29:33 AM  

keylock71: I really don't know how anyone with a brain can think Fox News is a quality source for news... And I really have no desire to have a political discussion with anyone who's sole source of information is Fox News.


HA!

This is what you get from the LSM

FOX FOX FOX!
 
2012-04-09 08:37:02 AM  
[Obvious] tag busy watching CNN.
 
2012-04-09 09:06:07 AM  

keylock71: I really don't know how anyone with a brain can think Fox News is a quality source for news... And I really have no desire to have a political discussion with anyone who's sole source of information is Fox News.


I went ahead and highlighted the key word in your post to help answer your question.
 
2012-04-09 09:08:50 AM  
It is pretty astounding. They'll even provide charts that show 138% of the nation hates Obama for you.
 
2012-04-09 09:08:57 AM  
CNN is guilty of being mindless too but they don't play a Libz Libz Libz Derp Derp Derp record 24/7
 
2012-04-09 09:11:41 AM  

keylock71: I really don't know how anyone with a brain can think Fox News is a quality source for news... And I really have no desire to have a political discussion with anyone who's sole source of information is Fox News.


Oh yeah libtard, well I'll have you know I also get my news from breitbart, american thinker, WND, the washington times annnnd the NY Post! now who's not informed?
 
2012-04-09 09:14:44 AM  

Headso: keylock71: I really don't know how anyone with a brain can think Fox News is a quality source for news... And I really have no desire to have a political discussion with anyone who's sole source of information is Fox News.

Oh yeah libtard, well I'll have you know I also get my news from breitbart, american thinker, WND, the washington times annnnd the NY Post! now who's not informed infromed?


FTFY.
 
2012-04-09 09:15:45 AM  
I just like having my faiths confirmed. Whether it be at church by my minister or at home by my news channel, I just feel better knowing Im right and others are wrong.
 
2012-04-09 09:16:07 AM  

Guidette Frankentits: CNN is guilty of being mindless too but they don't play a Libz Libz Libz Derp Derp Derp record 24/7


Yeah. There's a difference between 'mindless schlock' and 'pure propaganda'.

Most news channels are the former. FOX is an unholy combination of the two.
 
2012-04-09 09:16:17 AM  
No obvious tag, subby?
 
2012-04-09 09:17:08 AM  
Those big bad Republicans. Anyone who doesn't believe in what the left believes in is a Nazi, crazy, uneducated, hillbilly...
 
2012-04-09 09:17:46 AM  

Guidette Frankentits: CNN is guilty of being mindless too but they don't play a Libz Libz Libz Derp Derp Derp record 24/7


Both sides suck, but that doesn't mean they suck equally.
 
2012-04-09 09:17:48 AM  
My old boss used to watch Fox News AND CNN, thinking he was getting both sides of the story.
 
2012-04-09 09:18:18 AM  
So, Republicans are the only people who run away when their core beliefs are challenged? The only people who like hearing things that jive with their overall worldview?

I'm just grateful that the discipline of psychology is here to give us such concrete, infallible results, which can be replicated at will.

/speculation and confirmation bias are a powerful duo
 
2012-04-09 09:20:17 AM  

NeverDrunk23: Both sides suck, but that doesn't mean they suck equally.


So vote republican.
 
2012-04-09 09:20:17 AM  

LordJiro: Guidette Frankentits: CNN is guilty of being mindless too but they don't play a Libz Libz Libz Derp Derp Derp record 24/7

Yeah. There's a difference between 'mindless schlock' and 'pure propaganda'.

Most news channels are the former. FOX is an unholy combination of the two.


It's about 2/3rds pure.
 
2012-04-09 09:20:44 AM  

agr8guy182: Those big bad Republicans. Anyone who doesn't believe in what the left believes in is a Nazi, crazy, uneducated, hillbilly...


Facts?
 
2012-04-09 09:20:50 AM  
What about Editorians and Publisherians? Don't they get their own news channels too?
 
2012-04-09 09:21:21 AM  

Headso: keylock71: I really don't know how anyone with a brain can think Fox News is a quality source for news... And I really have no desire to have a political discussion with anyone who's sole source of information is Fox News.

Oh yeah libtard, well I'll have you know I also get my news from breitbart, american thinker, WND, the washington times annnnd the NY Post! now who's not infromed?


ftfy
 
2012-04-09 09:21:33 AM  
The word you're looking for is jibe.
 
2012-04-09 09:22:34 AM  

LarryDan43: I just like having my faiths confirmed. Whether it be at church by my minister or at home by my news channel, I just feel better knowing Im right and others are wrong.


Well, the "others are wrong" is the most important part.

Those libby lib libtards on NPR are all "there may be other, equally valid viewpoints" but how can others be right if they disagree with me?
 
2012-04-09 09:22:40 AM  

Lost Thought 00: What about Editorians and Publisherians? Don't they get their own news channels too?


okay. that was funny.

/in a grooooaaaaaaaaan kind of way
 
2012-04-09 09:24:40 AM  
This just in - Chris Burke's circle of friends more informed than Fox News viewers (and more considerate of where they put their drool).
 
2012-04-09 09:25:13 AM  
motherjones.com (new window)
 
2012-04-09 09:26:32 AM  
Learning about ingroup and outgroup dynamics and methods of propaganda and pandering has completely ruined Fox News for me. We need a more sophisticated form of sophistry for those educated people who still cling to Republican ideals.
 
2012-04-09 09:26:47 AM  
Over several years of debating right wingers, I've come to a number of inescapable conclusions about them. One of the biggest being they absolutely do NOT take kindly to having their beliefs questioned or put into any environment of doubt. They cling to them feverishly as a child clings to a teddy bear, unwilling to even consider that what they believe could be wrong. They do not go in search of information to find "the real story" about a particular issue, they seek out only that which which reaffirms what they already think they know. When presented with opposing viewpoints or actual facts that disprove what they believe, they react with out-of-hand rejection, attempts to destroy the air of legitimacy of the source of the information, blame shifting, and flat out "making things up" to avoid having to admit what they think they know is complete bullshiat.

Hence, the popular invoking of such boogeymen as "the lamestream lefty Soros funded media" and the ever population "Satan did it!" defenses.

Personally, I think the American right has lost their collective marbles. They've become pawns of a moneyed hierarchy that, through careful research, psychological profiling and strategically worded "dog whistle" talking points, have convinced close to half the population of the country that the other half is the "enemy" and that to combat them they must follow the path laid out for them by organization like Fox while being totally oblivious that they are ultimately going against their own best interests.

They seem to be oblivious also to the fact that Fox News is actually a foreign owned media conglomerate who have no loyalty or allegiance to the United States except as a source of income. It means nothing to them to sow the seeds of division amongst out population as long as it means money in the bank. Unfortunately, those who have fallen under their spell are of a sub-standard enough intellect that this is totally lost on all of them.

(sigh)
 
2012-04-09 09:28:21 AM  

imontheinternet: So, Republicans are the only people who run away when their core beliefs are challenged? The only people who like hearing things that jive with their overall worldview?


The article was about authoritarians. It's nobody's fault if that appeals to republicans.
 
2012-04-09 09:29:31 AM  
As long as the libs have MSNBC to spew their hate of the Right, they really have no right to fling barbs at Fox.

Nor do conservatives have a right to fling barbs at MSNBC.

In the end it's a wash. And I'm okay with that.
 
2012-04-09 09:30:31 AM  
It's a terrible form of symbiotic relationship, the Fox viewer and the Fox propagandist. Fox enables them, by giving the viewers the affirmation they want, and lets Fox deceive them with their falsehoods.
 
2012-04-09 09:32:20 AM  

coeyagi: agr8guy182: Those big bad Republicans. Anyone who doesn't believe in what the left believes in is a Nazi, crazy, uneducated, hillbilly...

Facts?


Don't forget...
"Reality has a liberal bias" - Stephen Colbert
 
2012-04-09 09:32:28 AM  

keylock71: I really don't know how anyone with a brain can think Fox News is a quality source for news... And I really have no desire to have a political discussion with anyone who's sole source of information is Fox News.


LOL GO HUG A TERRORIST, LIBTARD
 
2012-04-09 09:32:32 AM  
Wow, a blast from the past with Alternet. That's some intriguing linking there, subby.
 
2012-04-09 09:32:34 AM  

Lost Thought 00: What about Editorians and Publisherians? Don't they get their own news channels too?


I chuckled.

They do have their own website: Link (new window)
 
2012-04-09 09:34:25 AM  
This is a very good source of information on the inescapable connection between Authoritarianism and Republican Conservatism.

3.bp.blogspot.com

From the book...
"Conservatives without conscience do not have horns and tails; if they did they would be easier to identify. Many of them can be quite pleasant, but at heart they are tough, cold-blooded, ruthless authoritarians. They are limited in their ability to see the world from any point of view other than there own, and they are narrow in their outlook. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are prototypical conservative leaders without conscience.

Right-wing authoritarians employ a number of psychological tricks and defences that enable them to act fairly beastly, all the while thinking they are 'the good people'. To begin with they have relatively little self-understanding. For instance, they do not realize they are more prejudiced and hostile than most people. In fact, they do not realize any of the many undesirable things that research has discovered about them. Second, right-wing authoritarians have very compartmentalized minds, and they can just pull off a Scarlett O'Hara ("I'm not going to think about it!') whenever they want.

Probably about 20 to 25 percent of the adult American population is so right-wing authoritarian, so scared, so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you can say or do will change their minds. They would march America into a dictatorship and probably feel that things had improved as a result. The problem is that these authoritarian followers are much more active than the rest of the country. They have the mentality of 'old time religion' on a crusade, and they generously give money, time and effort to the cause. They proselytize; they lick stamps; they put pressure on loved ones; and they revel in being loyal to a cohesive group of like thinkers. And they are so submissive to their leaders that they will believe and do virtually anything they are told. They are not going to let up and they are not going to go away"
 
2012-04-09 09:36:01 AM  

zappaisfrank: This is a very good source of information on the inescapable connection between Authoritarianism and Republican Conservatism.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 328x500]

From the book...
"Conservatives without conscience do not have horns and tails; if they did they would be easier to identify. Many of them can be quite pleasant, but at heart they are tough, cold-blooded, ruthless authoritarians. They are limited in their ability to see the world from any point of view other than there own, and they are narrow in their outlook. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are prototypical conservative leaders without conscience.

Right-wing authoritarians employ a number of psychological tricks and defences that enable them to act fairly beastly, all the while thinking they are 'the good people'. To begin with they have relatively little self-understanding. For instance, they do not realize they are more prejudiced and hostile than most people. In fact, they do not realize any of the many undesirable things that research has discovered about them. Second, right-wing authoritarians have very compartmentalized minds, and they can just pull off a Scarlett O'Hara ("I'm not going to think about it!') whenever they want.

Probably about 20 to 25 percent of the adult American population is so right-wing authoritarian, so scared, so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you can say or do will change their minds. They would march America into a dictatorship and probably feel that things had improved as a result. The problem is that these authoritarian followers are much more active than the rest of the country. They have the mentality of 'old time religion' on a crusade, and they generously give money, time and effort to the cause. They proselytize; they lick stamps; they put pressure on loved ones; and they revel in being loyal to a cohesive group of like thinkers. And they are so submissive to their leaders that they will believe and do virtually anything they are told. ...


Reading is for sissies, Francis.
 
2012-04-09 09:39:08 AM  

zappaisfrank: Over several years of debating right wingers, I've come to a number of inescapable conclusions about them. One of the biggest being they absolutely do NOT take kindly to having their beliefs questioned or put into any environment of doubt. They cling to them feverishly as a child clings to a teddy bear, unwilling to even consider that what they believe could be wrong.


To be fair, the same could be said of many people who fall on the opposite side of the political spectrum. The modern American right-wing is distinguished by degree rather than by kind - many of the beliefs they cling fiercely to aren't just wrong, they're obviously, provably, wrong. Like the recent Talking Point I've seen bandied about the internet that it was the conservatives who fought for civil rights. Or that the current tax rate is particularly high, by historical standards.
 
2012-04-09 09:41:06 AM  

Guidette Frankentits: CNN is guilty of being mindless too but they don't play a Libz Libz Libz Derp Derp Derp record 24/7


My favorite is MSNBC. It's the Prison Channel. Seems like 1-2 hours of news, with the remaining 23 or so hours featuring various flavors of "Lockup."
 
2012-04-09 09:42:57 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: zappaisfrank: This is a very good source of information on the inescapable connection between Authoritarianism and Republican Conservatism.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 328x500]

From the book...
"Conservatives without conscience do not have horns and tails; if they did they would be easier to identify. Many of them can be quite pleasant, but at heart they are tough, cold-blooded, ruthless authoritarians. They are limited in their ability to see the world from any point of view other than there own, and they are narrow in their outlook. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are prototypical conservative leaders without conscience.

Right-wing authoritarians employ a number of psychological tricks and defences that enable them to act fairly beastly, all the while thinking they are 'the good people'. To begin with they have relatively little self-understanding. For instance, they do not realize they are more prejudiced and hostile than most people. In fact, they do not realize any of the many undesirable things that research has discovered about them. Second, right-wing authoritarians have very compartmentalized minds, and they can just pull off a Scarlett O'Hara ("I'm not going to think about it!') whenever they want.

Probably about 20 to 25 percent of the adult American population is so right-wing authoritarian, so scared, so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you can say or do will change their minds. They would march America into a dictatorship and probably feel that things had improved as a result. The problem is that these authoritarian followers are much more active than the rest of the country. They have the mentality of 'old time religion' on a crusade, and they generously give money, time and effort to the cause. They proselytize; they lick stamps; they put pressure on loved ones; and they revel in being loyal to a cohesive group of like thinkers. And they are so submissive to their leaders that they will believe and do virtually anything that they will believe and do virtually anything they are told. ...

Reading is for sissies, Francis.


Why didn't you just put "LOL" at the end of it like a good little right winger?
 
2012-04-09 09:45:19 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: As long as the libs have MSNBC to spew their hate of the Right, they really have no right to fling barbs at Fox.

Nor do conservatives have a right to fling barbs at MSNBC.

In the end it's a wash. And I'm okay with that.


"Saddened and mystified by" is not the same as "hate of." You could probably make a case that most news outlets, whether corporate or not, follow some larger narrative that's shaped by the worldviews of the people who produce & run it. That's not a sin; that's a reasonable thing to expect from a human institution. The difference is that Fox has no apparent journalistic integrity or ethic to keep its narrative in check. As others have said above, Fox is a propaganda outlet serving only one purpose: to keep its viewership fearful, compliant, and misinformed.

Comparing Fox and any other US media outlet isn't really apt. If CNN or MSNBC are hamburgers from different lousy fast-food joints, Fox is a hamburger made of Play-Doh.
 
2012-04-09 09:48:29 AM  

Gunther: zappaisfrank: Over several years of debating right wingers, I've come to a number of inescapable conclusions about them. One of the biggest being they absolutely do NOT take kindly to having their beliefs questioned or put into any environment of doubt. They cling to them feverishly as a child clings to a teddy bear, unwilling to even consider that what they believe could be wrong.

To be fair, the same could be said of many people who fall on the opposite side of the political spectrum. The modern American right-wing is distinguished by degree rather than by kind - many of the beliefs they cling fiercely to aren't just wrong, they're obviously, provably, wrong. Like the recent Talking Point I've seen bandied about the internet that it was the conservatives who fought for civil rights. Or that the current tax rate is particularly high, by historical standards.


The funniest one I've heard recently were how the "War On Women" is actually being waged by the Democrats, yet when you ask a rightie for just one example of Democratic sponsored legislation aimed at the reproductive rights of women, they refuse to answer. That's what you get with those people when you attempt debate with them..they throw out a big stinking wad of verbal diarrhea, then when you ask them for specifics they run away like a child caught throwing rocks at windows. They're fond of blame shifting to Democrats to deflect from their own malfeasance. I love it when they start talking about Democrat racism from the 1800's, yet refuse to acknowledge things like the Southern Strategy. They're farking idiots.
 
2012-04-09 09:49:05 AM  

Headso: keylock71: I really don't know how anyone with a brain can think Fox News is a quality source for news... And I really have no desire to have a political discussion with anyone who's sole source of information is Fox News.

Oh yeah libtard, well I'll have you know I also get my news from breitbart, american thinker, WND, the washington times annnnd the NY Post! now who's not informed?


A pantheon of reason and intellect, to be sure... : )
 
2012-04-09 09:49:44 AM  
oi43.tinypic.com
 
2012-04-09 09:52:07 AM  

Gunther: Like the recent Talking Point I've seen bandied about the internet that it was the conservatives who fought for civil rights.


A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston. That's one part of what made Moore's shenanigans in Bowling for Columbine so idiotic.

newsimg.bbc.co.uk

Lochsteppe: The difference is that Fox has no apparent journalistic integrity or ethic to keep its narrative in check.


This implies that they're driven by some external moral factor. In reality, they'll have as many morals as their viewers will demand. The blame lands squarely on the shoulders of the populace that keeps watching Fox's nonsense. Glenn Beck didn't get fired for puppet shows or anti-Soros freestyle rap battles, he got fired for poor ratings.
 
2012-04-09 09:52:35 AM  
Speaking of authoritarian, these cartoons from the 1930s about FDR are pretty damned interesting.

Link (new window)
 
2012-04-09 09:53:25 AM  
I think it's fair to say that anyone, on either side of the spectrum, who gets the majority of their news from the boob tube or from a select handful of online sources, is going to be decidedly limited in their knowledge base and ability to suss out the truths on any given issue.

That said. It does seem like people on the left are a lot more active in checking multiple sources and looking for challenges to a particular story.

Not always, but in general.
 
2012-04-09 09:55:43 AM  

sprawl15: Gunther: Like the recent Talking Point I've seen bandied about the internet that it was the conservatives who fought for civil rights.

A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston. That's one part of what made Moore's shenanigans in Bowling for Columbine so idiotic.
[newsimg.bbc.co.uk image 466x300]

Lochsteppe: The difference is that Fox has no apparent journalistic integrity or ethic to keep its narrative in check.

This implies that they're driven by some external moral factor. In reality, they'll have as many morals as their viewers will demand. The blame lands squarely on the shoulders of the populace that keeps watching Fox's nonsense. Glenn Beck didn't get fired for puppet shows or anti-Soros freestyle rap battles, he got fired for poor ratings.


Your argument is wonderful - it's akin to "Timothy McVeigh likes puppies and fought for animal rights, which made the US Government's prosecution of him inexcusable!"

//from my cold dead hands! done, asshole
 
2012-04-09 09:57:23 AM  

ginandbacon: I think it's fair to say that anyone, on either side of the spectrum, who gets the majority of their news from the boob tube or from a select handful of online sources, is going to be decidedly limited in their knowledge base and ability to suss out the truths on any given issue.

That said. It does seem like people on the left are a lot more active in checking multiple sources and looking for challenges to a particular story.

Not always, but in general.


I think it's fair to say that 7 studies prove that Fox News viewers are less informed, but thanks for trying to cast doubt with your general "feelings" on the matter. Very Fauxian.
 
2012-04-09 09:58:11 AM  

coeyagi: sprawl15: Gunther: Like the recent Talking Point I've seen bandied about the internet that it was the conservatives who fought for civil rights.

A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston. That's one part of what made Moore's shenanigans in Bowling for Columbine so idiotic.
[newsimg.bbc.co.uk image 466x300]

Lochsteppe: The difference is that Fox has no apparent journalistic integrity or ethic to keep its narrative in check.

This implies that they're driven by some external moral factor. In reality, they'll have as many morals as their viewers will demand. The blame lands squarely on the shoulders of the populace that keeps watching Fox's nonsense. Glenn Beck didn't get fired for puppet shows or anti-Soros freestyle rap battles, he got fired for poor ratings.

Your argument is wonderful - it's akin to "Timothy McVeigh likes puppies and fought for animal rights, which made the US Government's prosecution of him inexcusable!"

//from my cold dead hands! done, asshole


It also assumes the Heston's politics did not change over 40 years.
 
2012-04-09 09:58:22 AM  

Lochsteppe: AverageAmericanGuy: As long as the libs have MSNBC to spew their hate of the Right, they really have no right to fling barbs at Fox.

Nor do conservatives have a right to fling barbs at MSNBC.

In the end it's a wash. And I'm okay with that.

"Saddened and mystified by" is not the same as "hate of." You could probably make a case that most news outlets, whether corporate or not, follow some larger narrative that's shaped by the worldviews of the people who produce & run it. That's not a sin; that's a reasonable thing to expect from a human institution. The difference is that Fox has no apparent journalistic integrity or ethic to keep its narrative in check. As others have said above, Fox is a propaganda outlet serving only one purpose: to keep its viewership fearful, compliant, and misinformed.

Comparing Fox and any other US media outlet isn't really apt. If CNN or MSNBC are hamburgers from different lousy fast-food joints, Fox is a hamburger made of Play-Doh.


The other main differences is that MSNBC commentators take responsibility for what they say and if they report something that is incorrect, they take steps to correct and acknowledge the error.

Fox uses these vague unattributed "quotes" to introduce the propaganda into the discussion without having to accept any direct connection or claim of origination to the statement. They say things like "People are saying that Barack Obama farks chickens"...and then they go around to their various "panelists" who don't commit to a viewpoint on it one way or the other, saying things like "well, it's doubtful..but who really knows..". This way they've managed to wiggle out of direct responsibility for such an irresponsible statement but they've still managed to plant the seed of suggestion into their pinheaded viewers consciousness. Bubba Knuckledragger watching it thinks.."Hmm..people are saying Obama farks chickens"...but lacks the critical thinking skills to dismiss it as obviously bullshiat, and since he already hates Obama, the cycle is permitted to continue.

Fox also NEVER corrects anything they report that is wrong. That's another feature with right wingers..they will NEVER EVER admit to being wrong about ANYTHING EVER. They'll deflect, tap dance around, blame shift and make things up to avoid admitting they're wrong.
 
2012-04-09 10:01:53 AM  

coeyagi: Your argument is wonderful - it's akin to "Timothy McVeigh likes puppies and fought for animal rights, which made the US Government's prosecution of him inexcusable!"


Philip Francis Queeg: It also assumes the Heston's politics did not change over 40 years.


Two excellent examples of people talking out of their ass to justify their pre-determined opinion.
 
2012-04-09 10:02:10 AM  

imontheinternet: So, Republicans are the only people who run away when their core beliefs are challenged? The only people who like hearing things that jive with their overall worldview?

I'm just grateful that the discipline of psychology is here to give us such concrete, infallible results, which can be replicated at will.

/speculation and confirmation bias are a powerful duo


On fark it is only one side who cries endlessly about non liberal sources. Fark libs go out of their way to enter a thread to say they aren't going to read opposition view points...
 
2012-04-09 10:03:03 AM  

sprawl15: coeyagi: Your argument is wonderful - it's akin to "Timothy McVeigh likes puppies and fought for animal rights, which made the US Government's prosecution of him inexcusable!"

Philip Francis Queeg: It also assumes the Heston's politics did not change over 40 years.

Two excellent examples of people talking out of their ass to justify their pre-determined opinion.


Analogies and speculation - the benchmark of a pre-determined opinion.
 
2012-04-09 10:03:24 AM  

sprawl15: coeyagi: Your argument is wonderful - it's akin to "Timothy McVeigh likes puppies and fought for animal rights, which made the US Government's prosecution of him inexcusable!"

Philip Francis Queeg: It also assumes the Heston's politics did not change over 40 years.

Two excellent examples of people talking out of their ass to justify their pre-determined opinion.


What people need to realize is that the "gun" question in the United States is pretty much settled, and the gun nuts won.

The occasional civilian massacre is just the price the REST of us have to pay...over and over again, apparently.
 
2012-04-09 10:04:27 AM  

zappaisfrank: From the book...
"Conservatives without conscience do not have horns and tails; if they did they would be easier to identify. Many of them can be quite pleasant, but at heart they are tough, cold-blooded, ruthless authoritarians. They are limited in their ability to see the world from any point of view other than there own, and they are narrow in their outlook. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are prototypical conservative leaders without conscience.


Like I'm going to take the word of someone who can't grammer gooder.
 
2012-04-09 10:04:49 AM  

zappaisfrank: Over several years of debating right wingers leftists, I've come to a number of inescapable conclusions about them. One of the biggest being they absolutely do NOT take kindly to having their beliefs questioned or put into any environment of doubt. They cling to them feverishly as a child clings to a teddy bear, unwilling to even consider that what they believe could be wrong. They do not go in search of information to find "the real story" about a particular issue, they seek out only that which which reaffirms what they already think they know. When presented with opposing viewpoints or actual facts that disprove what they believe, they react with out-of-hand rejection, attempts to destroy the air of legitimacy of the source of the information, blame shifting, and flat out "making things up" to avoid having to admit what they think they know is complete bullshiat.

Hence, the popular invoking of such boogeymen as "the lamestream lefty Soros funded media Faux News Murdoch" and the ever population "Satan did it! b-b-b-but Bush/Haliburton" defenses.

Personally, I think the American rightleft has lost their collective marbles. They've become pawns of a moneyed hierarchy that, through careful research, psychological profiling and strategically worded "dog whistle" talking points, have convinced close to half the population of the country that the other half is the "enemy" and that to combat them they must follow the path laid out for them by organization like FoxMSNBC while being totally oblivious that they are ultimately going against their own best interests.

/FTF People who hate monolithic arguments as much as they hate FOX news.

 
2012-04-09 10:04:59 AM  

MyRandomName: imontheinternet: So, Republicans are the only people who run away when their core beliefs are challenged? The only people who like hearing things that jive with their overall worldview?

I'm just grateful that the discipline of psychology is here to give us such concrete, infallible results, which can be replicated at will.

/speculation and confirmation bias are a powerful duo

On fark it is only one side who cries endlessly about non liberal sources. Fark libs go out of their way to enter a thread to say they aren't going to read opposition view points...


When the opposition view points are "WND" and "Bare Naked Islam", what do you expect?
 
2012-04-09 10:05:44 AM  

MyRandomName: imontheinternet: So, Republicans are the only people who run away when their core beliefs are challenged? The only people who like hearing things that jive with their overall worldview?

I'm just grateful that the discipline of psychology is here to give us such concrete, infallible results, which can be replicated at will.

