Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-16-2018, 07:30 PM
dontbesojumpy dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,080
Republican Ethics and Values

Well, I think I'm picking a fight I really don't want to have, but I am looking for open, intellectual discussion and a differing viewpoint, so please keep it civil, as will I.

The simple question is this: How can an ethical person with good values support unethical behavior AND still be a good person? At what point are you own values compromised as you bend yourself into a pretzel to defend the unethical behaviors of your affiliated party members?

An example: An older colleague of mine defended Trump after the Charlottesville debacle by saying "racists ARE good people." From where I'm standing, he just defended racism, which causes me to wonder about his own sense of ethics.

I have been spending a lot of time lately contemplating the Ethics and Values of the GOP in general. I don't think I need to preface this with the widely-reported, innumerable scandals related to the GOP over the last few years. I think it's safe to say the veil of "what Republicans are willing to admit is right or wrong" has somewhat dropped with Trump, considering you have to morally equivocate his behavior daily anew to support him.

I myself changed my life-long affiliation from Republican to Independent just before the midterms. Admittedly, I haven't voted R in years but never had a stable address to switch party affiliations until recently.

Part of the reason for this dissertation and request for viewpoints is the ongoing struggle I am having with my parents. They support Trump whole-cloth, to the point if *you* don't support him BLINDLY no matter what he says or does, you're one of the bad guys. A great example is how in their eyes McCain went from "God's greatest hope for America" to "LIBERAL TRAITOR" simply by voicing that perhaps some of Trump's unethical behavior is...unethical.

I know my parents are good people and can cite a wide array of evidence as such. But they are older (mid-to-late 70s) and mostly house-bound with no "friends" or others to bounce ideas off of--and they only watch Fox News. So that means they are constantly smoldering over what someone is NOT letting Trump do, smoldering over what the libs are doing, smoldering over how people they will never meet--who will never affect them in any way--are living their own life.

We've (see: I've) established a moratorium on talking politics. Our relationship is tenuous already--their age means they need me to be around and their volatility on every political subject (which keeps them seething just below screaming pretty much all the time) means we simply can't afford to talk about politics--my differing point of view will likely not be tolerated and will surely throw my dad's blood pressure through the roof. The man pulled the car over and threw me out when I asserted that the Founding Fathers were Deists.

But they still say enough about politics that I know they will excuse everything Trump does, and often what their excuse is. In fact, he is the New "God's best plan to save America." When I point out his OVERWHELMING immorality, they just wave it off and say "God spoke through the mouth of an ass."

The idea is if they can just excuse every un-Christian thing Trump does, somehow, the goodly Christian Republicans will save America behind the scenes. This of course doesn't account for all of the other immorality running amok throughout the Right, all the way down to local politics where a REP was recently caught trading drugs and money for gay sex with a teenage boy.

Now--far be it from me to judge a political party by the worst examples available--which is why I have been pondering the entire core value/ethic identity of Republicanism. And I'm struggling.

Part of the problem is too many of their principles fly in the face of themselves.
Some examples (while trying to avoid Straw-Men):

They complain incessantly at how much a Democrat President spends on travel, while the last 3 republican presidents have gone on far, far more personal vacations at greater expense.

They complain about Dem's running up the deficit, except it's the Reps who always run it up (just look at it going now) after the Dems bring it down.

They say the are pro-life, but are against Planned Parenthood--an institution designed to help young women make informed decisions about having children. They oppose healthcare for pregnant women. They oppose funding for teachers for after the child is born. So when you peel it all away, it would *appear* the concern about pro-life is more about control over the female's ability to make decisions rather than simply "WE VALUE LIFE." None of this includes the GOP's stance on gun control and the death sentence.

They oppose gay marriage because they so value the sanctity of marriage, yet have no issues with divorce or adultery.

Believe me--we can do this with the Democrats after. Remember I am an indy. I didn't vote for HRC.

But I'm struggling to find the moral high-ground the Right keeps touting. And there seems to be a disproportionate amount of scandal involving the GOP as of late.