/speculation and confirmation bias are a powerful duo

On fark it is only one side who cries endlessly about non liberal sources. Fark libs go out of their way to enter a thread to say they aren't going to read opposition view points...


We do, not because of our closely-held beliefs, we just don't need to be "Misinformed and loving it!" like the other side.

How often do you go and listen to the drunken stoned disgraced former professor railing about government conspiracies near the Willard building? That is Fox News to me. And NRO. And Town Hall. And WND. Just abso-farking-lutely jokes.
 
2012-04-09 10:06:14 AM  

Lord_Dubu: /FTF People who hate monolithic arguments as much as they hate FOX news.


That's nonsense.
 
2012-04-09 10:06:49 AM  

zappaisfrank: What people need to realize is that the "gun" question in the United States is pretty much settled, and the gun nuts won.


What people need to realize is that "There are conservatives who marched for civil rights" is not disproved by "well I don't like his ideas on guns" or "maybe he's a racist now?? WHO KNOWS??"

coeyagi: Analogies and speculation - the benchmark of a pre-determined opinion.


img207.imageshack.us

You're ugly when you're angry!
 
2012-04-09 10:08:28 AM  

coeyagi: ginandbacon: I think it's fair to say that anyone, on either side of the spectrum, who gets the majority of their news from the boob tube or from a select handful of online sources, is going to be decidedly limited in their knowledge base and ability to suss out the truths on any given issue.

That said. It does seem like people on the left are a lot more active in checking multiple sources and looking for challenges to a particular story.

Not always, but in general.

I think it's fair to say that 7 studies prove that Fox News viewers are less informed, but thanks for trying to cast doubt with your general "feelings" on the matter. Very Fauxian.


Those studies were bullshiat and largely predicated on biased polling. For example one of the questions was is the economy improving, which can ne a largely objective answer based on ones belief of what improvement means.

The more interesting study that recently came out, from a leftist, is the fact liberals can not comprehend opposing viewpoints while conservatives can. It explains most of the ire that comes from the left. The professor became more centrist after his study.
 
2012-04-09 10:09:40 AM  

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: It also assumes the Heston's politics did not change over 40 years.

Two excellent examples of people talking out of their ass to justify their pre-determined opinion.


Or it could be that we just aren't as proudly ignorant as you are.

Future NRA President Heston publicly supported the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Just one rather stark example of how Heston's political view changed over the years.
 
2012-04-09 10:09:49 AM  

Lord_Dubu: zappaisfrank: Over several years of debating right wingers leftists, I've come to a number of inescapable conclusions about them. One of the biggest being they absolutely do NOT take kindly to having their beliefs questioned or put into any environment of doubt. They cling to them feverishly as a child clings to a teddy bear, unwilling to even consider that what they believe could be wrong. They do not go in search of information to find "the real story" about a particular issue, they seek out only that which which reaffirms what they already think they know. When presented with opposing viewpoints or actual facts that disprove what they believe, they react with out-of-hand rejection, attempts to destroy the air of legitimacy of the source of the information, blame shifting, and flat out "making things up" to avoid having to admit what they think they know is complete bullshiat.

Hence, the popular invoking of such boogeymen as "the lamestream lefty Soros funded media Faux News Murdoch" and the ever population "Satan did it! b-b-b-but Bush/Haliburton" defenses.

Personally, I think the American rightleft has lost their collective marbles. They've become pawns of a moneyed hierarchy that, through careful research, psychological profiling and strategically worded "dog whistle" talking points, have convinced close to half the population of the country that the other half is the "enemy" and that to combat them they must follow the path laid out for them by organization like FoxMSNBC while being totally oblivious that they are ultimately going against their own best interests.

/FTF People who hate monolithic arguments as much as they hate FOX news.


False Equivalencies..no better way to admit "I got nothin' but can't stop myself from chiming in anyway".
 
2012-04-09 10:09:52 AM  

MyRandomName: The more interesting study that recently came out, from a leftist, is the fact liberals can not comprehend opposing viewpoints while conservatives can.


That study was about as stupid as studies can get without someone losing their job.
 
2012-04-09 10:10:05 AM  

zappaisfrank: sprawl15: coeyagi: Your argument is wonderful - it's akin to "Timothy McVeigh likes puppies and fought for animal rights, which made the US Government's prosecution of him inexcusable!"

Philip Francis Queeg: It also assumes the Heston's politics did not change over 40 years.

Two excellent examples of people talking out of their ass to justify their pre-determined opinion.

What people need to realize is that the "gun" question in the United States is pretty much settled, and the gun nuts won.

The occasional civilian massacre is just the price the REST of us have to pay...over and over again, apparently.


The fact that you used gun nuts proves your objectiveness.
 
2012-04-09 10:10:20 AM  

jigger: Speaking of authoritarian, these cartoons from the 1930s about FDR are pretty damned interesting.

Link (new window)


Yeah... in many of them, FDR's standing up, jumping, driving a plough, etc.
 
2012-04-09 10:11:55 AM  

coeyagi: ginandbacon: I think it's fair to say that anyone, on either side of the spectrum, who gets the majority of their news from the boob tube or from a select handful of online sources, is going to be decidedly limited in their knowledge base and ability to suss out the truths on any given issue.

That said. It does seem like people on the left are a lot more active in checking multiple sources and looking for challenges to a particular story.

Not always, but in general.

I think it's fair to say that 7 studies prove that Fox News viewers are less informed, but thanks for trying to cast doubt with your general "feelings" on the matter. Very Fauxian.


Do you really not think that there aren't people on the left who aren't guilty of seeking out media that do nothing to challenge their preconceived notions?

Of course Fox viewers are less informed than other TV news consumers, but so are the majority of people in this country regardless of political affiliation or where they end up looking for information.

It's not a winning strategy to gloat about the failings on one side while ignoring the failings on our own. Being better than your average Fox viewer isn't good enough. In fact, there are numerous polls that show that my cohort (women voters) are among the least informed in this country. Should I take pleasure in the fact that at least they vote D?

I'd like to see better from all of us.
 
2012-04-09 10:12:22 AM  

sprawl15: Gunther: Like the recent Talking Point I've seen bandied about the internet that it was the conservatives who fought for civil rights.

A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston.


See, this is exactly the sort of Talking Point bullshiat I'm talking about. You don't want to admit the obvious and proven fact that it was the left in America that fought for civil rights and it was the right that was opposed. So you're focusing on ONE example of a conservative who fought for civil rights as though that one counter-example disproves history. It's equivalent to me posting an example of a pro-life left-winger (they do exist), and then saying "Aha! the claim that the left is pro-choice is a lie!".
 
2012-04-09 10:12:31 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Or it could be that we just aren't as proudly ignorant as you are.

Future NRA President Heston publicly supported the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Just one rather stark example of how Heston's political view changed over the years.


That still has nothing to do with anything.
 
2012-04-09 10:13:11 AM  

coeyagi: sprawl15: Gunther: Like the recent Talking Point I've seen bandied about the internet that it was the conservatives who fought for civil rights.

A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston. That's one part of what made Moore's shenanigans in Bowling for Columbine so idiotic.
[newsimg.bbc.co.uk image 466x300]

Lochsteppe: The difference is that Fox has no apparent journalistic integrity or ethic to keep its narrative in check.

This implies that they're driven by some external moral factor. In reality, they'll have as many morals as their viewers will demand. The blame lands squarely on the shoulders of the populace that keeps watching Fox's nonsense. Glenn Beck didn't get fired for puppet shows or anti-Soros freestyle rap battles, he got fired for poor ratings.

Your argument is wonderful - it's akin to "Timothy McVeigh likes puppies and fought for animal rights, which made the US Government's prosecution of him inexcusable!"

//from my cold dead hands! done, asshole


Except Timothy McVeigh actually blew up a building.

Contrary to how Moore portrays it Charlton didn't give that speech in response to columbine, nor did NRA have a blowout.
 
2012-04-09 10:13:32 AM  

Parthenogenetic: jigger: Speaking of authoritarian, these cartoons from the 1930s about FDR are pretty damned interesting.

Link (new window)

Yeah... in many of them, FDR's standing up, jumping, driving a plough, etc.


It's just interesting to see how the media portrayed the fight over the new deal.
 
2012-04-09 10:14:53 AM  

Gunther: See, this is exactly the sort of Talking Point bullshiat I'm talking about. You don't want to admit the obvious and proven fact that it was the left in America that fought for civil rights and it was the right that was opposed. So you're focusing on ONE example of a conservative who fought for civil rights as though that one counter-example disproves history. It's equivalent to me posting an example of a pro-life left-winger (they do exist), and then saying "Aha! the claim that the left is pro-choice is a lie!".


What in the fark are you babbling about?

Take some blood pressure medication, go for a short walk, put on some Donahue, then go back and re-read my post and look carefully for the part that said that the left didn't fight for civil rights. Then come back and apologize when you realize that part doesn't farking exist because I never said it.
 
2012-04-09 10:14:59 AM  

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: Or it could be that we just aren't as proudly ignorant as you are.

Future NRA President Heston publicly supported the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Just one rather stark example of how Heston's political view changed over the years.

That still has nothing to do with anything.


Sure thing Champ. Don't let the actual facts get in the way of your arguments.
 
2012-04-09 10:16:02 AM  
While I agree with Mooney's point that Fox viewers are the most uninformed and watch Fox so their beliefs won't be challenged (the epistemic bubble argument), he blames this all on them being Authoritarians without really defining the term in some independent way (it seems to be a synonym for conservative) and explaining how such a psychological makup leads one to watching Fox news.

The best explanation I have found is in Corey Robin's "The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin". Robin's point is that conservatives embrace strong social hierarchies where everybody knows their place within the hierarchy. A person in the middle is expected to respect, obey, and believe their betters (and their Authority) with little questioning while receiving respect etc. from those below them. This is why racism is so important for those conservatives near the bottom of the hierarchy - it lets them convince themselves that at least they are superior to Negros, Mexicans, etc., and it makes them really mad when the very bottom won't accept their position to the and can lead to efforts to keep them in their place.

A strongly hierarchical society is somewhat adaptive because it can run smoothly and gives something to everybody not at the very bottom. While those at the bottom might not like the setup they are generally stripped of any power that could be used to change the setup.
 
2012-04-09 10:16:58 AM  

liam76: Contrary to how Moore portrays it Charlton didn't give that speech in response to columbine, nor did NRA have a blowout.


Clearly, you must be a right wing authoritarian. How dare you rationally assess something and not come to a conclusion that attacks the right. That's not how objective analysis works!
 
2012-04-09 10:18:02 AM  

jigger: Parthenogenetic: jigger: Speaking of authoritarian, these cartoons from the 1930s about FDR are pretty damned interesting.

Link (new window)

Yeah... in many of them, FDR's standing up, jumping, driving a plough, etc.

It's just interesting to see how the media portrayed the fight over the new deal.


Yes, I know. Just making a lame (groan) joke.

Interesting parallels to today's economic and political climate.
 
2012-04-09 10:18:15 AM  

ginandbacon: coeyagi: ginandbacon: I think it's fair to say that anyone, on either side of the spectrum, who gets the majority of their news from the boob tube or from a select handful of online sources, is going to be decidedly limited in their knowledge base and ability to suss out the truths on any given issue.

That said. It does seem like people on the left are a lot more active in checking multiple sources and looking for challenges to a particular story.

Not always, but in general.

I think it's fair to say that 7 studies prove that Fox News viewers are less informed, but thanks for trying to cast doubt with your general "feelings" on the matter. Very Fauxian.

Do you really not think that there aren't people on the left who aren't guilty of seeking out media that do nothing to challenge their preconceived notions?

Of course Fox viewers are less informed than other TV news consumers, but so are the majority of people in this country regardless of political affiliation or where they end up looking for information.

It's not a winning strategy to gloat about the failings on one side while ignoring the failings on our own. Being better than your average Fox viewer isn't good enough. In fact, there are numerous polls that show that my cohort (women voters) are among the least informed in this country. Should I take pleasure in the fact that at least they vote D?

I'd like to see better from all of us.


Sorry, I could have been clearer here. I meant to say that the majority of people in this country are misinformed on many issues. Fox viewers and conservatives don't have a monopoly on ignorance.
 
2012-04-09 10:19:16 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Don't let the actual facts get in the way of your arguments.


The only thing I said was that Heston marched for civil rights. What imaginary argument are you trying to attack? I'm kind of scared of looking into your brain, since I tend to dislike authoritarian nonsense, but I'm interested. Please, let me know what strawman you're beating on.
 
2012-04-09 10:19:48 AM  
Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.
 
2012-04-09 10:20:53 AM  

ginandbacon: coeyagi: ginandbacon: I think it's fair to say that anyone, on either side of the spectrum, who gets the majority of their news from the boob tube or from a select handful of online sources, is going to be decidedly limited in their knowledge base and ability to suss out the truths on any given issue.

That said. It does seem like people on the left are a lot more active in checking multiple sources and looking for challenges to a particular story.

Not always, but in general.

I think it's fair to say that 7 studies prove that Fox News viewers are less informed, but thanks for trying to cast doubt with your general "feelings" on the matter. Very Fauxian.

Do you really not think that there aren't people on the left who aren't guilty of seeking out media that do nothing to challenge their preconceived notions?

Of course Fox viewers are less informed than other TV news consumers, but so are the majority of people in this country regardless of political affiliation or where they end up looking for information.

It's not a winning strategy to gloat about the failings on one side while ignoring the failings on our own. Being better than your average Fox viewer isn't good enough. In fact, there are numerous polls that show that my cohort (women voters) are among the least informed in this country. Should I take pleasure in the fact that at least they vote D?

I'd like to see better from all of us.


I am not gloating. Pointing out other's failings does not mean one is gloating. Of course there are people on the left who don't see out other's viewpoints, but... here is the rub, how much of that is because they have closeted opinions (like the article suggests Fox News viewers have) and how much of that is avoiding tainted news sources, which is also what Fox News and many outlets are?
 
2012-04-09 10:21:58 AM  

HairBolus: While I agree with Mooney's point that Fox viewers are the most uninformed and watch Fox so their beliefs won't be challenged (the epistemic bubble argument), he blames this all on them being Authoritarians without really defining the term in some independent way (it seems to be a synonym for conservative) and explaining how such a psychological makup leads one to watching Fox news.

The best explanation I have found is in Corey Robin's "The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin". Robin's point is that conservatives embrace strong social hierarchies where everybody knows their place within the hierarchy. A person in the middle is expected to respect, obey, and believe their betters (and their Authority) with little questioning while receiving respect etc. from those below them. This is why racism is so important for those conservatives near the bottom of the hierarchy - it lets them convince themselves that at least they are superior to Negros, Mexicans, etc., and it makes them really mad when the very bottom won't accept their position to the and can lead to efforts to keep them in their place.

A strongly hierarchical society is somewhat adaptive because it can run smoothly and gives something to everybody not at the very bottom. While those at the bottom might not like the setup they are generally stripped of any power that could be used to change the setup.


That's a nice analysis. Thank you.
 
2012-04-09 10:22:16 AM  

liam76: coeyagi: sprawl15: Gunther: Like the recent Talking Point I've seen bandied about the internet that it was the conservatives who fought for civil rights.

A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston. That's one part of what made Moore's shenanigans in Bowling for Columbine so idiotic.
[newsimg.bbc.co.uk image 466x300]

Lochsteppe: The difference is that Fox has no apparent journalistic integrity or ethic to keep its narrative in check.

This implies that they're driven by some external moral factor. In reality, they'll have as many morals as their viewers will demand. The blame lands squarely on the shoulders of the populace that keeps watching Fox's nonsense. Glenn Beck didn't get fired for puppet shows or anti-Soros freestyle rap battles, he got fired for poor ratings.

Your argument is wonderful - it's akin to "Timothy McVeigh likes puppies and fought for animal rights, which made the US Government's prosecution of him inexcusable!"

//from my cold dead hands! done, asshole

Except Timothy McVeigh actually blew up a building.

Contrary to how Moore portrays it Charlton didn't give that speech in response to columbine, nor did NRA have a blowout.


The NRA has a "blowout" every time there is a mass shooting, bro.
 
2012-04-09 10:22:31 AM  

MyRandomName: zappaisfrank: sprawl15: coeyagi: Your argument is wonderful - it's akin to "Timothy McVeigh likes puppies and fought for animal rights, which made the US Government's prosecution of him inexcusable!"

Philip Francis Queeg: It also assumes the Heston's politics did not change over 40 years.

Two excellent examples of people talking out of their ass to justify their pre-determined opinion.

What people need to realize is that the "gun" question in the United States is pretty much settled, and the gun nuts won.

The occasional civilian massacre is just the price the REST of us have to pay...over and over again, apparently.

The fact that you used gun nuts proves your objectiveness.


The only thing it proves is that you fancy yourself some great all-knowing intellect who enjoys dropping cute little put downs in an extremely weak attempt to appear clever.

For the record, I own two guns myself. It is possible to be a gun owner without being a "gun nut", however to deny extreme elements exist within the gun culture (who full well deserve the label "nuts") and to deny that they are at the forefront of the "gun movement" is to have your head firmly placed betwixt your buttcheeks.
 
2012-04-09 10:25:09 AM  

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: Don't let the actual facts get in the way of your arguments.

The only thing I said was that Heston marched for civil rights. What imaginary argument are you trying to attack? I'm kind of scared of looking into your brain, since I tend to dislike authoritarian nonsense, but I'm interested. Please, let me know what strawman you're beating on.


You called him a "notable conservative" who marched for Civil Rights. That's making the assumption that at the time Heston marched for Civil Rights that he held the same conservative views he would decades later. That assumption is unfounded.
 
2012-04-09 10:26:16 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Sure thing Champ. Don't let the actual facts get in the way of your arguments.


Protip: Saying "Don't let the actual facts get in the way of your arguments" does not magically turn a strawman into a logical argument.
 
2012-04-09 10:26:38 AM  

ginandbacon: Sorry, I could have been clearer here. I meant to say that the majority of people in this country are misinformed on many issues. Fox viewers and conservatives don't have a monopoly on ignorance.


True, but the entire point of this article is that while many people, maybe even the majority of people, in this country are misinformed, people who watch Fox News are consistently the MOST misinformed. Your entire argument seems to take the following form:

Article : The majority of the worlds water is held in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
You: Yeah, but I think we can all agree that there are lots of bodies of water that hold a lot of water.

Yeah, it's true, but it doesn't really do anything to address the point under discussion except to distract from it
 
2012-04-09 10:26:45 AM  

tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.


Um, no.
 
2012-04-09 10:27:49 AM  

coeyagi: agr8guy182: Those big bad Republicans. Anyone who doesn't believe in what the left believes in is a Nazi, crazy, uneducated, hillbilly...

Facts?


Facts have a liberal bias, obviously.
 
2012-04-09 10:30:25 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: ginandbacon: Sorry, I could have been clearer here. I meant to say that the majority of people in this country are misinformed on many issues. Fox viewers and conservatives don't have a monopoly on ignorance.

True, but the entire point of this article is that while many people, maybe even the majority of people, in this country are misinformed, people who watch Fox News are consistently the MOST misinformed. Your entire argument seems to take the following form:

Article : The majority of the worlds water is held in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
You: Yeah, but I think we can all agree that there are lots of bodies of water that hold a lot of water.

Yeah, it's true, but it doesn't really do anything to address the point under discussion except to distract from it


You could say both sides are bad, vote Atlantic.
 
2012-04-09 10:31:11 AM  

zappaisfrank: Over several years of debating right wingers, I've come to a number of inescapable conclusions about them. One of the biggest being they absolutely do NOT take kindly to having their beliefs questioned or put into any environment of doubt.



Faith based beliefs. They've become so accustomed to being told by their clergy that faith is the most important thing anyone can have that they carry faith - the insistence on believing things without any evidence - into politics and other aspects of their life.

My father is like this, and it seems like every time we talk now we end up arguing. When I was a kid he drilled in to me that I must always think for myself and follow the evidence... and that if someone wants me to believe in something and they can't prove it that I should dismiss them. But now that he's gotten older he's clinging harder than ever to his religious faith and it's influencing his thinking. He now picks and chooses what FACTS he wants to believe in, and if something conflicts with what he wants to believe he simply stubbornly puts his feet down and refuses to believe it, rather than adjusting his beliefs to accommodate the new information. It's.... incredibly depressing.

He's one of many who are the market for the Republican fact machine David Frum so eloquently wrote about last year. An industry devoted to manufacturing facts out of thin air to support the beliefs that their market WANTS to believe.

Not all of us "right-wingers" are like that.... but the prevalence is so farking high at this point that I can totally understand the confusion when people think we are. The Republican party has fallen so farking low. I'm not a fan of the Democrats either, but I'd have to agree - as a lifelong Republican - that the Republican party has pretty much gone completely off the rails and is less healthy for our country than the Democratic party.
 
2012-04-09 10:32:17 AM  

coeyagi: Of course there are people on the left who don't see out other's viewpoints


I'm not necessarily concerned with intransigence. I don't believe that bigots, climate denies, and religious fanatics deserve a patient ear. Some people should simply be ignored. I am however very worried about anybody on the left who is ill-informed and subject to the kinds of breathless conspiracy theories and rumor-based propaganda at sites like DKos that we see from sites like WND. Or those who simply don't care and tune in the last week of an election.

My job as a progressive is not to point and laugh when conservatives' intellectual slips are showing. My job is to make sure those with whom I am aligned are operating from a position of reason and truthiness. Otherwise, those arguments I believe to be fundamentally unassailable are tainted.

I'm just saying we need to own up to our own problems and be honest about them before we attack the other side for something some of us frankly fail more at.
 
2012-04-09 10:33:16 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: Don't let the actual facts get in the way of your arguments.

The only thing I said was that Heston marched for civil rights. What imaginary argument are you trying to attack? I'm kind of scared of looking into your brain, since I tend to dislike authoritarian nonsense, but I'm interested. Please, let me know what strawman you're beating on.

You called him a "notable conservative" who marched for Civil Rights. That's making the assumption that at the time Heston marched for Civil Rights that he held the same conservative views he would decades later. That assumption is unfounded.


You just acknowledged that his argument is factual. You also failed to provide any evidence that he changed his mind about this subject over time, instead basing your entire argument on the possibility that he changed his mind on a different law once.

Basically, you're arguing that because he may have changed his mind about one law from the 60s, that all of a sudden invalidates every position he's every had. This argument is cripplingly retarded, and you should feel bad for being in the gene pool.
 
2012-04-09 10:33:58 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: You called him a "notable conservative" who marched for Civil Rights. That's making the assumption that at the time Heston marched for Civil Rights that he held the same conservative views he would decades later.


He is (well, was) a "notable conservative". He did march for Civil Rights. So your objection is basically...you don't like Heston, so you'll invent any narrative you can to attack him. Thanks for explaining your invented narrative, though, it's fascinating to watch people try to out-derp the RWA's.
 
2012-04-09 10:35:03 AM  

sprawl15: The only thing I said was that Heston marched for civil rights.


Well, no, you also commented that Michael Moore did something wrong to him in BFC. As I have not seen BFC, what claim did Mr. Moore make with regards to Mr. Heston on civil rights?
 
2012-04-09 10:35:13 AM  

zappaisfrank: tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

Um, no.



No? No to both or do you have a favorite you'd like to defend? Government has grown under both parties and both have agendas to limit freedoms of others. So I'm not sure how you could deny either of doing that.
 
2012-04-09 10:38:35 AM  
As always, you will know liberals by what they accuse others of.
 
2012-04-09 10:40:05 AM  

zappaisfrank: Fox also NEVER corrects anything they report that is wrong. That's another feature with right wingers..they will NEVER EVER admit to being wrong about ANYTHING EVER. They'll deflect, tap dance around, blame shift and make things up to avoid admitting they're wrong.



I've noticed this. My theory is that right wingers have to extrapolate everything to the Nth degree. So for example:

- Gay marriage. If we allow that, then obviously we have to allow turtle-table marriage as well.
- Individual mandate. If the government can force you to buy insurance, then they can and will force you to buy a Chevy Volt Gay Black Abortion Edition.
- Gun Control. If the government takes away our fully automatic machine guns then that means the government will take away our fingernails too because we can scratch people with them.

And so on.

So naturally, using that line of thinking I honestly believe they are incapable of acknowledging a lie, since any single instance of a lie could mean that the entire ideology is a lie.

/hint: it is.
 
2012-04-09 10:40:09 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: ginandbacon: Sorry, I could have been clearer here. I meant to say that the majority of people in this country are misinformed on many issues. Fox viewers and conservatives don't have a monopoly on ignorance.

True, but the entire point of this article is that while many people, maybe even the majority of people, in this country are misinformed, people who watch Fox News are consistently the MOST misinformed. Your entire argument seems to take the following form:

Article : The majority of the worlds water is held in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
You: Yeah, but I think we can all agree that there are lots of bodies of water that hold a lot of water.

Yeah, it's true, but it doesn't really do anything to address the point under discussion except to distract from it


You are missing my point. If we are going to go around attacking Fox viewers as uniformed and thus somehow illegitimate, what's to stop them from pulling out all of the data about how women and minorities score among the most uninformed voters in the country?

My point is that it's a stupid conversation to be having.

Let's stick to facts and not try to denigrate each other. I'm a liberal because I believe in social justice, science, economic responsibility, and education.

I believe I don't need to laugh at my opponent's sources to win that argument.
 
2012-04-09 10:40:42 AM  

sprawl15: go back and re-read my post and look carefully for the part that said that the left didn't fight for civil rights.


I'd tell you not to be an asshole about this, but judging by your habit of throwing insults at anyone who replies to you, that's probably expecting too much. Here's how the argument has gone so far:

Me: The right opposed civil rights, the left fought for them

You: This right-winger fought for them!

Me: That's one example, it doesn't disprove my point.

You:I NEVER SAID IT DID!! APOLOGIZE TO ME!!!

Do you see the farking problem there? You responded to my post with a anecdote that any sane person would infer as an attempt at rebuttal, then when it's shot down, you instantly claim it wasn't meant as one, and that I'm stupid for taking your obvious rebuttal as a rebuttal. This method of argument isn't you being "clever", it's pathetic and childish.
 
2012-04-09 10:42:24 AM  

Frank N Stein: Philip Francis Queeg: sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: Don't let the actual facts get in the way of your arguments.

The only thing I said was that Heston marched for civil rights. What imaginary argument are you trying to attack? I'm kind of scared of looking into your brain, since I tend to dislike authoritarian nonsense, but I'm interested. Please, let me know what strawman you're beating on.

You called him a "notable conservative" who marched for Civil Rights. That's making the assumption that at the time Heston marched for Civil Rights that he held the same conservative views he would decades later. That assumption is unfounded.

You just acknowledged that his argument is factual. You also failed to provide any evidence that he changed his mind about this subject over time, instead basing your entire argument on the possibility that he changed his mind on a different law once.

Basically, you're arguing that because he may have changed his mind about one law from the 60s, that all of a sudden invalidates every position he's every had. This argument is cripplingly retarded, and you should feel bad for being in the gene pool.


Wow do you have it backwards. Sprawl is arguing that since Heston later becoming known as a Conservative, it proves that it was conservatives who supported the Civil Rights movement. His later view do not prove that he held those views at the time, nor would they invalidate more liberal views that he held earlier in his life like support for Gun control.

Heston campaigned for Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy. He opposed the War in Vietnam at the time, another position he later recanted.
 
2012-04-09 10:45:24 AM  

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: You called him a "notable conservative" who marched for Civil Rights. That's making the assumption that at the time Heston marched for Civil Rights that he held the same conservative views he would decades later.

He is (well, was) a "notable conservative". He did march for Civil Rights. So your objection is basically...you don't like Heston, so you'll invent any narrative you can to attack him. Thanks for explaining your invented narrative, though, it's fascinating to watch people try to out-derp the RWA's.


I'm presenting facts that happen not to agree with the narrative you have invented.
 
2012-04-09 10:47:07 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Frank N Stein: Philip Francis Queeg: sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: Don't let the actual facts get in the way of your arguments.

The only thing I said was that Heston marched for civil rights. What imaginary argument are you trying to attack? I'm kind of scared of looking into your brain, since I tend to dislike authoritarian nonsense, but I'm interested. Please, let me know what strawman you're beating on.

You called him a "notable conservative" who marched for Civil Rights. That's making the assumption that at the time Heston marched for Civil Rights that he held the same conservative views he would decades later. That assumption is unfounded.

You just acknowledged that his argument is factual. You also failed to provide any evidence that he changed his mind about this subject over time, instead basing your entire argument on the possibility that he changed his mind on a different law once.

Basically, you're arguing that because he may have changed his mind about one law from the 60s, that all of a sudden invalidates every position he's every had. This argument is cripplingly retarded, and you should feel bad for being in the gene pool.

Wow do you have it backwards. Sprawl is arguing that since Heston later becoming known as a Conservative, it proves that it was conservatives who supported the Civil Rights movement. His later view do not prove that he held those views at the time, nor would they invalidate more liberal views that he held earlier in his life like support for Gun control.

Heston campaigned for Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy. He opposed the War in Vietnam at the time, another position he later recanted.


we're going with JFK as an example of liberalism now?
 
2012-04-09 10:47:23 AM  

coeyagi: liam76: coeyagi: sprawl15: Gunther: Like the recent Talking Point I've seen bandied about the internet that it was the conservatives who fought for civil rights.

A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston. That's one part of what made Moore's shenanigans in Bowling for Columbine so idiotic.
[newsimg.bbc.co.uk image 466x300]

Lochsteppe: The difference is that Fox has no apparent journalistic integrity or ethic to keep its narrative in check.

This implies that they're driven by some external moral factor. In reality, they'll have as many morals as their viewers will demand. The blame lands squarely on the shoulders of the populace that keeps watching Fox's nonsense. Glenn Beck didn't get fired for puppet shows or anti-Soros freestyle rap battles, he got fired for poor ratings.

Your argument is wonderful - it's akin to "Timothy McVeigh likes puppies and fought for animal rights, which made the US Government's prosecution of him inexcusable!"

//from my cold dead hands! done, asshole

Except Timothy McVeigh actually blew up a building.

Contrary to how Moore portrays it Charlton didn't give that speech in response to columbine, nor did NRA have a blowout.

The NRA has a "blowout" every time there is a mass shooting, bro.


No idea if this is what passes for wit with you or what you actually believe...
 
2012-04-09 10:47:44 AM  

tgregory: zappaisfrank: tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

Um, no.


No? No to both or do you have a favorite you'd like to defend? Government has grown under both parties and both have agendas to limit freedoms of others. So I'm not sure how you could deny either of doing that.


So, I take it you're one of those political hipsters who distinguishes themselves by being an "outsider" and "above it all" so as to enable yourself to rail against the "two party system", which also adds up to a free pass from objectively looking at the situation and allows you to fart it all off with bogus equivalency comparisons.

Lemme guess.."Paulbot", right? The "growing government" thingie was a dead giveaway.

As far as "limiting freedoms"..can you give me a specific example of the "freedoms" you've lost since President Obama took office?
 
2012-04-09 10:48:24 AM  

randomjsa: As always, you will know liberals by what they accuse others of.


You look so good in pink
 
2012-04-09 10:49:07 AM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Frank N Stein: Philip Francis Queeg: sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: Don't let the actual facts get in the way of your arguments.

The only thing I said was that Heston marched for civil rights. What imaginary argument are you trying to attack? I'm kind of scared of looking into your brain, since I tend to dislike authoritarian nonsense, but I'm interested. Please, let me know what strawman you're beating on.

You called him a "notable conservative" who marched for Civil Rights. That's making the assumption that at the time Heston marched for Civil Rights that he held the same conservative views he would decades later. That assumption is unfounded.

You just acknowledged that his argument is factual. You also failed to provide any evidence that he changed his mind about this subject over time, instead basing your entire argument on the possibility that he changed his mind on a different law once.

Basically, you're arguing that because he may have changed his mind about one law from the 60s, that all of a sudden invalidates every position he's every had. This argument is cripplingly retarded, and you should feel bad for being in the gene pool.

Wow do you have it backwards. Sprawl is arguing that since Heston later becoming known as a Conservative, it proves that it was conservatives who supported the Civil Rights movement. His later view do not prove that he held those views at the time, nor would they invalidate more liberal views that he held earlier in his life like support for Gun control.

Heston campaigned for Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy. He opposed the War in Vietnam at the time, another position he later recanted.

we're going with JFK as an example of liberalism now?


He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.
 
2012-04-09 10:49:47 AM  

MithrandirBooga: zappaisfrank: Fox also NEVER corrects anything they report that is wrong. That's another feature with right wingers..they will NEVER EVER admit to being wrong about ANYTHING EVER. They'll deflect, tap dance around, blame shift and make things up to avoid admitting they're wrong.


I've noticed this. My theory is that right wingers have to extrapolate everything to the Nth degree. So for example:

- Gay marriage. If we allow that, then obviously we have to allow turtle-table marriage as well.
- Individual mandate. If the government can force you to buy insurance, then they can and will force you to buy a Chevy Volt Gay Black Abortion Edition.
- Gun Control. If the government takes away our fully automatic machine guns then that means the government will take away our fingernails too because we can scratch people with them.

And so on.

So naturally, using that line of thinking I honestly believe they are incapable of acknowledging a lie, since any single instance of a lie could mean that the entire ideology is a lie.

/hint: it is.


www.williambyrdband.org
 
2012-04-09 10:51:11 AM  

X-boxershorts: randomjsa: As always, you will know liberals by what they accuse others of.



I see what you did there...
 
2012-04-09 10:51:18 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Frank N Stein: Philip Francis Queeg: sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: Don't let the actual facts get in the way of your arguments.

The only thing I said was that Heston marched for civil rights. What imaginary argument are you trying to attack? I'm kind of scared of looking into your brain, since I tend to dislike authoritarian nonsense, but I'm interested. Please, let me know what strawman you're beating on.

You called him a "notable conservative" who marched for Civil Rights. That's making the assumption that at the time Heston marched for Civil Rights that he held the same conservative views he would decades later. That assumption is unfounded.

You just acknowledged that his argument is factual. You also failed to provide any evidence that he changed his mind about this subject over time, instead basing your entire argument on the possibility that he changed his mind on a different law once.

Basically, you're arguing that because he may have changed his mind about one law from the 60s, that all of a sudden invalidates every position he's every had. This argument is cripplingly retarded, and you should feel bad for being in the gene pool.

Wow do you have it backwards. Sprawl is arguing that since Heston later becoming known as a Conservative, it proves that it was conservatives who supported the Civil Rights movement. His later view do not prove that he held those views at the time, nor would they invalidate more liberal views that he held earlier in his life like support for Gun control.

Heston campaigned for Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy. He opposed the War in Vietnam at the time, another position he later recanted.

we're going with JFK as an example of liberalism now?

He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.


Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please
 
2012-04-09 10:53:30 AM  

sprawl15: He is (well, was) a "notable conservative". He did march for Civil Rights.


Serious question: what does that have to do with anything?

Yes, I've read through the thread. But, from your first mention of Heston, I could find any rhyme or reason for why you decided to cite him.

It certainly didn't address the point you were responding to.
 
2012-04-09 10:54:19 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: Or it could be that we just aren't as proudly ignorant as you are.

Future NRA President Heston publicly supported the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Just one rather stark example of how Heston's political view changed over the years.

That still has nothing to do with anything.

Sure thing Champ. Don't let the actual facts get in the way of your arguments.


The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
 
2012-04-09 10:55:20 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: Well, no, you also commented that Michael Moore did something wrong to him in BFC. As I have not seen BFC, what claim did Mr. Moore make with regards to Mr. Heston on civil rights?


It was a fractal case of stupidity. Specifically on civil rights, he first painted the NRA as an organization with racist roots, then fabricated a story about the NRA rushing to the shooting of a young black girl to hold a rally about how this is an example of everyone needing guns, then went full retard in an interview and asked questions about his imaginary history, and Breitbarted the christ out of the interview footage to make Heston sound racist. There's a lot that one could criticize Heston for, and Moore decided to make one up.
 
2012-04-09 10:55:58 AM  

skullkrusher: He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please



Yep. Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon was in 1960.

The politics of individuals and groups change over time. What a shock.
 
2012-04-09 10:57:03 AM  
Since it hasn't been linked to yet, I present the study that laid the groundwork for Howard Deans book as well as the current paper under discussion in this thread:

The Authoritarians (new window)

Mind you, those who classified as right wing authoritarians invariable and always blew up the world, did not negotiate in good faith and always assumed the very worst in motives about their opponents, even when no evidence existed regarding ulterior motives.

It's a long read but worthwhile.
 
2012-04-09 10:57:38 AM  

imontheinternet: So, Republicans are the only people who run away when their core beliefs are challenged? The only people who like hearing things that jive with their overall worldview?

I'm just grateful that the discipline of psychology is here to give us such concrete, infallible results, which can be replicated at will.


Replicated at will:
Link (new window)
 
2012-04-09 10:59:06 AM  

impaler: imontheinternet: So, Republicans are the only people who run away when their core beliefs are challenged? The only people who like hearing things that jive with their overall worldview?

I'm just grateful that the discipline of psychology is here to give us such concrete, infallible results, which can be replicated at will.

Replicated at will:
Link (new window)


Yes...replicated. At will. Over and over.
 
2012-04-09 10:59:45 AM  

X-boxershorts: Since it hasn't been linked to yet, I present the study that laid the groundwork for Howard Deans book as well as the current paper under discussion in this thread:

The Authoritarians (new window)

Mind you, those who classified as right wing authoritarians invariable and always blew up the world, did not negotiate in good faith and always assumed the very worst in motives about their opponents, even when no evidence existed regarding ulterior motives.

It's a long read but worthwhile.


Trust but verify. Sounds like sound policy to me.
 
2012-04-09 11:00:20 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please


Yep. Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon was in 1960.

The politics of individuals and groups change over time. What a shock.


Nixon engineered the blatantly racist and horrific drug policy. But yes, I would probably take him over what the GOP is offering up today. I would take any Dem from almost any era over him, though.
 
2012-04-09 11:01:26 AM  

skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: Since it hasn't been linked to yet, I present the study that laid the groundwork for Howard Deans book as well as the current paper under discussion in this thread:

The Authoritarians (new window)

Mind you, those who classified as right wing authoritarians invariable and always blew up the world, did not negotiate in good faith and always assumed the very worst in motives about their opponents, even when no evidence existed regarding ulterior motives.

It's a long read but worthwhile.

Trust but verify. Sounds like sound policy to me.


Unfortunately, there was never any trust on the RW Authoritarians part. Blowing up the world shouldn't be considered a good outcome.
 
2012-04-09 11:05:18 AM  
I wish I could borrow Obama's time machine to go pick up Marshall McLuhan and bring him to the present for a visit. It would be interesting to hear his thoughts on Fox News and social media, although I suspect his thoughts would boil down to "Ha! I told you so."
 
2012-04-09 11:05:43 AM  

eraser8: Serious question: what does that have to do with anything?


Blanket statements like "Conservatives do X" or "Liberals do Y" are almost always easily disproven. "LOL PEOPLE SAY CONSERVATIVES MARCHED FOR CIVIL RIGHTS" is easily disproved by a single picture of a single conservative marching for civil rights. The insane anger in response to simply saying that Heston marched for civil rights (equating such a statement to defending McVeigh? Really?) is evidence of people committing the same sins they're yelling at the right wingers for committing. Rational discussion is only welcome as long as it meets the pre-determined conclusion.

Philip Francis Queeg: I'm presenting facts that happen not to agree with the narrative you have invented.


The 'narrative' I'm going with is that Heston marched for civil rights. What fact have you presented that doesn't agree with that?

Gunther: You responded to my post with a anecdote that any sane person would infer as an attempt at rebuttal, then when it's shot down


'Shot down'? I'll offer you the same question: what fact have you presented that 'shoots down' the idea that Heston marched for civil rights?

Gunther: I'd tell you not to be an asshole about this, but judging by your habit of throwing insults at anyone who replies to you, that's probably expecting too much.


Yeah, we can't all keep it civil like this classy gent:

Gunther: You don't want to admit the obvious and proven fact that it was the left in America that fought for civil rights and it was the right that was opposed.


Clearly, a bastion of rational, non-assholish behavior with nothing but the best of intentions.
 
2012-04-09 11:06:54 AM  
Authoritarian people have a stronger emotional need for an outlet like Fox

wow that's not loaded at all.


Cat owning Mac lesbians have a stronger emotional need for MSNBC.
 
2012-04-09 11:07:10 AM  

X-boxershorts: did not negotiate in good faith and always assumed the very worst in motives about their opponents, even when no evidence existed regarding ulterior motives.


Sounds familiar.
 
2012-04-09 11:10:36 AM  

USP .45: Authoritarian people have a stronger emotional need for an outlet like Fox

wow that's not loaded at all.

Cat owning Mac lesbians have a stronger emotional need for MSNBC.


How dare you insult anti-authoritarian people by insinuating they own cats and are Mac lesbians. Wait, what is a Mac lesbian? A woman in a utilikilt?
 
2012-04-09 11:11:29 AM  

ginandbacon: Nixon engineered the blatantly racist and horrific drug policy. But yes, I would probably take him over what the GOP is offering up today. I would take any Dem from almost any era over him, though.


I'd take Nixon over Obama.
 
2012-04-09 11:11:42 AM  

sprawl15: X-boxershorts: did not negotiate in good faith and always assumed the very worst in motives about their opponents, even when no evidence existed regarding ulterior motives.

Sounds familiar.


It does sound familiar..it reminds me of all the times I've been debating Conservatives and they take it upon themselves to write my life story, fill in blanks about my beliefs, call me names, assume I'm an "Obamabot" or any other method they choose to prevent themselves from having to admit the truth about themselves or what they profess to be the truth.
 
2012-04-09 11:11:44 AM  

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: I'm presenting facts that happen not to agree with the narrative you have invented.

The 'narrative' I'm going with is that Heston marched for civil rights. What fact have you presented that doesn't agree with that?



OK, I missed the fact that your post about Charleton Heston marching for Civil rights had no relationship with anything else in the thread, and that it certainly did not relate to the post you were responding to about conservative sup[port for Civil Rights movement. Forgive me for believing that your post actually had any relevance to the discussion at hand, I should have assumes that it was a completely pointless non sequitur.
 
2012-04-09 11:14:25 AM  

ginandbacon: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please


Yep. Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon was in 1960.

The politics of individuals and groups change over time. What a shock.

Nixon engineered the blatantly racist and horrific drug policy. But yes, I would probably take him over what the GOP is offering up today. I would take any Dem from almost any era over him, though.


well, our drug policy IS horrific but it is not racist. It's application DOES impact minorities much more negatively than it does white people but disparate impact is not evidence of racism.
 
2012-04-09 11:14:27 AM  

sprawl15: X-boxershorts: did not negotiate in good faith and always assumed the very worst in motives about their opponents, even when no evidence existed regarding ulterior motives.

Sounds familiar.


Sure does. Sounds like the GoP of today that has done everything it possibly could as the party out of power, to sabotage this president during a genuine international economic crisis.
 
2012-04-09 11:15:56 AM  

X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: Since it hasn't been linked to yet, I present the study that laid the groundwork for Howard Deans book as well as the current paper under discussion in this thread:

The Authoritarians (new window)

Mind you, those who classified as right wing authoritarians invariable and always blew up the world, did not negotiate in good faith and always assumed the very worst in motives about their opponents, even when no evidence existed regarding ulterior motives.

It's a long read but worthwhile.

Trust but verify. Sounds like sound policy to me.

Unfortunately, there was never any trust on the RW Authoritarians part. Blowing up the world shouldn't be considered a good outcome.


if you were playing a simulation would you go for the blow up the world option or the work together to solve our problems route? I'd blow stuff up, personally, but I never thought the Cultural Victory was all that much fun ;)
 
2012-04-09 11:16:55 AM  

skullkrusher: ginandbacon: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please


Yep. Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon was in 1960.

The politics of individuals and groups change over time. What a shock.

Nixon engineered the blatantly racist and horrific drug policy. But yes, I would probably take him over what the GOP is offering up today. I would take any Dem from almost any era over him, though.

well, our drug policy IS horrific but it is not racist. It's application DOES impact minorities much more negatively than it does white people but disparate impact is not evidence of racism.


The policy itself may not be racist, however, it's implementation has certainly been used to directly negatively impact the minority race.
 
2012-04-09 11:17:30 AM  

Frank N Stein: [oi43.tinypic.com image 500x544]


i know you posted this as a joke, but if you had to model a society after one of those four groups, i think teenagers are probably the least-bad. they're generally pretty generous, open-minded people, who want to believe the very best about people. Teenagers do a lot of community service, have a lot of hopes for the future, and generally are inclusive of outsiders at a much better rate than older people.

I work with teenagers at my summer gig, and they're really very interesting and big-hearted people, once you get the phones and computers out of their hands. Even cynical teenagers want to help others, even if they don't see it as a probable outcome of their actions. There is an impulse in them to do good for the world. At least, the kids I teach are like this.

Teenagers would make pot legal, they'd make gay marriage legal, they'd make education free, and they'd be a lot less likely to try to regulate what happens in your bedroom. Yes, they'd make some foolish decisions, too, but could they really be more fiscally and socially irresponsible than the current congress?
 
2012-04-09 11:18:27 AM  

zappaisfrank: tgregory: zappaisfrank: tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

Um, no.


No? No to both or do you have a favorite you'd like to defend? Government has grown under both parties and both have agendas to limit freedoms of others. So I'm not sure how you could deny either of doing that.

So, I take it you're one of those political hipsters who distinguishes themselves by being an "outsider" and "above it all" so as to enable yourself to rail against the "two party system", which also adds up to a free pass from objectively looking at the situation and allows you to fart it all off with bogus equivalency comparisons.

Lemme guess.."Paulbot", right? The "growing government" thingie was a dead giveaway.

As far as "limiting freedoms"..can you give me a specific example of the "freedoms" you've lost since President Obama took office?



Sentences I presented that end with a question mark were questions for you. I see you must've missed those.

I just have a "crazy idea" that people should own their own lives and property. Weird, huh?

Are you opposed to anything more than a two party system or are there only two sides for every issue? You approach the idea of personal liberty as being a wild and crazy one, but I think wanting to oppress others in order to reach political or social goals is crazy.

Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Defense Budget, Patriot Act, War on Drugs, Gay Marriage. All of those sound familiar? They should. The Democrats took to the streets over them when Bush was in power. Obama promised to handle all of them. I guess it's ok now that your guy is in power?

The problem with granting more power is eventually someone you won't like will have that power, so be careful for what you wish for.

Would've loved to have seen the protests from Democrats had Bush been the one to sign this: President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law (new window) But instead there've been crickets.
 
2012-04-09 11:19:13 AM  

skullkrusher: ginandbacon: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please


Yep. Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon was in 1960.

The politics of individuals and groups change over time. What a shock.

Nixon engineered the blatantly racist and horrific drug policy. But yes, I would probably take him over what the GOP is offering up today. I would take any Dem from almost any era over him, though.

well, our drug policy IS horrific but it is not racist. It's application DOES impact minorities much more negatively than it does white people but disparate impact is not evidence of racism.


The recently revised disparity in the sentences required for crack trafficking and cocaine trafficking was pretty blatantly racist.
 
2012-04-09 11:19:28 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: OK, I missed the fact that your post about Charleton Heston marching for Civil rights had no relationship with anything else in the thread, and that it certainly did not relate to the post you were responding to about conservative sup[port for Civil Rights movement.


It was an example of a person regarded as a conservative who marched for civil rights. Maybe you should examine your own motivations and find why this simple assertion makes you so angry? You're at the point of declaring it a non-sequitor when it followed a statement mocking the concept of conservatives supporting civil rights. You're like a parody of your usually incoherent self. It's like someone tied down whidbey and force fed him crazy pills.

zappaisfrank: It does sound familiar..it reminds me of all the times I've been debating Conservatives and they take it upon themselves to write my life story, fill in blanks about my beliefs, call me names, assume I'm an "Obamabot" or any other method they choose to prevent themselves from having to admit the truth about themselves or what they profess to be the truth.


I've had hilarious threads where people like PFQ call me a fascist while people on the right are simultaneously calling me an Obama love slave. People like these simply can't see any positions other than "us" and "them". It's sad, but kind of hilarious when you can unintentionally get a half dozen people to throw a shiatfit with a simple fact to rebut a general statement.
 
2012-04-09 11:19:55 AM  

liam76: coeyagi: liam76: coeyagi: sprawl15: Gunther: Like the recent Talking Point I've seen bandied about the internet that it was the conservatives who fought for civil rights.

A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston. That's one part of what made Moore's shenanigans in Bowling for Columbine so idiotic.
[newsimg.bbc.co.uk image 466x300]

Lochsteppe: The difference is that Fox has no apparent journalistic integrity or ethic to keep its narrative in check.

This implies that they're driven by some external moral factor. In reality, they'll have as many morals as their viewers will demand. The blame lands squarely on the shoulders of the populace that keeps watching Fox's nonsense. Glenn Beck didn't get fired for puppet shows or anti-Soros freestyle rap battles, he got fired for poor ratings.

Your argument is wonderful - it's akin to "Timothy McVeigh likes puppies and fought for animal rights, which made the US Government's prosecution of him inexcusable!"

//from my cold dead hands! done, asshole

Except Timothy McVeigh actually blew up a building.

Contrary to how Moore portrays it Charlton didn't give that speech in response to columbine, nor did NRA have a blowout.

The NRA has a "blowout" every time there is a mass shooting, bro.

No idea if this is what passes for wit with you or what you actually believe...


No idea if you deliberately missed the fact that it wasn't meant to be witty but rather factual that every time gun control comes up after a horrific mass shooting the NRA has a "blowout" defending every law on the books regarding guns, or if you picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
 
2012-04-09 11:20:24 AM  

sprawl15: Blanket statements like "Conservatives do X" or "Liberals do Y" are almost always easily disproven. "LOL PEOPLE SAY CONSERVATIVES MARCHED FOR CIVIL RIGHTS" is easily disproved by a single picture of a single conservative marching for civil rights.


There are a couple of things wrong with your argument here. First, you posted a 60s era picture of Charlton Heston...but, you failed to demonstrate that Heston was a conservative AT THE TIME THE protests were happening and the photo was taken.

You basically asserted that since Charlton Heston was widely considered conservative in 2008, he must have also been one when he was protesting for civil rights. Where's you evidence?

Second, you can't dismiss the claim that "conservatives didn't march for civil rights" by citing a single conservative (even if you had gone through the effort to establish the person's conservatism). You'd need at least two.

Third, It was pretty clear from context that Gunther was referring to conservatives in a collective sense. The is, his statement could not reasonably be interpreted as meaning, "no person self-identifying as conservative could possibly have demonstrated for black civil rights."

This point is especially stark because of the way Gunther worded his claim. He wrote, "Like the recent Talking Point I've seen bandied about the internet that it was 'the' conservatives who fought for civil rights." If he had omitted the "the," it might have been possible to (dishonestly) interpret the meaning of his claim as you chose to and fall back on the ridiculous argument you used. But, because he said "the conservatives," the claim cannot be reasonably construed to refer to anything but the collective. And, it is impossible to reasonably to refute a claim about THE conservatives by citing A conservative.
 
2012-04-09 11:20:43 AM  

sprawl15: 'Shot down'? I'll offer you the same question: what fact have you presented that 'shoots down' the idea that Heston marched for civil rights?


Nobody in this thread has argued against that. This argument has always been about whether or not the right was pro-civil rights. This tactic you keep trying (where you pretend the argument has been about something completely different) is pathetic.

sprawl15: Gunther: You don't want to admit the obvious and proven fact that it was the left in America that fought for civil rights and it was the right that was opposed.
Clearly, a bastion of rational, non-assholish behavior with nothing but the best of intentions.


You've repeatedly attacked anyone who responds to you no matter how polite their response, and you're upset I made such a comparatively mild post? Grow up.
 
2012-04-09 11:20:50 AM  

X-boxershorts: sprawl15: X-boxershorts: did not negotiate in good faith and always assumed the very worst in motives about their opponents, even when no evidence existed regarding ulterior motives.

Sounds familiar.

Sure does. Sounds like the GoP of today that has done everything it possibly could as the party out of power, to sabotage this president during a genuine international economic crisis.


Well, duh. The neocons hit a derp aquifer sometime around September 12, 2001.
 