Am I thinking about it wrong? Can you support totally immoral behavior and still have a well-calibrated moral compass?
  #2  
Old 11-16-2018, 08:04 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,696
It’s a good question. In part it depends on if you believe in the ends justifying the means. As an example, if you want a conservative judiciary than I suppose Trump could be considered tolerable.
  #3  
Old 11-16-2018, 08:16 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,133
He might be, if there were any reason to believe that he'd install a conservative judiciary. But instead, he's nominating people like Kavanaugh.
  #4  
Old 11-16-2018, 08:27 PM
mikecurtis mikecurtis is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,303
(speaking as a non republican)

The Republicans have wholeheartedly embraced the adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I think we can safely say that the core of the Repub party are not racist, are not homophobic, are not hypocritical spenders, but they are willing to stand side by side with those who may be.

Let's take, ferinstance, the whole, there's good people on both sides. There is a large section of the American public who feel that white people are being unfairly overlooked by progressives. They aren't racists; they have no ill will toward others. But, they feel that these others are getting preferential treatment, sometimes at the expense of whites. And there is another group who are offended by attempts to get rid of all of the symbols of the Confederacy. "Sure the Confederacy had a lot of wrong ideals, but these were our ancestors, warts and all," they will say "and you are trying to erase our ancestors from history". Now I have no idea what the President really meant when he said what he said, but I can believe that there are a lot of good people in those groups. Unfortunately for them, they were marching beside actual racists. And so when the President complimented the good people without condemning the bad ones, he left himself open to justifiable criticism.

Same goes for right-to-lifers and sanctity-of marriage folks. I personally know many r-t-l's who support planned parenthood - not so much the birth control stuff, but the education and prenatal services they offer. And are against the death penalty. And s-o-m's who are not in any (other) way against gay rights. They believe that marriage is one man and one woman and is forever. And both of these groups are angry at the fact that they have to share the stage with religious zealots and homophobes but are willing to do it for the greater (in their mind) good.

It's an age old political conundrum. Do the ends justify the means? Or are the means an end in and of themselves? The Republicans have chosen their side.

mc
  #5  
Old 11-16-2018, 09:11 PM
dontbesojumpy dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronos View Post
he might be, if there were any reason to believe that he'd install a conservative judiciary. But instead, he's nominating people like kavanaugh.
"I like beer!!!"

Last edited by dontbesojumpy; 11-16-2018 at 09:12 PM.
  #6  
Old 11-16-2018, 11:43 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
It’s a good question. In part it depends on if you believe in the ends justifying the means. As an example, if you want a conservative judiciary than I suppose Trump could be considered tolerable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
The Republicans have wholeheartedly embraced the adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I think we can safely say that the core of the Repub party are not racist, are not homophobic, are not hypocritical spenders, but they are willing to stand side by side with those who may be.
[...] I can believe that there are a lot of good people in those groups. Unfortunately for them, they were marching beside actual racists. And so when the President complimented the good people without condemning the bad ones, he left himself open to justifiable criticism.
[...]And both of these groups are angry at the fact that they have to share the stage with religious zealots and homophobes but are willing to do it for the greater (in their mind) good.
Probably because they see the extremists at least are fighting while moderates will just compromise and leave the slippery slope open.


Quote:
It's an age old political conundrum. Do the ends justify the means? Or are the means an end in and of themselves?
But the means can taint the ends.
  #7  
Old 11-17-2018, 12:24 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
It’s a good question. In part it depends on if you believe in the ends justifying the means. As an example, if you want a conservative judiciary than I suppose Trump could be considered tolerable.
Shouldn't a person have to explain why they want a conservative judiciary?
  #8  
Old 11-17-2018, 12:36 AM
Tamerlane Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Shouldn't a person have to explain why they want a conservative judiciary?
I'm not sure I get this question. I would assume it is because they are conservative, no? I mean I'm more or less liberal and that is more or less why I would prefer a more liberal judiciary.