2012-04-09 11:22:42 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: ginandbacon: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please


Yep. Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon was in 1960.

The politics of individuals and groups change over time. What a shock.

Nixon engineered the blatantly racist and horrific drug policy. But yes, I would probably take him over what the GOP is offering up today. I would take any Dem from almost any era over him, though.

well, our drug policy IS horrific but it is not racist. It's application DOES impact minorities much more negatively than it does white people but disparate impact is not evidence of racism.

The recently revised disparity in the sentences required for crack trafficking and cocaine trafficking was pretty blatantly racist.


doesn't make the national policy any more or less racist. Besides, crack is whack. Coke is fun.
 
2012-04-09 11:24:19 AM  

sprawl15: X-boxershorts: sprawl15: X-boxershorts: did not negotiate in good faith and always assumed the very worst in motives about their opponents, even when no evidence existed regarding ulterior motives.

Sounds familiar.

Sure does. Sounds like the GoP of today that has done everything it possibly could as the party out of power, to sabotage this president during a genuine international economic crisis.

Well, duh. The neocons hit a derp aquifer sometime around September 12, 2001.


I would say the DERP really hit the fan in January 1981.
 
2012-04-09 11:25:34 AM  

LarryDan43: I just like having my faiths confirmed. Whether it be at church by my minister or at home by my news channel, I just feel better knowing Im right and others are wrong.


This would be a perfect quote from one of the Onion's "American Voices" characters.
 
2012-04-09 11:25:45 AM  

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: OK, I missed the fact that your post about Charleton Heston marching for Civil rights had no relationship with anything else in the thread, and that it certainly did not relate to the post you were responding to about conservative sup[port for Civil Rights movement.

It was an example of a person regarded as a conservative who marched for civil rights. Maybe you should examine your own motivations and find why this simple assertion makes you so angry? You're at the point of declaring it a non-sequitor when it followed a statement mocking the concept of conservatives supporting civil rights. You're like a parody of your usually incoherent self. It's like someone tied down whidbey and force fed him crazy pills.


I pointed out that regarding him as a conservative at the time of the act is inaccurate. As such your use of him as an example was ignorant at best, dishonest at worst. That pisses you off. Too bad.
 
2012-04-09 11:26:17 AM  
Two words: 700 club.

cdn.front.moveon.org
 
2012-04-09 11:29:50 AM  

ginandbacon: You are missing my point. If we are going to go around attacking Fox viewers as uniformed and thus somehow illegitimate,


"Illegitiate" is not something I've said, or even implied. It's also a very loaded word to use - I would point out that their opinions of certain factual matters are WRONG, not illegitimate. Most importantly, though, these studies don't show that Fox viewers are uninformed, but that they are misinformed. It's an important distiction.

You say in one breath that we shouldn't "[attack] Fox viewers as uniformed and thus somehow illegitimate", and in the next you tell us that "[you] don't believe that bigots, climate denies, and religious fanatics deserve a patient ear". Why is that? Is it because their opinions on those matters are somehow illegitimate? I find it disconcerting that you're willing to unflinchingly dismiss the worst right-wing lies, but are so hesitant to discuss what is an important tool in the creation and maintenance of those lies among that group - Fox News.

This article is not an attack on Fox viewers, it's an attack on Fox News.

ginandbacon: My point is that it's a stupid conversation to be having.


The largest, most popular cable news channel in the country is putting out a nonstop stream of information that is actively misinforming tens of millions of Americans about verifiable factual matters (like climate change, for example) to support the ideological viewpoint of its owners, and you think that pointing this out is a stupid conversation? I think you're being short sighted, but whatever. you go back to the important work of policing the positions of progressives.

Let's stick to facts and not try to denigrate each other.

That Fox News viewers are consistently more misinformed, and have been for years now, is a fact. And wanting to discuss why they are seems like a valuable and important discussion to have, at least to me.

Let me ask you a question. If you came across several well researched, well documented studies that demonstrated that all of the children in your local school who had Mrs. Murdoch as their teacher were consistently being taught WRONG "facts" in multiple important subjects, what would your reaction be?

A) I think we can all agree that there are plenty of kids getting bad grades in lots of teacher's classes
B) Pointing this out is just going to force her defenders to deliberately misuse some statistics in a racist or sexist manner, and do we really want that?
C) This is a stupid discussion. Let's stick to facts and stop denigrating these kids
D) That's disturbing. Let's see if we can figure out why it's happening, what harm it is causing, and what we can do to fix this problem.
 
2012-04-09 11:30:34 AM  

NeverDrunk23: Ctrl-Alt-Del: ginandbacon: Sorry, I could have been clearer here. I meant to say that the majority of people in this country are misinformed on many issues. Fox viewers and conservatives don't have a monopoly on ignorance.

True, but the entire point of this article is that while many people, maybe even the majority of people, in this country are misinformed, people who watch Fox News are consistently the MOST misinformed. Your entire argument seems to take the following form:

Article : The majority of the worlds water is held in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
You: Yeah, but I think we can all agree that there are lots of bodies of water that hold a lot of water.

Yeah, it's true, but it doesn't really do anything to address the point under discussion except to distract from it

You could say both sides are bad, vote Atlantic.


WHY DOES THE GULF STREAM HATE AMERICA!!?
 
2012-04-09 11:31:22 AM  

skullkrusher: ginandbacon: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please


Yep. Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon was in 1960.

The politics of individuals and groups change over time. What a shock.

Nixon engineered the blatantly racist and horrific drug policy. But yes, I would probably take him over what the GOP is offering up today. I would take any Dem from almost any era over him, though.

well, our drug policy IS horrific but it is not racist. It's application DOES impact minorities much more negatively than it does white people but disparate impact is not evidence of racism.


Nixon's own words about his drug policy belie that fact.
 
Bf+
2012-04-09 11:32:05 AM  
So, in essence...
www.famouspictures.org
 
2012-04-09 11:32:23 AM  

Gunther: Nobody in this thread has argued against that.


You're doing it right now.

Gunther: You've repeatedly attacked anyone who responds to you no matter how polite their response


Please show an example of me attacking someone who was polite. PFQ doesn't count, he gets off on his martyrdom complex and I aim to please.

eraser8: You basically asserted that since Charlton Heston was widely considered conservative in 2008, he must have also been one when he was protesting for civil rights.


"You basically asserted" = "I just made up this narrative". Or, more accurately, "I like PFQ's narrative, so I'm going to imagine it as well."

eraser8: If he had omitted the "the," it might have been possible to (dishonestly) interpret the meaning of his claim as you chose to and fall back on the ridiculous argument you used.


Take a step back. What do you think was my purpose of saying that Heston marched for civil rights? You're claiming that it's a massive conspiracy of weasel words and narratives designed solely to assert a whole bunch of shiat that I never said. Is there any reason for you to take it as anything beyond face value? Is there any hint at all of some kind of combative nature to my post? I mean, christ, re-read what's starting the shiatstorm:
sprawl15: A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston.
That's it. A simple statement of fact. There's a lot of people in this thread trying to find something to argue against simply because they don't like Heston or don't like conservatives, and you're buying their bullshiat just the same.
 
2012-04-09 11:33:30 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: You say in one breath that we shouldn't "[attack] Fox viewers as uniformed and thus somehow illegitimate"


what Fox News viewers' uniforms might look like

www.usmbooks.com
 
2012-04-09 11:34:22 AM  

tgregory: zappaisfrank: tgregory: zappaisfrank: tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

Um, no.


No? No to both or do you have a favorite you'd like to defend? Government has grown under both parties and both have agendas to limit freedoms of others. So I'm not sure how you could deny either of doing that.

So, I take it you're one of those political hipsters who distinguishes themselves by being an "outsider" and "above it all" so as to enable yourself to rail against the "two party system", which also adds up to a free pass from objectively looking at the situation and allows you to fart it all off with bogus equivalency comparisons.

Lemme guess.."Paulbot", right? The "growing government" thingie was a dead giveaway.

As far as "limiting freedoms"..can you give me a specific example of the "freedoms" you've lost since President Obama took office?


Sentences I presented that end with a question mark were questions for you. I see you must've missed those.

I just have a "crazy idea" that people should own their own lives and property. Weird, huh?

Are you opposed to anything more than a two party system or are there only two sides for every issue? You approach the idea of personal liberty as being a wild and crazy one, but I think wanting to oppress others in order to reach political or social goals is crazy.

Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Defense Budget, Patriot Act, War on Drugs, Gay Marriage. All of those sound familiar? They should. The Democrats took to the streets over them when Bush was in power. Obama promised to handle all of them. I guess it's ok now that your guy is in power?

The problem with granting more power is eventually someone you won't like will have that power, so be careful for what you wish for.

Would've loved to have seen the protests from Democrats had Bush been the one to sign this: President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law (new window) ...


Well, I see you've taken the easy way out and automatically assumed I'm an Obama supporter, which is typical because it seems Conservatives are incapable of seeing things as anything other than a black vs. white scenario wherein if you are against one you must be automatically FOR the other by default. I see this all the time and it's never surprising. Disappointing, but not surprising.

I just have a "crazy idea" that people should own their own lives and property. Weird, huh?

As I asked above..give me an example of how you have been thwarted from owning your own life and property since November of 2008. I'll wait..

Are you opposed to anything more than a two party system or are there only two sides for every issue? You approach the idea of personal liberty as being a wild and crazy one, but I think wanting to oppress others in order to reach political or social goals is crazy.

I am in no way opposed to anything more than a "two party" system but at the same time, I'm a realist in that I also recognize that for any additional "parties" to have any more impact on an election other than to be a "spoiler" it's going to take three very basic things; time, money and candidates who appeal to the center and not the fringes. It's going to take time to weed out the generational voting pools who have only ever known two parties and those who view politics in a "sports team" mentality, it's going to take money to promote the candidate and since the billionaires are Republican and the labor unions are Democrat that's an uphill battle, and the candidates have to be sane, sensible people who can make the sale without appearing to be a wing nut which is too often the public perception of "third party" candidates.

Again, this huge impingement on your personal liberty seems to be a rather vague generality not backed up by much as far as street level examples. It sounds cute, though.

As far as the rest goes, you're throwing out examples of things I don't support either and acting like I'm supposed to defend them. Nowhere have I said I'm an Obama supporter, but it's difficult to ignore the fact that compared to what the Republicans are throwing at us, he is obviously the more palatable choice. You're taking the easy way out and mounting another "us vs. them" argument by referring to Obama as "my guy" while offering nothing in the way of an alternative idea of a defense of "the other side". Wonder why that is...?
 
2012-04-09 11:35:30 AM  

ginandbacon: skullkrusher: ginandbacon: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please


Yep. Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon was in 1960.

The politics of individuals and groups change over time. What a shock.

Nixon engineered the blatantly racist and horrific drug policy. But yes, I would probably take him over what the GOP is offering up today. I would take any Dem from almost any era over him, though.

well, our drug policy IS horrific but it is not racist. It's application DOES impact minorities much more negatively than it does white people but disparate impact is not evidence of racism.

Nixon's own words about his drug policy belie that fact.


what is racist about the drug policy? Does it specifically target minorities? No, it DOES specifically target dealers and suppliers over users though. Which, in light of what it is trying to accomplish, is probably the right idea.
 
2012-04-09 11:36:42 AM  

ginandbacon: skullkrusher: ginandbacon: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please


Yep. Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon was in 1960.

The politics of individuals and groups change over time. What a shock.

Nixon engineered the blatantly racist and horrific drug policy. But yes, I would probably take him over what the GOP is offering up today. I would take any Dem from almost any era over him, though.

well, our drug policy IS horrific but it is not racist. It's application DOES impact minorities much more negatively than it does white people but disparate impact is not evidence of racism.

Nixon's own words about his drug policy belie that fact.


My personal experience during the day was that Blacks weren't the original target of Nixon's war on drugs.

Nixon was going after the hippys and peaceniks.
 
2012-04-09 11:37:35 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I pointed out that regarding him as a conservative at the time of the act is inaccurate.


Which was, again, an assertion you imagined. You're so far up your own ass you don't even realize it.

Philip Francis Queeg: As such your use of him as an example


"A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston." Charlton Heston is a notable conservative. He fought for civil rights. Please let me know which aspect of this is confusing to you.

Philip Francis Queeg: That pisses you off.


Pisses me off so hard that I'm struggling to stifle laughter.
 
2012-04-09 11:39:11 AM  
Wake me when Ailes actually starts firing people for farking up easily verifiable facts, and actually moderates what they report a bit.

//Probably won't happen until Rupert passes on.
 
2012-04-09 11:39:45 AM  

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: I pointed out that regarding him as a conservative at the time of the act is inaccurate.

Which was, again, an assertion you imagined. You're so far up your own ass you don't even realize it.

Philip Francis Queeg: As such your use of him as an example

"A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston." Charlton Heston is a notable conservative. He fought for civil rights. Please let me know which aspect of this is confusing to you.

Philip Francis Queeg: That pisses you off.

Pisses me off so hard that I'm struggling to stifle laughter.


So pissed you gotta change yer depends now
 
2012-04-09 11:40:23 AM  

sprawl15: You're doing it right now.


You can't possibly really believe the crap you're arguing.

You got me, I guess. 7/10 - solid trolling, but you shouldn't need so many posts to hook people.
 
2012-04-09 11:40:44 AM  

sprawl15: eraser8: You basically asserted that since Charlton Heston was widely considered conservative in 2008, he must have also been one when he was protesting for civil rights.

"You basically asserted" = "I just made up this narrative". Or, more accurately, "I like PFQ's narrative, so I'm going to imagine it as well."


If I'm mistaken, I apologize.

Please point out to me EXACTLY where and when you reliably established Charlton Heston as a conservative AT THE TIME he was marching for civil rights.

sprawl15: Take a step back. What do you think was my purpose of saying that Heston marched for civil rights?


Honestly, I have no idea why you did it. That's why I asked in the first place. And, I asked because your statement was completely unresponsive to the post you were replying to.

sprawl15: sprawl15: A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston.
That's it. A simple statement of fact.


It's certainly a simple statement; but, it isn't a simple statement of fact because you haven't established that Charlton Heston was a conservative at the time of his protests. Besides, you weren't interested in making a simple statement of fact (unrelated as it was to Gunther's point). You claimed that "Blanket statements like "Conservatives do X" or "Liberals do Y" are almost always easily disproven. "LOL PEOPLE SAY CONSERVATIVES MARCHED FOR CIVIL RIGHTS" is easily disproved by a single picture of a single conservative marching for civil rights."

Leaving aside for the fact that your logic is untenable, you weren't able to sustain your claim even if one accepts your (rather bizarre) logic.
 
2012-04-09 11:41:03 AM  

X-boxershorts: So pissed you gotta change yer depends now


My fingers are bloody stumps and the only thing that can soothe them is the spittle caking my keyboard, since it's laced with painkillers and pixie sticks.
 
2012-04-09 11:42:36 AM  
It's a wonder little star chamber the Democrats have constructed for themselves. They fault conservatives for watching Fox News because it confirms all their beliefs... and then they don't watch Fox news because it doesn't confirm theirs.
 
2012-04-09 11:43:18 AM  

sprawl15:
zappaisfrank: It does sound familiar..it reminds me of all the times I've been debating Conservatives and they take it upon themselves to write my life story, fill in blanks about my beliefs, call me names, assume I'm an "Obamabot" or any other method they choose to prevent themselves from having to admit the truth about themselves or what they profess to be the truth.

I've had hilarious threads where people like PFQ call me a fascist while people on the right are simultaneously calling me an Obama love slave. People like these simply can't see any positions other than "us" and "them". It's sad, but kind of hilarious when you can unintentionally get a half dozen people to throw a shiatfit with a simple fact to rebut a general statement.


Nice to see I'm not the only one noticing these things. It does seem like righties only know how to approach an argument as an us vs. them conflict and think they can score points by calling you an Obama lover ("Your Messiah" is a common way they refer to President Obama). They are so limited in their scope of thinking that they automatically assume that because you are against one side you are automatically FOR the other side by default. I see it almost every day. Conservatives have managed to take a subject as complex as politics and reduce it down to a "sports team" mentality with their approach to elections being akin to "my team's gonna kick your teams ass!"

I do occasionally run across intelligent Conservatives and when you get past the surface crap you tend to discover that the two sides aren't that different in what they wish to see as an ultimate goal...namely, a government that works again! Too often, though, people get so wrapped up in placing blame and jockeying for power that the ultimate goal gets lost in a sea of bullshiat.
 
2012-04-09 11:44:23 AM  

RolandGunner: They fault conservatives for watching Fox News because it confirms all their beliefs... and then they don't watch Fox news because it doesn't confirm theirs.


How did you come to that conclusion? Where's your evidence?
 
2012-04-09 11:45:43 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: This article is not an attack on Fox viewers, it's an attack on Fox News.


Fair enough, but why not also hold left-wing sources to that same standard? Are you okay with DKos, HuffPo, and other media on the progressive side? And what's your point if you are going to attack a source and pretend not to be attacking its consumers? It really is sort of a stupid conversation unless you believe there are real life consequences.

Ctrl-Alt-Del: The largest, most popular cable news channel in the country is putting out a nonstop stream of information that is actively misinforming tens of millions of Americans


It is one of the fastest shrinking outlets for information in this country. Don't exaggerate its influence, you distort the discussion.

Ctrl-Alt-Del: That Fox News viewers are consistently more misinformed, and have been for years now, is a fact.


The most misinformed of cable viewers, not the most misinformed of voters. We do ourselves no favors by distorting reality. The most informed voters are consistently white male property owners. Are you suggesting that they are then more qualified to vote? I don't believe so, and I won't hold Fox News viewers' lack of information against them. I will hold them to their opinions.

If you don't see the difference here, I doubt we can have a rational discussion on this, or likely, any other topic.
 
2012-04-09 11:47:33 AM  

eraser8: RolandGunner: They fault conservatives for watching Fox News because it confirms all their beliefs... and then they don't watch Fox news because it doesn't confirm theirs.

How did you come to that conclusion? Where's your evidence?



I read Fark Politics tab.
 
2012-04-09 11:49:54 AM  

RolandGunner: It's a wonder little star chamber the Democrats have constructed for themselves. They fault conservatives for watching Fox News because it confirms all their beliefs... and then they don't watch Fox news because it doesn't confirm theirs.


I watch a lot of FOX News to confirm my beliefs.

/beliefs about how farked up they are.
//confirmed
 
2012-04-09 11:50:14 AM  
Ctrl-Alt-Del: The largest, most popular cable news channel in the country is putting out a nonstop stream of information that is actively misinforming tens of millions of Americans


Any you know this because MSNBC, Comedy Central and Media Matters tells you it is so.
 
2012-04-09 11:50:37 AM  

eraser8: Honestly, I have no idea why you did it.


Most people, when they have conversations, put forward ideas or information during discussion. A rational response may have been "Oh yes, I forgot about that." Or "true, those times weren't so much GOP/Racists vs Democrats/Not-Racists", or even "That's not really indicative of the entire picture". An attempt to move out of simply framing it as one party was for racism and one party was against it grossly oversimplifies the times and influences. This was the time of the Southern Strategy, where people who were against integration because it was Federally forced (like Buckley) teamed up with people who were against integration because they hated black people. This was a time when Adlai Stevenson, the Dem candidate, ran with a segregationist as his VP and opposed integration while William Barry Goldwater, who voted against the Civil Rights Act, was a member of the NAACP.

It's a lot more complicated than LOL CONSERVATIVES.

eraser8: Please point out to me EXACTLY where and when you reliably established Charlton Heston as a conservative AT THE TIME he was marching for civil rights.


I didn't. Nor did I ever assert that he was a conservative at the time. If he was or wasn't is irrelevant.

eraser8: Besides, you weren't interested in making a simple statement of fact (unrelated as it was to Gunther's point).


It certainly was related. See above; people tend to paint the world into "us" and "them" and flip shiat when grey areas are revealed.
 
2012-04-09 11:50:58 AM  

ginandbacon: Fair enough, but why not also hold left-wing sources to that same standard? Are you okay with DKos, HuffPo, and other media on the progressive side?


Part of the point of the TFA is that Fox News produces and its viewers maintain an unusual level of misinformation.

If the same were true of left-wing sources and their consumers, you'd have a point.

In any case, to the extent that left-wing sources and their consumers fall for misinformation, they should be condemned. But, don't try to create an equivalence where none exists.

ginandbacon: It is one of the fastest shrinking outlets for information in this country. Don't exaggerate its influence, you distort the discussion.


What? Is Fox or is it not the ratings leader among cable news outlets?
 
2012-04-09 11:52:34 AM  

sprawl15: William Barry Goldwater


No idea how that migrated out of the parentheses.
 
2012-04-09 11:53:13 AM  

Crunch61: RolandGunner: It's a wonder little star chamber the Democrats have constructed for themselves. They fault conservatives for watching Fox News because it confirms all their beliefs... and then they don't watch Fox news because it doesn't confirm theirs.

I watch a lot of FOX News to confirm my beliefs.

/beliefs about how farked up they are.
//confirmed




Cool Story Bro.
 
2012-04-09 11:53:36 AM  

meat0918: Wake me when Ailes actually starts firing people for farking up easily verifiable facts, and actually moderates what they report a bit.

//Probably won't happen until Rupert passes on.


No, Ailes is the true believer. Murdoch is just in it for the money.
 
2012-04-09 11:54:28 AM  

RolandGunner: Ctrl-Alt-Del: The largest, most popular cable news channel in the country is putting out a nonstop stream of information that is actively misinforming tens of millions of Americans


Any And you know this because MSNBC, Comedy Central and Media Matters tells you it is so.


FTFM
 
2012-04-09 11:55:52 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: meat0918: Wake me when Ailes actually starts firing people for farking up easily verifiable facts, and actually moderates what they report a bit.

//Probably won't happen until Rupert passes on.

No, Ailes is the true believer. Murdoch is just in it for the money.


Ailes was the one that said they'd fire people for farking up.

When Murdoch dies, I expect the media empire to crumble as it is sold off piece meal to interested parties.
 
2012-04-09 11:56:00 AM  
This is what's wrong with the folks TFA is talking about, and the Republican party in general. A good read if you haven't read it before. I am re-reading it today after having spent time with my family and being reminded about the tickets to the crazy train they've bought.
 
2012-04-09 11:56:53 AM  

RolandGunner: Ctrl-Alt-Del: The largest, most popular cable news channel in the country is putting out a nonstop stream of information that is actively misinforming tens of millions of Americans


Any you know this because MSNBC, Comedy Central and Media Matters tells you it is so.


Thank you for confirming what the rest of us see whenever attempting to discuss this very subject with Conservatives...nothing factual, simply offhand dismissals of "places that say mean things about Conservatives", the fact that the things they say are true be damned.

/"Soros" boogeyman in 5..4..3...
 
2012-04-09 12:00:12 PM  

tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.


So vote Republican!

This false equivalence is such BS.
 
2012-04-09 12:00:51 PM  

sprawl15: This was the time of the Southern Strategy, where people who were against integration because it was Federally forced (like Buckley) teamed up with people who were against integration because they hated black people. This was a time when Adlai Stevenson, the Dem candidate, ran with a segregationist as his VP and opposed integration while William Barry Goldwater, who voted against the Civil Rights Act, was a member of the NAACP.


Not particularly relevant to the points I raised with you.

sprawl15: eraser8: Please point out to me EXACTLY where and when you reliably established Charlton Heston as a conservative AT THE TIME he was marching for civil rights.

I didn't. Nor did I ever assert that he was a conservative at the time. If he was or wasn't is irrelevant.


Actually, to be responsive to the statement, it is entirely relevant. And, if you are unable to establish the fact of Heston's conservatism at the time of the protests, your statement is entirely unresponsive.

That leaves aside the fundamentally untenable logic you used in countering Gunther's post. You simply cannot reasonably undermine a claim about a collective by citing an individual member of that collective.

sprawl15: It certainly was related. See above; people tend to paint the world into "us" and "them" and flip shiat when grey areas are revealed.


Mentioning exceptions to a rule doesn't undermine the general rule. At no time did Gunther claim "no self-identified conservative ever marched for civil rights." He made a statement about conservatives as a collective. And, he was right. Your reply was simply not responsive to his claim and, in fact, was really quite silly.
 
2012-04-09 12:02:07 PM  

sprawl15: MyRandomName: The more interesting study that recently came out, from a leftist, is the fact liberals can not comprehend opposing viewpoints while conservatives can.

That study was about as stupid as studies can get without someone losing their job.


Question for self identified conservative: Given the pattern A,B,C; what do you think a liberal will say the next thing in the pattern is?
Conservative: D?
That is correct.
Question for self identified liberal: Given the pattern W,X,Y; what do you think a conservative will say the next thing in the pattern is?
Liberal: Z
Incorrect the conservative said "potato"
Conclusion: Liberals can't comprehend opposing viewpoints! DERP!
 
2012-04-09 12:02:13 PM  

RolandGunner: Crunch61: RolandGunner: It's a wonder little star chamber the Democrats have constructed for themselves. They fault conservatives for watching Fox News because it confirms all their beliefs... and then they don't watch Fox news because it doesn't confirm theirs.

I watch a lot of FOX News to confirm my beliefs.

/beliefs about how farked up they are.
//confirmed

Cool Story Bro.


And the moral of the CSB is: When a simple anecdote completely negates your argument, perhaps you should look for another argument.
 
2012-04-09 12:02:43 PM  

moralpanic: tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

So vote Republican!

This false equivalence is such BS.


So vote Democrat because authoritarianism is like rat droppings in cereal?
 
2012-04-09 12:03:37 PM  
img1.fark.net
 
2012-04-09 12:05:15 PM  

skullkrusher: moralpanic: tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

So vote Republican!

This false equivalence is such BS.

So vote Democrat because authoritarianism is like rat droppings in cereal?


Because conservative policy for the past 40 years has a horrific track record?
 
2012-04-09 12:05:40 PM  

mongbiohazard: This is what's wrong with the folks TFA is talking about, and the Republican party in general. A good read if you haven't read it before. I am re-reading it today after having spent time with my family and being reminded about the tickets to the crazy train they've bought.


I'm supposed to be spending Christmas this year with a rabid Fox News viewer that I have had this conversation with. I've managed to come up with excuses that last few years and avoided it (living 2000 miles away helps).

Me: "I'm not concerned so much with right versus left, but authoritarianism versus liberty"
Him: "I'm not concerned with authoritarians. As long as they aren't Democrats".

I wish I was joking.
 
2012-04-09 12:06:04 PM  

moralpanic: tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

So vote Republican!

This false equivalence is such BS.



Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority. It is usually opposed to individualism and libertarianism.

Oops. Sorry for dropping facts on you.
 
2012-04-09 12:06:05 PM  

X-boxershorts: ginandbacon: skullkrusher: ginandbacon: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please


Yep. Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon was in 1960.

The politics of individuals and groups change over time. What a shock.

Nixon engineered the blatantly racist and horrific drug policy. But yes, I would probably take him over what the GOP is offering up today. I would take any Dem from almost any era over him, though.

well, our drug policy IS horrific but it is not racist. It's application DOES impact minorities much more negatively than it does white people but disparate impact is not evidence of racism.

Nixon's own words about his drug policy belie that fact.

My personal experience during the day was that Blacks weren't the original target of Nixon's war on drugs.

Nixon was going after the hippys and peaceniks.


No, that was how he sold it. His basic policy was directed at black Americans and was phenomenally successful. In fact, Vietnam vets were known before the War on Drugs was enacted to have very low usage once they got back from Asia. The entire thing was an outright attack on black men. You can listen to his racist rantings and read about his policy choices stemming from these beliefs. Or you can just look at the outcome within the first decade and make up your own mind. The man was a disgusting bigot.
 
2012-04-09 12:10:06 PM  

RolandGunner: It's a wonder little star chamber the Democrats have constructed for themselves. They fault conservatives for watching Fox News because it confirms all their beliefs... and then they don't watch Fox news because it doesn't confirm theirs.


Nope. People are adverse to watching Fox because it makes up lies and persists with them even when they have easily been shown to be lies.

Many people seem to have a need to find sources that can be just believed because they are a trusted Authority without any need to check out their explanations. Conservatives often take this to the extreme that anything one of their Authorities says is true must be so. See my comment earlier in this thread about the conservative embrace of a strong social hierarchy. Conservatives are wired for unquestionable authority while liberals at least allow questions. Three examples of strong social hierarchies are the military, a business, and a religion. The job of a soldier, worker. or lay person is to follow orders and and accept beliefs and not question them. Conservatives tend to think that all of society should be run as the military or a business or a religion.
 
2012-04-09 12:11:45 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [motherjones.com image 338x316] (new window)


That graph with unlabeled axes has sure convinced me!

Of what, I'm not really sure... but I'm convinced!
 
2012-04-09 12:11:48 PM  

eraser8: That leaves aside the fundamentally untenable logic you used in countering Gunther's post.


This is where you're farking up. You're imposing this whole argumentative tone onto something that had no argumentative tone. You're assuming it was a combative counter, when it was just kind of a "well, there's this guy".

eraser8: At no time did Gunther claim "no self-identified conservative ever marched for civil rights." He made a statement about conservatives as a collective.


And his statement was wrong. Not just because of a single, small example, but because of broad movements in both parties. As I explained to you already, and you dismissed as irrelevant.

Gunther: See, this is exactly the sort of Talking Point bullshiat I'm talking about. You don't want to admit the obvious and proven fact that it was the left in America that fought for civil rights and it was the right that was opposed. So you're focusing on ONE example of a conservative who fought for civil rights as though that one counter-example disproves history.


His history is just as revisionist as the people who claim the right were the only ones fighting for civil rights. I intended a discussion instead of an argument, but apparently the butthurt must flow.
 
2012-04-09 12:11:54 PM  

sprawl15: A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston. That's one part of what made Moore's shenanigans in Bowling for Columbine so idiotic.


Uh, his fighting for civil rights in the 50s and 60s doesn't excuse his allowing himself to become a pawn of the NRA in the 80s and 90s. Life doesn't work that way.

/It's like saying Ezra Pound's support of Communist causes in the 20s excuses the radio broadcasts he made for Mussolini (and against his own country) in the 40s.
//Of course, Pound was clinically insane.
///And Heston was senile.
 
2012-04-09 12:12:12 PM  

X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: moralpanic: tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

So vote Republican!

This false equivalence is such BS.

So vote Democrat because authoritarianism is like rat droppings in cereal?

Because conservative policy for the past 40 years has a horrific track record?


accepting some authoritarianism because the other party is more authoritarian doesn't have much to do with the other party.
 
2012-04-09 12:12:27 PM  

zappaisfrank: Lochsteppe: AverageAmericanGuy: As long as the libs have MSNBC to spew their hate of the Right, they really have no right to fling barbs at Fox.

Nor do conservatives have a right to fling barbs at MSNBC.

In the end it's a wash. And I'm okay with that.

"Saddened and mystified by" is not the same as "hate of." You could probably make a case that most news outlets, whether corporate or not, follow some larger narrative that's shaped by the worldviews of the people who produce & run it. That's not a sin; that's a reasonable thing to expect from a human institution. The difference is that Fox has no apparent journalistic integrity or ethic to keep its narrative in check. As others have said above, Fox is a propaganda outlet serving only one purpose: to keep its viewership fearful, compliant, and misinformed.

Comparing Fox and any other US media outlet isn't really apt. If CNN or MSNBC are hamburgers from different lousy fast-food joints, Fox is a hamburger made of Play-Doh.

The other main differences is that MSNBC commentators take responsibility for what they say and if they report something that is incorrect, they take steps to correct and acknowledge the error.

Fox uses these vague unattributed "quotes" to introduce the propaganda into the discussion without having to accept any direct connection or claim of origination to the statement. They say things like "People are saying that Barack Obama farks chickens"...and then they go around to their various "panelists" who don't commit to a viewpoint on it one way or the other, saying things like "well, it's doubtful..but who really knows..". This way they've managed to wiggle out of direct responsibility for such an irresponsible statement but they've still managed to plant the seed of suggestion into their pinheaded viewers consciousness. Bubba Knuckledragger watching it thinks.."Hmm..people are saying Obama farks chickens"...but lacks the critical thinking skills to dismiss it as obviously bullshiat, and since he already hates Obama, the cycle is permitted to continue.

Fox also NEVER corrects anything they report that is wrong. That's another feature with right wingers..they will NEVER EVER admit to being wrong about ANYTHING EVER. They'll deflect, tap dance around, blame shift and make things up to avoid admitting they're wrong.


Interesting side note on that, I was at my mom and dad's house on Friday, and dad was watching FoxNews and yelling about something. They mentioned Obama courting the women voters, and dad somehow heard it as "Obama's a womanizer", and repeated the conflation back, saying "I knew it, always a Democrat!"
 
2012-04-09 12:13:18 PM  

tgregory: moralpanic: tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

So vote Republican!

This false equivalence is such BS.


Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority. It is usually opposed to individualism and libertarianism.

Oops. Sorry for dropping facts on you.


CONGRATS!!! You know how to use a dictionary! Unfortunately for you i wasn't arguing on the definition of the word, but whether it applies equivalently to both sides, which it doesn't.
 
2012-04-09 12:13:33 PM  

eraser8: If the same were true of left-wing sources and their consumers, you'd have a point.


It is true. American women, 53% of the voters, by far the largest group in this country, are consistently among the least informed no matter what source they have for news. We also make up 62% of independents, the other notoriously uninformed block of voters. And yet, for 30 years, we have been voting the Democratic ticket.

So what does it matter how informed a voter is? Is seems to have no impact on party allegiance. Fox News attracts people who would vote for Hitler if he were the GOP nominee. So what? Fox didn't create them, it just caters to them.
 
2012-04-09 12:15:32 PM  
zappaisfrank:

Well, I see you've taken the easy way out and automatically assumed I'm an Obama supporter, which is typical because it seems Conservatives are incapable of seeing things as anything other than a black vs. white scenario wherein if you are against one you must be automatically FOR the other by default. I see this all the time and it's never surprising. Disappointing, but not surprising.


No assumption necessary because you were quick to defend Obama without me even mentioning his name. Both Republicans and Democrats have their views, see it as black and white, and want those views pushed on others. (Authoritarian) The only thing conservative about me is wanting to reign in government spending. Unless pro-choice, anti-drug war, gutting the defense, closing military bases, etc... is now considered conservative.



zappaisfrank:

As I asked above..give me an example of how you have been thwarted from owning your own life and property since November of 2008. I'll wait..


Really? Obamacare? Tighter regulation? More bailouts? Extending the Patriot Act? Adding to America's wars? And those are EASY things to list.

And why start in 2008? Let's go back further. You sure are quick to defend Obama. Bush kicked off a lot of this with the bailouts, the Patriot Act, the wars, etc... Anytime our government tries to create something it takes from somewhere else. (Government 101) When did you sign up for Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? I sure don't remember signing up for that. Would you like it if a company signed you up for a service you didn't agree to? Of course not. Hell, people are pissed when they're held to something they DO sign up for. (Credit cards, anyone?)

Regulation and the Obama administration

Obama's Authoritarian Style



zappaisfrank:

I am in no way opposed to anything more than a "two party" system but at the same time, I'm a realist in that I also recognize that for any additional "parties" to have any more impact on an election other than to be a "spoiler" it's going to take three very basic things; time, money and candidates who appeal to the center and not the fringes. It's going to take time to weed out the generational voting pools who have only ever known two parties and those who view politics in a "sports team" mentality, it's going to take money to promote the candidate and since the billionaires are Republican and the labor unions are Democrat that's an uphill battle, and the candidates have to be sane, sensible people who can make the sale without appearing to be a wing nut which is too often the public perception of "third party" candidates.

Again, this huge impingement on your personal liberty seems to be a rather vague generality not backed up by much as far as street level examples. It sounds cute, though.

As far as the rest goes, you're throwing out examples of things I don't support either and acting like I'm supposed to defend them. Nowhere have I said I'm an Obama supporter, but it's difficult to ignore the fact that compared to what the Republicans are throwing at us, he is obviously the more palatable choice. You're taking the easy way out and mounting another "us vs. them" argument by referring to Obama as "my guy" while offering nothing in the way of an alternative idea of a defense of "the other side". Wonder why that is...?




"I'm a realist" is a statement people say when they want to stop thinking of better solutions. However, if we operated as a true free society who is in power makes no difference because they couldn't say gay marriage should be illegal, or that you have to pay into social programs, or that you have to fight in a war, or that you have to pay for public school even though you don't have children or send them to private schools, etc... because we'd all own our lives and our property and no one could vote that away with majority rule (or a dictatorship).

Do you think we're totally free? If not, welcome to my side.
 
2012-04-09 12:16:10 PM  

meat0918: When Murdoch dies, I expect the media empire to crumble as it is sold off piece meal to interested parties.


That's usually what happens. But his older kids have an active interest in keeping the whole thing together, as it's their main source of income.

What will be interesting is if Wendy (his current wife) gets her way and he screws his older kids over by leaving the whole thing to his youngest children (he has children by three different wives ranging in age from 50 to less than 10 years old).

Also, keep in mind that Rupert's mother is still alive, so we may be waiting a long time for him to drop dead.
 
2012-04-09 12:18:11 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: meat0918: When Murdoch dies, I expect the media empire to crumble as it is sold off piece meal to interested parties.

That's usually what happens. But his older kids have an active interest in keeping the whole thing together, as it's their main source of income.

What will be interesting is if Wendy (his current wife) gets her way and he screws his older kids over by leaving the whole thing to his youngest children (he has children by three different wives ranging in age from 50 to less than 10 years old).

Also, keep in mind that Rupert's mother is still alive, so we may be waiting a long time for him to drop dead.


He had wives as young as 10? Holy Shiat, he's even worse than I thought!
 
2012-04-09 12:19:01 PM  

zappaisfrank: RolandGunner: Ctrl-Alt-Del: The largest, most popular cable news channel in the country is putting out a nonstop stream of information that is actively misinforming tens of millions of Americans


Any you know this because MSNBC, Comedy Central and Media Matters tells you it is so.

Thank you for confirming what the rest of us see whenever attempting to discuss this very subject with Conservatives...nothing factual, simply offhand dismissals of "places that say mean things about Conservatives", the fact that the things they say are true be damned.

/"Soros" boogeyman in 5..4..3...




Oh, the irony. When the thread is kicked off with a leftist Alternet.com blog post telling the leftist rabble how they should think conservatives think then you have already conceded the high ground.
 
2012-04-09 12:20:09 PM  

sprawl15: eraser8: That leaves aside the fundamentally untenable logic you used in countering Gunther's post.

This is where you're farking up. You're imposing this whole argumentative tone onto something that had no argumentative tone. You're assuming it was a combative counter, when it was just kind of a "well, there's this guy".

eraser8: At no time did Gunther claim "no self-identified conservative ever marched for civil rights." He made a statement about conservatives as a collective.

And his statement was wrong. Not just because of a single, small example, but because of broad movements in both parties. As I explained to you already, and you dismissed as irrelevant.
Gunther: See, this is exactly the sort of Talking Point bullshiat I'm talking about. You don't want to admit the obvious and proven fact that it was the left in America that fought for civil rights and it was the right that was opposed. So you're focusing on ONE example of a conservative who fought for civil rights as though that one counter-example disproves history.
His history is just as revisionist as the people who claim the right were the only ones fighting for civil rights. I intended a discussion instead of an argument, but apparently the butthurt must flow.


You know who definately did not march for civil rights? Dead people. But wait Charleston Heston is a notable dead person and he marched for civil rights, therefore dead people did march for civil rights.

This is really how dumb you sound.
 
2012-04-09 12:21:05 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Uh, his fighting for civil rights in the 50s and 60s doesn't excuse his allowing himself to become a pawn of the NRA in the 80s and 90s.


...sigh.
 
2012-04-09 12:21:08 PM  

sprawl15: You're imposing this whole argumentative tone onto something that had no argumentative tone.


Actually, I'm just taking you at your word. You wrote that, "Blanket statements like "Conservatives do X" or "Liberals do Y" are almost always easily disproven. "LOL PEOPLE SAY CONSERVATIVES MARCHED FOR CIVIL RIGHTS" is easily disproved by a single picture of a single conservative marching for civil rights.""

Whether you want to accept it or not, that claim constitutes an argument. Whether the claim is tense or not is open to debate...whether or not the claim is an argumentative statement is not.

And, you claim, as I wrote earlier, is not only logically untenable but is really quite silly.

sprawl15: And his statement was wrong. Not just because of a single, small example, but because of broad movements in both parties. As I explained to you already, and you dismissed as irrelevant.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. In the statement you replied to, Gunther made no claim about PARTIES. He made a claim about "the right" and self-identified conservatives.

People who fought for civil rights were pretty much liberal by definition -- REGARDLESS OF WHAT PARTY they belonged to or identified with.
 
2012-04-09 12:22:30 PM  
You know who definately did not march for civil rights? Dead people. But wait Charleston Heston is a notable dead person and he marched for civil rights, therefore dead people did march for civil rights.

This is really how dumb you sound.
 
2012-04-09 12:26:30 PM  

make me some tea: [farm4.static.flickr.com image 500x333]


You know, I just now noticed this, but not only is "informed" spelled wrong, but so is America. Upper left corner, it reads "Yes God Bless Amercia."

How farking retarded do you have to be to not spell the name of your own country correctly?
 
2012-04-09 12:27:55 PM  

eraser8: Whether you want to accept it or not, that claim constitutes an argument.


"HEY LIKE 30 POSTS AFTER SOMEONE STARTED AN ARGUMENT WITH YOU, YOU TOOK AN ARGUMENTATIVE TONE. YOUR TONE THUS TRAVELED BACK IN TIME AND MADE YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT ARGUMENTATIVE. YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT"

eraser8: People who fought for civil rights were pretty much liberal by definition -- REGARDLESS OF WHAT PARTY they belonged to or identified with.


On your planet, Barry Goldwater was a liberal and Adlai Stevenson was a conservative? Fascinating, tell me more.
 
2012-04-09 12:30:05 PM  

Coco LaFemme: make me some tea: [farm4.static.flickr.com image 500x333]

You know, I just now noticed this, but not only is "informed" spelled wrong, but so is America. Upper left corner, it reads "Yes God Bless Amercia."

How farking retarded do you have to be to not spell the name of your own country correctly?


scixelsyd are people too
 
2012-04-09 12:38:09 PM  

ginandbacon: coeyagi: Of course there are people on the left who don't see out other's viewpoints

I'm not necessarily concerned with intransigence. I don't believe that bigots, climate denies, and religious fanatics deserve a patient ear. Some people should simply be ignored. I am however very worried about anybody on the left who is ill-informed and subject to the kinds of breathless conspiracy theories and rumor-based propaganda at sites like DKos that we see from sites like WND. Or those who simply don't care and tune in the last week of an election.

My job as a progressive is not to point and laugh when conservatives' intellectual slips are showing. My job is to make sure those with whom I am aligned are operating from a position of reason and truthiness. Otherwise, those arguments I believe to be fundamentally unassailable are tainted.

I'm just saying we need to own up to our own problems and be honest about them before we attack the other side for something some of us frankly fail more at.


While I agree that there are pockets of the left that are just as finger in their ears as the right as far as different view points you're off base by conflating Dkos with conspiracy theorying. In the site moderation rules, any conspiracy theory diaries gets you banned and conspiracy theory linking gets you banned and conspiracy theory posting in comments gets you time outed. They are very anti-conspiracy theory and infact it's the only public political discourse user generated site I've run across with such strong and specific rules in its moderation against conspiracy theory types.
 
2012-04-09 12:38:40 PM  

eraser8: People who fought for civil rights were pretty much liberal by definition -- REGARDLESS OF WHAT PARTY they belonged to or identified with.


So much this.
 
2012-04-09 12:43:10 PM  

President Raygun: ginandbacon: coeyagi: Of course there are people on the left who don't see out other's viewpoints

I'm not necessarily concerned with intransigence. I don't believe that bigots, climate denies, and religious fanatics deserve a patient ear. Some people should simply be ignored. I am however very worried about anybody on the left who is ill-informed and subject to the kinds of breathless conspiracy theories and rumor-based propaganda at sites like DKos that we see from sites like WND. Or those who simply don't care and tune in the last week of an election.

My job as a progressive is not to point and laugh when conservatives' intellectual slips are showing. My job is to make sure those with whom I am aligned are operating from a position of reason and truthiness. Otherwise, those arguments I believe to be fundamentally unassailable are tainted.

I'm just saying we need to own up to our own problems and be honest about them before we attack the other side for something some of us frankly fail more at.

While I agree that there are pockets of the left that are just as finger in their ears as the right as far as different view points you're off base by conflating Dkos with conspiracy theorying. In the site moderation rules, any conspiracy theory diaries gets you banned and conspiracy theory linking gets you banned and conspiracy theory posting in comments gets you time outed. They are very anti-conspiracy theory and infact it's the only public political discourse user generated site I've run across with such strong and specific rules in its moderation against conspiracy theory types.


Rules and reality are not quite the same thing. Especially at DKos. In fact, prohibitions are often indicative of a widespread practice.

I find them just as unreliable and corrosive as Fox, just in the other direction.
 
2012-04-09 12:43:15 PM  

sprawl15: "HEY LIKE 30 POSTS AFTER SOMEONE STARTED AN ARGUMENT WITH YOU, YOU TOOK AN ARGUMENTATIVE TONE. YOUR TONE THUS TRAVELED BACK IN TIME AND MADE YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT ARGUMENTATIVE. YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT"


Um, what? Are you denying that you claim was divisive or contentious. I said it constituted an argument. And, it did.

An argument is "a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion."

I suspect you're making the mistake of freighting my use of the word with your own misunderstanding of the meaning of the word.

sprawl15: On your planet, Barry Goldwater was a liberal and Adlai Stevenson was a conservative? Fascinating, tell me more.


When Barry Goldwater supported civil rights, he was acting as a liberal. When he opposed them, he acted as conservative. Same goes for anyone else. It is inherently liberal to upend the existing order and promote progress. It is inherently conservative to resist change that threatens established authority.
 
2012-04-09 12:43:51 PM  

coeyagi: liam76: coeyagi: liam76: coeyagi: sprawl15: Gunther: Like the recent Talking Point I've seen bandied about the internet that it was the conservatives who fought for civil rights.

A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston. That's one part of what made Moore's shenanigans in Bowling for Columbine so idiotic.
[newsimg.bbc.co.uk image 466x300]

Lochsteppe: The difference is that Fox has no apparent journalistic integrity or ethic to keep its narrative in check.

This implies that they're driven by some external moral factor. In reality, they'll have as many morals as their viewers will demand. The blame lands squarely on the shoulders of the populace that keeps watching Fox's nonsense. Glenn Beck didn't get fired for puppet shows or anti-Soros freestyle rap battles, he got fired for poor ratings.

Your argument is wonderful - it's akin to "Timothy McVeigh likes puppies and fought for animal rights, which made the US Government's prosecution of him inexcusable!"

//from my cold dead hands! done, asshole

Except Timothy McVeigh actually blew up a building.

Contrary to how Moore portrays it Charlton didn't give that speech in response to columbine, nor did NRA have a blowout.

The NRA has a "blowout" every time there is a mass shooting, bro.

No idea if this is what passes for wit with you or what you actually believe...

No idea if you deliberately missed the fact that it wasn't meant to be witty but rather factual that every time gun control comes up after a horrific mass shooting the NRA has a "blowout" defending every law on the books regarding guns, or if you picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.


It is very rare to meet people who actually believe the BS Moore presented in bowling for columbine 10+ years later. You are just as misinformed on this topic as Fox viewers who think that Saddam was part of 9/11.


No the NRA didn't have a "blowout" after columbine, but don't let reality get in the way of your BS.
(new window)
 
2012-04-09 12:44:09 PM  

ginandbacon: Fair enough, but why not also hold left-wing sources to that same standard? Are you okay with DKos, HuffPo, and other media on the progressive side?


Am I OK with them what? In general? On specific subjects? If you could find some studies that show that readers of those sites are consistently misinformed about certain subjects (like vaccinations, for example) then yes, I have a problem with that as well.

And what's your point if you are going to attack a source and pretend not to be attacking its consumers? It really is sort of a stupid conversation unless you believe there are real life consequences.

Tens of millions of Americans are being fed a nonstop stream of lies, distortions and misinformation about topics including global warming; abortion; birth control; trickle-dow economics; the effects of cutting taxes on the rich; the attitudes and actions of poor people, minorities, and progressives. And you're doubtful that there are "real world consequences"?

"if you are going to attack a source and pretend not to be attacking its consumers?"

I'll point out that not only did you not answer the question I asked (in good faith) , but if you apply this logic here to that situation (a teacher misinforming students) the results are pretty astounding. To quote somebody you may have heard of: "If you don't see the difference here, I doubt we can have a rational discussion on this"

ginandbacon: It is one of the fastest shrinking outlets for information in this country. Don't exaggerate its influence, you distort the discussion.


I would offer the same advice, don't minimize its influence, you distort the conversation. It may be shrinking, but it still reaches millions of dedicated viewers, and they are typically in a demographic that is more likely to vote than any other. Also recall that FNC is far from the only property owned by the Murdoch empire. Have you taken a look at the Wall Street Journal recently?

ginandbacon: Are you suggesting that they are then more qualified to vote?


Seriously. Stop this crap. this is the second time that you've headed down this path. The fact that you keep trying to paint this as some kind of attempt at delegitimizing or disenfranchising or dehumanizing these people is little more than a strawman argument - nobody in this discussion is arguing that*, and your attempts to claim we are is not only dishonest, it's pretty goddamned annoying.

Not every discussion of statistically valid facts about certain groups of people is an attempt to marginalize that group, regardless of your experience with sexists and racists who want to discuss crime rates and test score disparities and use those facts to justify their assumptions about women or blacks based on their unsupported ideas about the causes for those differences or the likely consequences of those disparities.

ginandbacon: If you don't see the difference here, I doubt we can have a rational discussion on this, or likely, any other topic.


The difference between which and what? The difference between attempting to honestly discuss the causes and consequences of a rather disturbing fact and the assumption that not only is it not really important, but that even the mere act of discussing it is little more than an attempt to vilify and oppress the people it applies to? I can see the difference quite clearly. Can you?
 
2012-04-09 12:44:50 PM  

eraser8: When Barry Goldwater supported civil rights, he was acting as a liberal. When he opposed them, he acted as conservative.


OK, OK, 9/10. You got me.
 
2012-04-09 12:45:25 PM  

eraser8: Are you denying that you claim was divisive or contentious.


This was a mistake.

Should read: I am NOT claiming your comment was divisive or contentious. I said it constituted an argument. And, it did.
 
2012-04-09 12:46:35 PM  

sprawl15: eraser8: When Barry Goldwater supported civil rights, he was acting as a liberal. When he opposed them, he acted as conservative.

OK, OK, 9/10. You got me.


I got you. But, not because I was trolling. I wasn't.

I got you because I was right.

As I wrote, it is inherently liberal to upend the existing order and promote progress. It is inherently conservative to resist change that threatens established authority.
 
2012-04-09 12:50:08 PM  

eraser8: sprawl15: eraser8: When Barry Goldwater supported civil rights, he was acting as a liberal. When he opposed them, he acted as conservative.

OK, OK, 9/10. You got me.

I got you. But, not because I was trolling. I wasn't.

I got you because I was right.

As I wrote, it is inherently liberal to upend the existing order and promote progress. It is inherently conservative to resist change that threatens established authority.


Have you ever witnessed the mental gymnastics a conservative will go through when you tell him the Founding Fathers were the leading progressive liberals of their day?
 
2012-04-09 12:51:35 PM  

eraser8: Should read: I am NOT claiming your comment was divisive or contentious. I said it constituted an argument.


I made more than one comment. I'm surprised you didn't realize this by now, you've responded to several of them.

eraser8: As I wrote, it is inherently liberal to upend the existing order and promote progress. It is inherently conservative to resist change that threatens established authority.


This has to be the most profoundly retarded definition I've ever heard. By this definition, the people trying to define moment of conception two weeks before people have sex are liberal while the people defending the established idea that conception can't happen before it actually happens are conservatives. You do realize that every person is looking to promote progress, and that the difference between individuals lies in subjective opinion of what 'progress' constitutes, right?
 
2012-04-09 12:52:45 PM  

eraser8: It is inherently conservative to resist change that threatens established authority


So a conservative is inherently for abortion?
 
2012-04-09 12:55:19 PM  

Lochsteppe: AverageAmericanGuy: As long as the libs have MSNBC to spew their hate of the Right, they really have no right to fling barbs at Fox.

Nor do conservatives have a right to fling barbs at MSNBC.

In the end it's a wash. And I'm okay with that.

"Saddened and mystified by" is not the same as "hate of." You could probably make a case that most news outlets, whether corporate or not, follow some larger narrative that's shaped by the worldviews of the people who produce & run it. That's not a sin; that's a reasonable thing to expect from a human institution. The difference is that Fox has no apparent journalistic integrity or ethic to keep its narrative in check. As others have said above, Fox is a propaganda outlet serving only one purpose: to keep its viewership fearful, compliant, and misinformed.

Comparing Fox and any other US media outlet isn't really apt. If CNN or MSNBC are hamburgers from different lousy fast-food joints, Fox is a hamburger made of Play-Doh.


This is unfairly insulting to play-doh. Though my childhood memories have faded, I recall playdoh being fecking delicious, if a bit salty.
 
2012-04-09 12:55:44 PM  

liam76: eraser8: It is inherently conservative to resist change that threatens established authority

So a conservative is inherently for abortion?


If they had any repect for the definition of words they would. Or they'd call themselves "regressives"
 
2012-04-09 12:56:58 PM  

liam76: eraser8: It is inherently conservative to resist change that threatens established authority

So a conservative is inherently for abortion?


Timecube guy = liberal.
People making fun of Timecube guy = conservative.

God, what a horrible definition.
 
2012-04-09 12:58:29 PM  
Yep.
The shame of being wrong or of having others think them wrong is absolutely maddening the the authoritarian followers.
 
2012-04-09 01:02:24 PM  

sprawl15: liam76: eraser8: It is inherently conservative to resist change that threatens established authority

So a conservative is inherently for abortion?

Timecube guy = liberal.
People making fun of Timecube guy = conservative.

God, what a horrible definition.


"Today's so-called 'conservatives' don't even know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It's not a conservative issue at all."

- Barry Goldwater
 
2012-04-09 01:04:01 PM  

sprawl15: I made more than one comment. I'm surprised you didn't realize this by now, you've responded to several of them.


The comment I'm referring to here was quoted several times for specificity. The point shouldn't have been very difficult for you to follow.

sprawl15: This has to be the most profoundly retarded definition I've ever heard. By this definition, the people trying to define moment of conception two weeks before people have sex are liberal while the people defending the established idea that conception can't happen before it actually happens are conservatives.


That's why I specified conservatives as those who resist threats to established authority instead of simply those who resist change. And, by authority I don't just mean whatever rule is in place at any given time. I mean those who have power, whether through money or tradition. Conservatives, by definition, want to protect those people and maintain the existing power hierarchy.

sprawl15: You do realize that every person is looking to promote progress, and that the difference between individuals lies in subjective opinion of what 'progress' constitutes, right?


That's why "promote progress" was married to "upend[ing] the existing order."

Keep in mind that I'm not making a value judgement that it's always a good thing to "upend the existing order." Nor am I making a value judgment that it's always a bad thing to "resist change that threatens established authority." I'm just establishing definitions. And, the ones I've chosen are pretty close to actual dictionary definitions:

Liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

Conservative: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
 
2012-04-09 01:05:22 PM  

liam76: eraser8: It is inherently conservative to resist change that threatens established authority

So a conservative is inherently for abortion?


I'll just repeat what I wrote to another Farker: That's why I specified conservatives as those who resist threats to established authority instead of simply those who resist change. And, by authority I don't just mean whatever rule is in place at any given time. I mean those who have power, whether through money or tradition. Conservatives, by definition, want to protect those people and maintain the existing power hierarchy.
 
2012-04-09 01:06:02 PM  

magusdevil: "Today's so-called 'conservatives' don't even know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It's not a conservative issue at all."

- Barry Goldwater


"Belly-Button Logic© Works. When Does Teenager Die? Adults Eat Teenagers Alive, No Record Of Their Death. Belly-Button Is Signature of Your Own Personal Creator, I Believe Her Name Is Mama. Pastor Told His Flock That God Created All OF Them - But The Truth Is That They All Had Belly-Buttons, Liars. Earth has 4 Days In Same 24 Hours, So 1 Day God Wrong. Einstein Was ONEist Brain. Try My Belly-Button Logic. No God Knows About 4Days. It Is Evil To Ignore 4 Days, Does Your Teacher Know?"
-someone more liberal than you can ever hope to be
 
2012-04-09 01:06:15 PM  

Coco LaFemme: make me some tea: [farm4.static.flickr.com image 500x333]

You know, I just now noticed this, but not only is "informed" spelled wrong, but so is America. Upper left corner, it reads "Yes God Bless Amercia."

How farking retarded do you have to be to not spell the name of your own country correctly?


Oh wow. Never noticed that. LOL
 
2012-04-09 01:11:13 PM  

sprawl15: magusdevil: "Today's so-called 'conservatives' don't even know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It's not a conservative issue at all."

- Barry Goldwater

"Belly-Button Logic© Works. When Does Teenager Die? Adults Eat Teenagers Alive, No Record Of Their Death. Belly-Button Is Signature of Your Own Personal Creator, I Believe Her Name Is Mama. Pastor Told His Flock That God Created All OF Them - But The Truth Is That They All Had Belly-Buttons, Liars. Earth has 4 Days In Same 24 Hours, So 1 Day God Wrong. Einstein Was ONEist Brain. Try My Belly-Button Logic. No God Knows About 4Days. It Is Evil To Ignore 4 Days, Does Your Teacher Know?"
-someone more liberal than you can ever hope to be


Well, is he a conservative or isn't he? I am desperately trying to understand your position.
 
2012-04-09 01:13:19 PM  

eraser8: That's why I specified conservatives as those who resist threats to established authority instead of simply those who resist change. And, by authority I don't just mean whatever rule is in place at any given time. I mean those who have power, whether through money or tradition. Conservatives, by definition, want to protect those people and maintain the existing power hierarchy.


Your definition is getting stupider: Conservatives want to protect the establishment of abortion and government funded organizations like Planned Parenthood. Liberals want to overturn these organizations and focus on personal responsibility by overthrowing the existing power hierarchy, starting with Roe v. Wade, and letting states decide on their own instead of relying on a general rule.

eraser8: That's why "promote progress" was married to "upend[ing] the existing order."

Keep in mind that I'm not making a value judgement that it's always a good thing to "upend the existing order."


You're making yourself a liar, and it's particularly funny that you're invalidating your own points in the very next sentence.
 
2012-04-09 01:13:48 PM  

ginandbacon: eraser8: If the same were true of left-wing sources and their consumers, you'd have a point.

It is true. American women, 53% of the voters, by far the largest group in this country, are consistently among the least informed no matter what source they have for news. We also make up 62% of independents, the other notoriously uninformed block of voters. And yet, for 30 years, we have been voting the Democratic ticket.

So what does it matter how informed a voter is? Is seems to have no impact on party allegiance. Fox News attracts people who would vote for Hitler if he were the GOP nominee. So what? Fox didn't create them, it just caters to them.


Ah, now I see your main point.

But I think it does matter. Fox News may not have created those folks, but it does reinforce all the worst tendencies and beliefs they have on a 24/7 basis. Authoritarianism isn't an ON/OFF switch, it is a rather wide scale, much like racism or sexism.

Take a person who falls somewhere on the CAD Racism scale, an put him into a situation where he is exposed to actual facts about the groups he hates. Exposed consistently, regularly, constantly, and for a long time. For example, take a stereotypical white racist and put him in the Army, where he trains with, bunks with, drinks with talks to, learns from, helps and is helped by, Blacks, Muslims, Indians, Jews, etc, on a daily basis for several years*. It doesn't matter what he has been told in the past, he is now learning actual facts by seeing and knowing these people. He is learning what they are really like. When he gets out, will he be magially transformed into not-a-racist? of course not. But he will certainly have moved to the left on the C-A-D Racism scale.

Contrast this with his identical twin brother who stays home with his racist buddies and is exposed to pretty ,much nothing but a steady stream of lies and misinformation about those same folks.

Which one do you think is more likely to join the Aryan Brotherhood four years later?

Given a group of people who hold antisocial or otherwise harmful beliefs, such as racism, sexism, authoritarianism, etc, do you really think that it's not a problem when they are being given a nationally syndicated platform that not only reinforces those beliefs on a 24/7 basis, but does so with a steady stream of falsehoods? and at the same time does everything in its power to delegitimize every other extant source of information?

*yes, I'm aware of the recent influx of huge numbers of unrepentant white supremacists into the military in the past decade, that's a different situation than I am talking about, and I think it's a tragedy
 
2012-04-09 01:14:31 PM  

eraser8: liam76: eraser8: It is inherently conservative to resist change that threatens established authority

So a conservative is inherently for abortion?

I'll just repeat what I wrote to another Farker: That's why I specified conservatives as those who resist threats to established authority instead of simply those who resist change. And, by authority I don't just mean whatever rule is in place at any given time. I mean those who have power, whether through money or tradition. Conservatives, by a definition I pulled out of my ass, want to protect those people and maintain the existing power hierarchy.


So conservatives were against Dept of Homeland Security as it changed the existing law enforcement and border control power hierarchy?

Your definition is still stupid.

"Left" and "right" or "conservative" and "liberal" are very poor words when it comes to describing politics in detail because there is no easy defintion. To try and pin down what are at best shorthand for a host of generally accepted political positions is futile.
 
2012-04-09 01:20:12 PM  

magusdevil: Well, is he a conservative or isn't he?


According to eraser8? Both.

According to me? He was absolutely a conservative. He voted against the CRA because he believed that it was an overreach of Federal authority, despite being pretty strong on civil rights otherwise.
 
2012-04-09 01:23:14 PM  

sprawl15: magusdevil: Well, is he a conservative or isn't he?

According to eraser8? Both.

According to me? He was absolutely a conservative. He voted against the CRA because he believed that it was an overreach of Federal authority, despite being pretty strong on civil rights otherwise.


So the overreaching "conservatives" represented by the Republican party are not conservatives they're just authoritarians?
 
2012-04-09 01:30:01 PM  

magusdevil: So the overreaching "conservatives" represented by the Republican party are not conservatives they're just authoritarians?


Depends on your definition of 'conservatives'. They are certainly not the conservatives of their fathers' generation, but terms evolve over time. Likewise, the liberals of today are not the same as during their fathers' generation. The New Deal, something that is absolutely a liberal piece of legislation, exempted black people from much of the worker protections and minimum wage laws.

History is complicated. Tell your friends.
 
2012-04-09 01:32:32 PM  
I'm not a frequent commentator here on Fark, but eraser8's definitions seem pretty clear and straightforward to me.

Pulled directly from the dictionary, the primary definition of both of these words:

Conservative: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
Liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

These seems very similar to what eraser8 has been arguing (in fact, he used these definitions before -- I'm simply pointing out that they are the primary definitions, and not secondary or tertiary or archaic). He's not pulling these definitions "out of his ass," as someone here seems to argue. And while I can't speak for everyone, I can again state that these definitions seemed straightforward and clear to me when he first suggested them.

That doesn't make eraser8 right about everything ,mind you. Nor am is my opinion here final. I'm simply offering an outsider's point of view.
 
2012-04-09 01:34:27 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: they are typically in a demographic that is more likely to vote than any other


Okay, good faith as you put it. Women as a group are more likely than Fox viewers as a group to vote. And they are less informed on average. So how much should we be holding Fox (and by extension its viewers, I am sorry but I am still failing to see how you are separating the two) accountable to our democratic virtue that we ought not hold other voters to?

You seem to be arguing that Fox is bad because it misinforms voters. The logical conclusion of that statement is that misinformed voters are bad, otherwise, why would you care? If that'a the case, than are some classes of misinformed voters better or worse than others? I'm just trying to say that it might behoove us to stick to the merits of our case since we also have our share of misinformed throwing down the lever or pushing Diebold touch screens.

I just don't see where these kinds of attacks get us, I'm sorry. They seem petty and arrogant. At a time when the GOP is doing everything in its power to alienate everybody, wouldn't it make more sense for us to raise the bigger tent?

I know a lot more people who used to watch Fox and listen to Limbaugh who have come over to a liberal position than I do the other way around. I believe that's because, at the end of the day, we have a better position to start with. So let's sell that instead of belittling them.
 
2012-04-09 01:34:27 PM  

sprawl15: Conservatives want to protect the establishment of abortion and government funded organizations like Planned Parenthood.


Abortion and Planned Parenthood threaten the existing power hierarchy of men being superior to women. Therefore conservatives are against both.

Honestly, I explained this point in my earlier post. "Authority" as I used it was not about whatever rule is in place in a given time. It's about who holds power.

With your inability to understand simple definitions and your inability to comprehend written language, I find myself wondering whether you're being deliberately obtuse.

sprawl15: You're making yourself a liar


How so? Be specific.

sprawl15: and it's particularly funny that you're invalidating your own points in the very next sentence.


My very next sentence was, "Nor am I making a value judgment that it's always a bad thing to "resist change that threatens established authority." I'm just establishing definitions."

How does that invalidate anything I've written? Again, be specific.
 
2012-04-09 01:36:46 PM  

sprawl15: magusdevil: So the overreaching "conservatives" represented by the Republican party are not conservatives they're just authoritarians?

Depends on your definition of 'conservatives'. They are certainly not the conservatives of their fathers' generation, but terms evolve over time. Likewise, the liberals of today are not the same as during their fathers' generation. The New Deal, something that is absolutely a liberal piece of legislation, exempted black people from much of the worker protections and minimum wage laws.

History is complicated. Tell your friends.


My friends know. Its just that since the article was about authoritarians and you all are flogging yourselves over the terms conservative and liberal, I thought maybe I could bring it back from the brink.
 
2012-04-09 01:38:53 PM  

liam76: Conservatives, by a definition I pulled out of my ass


Here's one from a dictionary: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

liam76: So conservatives were against Dept of Homeland Security as it changed the existing law enforcement and border control power hierarchy?


The DHS shuffled the deck chairs. That is, it changed the structure of government but didn't change the structure of power. Or, at least, not much.

liam76: To try and pin down what are at best shorthand for a host of generally accepted political positions is futile.


That isn't what I tried to do. I was describing conservatism and liberalism as they really are. I was not describing the political beliefs of those who choose to apply the labels the themselves. That's one reason when I'm referring to individuals in their global political outlook, I tend to modify conservative or liberal with the phrase, "self-identified."
 
2012-04-09 01:39:15 PM  

magusdevil: Its just that since the article was about authoritarians and you all are flogging yourselves over the terms conservative and liberal, I thought maybe I could bring it back from the brink.


There's no hope, considering there's people redefining 'conservative' and 'liberal' to justify their irrational outrage over the statement that Charlton Heston was a conservative who marched for civil rights.
 
2012-04-09 01:39:16 PM  

Gunther: To be fair, the same could be said of many people who fall on the opposite side of the political spectrum. The modern American right-wing is distinguished by degree rather than by kind


Exactly. Both sides are basically the same. That perfectly explains why Republicans are known for persistent displays of party solidarity, while getting Democrats to vote for progressive bills is said to be like "herding cats." Identical authoritarian groupthink impulse. Different degrees.

/end sarcasm here.
 
2012-04-09 01:41:17 PM  

Budhisatva: Conservative: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
Liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.



Those really aren't the best definitions to use when discussing politics.
 
2012-04-09 01:42:26 PM  

eraser8: That isn't what I tried to do.


It's not. You tried to invent definitions completely detached from reality to justify your own ridiculous assertion that Heston was a conservative except when he was marching against racism. It's utterly asinine.
 
2012-04-09 01:43:05 PM  
To add to how I interpreted eraser8's position regarding the abortion issue cited a few times in recent posts:

People are clearly trying to suggest that "authority" now states that abortion is appropriate. The US Government is one authority, yes. But the religious institutions of the world are another, and most of those instiutions are against abortion. In this case, conservatives side with the longer standing, more traditional authority.

That's the idea, at least, as I interpret it. Again, it seems pretty straightforward to me. That doesn't make it right; just that whether it's right or wrong, it's pretty clear.
 
2012-04-09 01:43:58 PM  

sprawl15: There's no hope, considering there's people redefining 'conservative' and 'liberal' to justify their irrational outrage over the statement that Charlton Heston was a conservative who marched for civil rights.


1) No one has redefined the terms conservative and liberal.

2) No is "outraged" that you made a statement that was not only unsupported but one that was in defense of an argument that was logically untenable. Or, at least, I wasn't outraged.
 
2012-04-09 01:45:46 PM  

bugontherug: Budhisatva: Conservative: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
Liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.


Those really aren't the best definitions to use when discussing politics.


Next you'll be telling me that people can believe in the idea of a Republic even when they don't vote Republican.
 
2012-04-09 01:47:19 PM  

liam76: eraser8: It is inherently conservative to resist change that threatens established authority

So a conservative is inherently for abortion?



Quick! Now push him out of the airlock before he explodes and destroys the ship!!!
 
2012-04-09 01:47:27 PM  

sprawl15: It's not. You tried to invent definitions completely detached from reality to justify your own ridiculous assertion that Heston was a conservative except when he was marching against racism. It's utterly asinine.


First, I didn't invent any definitions. As I showed you, dictionary definitions come pretty close to agreeing with the ones that I produced.

Second, I never made any claim about Charlton Heston's self-described political philosophy. I merely pointed out that you failed to establish the fact of Heston's conservatism at the time of his support of civil rights for black Americans.

But, I can't believe you'd just baldly lie, so please point out to me exactly when I said that Heston was a conservative at all.
 
2012-04-09 01:52:47 PM  

eraser8: sprawl15: There's no hope, considering there's people redefining 'conservative' and 'liberal' to justify their irrational outrage over the statement that Charlton Heston was a conservative who marched for civil rights.

1) No one has redefined the terms conservative and liberal.

2) No is "outraged" that you made a statement that was not only unsupported but one that was in defense of an argument that was logically untenable. Or, at least, I wasn't outraged.


Well when he marched for civil rights he also campaigned for Kennedy and Stephenson, opposed the Vietnam war and supported gun control legislation. So I'm guessing the outrage you sense is confusion. Do you really think he was a conservative at that time? You aren't just being disengenuous? And you're maybe a little embarassed at being so obvious about it? And that makes you defensive? Maybe?
 
2012-04-09 01:56:25 PM  

Budhisatva: To add to how I interpreted eraser8's position regarding the abortion issue cited a few times in recent posts:


My position is a little more nuanced than that.

The existing power structure makes men superior to women. Abortion, contraception and so forth are all destructive to that power structure because it liberates and empowers women to make choices about their own lives without undue interference from men.

So, it's not exactly a matter of choosing religion over government, from my perspective...although one has to suspect that the religious argument is itself one the prefers existing power hierarchies over expanding freedom.
 
2012-04-09 02:00:48 PM  

magusdevil: Well when he marched for civil rights he also campaigned for Kennedy and Stephenson, opposed the Vietnam war and supported gun control legislation. So I'm guessing the outrage you sense is confusion. Do you really think he was a conservative at that time?


I never made any statement claiming any political self-identification for Heston. Not once.

I did, however, note that others had made such a claim...and, had failed to adequately support it with evidence. Specifically, sprawl15 claimed that Heston was a conservative who supported civil rights.

That statement is unfounded. Plus, as a response to Gunther's comment, it was logically wanting.
 
2012-04-09 02:01:58 PM  

eraser8: magusdevil: Well when he marched for civil rights he also campaigned for Kennedy and Stephenson, opposed the Vietnam war and supported gun control legislation. So I'm guessing the outrage you sense is confusion. Do you really think he was a conservative at that time?

I never made any statement claiming any political self-identification for Heston. Not once.

I did, however, note that others had made such a claim...and, had failed to adequately support it with evidence. Specifically, sprawl15 claimed that Heston was a conservative who supported civil rights.

That statement is unfounded. Plus, as a response to Gunther's comment, it was logically wanting.


That response was for sprawl sorry for confusion.
 
2012-04-09 02:05:39 PM  

eraser8: Here's one from a dictionary: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.


Don't play stupid games.

"That's why I specified conservatives as those who resist threats to established authority instead of simply those who resist change. "

That is why it was pulled otu of your ass.

And even witht he modification you pulled out of yoru ass it fails to describe how it is used in politics today.

eraser8: The DHS shuffled the deck chairs. That is, it changed the structure of government but didn't change the structure of power. Or, at least, not much.


Yes it did change the structure of power. A whole new level of beuacracy and a new govt body changes the structure.


eraser8: liam76: To try and pin down what are at best shorthand for a host of generally accepted political positions is futile.

That isn't what I tried to do. I was describing conservatism and liberalism as they really are. I was not describing the political beliefs of those who choose to apply the labels the themselves. That's one reason when I'm referring to individuals in their global political outlook, I tend to modify conservative or liberal with the phrase, "self-identified".


If that was "as they really are" then liberals would be the ones pushing to change abortion laws, for DHS, etc

You were describing them in terms of how you fealt about them so you could feel more smug abotut your political positions.
 
2012-04-09 02:20:16 PM  

liam76: Don't play stupid games.


Are you seriously claiming that the dictionary definition of conservative is light-years away from the definition I generated?

Seriously?

What part of "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change" do you not get?

liam76: And even witht he modification you pulled out of yoru ass it fails to describe how it is used in politics today.


Again, when I'm referring to the way the word "conservative" is used in politics today, I always use the modifier "self-identified" or "self-described."

I do this because self-identified conservatives are not conservative.

Doing a little google search, here's a small sample of what I found:

That's what self-described conservatives think liberals believe. (new window)

Why is it that self-described conservatives often believe that the size of a person's home is out of bounds, as far as public regulations are concerned... (new window)

The self-described conservatives will play the patriotism card and their mobs will seethe and Obama will back down. (new window)

There are dozens of such examples. You simply made a dumb assumption about what I meant.

liam76: If that was "as they really are" then liberals would be the ones pushing to change abortion laws, for DHS, etc


Actually, not if you paid any attention to the definitions I offered.
 
2012-04-09 02:25:25 PM  
In other news, water is wet...
 
2012-04-09 02:32:11 PM  
You know what though, I'm really tired of ALL of the news channels. When I went home on Friday, it was the first time in quite awhile that I had the urge to turn on one of the news networks. I'm talking years.... I just wanted some details on the Navy Jet crash, some updated numbers, the exact things these news channels used to do. Instead, I had 8 to choose from, and they all had a "show' on, with pre-scheduled guests and all that bullshiat. Hell, CNBC started showing the farking Celebrity Apprentice... I finally got the details I wanted in a combination of the local news and a single headline on the Fox News ticker.

On the other hand, I found a cool 'watch-all-of-the-news-networks' channel on my DirtecTv, which sure beat trying to keep trying to remember the channel #'s in my head.
 
2012-04-09 02:38:50 PM  
We've known this since the 1980s (new window), ever since a group of three year-olds (note: children that young don't, as a rule, voice political opinions) that were described as being easily victimized / easily offended / indecisive / fearful / rigid / inhibited / vulnerable grew up to be self-described conservatives.

What's that stupid saying I'm stupid for saying, sprawl15?...
 
2012-04-09 02:40:24 PM  

zappaisfrank: This is a very good source of information on the inescapable connection between Authoritarianism and Republican Conservatism.


Altemeyer's PDF book has the merit of being free, and by the scientist whose work most underlies Dean's book.

X-boxershorts: The Authoritarians (new window)

impaler: Link (new window)


...dammit. Oh, well.
i36.photobucket.com

Gunther: To be fair, the same could be said of many people who fall on the opposite side of the political spectrum.


While the tendency exists on both sides, Altemeyer's sociological data indicates it isn't expressed equally.

imontheinternet: So, Republicans are the only people who run away when their core beliefs are challenged? The only people who like hearing things that jive with their overall worldview?


No, no. First, it's conservatives -- though that's currently the GOP in the US. (Communism was conservative in the USSR at the height of the cold war.) Second, the data only says they are disproportionately more likely.

HairBolus: While I agree with Mooney's point that Fox viewers are the most uninformed and watch Fox so their beliefs won't be challenged (the epistemic bubble argument), he blames this all on them being Authoritarians without really defining the term in some independent way (it seems to be a synonym for conservative) and explaining how such a psychological makup leads one to watching Fox news.


Mooney seems to be specifically referring to the sense Altemeyer uses it, the confluence of three attitudinal clusters of
1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism.
See above linked book.

CapnBlues: Yes, they'd make some foolish decisions, too, but could they really be more fiscally and socially irresponsible than the current congress?


Yes, but at least the used trillion-dollar stereo system put on the national credit card would have more Ebay resale value than the used war.

skullkrusher: what is racist about the drug policy? Does it specifically target minorities?


At the policy declaration level, it doesn't; at the implementation level, it apparently does. Feel free to look around for data on the differential prosecution based on race. You can even leave out the crack cocaine sentencing disparity.
 
2012-04-09 02:41:54 PM  

abb3w: At the policy declaration level, it doesn't; at the implementation level, it apparently does. Feel free to look around for data on the differential prosecution based on race. You can even leave out the crack cocaine sentencing disparity.


yeah, that's been covered. The post I responded to referred specifically to the policy declaration.
 
2012-04-09 02:51:33 PM  

eraser8: Are you seriously claiming that the dictionary definition of conservative is light-years away from the definition I generated?

Seriously?

What part of "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change" do you not get?


Not light years.

Look at the bolded part, are you back to saying that conservatives are pro-abortion?


eraser8: Doing a little google search, here's a small sample of what I found:


Linking to your comments in previous fark threads backs up your point how?


eraser8: There are dozens of such examples. You simply made a dumb assumption about what I meant.


You are making the dumb assumption that you are the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes conservative thought, that it never changes from person to person, or with time.


eraser8: liam76: If that was "as they really are" then liberals would be the ones pushing to change abortion laws, for DHS, etc

Actually, not if you paid any attention to the definitions I offered


Glad you pluralized that. Because the definition from the dictionary is different than the one you offered.

And even with the one you offered conseratives woudl be anti DHS.
 
2012-04-09 02:51:57 PM  

eraser8: My position is a little more nuanced than that.


Lets take an example:

eraser8: When Barry Goldwater supported civil rights, he was acting as a liberal. When he opposed them, he acted as conservative.


When Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act, was doing so a liberal or a conservative act, by your definitions? Why?
 
2012-04-09 02:54:34 PM  

Hot Rod Zoidberg: My old boss used to watch Fox News AND CNN, thinking he was getting both sides of the story.


Corporate conservatism and far right fascism!
 
2012-04-09 02:57:00 PM  

m2313: Hot Rod Zoidberg: My old boss used to watch Fox News AND CNN, thinking he was getting both sides of the story.

Corporate conservatism and far right fascism!


oldradioshows.org

Both kinds. Country AND Western!
 
2012-04-09 04:27:24 PM  

skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: moralpanic: tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

So vote Republican!

This false equivalence is such BS.

So vote Democrat because authoritarianism is like rat droppings in cereal?

Because conservative policy for the past 40 years has a horrific track record?

accepting some authoritarianism because the other party is more authoritarian doesn't have much to do with the other party.


I did not name a party, did I? I specifically named an ideological approach. My words were chosen carefully, do not place extra meaning to them in your public response. That is inappropriate.
 
2012-04-09 04:29:31 PM  

X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: moralpanic: tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

So vote Republican!

This false equivalence is such BS.

So vote Democrat because authoritarianism is like rat droppings in cereal?

Because conservative policy for the past 40 years has a horrific track record?

accepting some authoritarianism because the other party is more authoritarian doesn't have much to do with the other party.

I did not name a party, did I? I specifically named an ideological approach. My words were chosen carefully, do not place extra meaning to them in your public response. That is inappropriate.


not sure what your comment means if not a reference to the other side being worse then
 
2012-04-09 04:33:01 PM  
Plenty of Conservadems dragging that party to the right.

I spoke specifically to policy. Not party.
 
2012-04-09 04:35:36 PM  

abb3w: Mooney seems to be specifically referring to the sense Altimeter uses it, the confluence of three attitudinal clusters of

1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism.


It is pretty poor writing when you have to guess what the term Authoritarian means. The definition I distilled from Cory Robin's book of a strong social hierarchy is much more detailed, concise, and explanatory. What does "aggression" and "conventionalism" have to do with believing without question what your social superiors say? And while submission to established authority is important that notion doesn't capture the dynamic of where you respect, obey, and believe mainly without question those above you while expecting respect ect. from those below. Altimeter's "Authoritarian" doesn't offer any explanation of why someone near but not at the bottom of the hierarchy might like the overall conservative system.
 
2012-04-09 04:35:57 PM  

X-boxershorts: Plenty of Conservadems dragging that party to the right.

I spoke specifically to policy. Not party.


ahhhhhh... well, authoritarianism isn't monopolized by the right
 
2012-04-09 04:39:52 PM  

liam76: Look at the bolded part, are you back to saying that conservatives are pro-abortion?


That was the dictionary definition, you half-wit. It came straight out of a dictionary. I didn't make it up.

liam76: Look at the bolded part, are you back to saying that conservatives are pro-abortion?


If you understood what words meant, you would ask such a stupid question.

liam76: Linking to your comments in previous fark threads backs up your point how?


It backs up the point that you were simply misinterpreting what I had written. You assumed I was using one definition of conservatism when I was using its actual definition.

liam76: You are making the dumb assumption that you are the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes conservative thought


No. I am making the assumption that dictionaries have a relatively good grasp of the meanings of words. My definition was, essentially, the same as the dictionary definition.

liam76: And even with the one you offered conseratives woudl be anti DHS.


Only if you couldn't figure out what the definitions meant.
 
2012-04-09 04:41:00 PM  

sprawl15: When Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act, was doing so a liberal or a conservative act, by your definitions? Why?


He was acting as a conservative because he chose to preserve the existing power hierarchy.
 
2012-04-09 04:44:13 PM  

skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: Plenty of Conservadems dragging that party to the right.

I spoke specifically to policy. Not party.

ahhhhhh... well, authoritarianism isn't monopolized by the right


If your definition of "right" is restricted to republicans, then no. However, had you read the study by Dr Altemeyer, you'd understand, Authoritarian followers and their chosen leaders trend conservative in politics by a very significant margin.

Take a week, download the PDF. Read it once or twice or thrice. And then look at the arguments in this thread again. You will likely find that you are misinterpreting the definition of Authoritarian followers and Authoritarian leaders.
 
2012-04-09 04:48:07 PM  

X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: Plenty of Conservadems dragging that party to the right.

I spoke specifically to policy. Not party.

ahhhhhh... well, authoritarianism isn't monopolized by the right

If your definition of "right" is restricted to republicans, then no. However, had you read the study by Dr Altemeyer, you'd understand, Authoritarian followers and their chosen leaders trend conservative in politics by a very significant margin.

Take a week, download the PDF. Read it once or twice or thrice. And then look at the arguments in this thread again. You will likely find that you are misinterpreting the definition of Authoritarian followers and Authoritarian leaders.


I've taken his test. A rather silly test it is and I scored low on the scale so it isn't that that makes me question it. That said, if you assume that authoritarianism must be right wing, then yes, all authoritarians are right wing regardless of their beliefs. However, I don't think anyone would argue that the government of North Korea is authoritarian. It clearly is.... a right wing Communist government?
 
2012-04-09 04:50:19 PM  

eraser8: liam76: Look at the bolded part, are you back to saying that conservatives are pro-abortion?

That was the dictionary definition, you half-wit. It came straight out of a dictionary. I didn't make it up.


Ding farking ding!

So now you get why the dictionary definition isn't the same as yours.


eraser8: No. I am making the assumption that dictionaries have a relatively good grasp of the meanings of words. My definition was, essentially, the same as the dictionary definition.


See above dipshiat.

If your definition was the same you would be saying that conservatives are pro abortion.


eraser8: It backs up the point that you were simply misinterpreting what I had written. You assumed I was using one definition of conservatism when I was using its actual definition.


No you weren't using its actual definition. It's actual definition doesn't apply to politics, furthermore if you were using the actual definition you wouldn't have pulled those modifiers out of your ass so you could pretend it worked with politics (specifically wrt abortion).
 
2012-04-09 04:55:15 PM  

skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: Plenty of Conservadems dragging that party to the right.

I spoke specifically to policy. Not party.

ahhhhhh... well, authoritarianism isn't monopolized by the right

If your definition of "right" is restricted to republicans, then no. However, had you read the study by Dr Altemeyer, you'd understand, Authoritarian followers and their chosen leaders trend conservative in politics by a very significant margin.

Take a week, download the PDF. Read it once or twice or thrice. And then look at the arguments in this thread again. You will likely find that you are misinterpreting the definition of Authoritarian followers and Authoritarian leaders.

I've taken his test. A rather silly test it is and I scored low on the scale so it isn't that that makes me question it. That said, if you assume that authoritarianism must be right wing, then yes, all authoritarians are right wing regardless of their beliefs. However, I don't think anyone would argue that the government of North Korea is authoritarian. It clearly is.... a right wing Communist government?


right wing is Dr Altemeyer's reference, not mine. You would know this if you read the work.
 
2012-04-09 04:56:46 PM  

eraser8: sprawl15: When Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act, was doing so a liberal or a conservative act, by your definitions? Why?

He was acting as a conservative because he chose to preserve the existing power hierarchy.


And this is where your personal valuation comes into play: for any given problem, there may be multiple solutions. His chosen solution was different than the Civil Rights Act, and his chosen solution may or may not be one that preserves the existing power hierarchy. Yet you're couching it in your own assumptions, and determining that he must be choosing to preserve it by not taking one specific method of overturning it...painting the decision into a "right vs wrong" analysis rather than an objective analysis of the methodology and individual motivation. You cannot frame an individual's factors that go into a decision - which is what your definition of 'conservative' is - by taking an affirmative choice into a vacuum.

You're being orders of magnitude more subjective than you think you are.
 
2012-04-09 04:58:13 PM  

imontheinternet: So, Republicans are the only people who run away when their core beliefs are challenged? The only people who like hearing things that jive with their overall worldview?

I'm just grateful that the discipline of psychology is here to give us such concrete, infallible results, which can be replicated at will.

/speculation and confirmation bias are a powerful duo


RTFA. Also, learn how scientific testing works, why psychology as a field is unlikely to get highly accurate results, and why these results are startlingly accurate.
 
2012-04-09 04:58:22 PM  

X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: Plenty of Conservadems dragging that party to the right.

I spoke specifically to policy. Not party.

ahhhhhh... well, authoritarianism isn't monopolized by the right

If your definition of "right" is restricted to republicans, then no. However, had you read the study by Dr Altemeyer, you'd understand, Authoritarian followers and their chosen leaders trend conservative in politics by a very significant margin.

Take a week, download the PDF. Read it once or twice or thrice. And then look at the arguments in this thread again. You will likely find that you are misinterpreting the definition of Authoritarian followers and Authoritarian leaders.

I've taken his test. A rather silly test it is and I scored low on the scale so it isn't that that makes me question it. That said, if you assume that authoritarianism must be right wing, then yes, all authoritarians are right wing regardless of their beliefs. However, I don't think anyone would argue that the government of North Korea is authoritarian. It clearly is.... a right wing Communist government?

right wing is Dr Altemeyer's reference, not mine. You would know this if you read the work.


but you're referring to it.

Take the test (new window)

Then take it as you think Castro would answer. Note that in Castro's case "radicals" are those who support democracy, political freedoms, liberalization of the economy, etc.

Castro is certainly an authoritarian. He's just a LWA. Why is there a distinction made? I have no idea.
 
2012-04-09 05:09:10 PM  

liam76: So now you get why the dictionary definition isn't the same as yours.


Here's what you wrote:
What part of "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change" do you not get?

Not light years.

Look at the bolded part, are you back to saying that conservatives are pro-abortion?
Do you not understand that the DICTIONARY is making the assertion that conservatives are "disposed to preserve existing conditions?"

Here's another dictionary definition of conservatism: the practice of preserving what is established; disposition to oppose change in established institutions and methods.

How -- and please be specific -- did my definition materially differ from the two dictionary definitions (from two different dictionaries, by the way) cited above?

liam76: If your definition was the same you would be saying that conservatives are pro abortion.


Conservatives oppose abortion precisely because it interferes with established institutions and methods. The fact that abortion is currently legal DOES NOT MEAN it is not corrosive to existing institutions and methods. You have to keep in mind with a subject like abortion there are conflicting institutions and methods at issue. Conservatives cleave to the most traditional one -- which is the power differential with men superior to women.

liam76: No you weren't using its actual definition. It's actual definition doesn't apply to politics


The actual definition may not correspond with people's political self-identification, but it certainly applies to politics.
 
2012-04-09 05:13:34 PM  

eraser8: Conservatives oppose abortion precisely because it interferes with established institutions and methods.


People who believe life beings at conception's primary concern is not established institutions and methods, but rather the legality of what they perceive to be murder. It's no more 'conservative' for such a person to be against abortion than it is 'conservative' for a person to be outraged at lynchings of black people who dared to suggest being treated equally.
 
2012-04-09 05:17:00 PM  

sprawl15: And this is where your personal valuation comes into play: for any given problem, there may be multiple solutions.


Quite true. That is why I wrote earlier that, "Keep in mind that I'm not making a value judgement that it's always a good thing to 'upend the existing order.' Nor am I making a value judgment that it's always a bad thing to 'resist change that threatens established authority.'"

Sometimes the liberal solution is going to be superior to the conservative solution. Sometimes the conservative solution is going to be superior to the liberal solution. Neither label tells you very much about the best way to go about solving a problem...it just describes the viewpoint from which the person approaches the problem.

sprawl15: painting the decision into a "right vs wrong" analysis rather than an objective analysis of the methodology and individual motivation.


I never asserted that one type of solution was right and one was wrong. You, apparently, just made that assumption. I said, quite explicitly that (and, I'm saying it in these exact words for the THIRD time): "I'm not making a value judgement that it's always a good thing to 'upend the existing order.' Nor am I making a value judgment that it's always a bad thing to 'resist change that threatens established authority.'"
 
2012-04-09 05:18:36 PM  

skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: Plenty of Conservadems dragging that party to the right.

I spoke specifically to policy. Not party.

ahhhhhh... well, authoritarianism isn't monopolized by the right

If your definition of "right" is restricted to republicans, then no. However, had you read the study by Dr Altemeyer, you'd understand, Authoritarian followers and their chosen leaders trend conservative in politics by a very significant margin.

Take a week, download the PDF. Read it once or twice or thrice. And then look at the arguments in this thread again. You will likely find that you are misinterpreting the definition of Authoritarian followers and Authoritarian leaders.

I've taken his test. A rather silly test it is and I scored low on the scale so it isn't that that makes me question it. That said, if you assume that authoritarianism must be right wing, then yes, all authoritarians are right wing regardless of their beliefs. However, I don't think anyone would argue that the government of North Korea is authoritarian. It clearly is.... a right wing Communist government?

right wing is Dr Altemeyer's reference, not mine. You would know this if you read the work.

but you're referring to it.

Take the test (new window)

Then take it as you think Castro would answer. Note that in Castro's case "radicals" are those who support democracy, political freedoms, liberalization of the economy, etc.

Castro is certainly an authoritarian. He's just a LWA. Why is there a distinction made? I have no idea.


to take the test assuming the beliefs of someone I do not know is impossible.

You must shed the traditional Western perspective of right vs left to grasp where Dr Altemeyer is coming from and going to.
 
2012-04-09 05:21:47 PM  

eraser8: I never asserted that one type of solution was right and one was wrong.


You absolutely are. You are asserting that not voting for the CRA is a conservative thing to do, despite not having visibility to the motivation of the voter. Your definitions hinge entirely upon individual motivation, yet you're making the valuation based on your personal subjective opinion of effect. Voting against the CRA because they don't want to overthrow the system would be 'conservative' by your definition, but you don't make such a fine distinction. Someone could vote against the CRA because it doesn't go far enough, yet your lack of granularity would dump them into the 'conservative' bucket.
 
2012-04-09 05:22:22 PM  

X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: Plenty of Conservadems dragging that party to the right.

I spoke specifically to policy. Not party.

ahhhhhh... well, authoritarianism isn't monopolized by the right

If your definition of "right" is restricted to republicans, then no. However, had you read the study by Dr Altemeyer, you'd understand, Authoritarian followers and their chosen leaders trend conservative in politics by a very significant margin.

Take a week, download the PDF. Read it once or twice or thrice. And then look at the arguments in this thread again. You will likely find that you are misinterpreting the definition of Authoritarian followers and Authoritarian leaders.

I've taken his test. A rather silly test it is and I scored low on the scale so it isn't that that makes me question it. That said, if you assume that authoritarianism must be right wing, then yes, all authoritarians are right wing regardless of their beliefs. However, I don't think anyone would argue that the government of North Korea is authoritarian. It clearly is.... a right wing Communist government?

right wing is Dr Altemeyer's reference, not mine. You would know this if you read the work.

but you're referring to it.

Take the test (new window)

Then take it as you think Castro would answer. Note that in Castro's case "radicals" are those who support democracy, political freedoms, liberalization of the economy, etc.

Castro is certainly an authoritarian. He's just a LWA. Why is there a distinction made? I have no idea.

to take the test assuming the beliefs of someone I do not know is impossible.

You must shed the traditional Western perspective of right vs left to grasp where Dr Altemeyer is coming from and going to.


It would also be unfair, since you reference Castro, to not state that after their revolution, he came to the United States begging for help from us, and Nixon dismissed him (as VP, without any constitutional authority to do so) as an uncultured peasant.

Remember this about Castro. He desperately wanted to be in the fold of the America's political influence. It was our then VP, totally without permission, told him to get farked, that pushed Castro into the Soviet Russian sphere of influence.
 
2012-04-09 05:27:24 PM  

sprawl15: People who believe life beings at conception's primary concern is not established institutions and methods, but rather the legality of what they perceive to be murder.


I explained this a bit earlier. The view that abortion is murder comes from a morality -- many times -- that sets limits and enacts rules and establishes structure. Some call it order. And, that structure -- or order -- has been around for thousands of years. Legalized abortion threatens that long-standing order.

But, I see the moral order as having a more fundamental -- and, somewhat hidden -- nature, which is the regimentation of society and, in the case of contraception and legalized abortion, the subordination of women to men.

Again, that isn't to say that all social rules are bad. Sometimes, they're absolutely necessary. This is true even though rules, by definition, restrict human freedom.

I'm not even making a particular argument that laws against abortion or contraception are bad. I'm merely making the claim that such laws are conservative. I do have my own personal views, but they're not particularly relevant.
 
2012-04-09 05:30:30 PM  

sprawl15: You are asserting that not voting for the CRA is a conservative thing to do


Well it is a conservative thing to do.

I never made a claim that the civil rights act was either good or bad. And, I didn't make that claim because IT IS NOT RELEVANT.

sprawl15: Someone could vote against the CRA because it doesn't go far enough...


I suppose that's true. But, the effect of such a vote would still be to preserve the existing order.
 
2012-04-09 05:37:06 PM  

zappaisfrank: Conservatives Americans have managed to take a subject as complex as politics and reduce it down to a "sports team" mentality with their approach to elections being akin to "my team's gonna kick your teams ass!"


ftfy

/red vs blue, baby
 
2012-04-09 05:40:40 PM  

eraser8: But, I see the moral order as having a more fundamental -- and, somewhat hidden -- nature, which is the regimentation of society and, in the case of contraception and legalized abortion, the subordination of women to men.


This is all irrelevant to the situation posed. You're muddying the waters because you cannot address the point directly.

eraser8: The view that abortion is murder comes from a morality -- many times -- that sets limits and enacts rules and establishes structure.


And yet wishing to impose order on a system that does not currently have it is still upending the existing order. You are again blurring the line between personal motivation and social motivation, ignoring the distinction between the two and switching as it seems fit to justify your increasingly useless definitions. Overturning Roe v. Wade to implement a system that is much friendlier to women is just as upending to the existing order as overturning it to implement a system that is much less friendly to women. Thus when the right wingers want to repeal Roe v. Wade, that's a liberal desire. What they may want to replace it with is utterly irrelevant to that specific classification.

Your definitions are becoming more and more d&d nerd "Conservative = lawful while liberal = chaotic", which is utter nonsense.

eraser8: But, the effect of such a vote would still be to preserve the existing order.


Wrong. The effect of such a vote may be a longer game strategy; do it right now, instead of halfassing it. While the person voting it down may not succeed at their long term strategy, it's certainly not 'conservative' action by your definitions.
 
2012-04-09 05:43:47 PM  

zappaisfrank: sprawl15: coeyagi: Your argument is wonderful - it's akin to "Timothy McVeigh likes puppies and fought for animal rights, which made the US Government's prosecution of him inexcusable!"

Philip Francis Queeg: It also assumes the Heston's politics did not change over 40 years.

Two excellent examples of people talking out of their ass to justify their pre-determined opinion.

What people need to realize is that the "gun" question in the United States is pretty much settled, and the gun nuts won.

The occasional civilian massacre is just the price the REST of us have to pay...over and over again, apparently.


Where have I seen that before? Hmmm....

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-04-09 05:53:06 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: As long as the libs have MSNBC to spew their hate of the Right, they really have no right to fling barbs at Fox.

Nor do conservatives have a right to fling barbs at MSNBC.

In the end it's a wash. And I'm okay with that.


It's not a wash, even if we accept both sides as equally bad. It's still an all around loss. While I don't suggest anything other than better education to combat this kind of bullshiat, neither do I accept bullshiat propaganda scare tactics as okay.
 
2012-04-09 05:54:13 PM  

Mikey1969: You know what though, I'm really tired of ALL of the news channels. When I went home on Friday, it was the first time in quite awhile that I had the urge to turn on one of the news networks. I'm talking years.... I just wanted some details on the Navy Jet crash, some updated numbers, the exact things these news channels used to do. Instead, I had 8 to choose from, and they all had a "show' on, with pre-scheduled guests and all that bullshiat. Hell, CNBC started showing the farking Celebrity Apprentice... I finally got the details I wanted in a combination of the local news and a single headline on the Fox News ticker.

On the other hand, I found a cool 'watch-all-of-the-news-networks' channel on my DirtecTv, which sure beat trying to keep trying to remember the channel #'s in my head.


Here's the way I look at it. CNN isn't just for stupid people. It's now run by stupid people. The inane, empty-headed things they do and say seem to be so dumb that it's not just that they're aiming at the lowest common denominator--they are the lowest common denominator.

Fox isn't stupid. They're devious and dishonest and sometimes they make dumb mistakes, but they're not stupid. They feed their viewers exactly what those viewers want to hear, to a greater degree than any other network. And that drives their ratings sky-high, and they have become very good at refining that feedback loop to keep the viewers hooked.

MSNBC is also very slanted but personally I think their slant is much more honest and out there in public view. I don't think of MSNBC as the network that hides behind fake questions like "Did Fartbongo sell national security secrets to his Kenyan allies to enslave white men?"

But I have to say that, if I'm going to watch a network, and MSNBC is running one of their many sleazy, bottom-feeder "reality news" shows (would rather peel off my own skin than watch that crap), then it's either Fox or nothing. CNN is just too stupid, like watching stoned hippies try to recite the national anthem backward, only less entertaining.
 
2012-04-09 05:54:29 PM  

sprawl15: This is all irrelevant to the situation posed. You're muddying the waters because you cannot address the point directly.


It's actually central to the argument.

sprawl15: And yet wishing to impose order on a system that does not currently have it is still upending the existing order.


It is upending AN existing order. It is not existing THE existing order. Keep in mind that the state of the law is not all there is when it comes to existing order. There are competing traditions. One of those traditions is the subordination of women to men. Conservatives cleave to the older, more established one.

sprawl15: Thus when the right wingers want to repeal Roe v. Wade, that's a liberal desire.


Not really. Overturning Roe would return the state of law to the older, more traditional order (the subordination of women to men). As things are right now, the orders are in competition. If conservatives succeed, the orders will be in concert.

sprawl15: eraser8: But, the effect of such a vote would still be to preserve the existing order.

Wrong.


The legislator may hope to move things forward at later date (playing the long game, as you put it). But, the immediate consequence of voting down the bill is the maintenance of the existing order. What he hopes to have happen down the road doesn't change that fact.
 
2012-04-09 05:55:06 PM  

sprawl15: eraser8: But, the effect of such a vote would still be to preserve the existing order.

Wrong. The effect of such a vote may be a longer game strategy; do it right now, instead of halfassing it. While the person voting it down may not succeed at their long term strategy, it's certainly not 'conservative' action by your definitions.


Now that I think about it, there's a deeper implication to this. If effect of a vote is the determination of 'conservative' vs 'liberal' in your definitions, then any vote for an initiative that does not succeed has the effect of preserving the existing order and would thus be conservative. The only action that would be considered 'liberal' would be that which is politically viable.
 
2012-04-09 05:57:14 PM  

Smackledorfer: AverageAmericanGuy: As long as the libs have MSNBC to spew their hate of the Right, they really have no right to fling barbs at Fox.

Nor do conservatives have a right to fling barbs at MSNBC.

In the end it's a wash. And I'm okay with that.

It's not a wash, even if we accept both sides as equally bad. It's still an all around loss. While I don't suggest anything other than better education to combat this kind of bullshiat, neither do I accept bullshiat propaganda scare tactics as okay.


He's making the argument for a return of the Fairness Doctrine, which conservatives killed in the 80's.

Gotta love circular logic.
 
2012-04-09 05:58:05 PM  

eraser8: One of those traditions is the subordination of women to men.


Which, as I said, is utterly irrelevant in the case of a person whose sole motivation is because they believe that abortion is murder. Stop adding extraneous motivation where none exists.

eraser8: It is upending AN existing order. It is not existing THE existing order. Keep in mind that the state of the law is not all there is when it comes to existing order. There are competing traditions.


So your concept of 'an existing order' is 'any which can exist hypothetically or historically'? By this assertion, you're saying that the only thing that is truly liberal is complete disorder.

eraser8: But, the immediate consequence of voting down the bill is the maintenance of the existing order.


See the post above.
 
2012-04-09 05:59:07 PM  

sprawl15: If effect of a vote is the determination of 'conservative' vs 'liberal' in your definitions...


Actually, the determination is the intention of the legislator. The EFFECT of the vote is a different issue altogether. That's the reason I accepted your contention that the motivation of a legislator in voting down the CRA might be liberal.

I didn't say, "it's still a conservative vote."

I said, "you're right. But, the effect is still to maintain the existing order."
 
2012-04-09 06:03:11 PM  

sprawl15: Which, as I said, is utterly irrelevant in the case of a person whose sole motivation is because they believe that abortion is murder.


The belief that abortion is murder doesn't spontaneously generate. Those beliefs usually have some sort of underlying basis. I was laying out the basis for many of those who view abortion as murder.

sprawl15: So your concept of 'an existing order' is 'any which can exist hypothetically or historically'?


No. The existing order has to actually exist. In this case, the subordination of women to men is an order and a tradition that actually exists.

sprawl15: See the post above.


Ditto.
 
2012-04-09 06:06:33 PM  

eraser8: How -- and please be specific -- did my definition materially differ from the two dictionary definitions (from two different dictionaries, by the way) cited above?


According to your definition conservatives are not pro-abortion. According to the dictionary definition they are.

I was trying to illustrate by example, how the definitions differed.

Really not that complicated.

The fact is if your use wasn't different than the dictionary one you wouldn't have written apost going on about how important "established authority" is (which is not in the dictionary def).

eraser8: Conservatives oppose abortion precisely because it interferes with established institutions and methods.


Abortion clinics are pretty well established. The legal method of abortion is also very sell established.

eraser8: The actual definition may not correspond with people's political self-identification, but it certainly applies to politics


Only if in politics you think conservatives are pro-choice, against developing conservation areas, etc. Bury your head in the sand all you want and pretend that since it isn't in the dictionary the "conservative movement" can't be labeled "conservative" (which as I don't really disagree with, as I said earlier they are very poor words to describe specific things in politics) but don't pretend you are making some great point, you are just being obtuse.
 
2012-04-09 06:12:14 PM  

liam76: According to your definition conservatives are not pro-abortion. According to the dictionary definition they are.


Wrong.

liam76: Abortion clinics are pretty well established. The legal method of abortion is also very sell established.


The subordination of women to men is also very well established. And, is a hell of a lot older.

liam76: Only if in politics you think conservatives are pro-choice, against developing conservation areas, etc.


I explained this to you several times: Most self-identified conservatives ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE. Many of them are, in fact, quite radical. That's the whole reason I go out of my way to call people who self-identify as conservatives as "self-identified conservatives."

Calling them, simply, "conservatives" is hugely inaccurate.
 
2012-04-09 06:14:24 PM  
I may regret entering this discussion again, but a simple thought expirement to explain erser's point might be useful:

Let's take ourselves back to the day AFTER Roe V Wade was decided. At this point, the law is in effect, theoretically. Would we really suggest that abortion laws now represent established authority and that any attempt to override them represents a desire to buck authority? That seems like an obviously false claim. At that point, the one-day-old "authority" established by the US Government is far superceded by the cultural and religious authorities which are thousands of years old and directly oppose the Roe V Wade ruling. And we're still seeing these much older cultural traditions in effect today.

Put simply: "authority" is not synomous with "whatever the US Government says." There are many authorities, of which the US Government is one. In many cases, people reject the modern (and comparatively less well established) authority in favor of much older and more deeply rooted cultural and religious authorities, whether those authorities be laid out in explicit religious doctrine or in unstated cultural norms. I want to repeat one more time: I am not necessarily stating that eraser is correct. I just feel that he is stating his case fairly clearly, and there seems to be a log jam in simply understanding his position, as if it's highly confused or strange. It strikes me as fairly straightforward -- whether it's wrong or right is adifferent discussion that I'd rather not get in to.
 
2012-04-09 06:27:57 PM  

Budhisatva: I may regret entering this discussion again, but a simple thought expirement to explain erser's point might be useful:

Let's take ourselves back to the day AFTER Roe V Wade was decided. At this point, the law is in effect, theoretically. Would we really suggest that abortion laws now represent established authority and that any attempt to override them represents a desire to buck authority? That seems like an obviously false claim. At that point, the one-day-old "authority" established by the US Government is far superceded by the cultural and religious authorities which are thousands of years old and directly oppose the Roe V Wade ruling. And we're still seeing these much older cultural traditions in effect today.

Put simply: "authority" is not synomous with "whatever the US Government says." There are many authorities, of which the US Government is one. In many cases, people reject the modern (and comparatively less well established) authority in favor of much older and more deeply rooted cultural and religious authorities, whether those authorities be laid out in explicit religious doctrine or in unstated cultural norms. I want to repeat one more time: I am not necessarily stating that eraser is correct. I just feel that he is stating his case fairly clearly, and there seems to be a log jam in simply understanding his position, as if it's highly confused or strange. It strikes me as fairly straightforward -- whether it's wrong or right is adifferent discussion that I'd rather not get in to.


Your assumption rests on the belief that 1000 years of established authority always assumed that abortion should never be permitted.

This would be inaccurate. Even Moses, although born healthy, was set adrift on the Nile because his mother chose not to raise him. Very much akin to "I don't want this farking child and you should not be able to force me to have it"
 
2012-04-09 06:30:21 PM  

eraser8: Actually, the determination is the intention of the legislator.


Then in such a case, the intent of a legislator that voted against something because they felt a partial 'overthrow' of a system would prevent a full overthrow would be 'liberal', contrary to your earlier assertion. Their intent was not to maintain the system, but to prevent something from being passed that would itself prevent real change.

eraser8: Actually, the determination is the intention of the legislator. The EFFECT of the vote is a different issue altogether.


So when you said:

eraser8: sprawl15: When Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act, was doing so a liberal or a conservative act, by your definitions? Why?

He was acting as a conservative because he chose to preserve the existing power hierarchy.


You are asserting the intent of the vote was to maintain the existing power hierarchy, yet offered absolutely no justification for such a wild assertion, and waved away comments to the contrary by handwaving it away with a goalpost shift:

eraser8: sprawl15: Someone could vote against the CRA because it doesn't go far enough...

I suppose that's true. But, the effect of such a vote would still be to preserve the existing order.

So which is it? The intent of the vote, or the effect of the vote that matters? If it's the intent, then justify your assertion that Goldwater was choosing to preserve the existing power hierarchy.

eraser8: The belief that abortion is murder doesn't spontaneously generate.


This is a pretty wild claim to make. It's about on odds with "morals need religion to exist".

eraser8: In this case, the subordination of women to men is an order and a tradition that actually exists.


And, again, is totally farking irrelevant to someone who simply believes that life begins at conception. If you simply don't want to argue a situation where you are explicitly wrong, then say so and we can move on without going through the motions and embarrassing you.
 
2012-04-09 06:37:42 PM  

sprawl15: Then in such a case, the intent of a legislator that voted against something because they felt a partial 'overthrow' of a system would prevent a full overthrow would be 'liberal', contrary to your earlier assertion.


I explained this point, but I see it bears repeating:
Actually, the determination is the intention of the legislator. The EFFECT of the vote is a different issue altogether. That's the reason I accepted your contention that the motivation of a legislator in voting down the CRA might be liberal.

I didn't say, "it's still a conservative vote."

I said, "you're right. But, the effect is still to maintain the existing order."

sprawl15: You are asserting the intent of the vote was to maintain the existing power hierarchy, yet offered absolutely no justification for such a wild assertion


You're right that I didn't cite a justification...I just assumed you were familiar with Goldwater's Title II argument against the CRA.

sprawl15: So which is it? The intent of the vote, or the effect of the vote that matters?


I explained this point, but I see it bears repeating:
Actually, the determination is the intention of the legislator. The EFFECT of the vote is a different issue altogether. That's the reason I accepted your contention that the motivation of a legislator in voting down the CRA might be liberal.

I didn't say, "it's still a conservative vote."

I said, "you're right. But, the effect is still to maintain the existing order."

sprawl15: This is a pretty wild claim to make. It's about on odds with "morals need religion to exist".


No. It's the statement that morals need reason to exist.

sprawl15: And, again, is totally farking irrelevant to someone who simply believes that life begins at conception.


It's in fact central. The fact that you choose not to see it, doesn't make a difference to the truth.

In any case, the discussion has become tedious. I feel you're being intentionally obtuse...and, maybe you feel the same way about me. I doubt anything productive would come from continuing, so I'm going to say goodbye now.
 
2012-04-09 06:41:25 PM  

eraser8: sprawl15: And, again, is totally farking irrelevant to someone who simply believes that life begins at conception.

It's in fact central. The fact that you choose not to see it, doesn't make a difference to the truth.


"You can't believe life begins at conception without wanting men to dominate women!"

Followed by:

eraser8: I feel you're being intentionally obtuse


Uh huh.
 
2012-04-09 06:42:30 PM  

eraser8: liam76: According to your definition conservatives are not pro-abortion. According to the dictionary definition they are.

I was trying to illustrate by example, how the definitions differed.

Really not that complicated.

The fact is if your use wasn't different than the dictionary one you wouldn't have written apost going on about how important "established authority" is (which is not in the dictionary def)


Wrong.


I went ahead and put in the parts you cut out in bold.

If I am wring go ahead and explain the big bolded portion.


eraser8: liam76: Abortion clinics are pretty well established. The legal method of abortion is also very sell established.

The subordination of women to men is also very well established. And, is a hell of a lot older.



So it is an age thing? Care to pin a time down? Cause you could make the argument that conservatives support the monarchy?

Lets pretend you are right it is an age thing. All that proves is your definition of conservative doesn't work for politics since you can define almost anything as "established".


eraser8: liam76: Only if in politics you think conservatives are pro-choice, against developing conservation areas, etc. Bury your head in the sand all you want and pretend that since it isn't in the dictionary the "conservative movement" can't be labeled "conservative" (which as I don't really disagree with, as I said earlier they are very poor words to describe specific things in politics) but don't pretend you are making some great point, you are just being obtuse

I explained this to you several times: Most self-identified conservatives ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE. Many of them are, in fact, quite radical. That's the whole reason I go out of my way to call people who self-identify as conservatives as "self-identified conservatives."

Calling them, simply, "conservatives" is hugely inaccurate


I went ahead and put back in what I said in bold.

Seems you aren't just being obtuse, but dishonest as well.
 
2012-04-09 06:50:51 PM  

mongbiohazard: This is what's wrong with the folks TFA is talking about, and the Republican party in general. A good read if you haven't read it before. I am re-reading it today after having spent time with my family and being reminded about the tickets to the crazy train they've bought.



"Republicans hope that the Supreme Court will overturn the Affordable Care Act. Such a decision would be the most dramatic assertion of judicial power since the thirties, and for that reason alone seems improbable. "

That's an interesting opinion Mr Frum has there.
 
2012-04-09 06:53:31 PM  

X-boxershorts: Budhisatva: I may regret entering this discussion again, but a simple thought expirement to explain erser's point might be useful:

Let's take ourselves back to the day AFTER Roe V Wade was decided. At this point, the law is in effect, theoretically. Would we really suggest that abortion laws now represent established authority and that any attempt to override them represents a desire to buck authority? That seems like an obviously false claim. At that point, the one-day-old "authority" established by the US Government is far superceded by the cultural and religious authorities which are thousands of years old and directly oppose the Roe V Wade ruling. And we're still seeing these much older cultural traditions in effect today.
suddenly
Put simply: "authority" is not synomous with "whatever the US Government says." There are many authorities, of which the US Government is one. In many cases, people reject the modern (and comparatively less well established) authority in favor of much older and more deeply rooted cultural and religious authorities, whether those authorities be laid out in explicit religious doctrine or in unstated cultural norms. I want to repeat one more time: I am not necessarily stating that eraser is correct. I just feel that he is stating his case fairly clearly, and there seems to be a log jam in simply understanding his position, as if it's highly confused or strange. It strikes me as fairly straightforward -- whether it's wrong or right is adifferent discussion that I'd rather not get in to.

Your assumption rests on the belief that 1000 years of established authority always assumed that abortion should never be permitted.

This would be inaccurate. Even Moses, although born healthy, was set adrift on the Nile because his mother chose not to raise him. Very much akin to "I don't want this farking child and you should not be able to force me to have it"


Eraser suggested the cultural authority being challenged is the subjugation of women, not specifically abortion -- abortion is just one example of female subjugation. That's the argument, at least.

If you'd like another example, let's go back to one day after the civil rights act was passed in 1964. Would those opposing equal rights be considered progressive, liberal trailblazers bucking authority? Of course not. The one day old authority of the civil rights act is far outweighed by the hundreds of years of economic and cultural authority which state that blacks are inferior to whites, or are even subhuman. Conservatives would be those attempting to maintain long standing cultural and economic authorities, and rejecting the very new, very tenuous legal authority which states that blacks and whites are equal.
 
2012-04-09 07:00:50 PM  

Budhisatva: X-boxershorts: Budhisatva: I may regret entering this discussion again, but a simple thought expirement to explain erser's point might be useful:

Let's take ourselves back to the day AFTER Roe V Wade was decided. At this point, the law is in effect, theoretically. Would we really suggest that abortion laws now represent established authority and that any attempt to override them represents a desire to buck authority? That seems like an obviously false claim. At that point, the one-day-old "authority" established by the US Government is far superceded by the cultural and religious authorities which are thousands of years old and directly oppose the Roe V Wade ruling. And we're still seeing these much older cultural traditions in effect today.
suddenly
Put simply: "authority" is not synomous with "whatever the US Government says." There are many authorities, of which the US Government is one. In many cases, people reject the modern (and comparatively less well established) authority in favor of much older and more deeply rooted cultural and religious authorities, whether those authorities be laid out in explicit religious doctrine or in unstated cultural norms. I want to repeat one more time: I am not necessarily stating that eraser is correct. I just feel that he is stating his case fairly clearly, and there seems to be a log jam in simply understanding his position, as if it's highly confused or strange. It strikes me as fairly straightforward -- whether it's wrong or right is adifferent discussion that I'd rather not get in to.

Your assumption rests on the belief that 1000 years of established authority always assumed that abortion should never be permitted.

This would be inaccurate. Even Moses, although born healthy, was set adrift on the Nile because his mother chose not to raise him. Very much akin to "I don't want this farking child and you should not be able to force me to have it"

Eraser suggested the cultural authority being challenged is the subjugation ...


I see your point. And understand, the "conservative" desire to maintain the status quo, such as it is.

Maybe I'm a radical because I view the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as intrinsically linked.

The declaration defines who we are.
The constitution defines how we get there.

All men, is amended to mean, all peoples. And yes, it has been amended.
 
2012-04-09 07:43:24 PM  

HairBolus: What does "aggression" and "conventionalism" have to do with believing without question what your social superiors say?


Feel free to read Altemeyer's papers on the construct for yourself.
My impression is that "conventionalism" refers specifically to the type of authority one is oriented to. (There's actually an LWA analog to RWA, but it's so incredibly rare as to verge on nonexistent.) "Aggression" means you'll not only obey generally, you'll obey when they direct trying to enforce those dictated norms on others.

HairBolus: Altimeter's "Authoritarian" doesn't offer any explanation of why someone near but not at the bottom of the hierarchy might like the overall conservative system.


Fairly shallow explanation, anyway. "People like the system because (a) authority tells them they should and (b) they're predisposed to submission to conventional authority." It doesn't say anything about the why for (b); there's evidence it's a mix of both nature and nurture.

Altemeyer's construct isn't so much explanatory, as correlative empirical observation. Whatever the hell his scale is actually measuring, it has correlates considered interesting.

X-boxershorts: However, had you read the study by Dr Altemeyer, you'd understand, Authoritarian followers and their chosen leaders trend conservative in politics by a very significant margin.


At least, in the West.

skullkrusher: It clearly is.... a right wing Communist government?


In the sense that Altemeyer uses, yes. It's a sense distinct from conventional political "right". The high-RWA tendency of communists under the USSR was experimentally verified. (Quibble: technically, it was an experiment just after the fall of the USSR, on former communist party supporters.)

skullkrusher: but you're referring to it.


So, giving an extended excerpt (from the opening of Chapter 1), footnotes omitted:
Because the submission occurs to traditional authority, I call these followers rightwing authoritarians. I'm using the word "right" in one of its earliest meanings, for in Old English "riht"(pronounced "writ") as an adjective meant lawful, proper, correct, doing what the authorities said. (And when someone did the lawful thing back then, maybe the authorities said, with a John Wayne drawl, "You got that riht, pilgrim!")

In North America people who submit to the established authorities to extraordinary degrees often turn out to be political conservatives, so you can call them "right-wingers" both in my new-fangled psychological sense and in the usual political sense as well. But someone who lived in a country long ruled by Communists and who ardently supported the Communist Party would also be one of my psychological right-wing authoritarians even though we would also say he was a political left-winger. So a right-wing authoritarian follower doesn't necessarily have conservative political views. Instead he's someone who readily submits to the established authorities in society, attacks others in their name, and is highly conventional. It's an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics.


skullkrusher: Castro is certainly an authoritarian. He's just a LWA.


Technically, he's more likely an RWA oriented to the political left.
 
2012-04-09 07:56:48 PM  

Ace of Swords: mongbiohazard: This is what's wrong with the folks TFA is talking about, and the Republican party in general. A good read if you haven't read it before. I am re-reading it today after having spent time with my family and being reminded about the tickets to the crazy train they've bought.


"Republicans hope that the Supreme Court will overturn the Affordable Care Act. Such a decision would be the most dramatic assertion of judicial power since the thirties, and for that reason alone seems improbable. "

That's an interesting opinion Mr Frum has there.



Indeed. The Supremes haven't made their ruling yet, but even if they do come down against it it doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong about the kind of ruling it would represent. Do keep in mind that was written last year, well before the SCOTUS heard arguments about the act last week.
 
2012-04-09 08:28:31 PM  

abb3w: HairBolus: What does "aggression" and "conventionalism" have to do with believing without question what your social superiors say?

Feel free to read Altemeyer's papers on the construct for yourself.
My impression is that "conventionalism" refers specifically to the type of authority one is oriented to. (There's actually an LWA analog to RWA, but it's so incredibly rare as to verge on nonexistent.) "Aggression" means you'll not only obey generally, you'll obey when they direct trying to enforce those dictated norms on others.

HairBolus: Altimeter's "Authoritarian" doesn't offer any explanation of why someone near but not at the bottom of the hierarchy might like the overall conservative system.

Fairly shallow explanation, anyway. "People like the system because (a) authority tells them they should and (b) they're predisposed to submission to conventional authority." It doesn't say anything about the why for (b); there's evidence it's a mix of both nature and nurture.

Altemeyer's construct isn't so much explanatory, as correlative empirical observation. Whatever the hell his scale is actually measuring, it has correlates considered interesting.

X-boxershorts: However, had you read the study by Dr Altemeyer, you'd understand, Authoritarian followers and their chosen leaders trend conservative in politics by a very significant margin.

At least, in the West.

skullkrusher: It clearly is.... a right wing Communist government?

In the sense that Altemeyer uses, yes. It's a sense distinct from conventional political "right". The high-RWA tendency of communists under the USSR was experimentally verified. (Quibble: technically, it was an experiment just after the fall of the USSR, on former communist party supporters.)

skullkrusher: but you're referring to it.

So, giving an extended excerpt (from the opening of Chapter 1), footnotes omitted:
Because the submission occurs to traditional authority, I call these followers rightwing authoritarians. I'm using the word "right" in one of its earliest meanings, for in Old English "riht"(pronounced "writ") as an adjective meant lawful, proper, correct, doing what the authorities said. (And when someone did the lawful thing back then, maybe the authorities said, with a John Wayne drawl, "You got that riht, pilgrim!")

In North America people who submit to the established authorities to extraordinary degrees often turn out to be political conservatives, so you can call them "right-wingers" both in my new-fangled psychological sense and in the usual political sense as well. But someone who lived in a country long ruled by Communists and who ardently supported the Communist Party would also be one of my psychological right-wing authoritarians even though we would also say he was a political left-winger. So a right-wing authoritarian follower doesn't necessarily have conservative political views. Instead he's someone who readily submits to the established authorities in society, attacks others in their name, and is highly conventional. It's an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics.



skullkrusher: Castro is certainly an authoritarian. He's just a LWA.

Technically, he's more likely an RWA oriented to the political left. ...


Yes, I come to FARK to learn. I wish others would. Because there are some well read folks who also come here to fight the derp.
 
2012-04-09 10:01:28 PM  

MithrandirBooga: Chevy Volt Gay Black Abortion Edition


+1. Would lol again.
 
2012-04-09 10:47:32 PM  

X-boxershorts: Yes, I come to FARK to learn.


There are better places for an education. Probably not at the $5/month price range, though.

X-boxershorts: Because there are some well read folks who also come here to fight the derp.


Or at least who pass such counterfeit well.
 
2012-04-09 10:48:58 PM  

abb3w: X-boxershorts: Yes, I come to FARK to learn.

There are better places for an education. Probably not at the $5/month price range, though.

X-boxershorts: Because there are some well read folks who also come here to fight the derp.

Or at least who pass such counterfeit well.


It's possible to discern the chaff from the wheat
 
2012-04-09 10:50:39 PM  

abb3w: X-boxershorts: Yes, I come to FARK to learn.

There are better places for an education. Probably not at the $5/month price range, though.

X-boxershorts: Because there are some well read folks who also come here to fight the derp.

Or at least who pass such counterfeit well.


oh, lemme answer your other question....

I learn from Winterwhile posts as well...one must work to maintain an open mind.
 
2012-04-09 11:28:35 PM  
So much lib turdhurt that PMSNBC can't beat any of Fox News' show ratings. I think Maddow on prime time barely irks out Redeye that plays at 2 am.
Oh and 2 am on PMSNBC = snake oil infomercials.
 
2012-04-09 11:30:34 PM  

abb3w: In the sense that Altemeyer uses, yes. It's a sense distinct from conventional political "right". The high-RWA tendency of communists under the USSR was experimentally verified. (Quibble: technically, it was an experiment just after the fall of the USSR, on former communist party supporters.)


the beauty of living in a free society is that we don't have to buy the silly classifications of random social scientists.
 
2012-04-09 11:35:31 PM  

eraser8

I appreciate the defense, but ever since sprawl15 started claiming his original "Charlton Heston was pro-civil rights" statement was a non-sequitur rather than an argument and we were all idiots for assuming that he was making any kind of relevant point, I've had him pegged as a troll.

abb3w: While the tendency exists on both sides, Altemeyer's sociological data indicates it isn't expressed equally.


Which is why I said they differ by degree rather than kind. The research shows both have the tendency, conservatives to a far higher degree.

bugontherug: Exactly. Both sides are basically the same. That perfectly explains why Republicans are known for persistent displays of party solidarity, while getting Democrats to vote for progressive bills is said to be like "herding cats." Identical authoritarian groupthink impulse. Different degrees.


I don't think "both sides are basically the same" at all. The republicans are clearly far worse at this sort of thing.
 
2012-04-10 12:10:56 AM  
I got a 31 on that test. I think I need to leave the country.

/yes, please.
 
2012-04-10 12:24:58 AM  

skullkrusher: abb3w: In the sense that Altemeyer uses, yes. It's a sense distinct from conventional political "right". The high-RWA tendency of communists under the USSR was experimentally verified. (Quibble: technically, it was an experiment just after the fall of the USSR, on former communist party supporters.)

the beauty of living in a free society is that we don't have to buy the silly classifications of random social scientists.


especially when buying into means upsetting our personal applecart,

Enjoy the pink.
 
2012-04-10 12:27:30 AM  

X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: abb3w: In the sense that Altemeyer uses, yes. It's a sense distinct from conventional political "right". The high-RWA tendency of communists under the USSR was experimentally verified. (Quibble: technically, it was an experiment just after the fall of the USSR, on former communist party supporters.)

the beauty of living in a free society is that we don't have to buy the silly classifications of random social scientists.

especially when buying into means upsetting our personal applecart,

Enjoy the pink.


no,honestly, it has nothing to do with personal applecarts. I just don't tie mine to no name social scientists who invented a meaningless distinction using a silly test. Or perhaps I just don't get it because I haven't read his "work" three times. That's possible too.
 
2012-04-10 12:43:43 AM  

skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: abb3w: In the sense that Altemeyer uses, yes. It's a sense distinct from conventional political "right". The high-RWA tendency of communists under the USSR was experimentally verified. (Quibble: technically, it was an experiment just after the fall of the USSR, on former communist party supporters.)

the beauty of living in a free society is that we don't have to buy the silly classifications of random social scientists.

especially when buying into means upsetting our personal applecart,

Enjoy the pink.

no,honestly, it has nothing to do with personal applecarts. I just don't tie mine to no name social scientists who invented a meaningless distinction using a silly test. Or perhaps I just don't get it because I haven't read his "work" three times. That's possible too.


Oh, this work that has been replicated on multiple continents is from a no name?

No name to you, maybe...until today that is. You have no further excuse to remain ignorant of this then.

LOL...introspection, It has value.
 
2012-04-10 12:44:43 AM  

Gunther: The research shows both have the tendency, conservatives to a far higher degree.


Alternately, those with the tendency end conservative with far higher degree.
Po-TAY-toh, Po-TAH-toh....

skullkrusher: I just don't tie mine to no name social scientists who invented a meaningless distinction using a silly test


That the "silly test" yields correlation (ipso facto) rules out certain values of "meaningless".

Also, Bob Altemeyer seems to be cited about half as often as Ayn Rand; hardly "no name".
 
2012-04-10 02:31:05 AM  

Frank N Stein: [oi43.tinypic.com image 500x544]


Yay! I'm still a teenager!

/There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-Isaac Asimov

"Pseudoconservativism is among other things a disorder in relation to authority, characterized by an inability to find other modes for human relationship than those of more or less complete domination or submission ... The pseudo-conservative is a man who, in the name of upholding traditional American values and institutions and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aims at their abolition ... [He] sees his own country as being so weak that it is constantly about to fall victim to subversion; and yet he feels that it is so all-powerful that any failure it may experience in getting its way in the world ... cannot possibly be due to its limitations but must be attributed to its having been betrayed."
- Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays, 1965.
 
2012-04-10 11:32:42 AM  

X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: abb3w: In the sense that Altemeyer uses, yes. It's a sense distinct from conventional political "right". The high-RWA tendency of communists under the USSR was experimentally verified. (Quibble: technically, it was an experiment just after the fall of the USSR, on former communist party supporters.)

the beauty of living in a free society is that we don't have to buy the silly classifications of random social scientists.

especially when buying into means upsetting our personal applecart,

Enjoy the pink.

no,honestly, it has nothing to do with personal applecarts. I just don't tie mine to no name social scientists who invented a meaningless distinction using a silly test. Or perhaps I just don't get it because I haven't read his "work" three times. That's possible too.

Oh, this work that has been replicated on multiple continents is from a no name?

No name to you, maybe...until today that is. You have no further excuse to remain ignorant of this then.

LOL...introspection, It has value.


as I've said, I've taken his test and read about his work. Not all that impressed for reasons I've stated.
 
2012-04-10 11:37:07 AM  

abb3w: That the "silly test" yields correlation (ipso facto) rules out certain values of "meaningless".


for someone who apparently prides himself on precise language and logic, you sure parsed that sentence in a strange way.
 
2012-04-10 01:06:41 PM  

skullkrusher: as I've said, I've taken his test and read about his work.


Read about; but clearly not actually read the work.
 
2012-04-11 12:46:03 PM  

tjfly: So much lib turdhurt that PMSNBC can't beat any of Fox News' show ratings. I think Maddow on prime time barely irks out Redeye that plays at 2 am.
Oh and 2 am on PMSNBC = snake oil infomercials.


It's far more likely that liberals choose not to rely on television as their primary source of news and analysis because due to time and production constraints, it tends to be a poor medium for discussing anything beyond the surface of an issue.

But nevermind that, carry on with your nonsense.
 
2012-04-11 04:37:36 PM  

skullkrusher: abb3w: That the "silly test" yields correlation (ipso facto) rules out certain values of "meaningless".

for someone who apparently prides himself on precise language and logic, you sure parsed that sentence in a strange way.


That sentence is extremely precise and perfectly logical.

The test results are universally reproducible, ruling out "meaningless" as a relevant descriptor of the test.
 
Displayed 329 of 329 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report