Last edited by Tamerlane; 11-17-2018 at 12:37 AM.
  #9  
Old 11-17-2018, 02:06 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Shouldn't a person have to explain why they want a conservative judiciary?
I don’t think people need to justify their vote or party affiliation in any way. I’m just giving an example of why someone may vote or support someone that isn’t aligned with their own set of values.
  #10  
Old 11-17-2018, 02:29 AM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
He might be, if there were any reason to believe that he'd install a conservative judiciary. But instead, he's nominating people like Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh had a very solid pro-R, pro-right-wing record as a judge.
  #11  
Old 11-17-2018, 05:22 AM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,464
Chronos's point is that Brett Kavanaugh is "right-wing," not "conservative." If "conservative" can mean whatsoever the present party leadership want, it has no consistent meaning. It loses any meaning that might be important to voters voting for "conservative values."

Last edited by foolsguinea; 11-17-2018 at 05:23 AM.
  #12  
Old 11-17-2018, 11:08 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Shouldn't a person have to explain why they want a conservative judiciary?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post
I'm not sure I get this question. I would assume it is because they are conservative, no? I mean I'm more or less liberal and that is more or less why I would prefer a more liberal judiciary.
I think it's a legitimate question. I've heard a number of people justify their support of Trump and other Republicans by saying they'll appoint conservative judges. But I want to ask those people what they think judicial conservatism is and why do they want it.

I'm guessing a lot of them have no idea. They just have a vague feeling that they don't like the way things are in this country and they feel that somehow judges are involved.
  #13  
Old 11-17-2018, 11:08 AM
Flyer Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
They complain about Dem's running up the deficit, except it's the Reps who always run it up (just look at it going now) after the Dems bring it down.

They say the are pro-life, but are against Planned Parenthood--an institution designed to help young women make informed decisions about having children. They oppose healthcare for pregnant women. They oppose funding for teachers for after the child is born. So when you peel it all away, it would *appear* the concern about pro-life is more about control over the female's ability to make decisions rather than simply "WE VALUE LIFE." None of this includes the GOP's stance on gun control and the death sentence.

They oppose gay marriage because they so value the sanctity of marriage, yet have no issues with divorce or adultery.
These three points I will address.

Deficits and government spending--
One of the original ideas behind lowering tax rates was that the decrease in revenue would force Congress to cut spending. But when the majority of voters actively want things like Medicare, Social Security, etc. it's very difficult to cut spending in any meaningful way. In addition, a lot of Republicans who are otherwise conservative have gotten brainwashed by the system into thinking that those programs are actually good. And in addition to that, all current government programs, no matter how small, have entrenched advocates who fight tooth and nail against any cuts, even symbolic ones.

The upshot is that, for a combination of reasons, it is essentially impossible for the true conservatives to actually reduce government spending in any meaningful sense. About all we can do is prevent further increases--and even that's difficult.

Pro-life--
Planned Parenthood is designed to produce as many abortions as possible. Any other revenue it derives from any other services -- even though those services may be good in and of themselves -- all that revenue goes towards the goal of keeping the organization open, so that it can continue to provide abortions.

Yes, it is good and desirable for pregnant women to get checkups, preventative care, etc. BUT--that is the responsibility of the woman and her family. It is not a legitimate role of government, and there should be no government funds spent on that, in any way, form, or shape whatsoever.

Teaching children has absolutely nothing to do with "pro-life." You are conflating life itself with the quality of a person's life. Furthermore, when liberals want more funding for schools, they virtually never consider the quality of outcomes. If you look at the per-student level of funding that the various states spend, and then you look at the state-level test scores, you will find that there is NO correlation between money spent and results. Some of the highest-spending states have the worst test scores and graduation rates.

Marriage--
There are a lot of hypocrites and non-Christians in the church pews. A true Christian opposes adultery as strongly as he opposes gay marriage, because they are both sins. But out of all the people who go to church every Sunday, probably only about 30-40% of them are actually Christians. A lot of people who claim to be Christians try to redefine adultery, so that they can feel ok about divorce and remarriage. But when they die, they will find themselves in Hell because of their sins.
  #14  
Old 11-17-2018, 11:23 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
These three points I will address.

Deficits and government spending--
One of the original ideas behind lowering tax rates was that the decrease in revenue would force Congress to cut spending. But when the majority of voters actively want things like Medicare, Social Security, etc. it's very difficult to cut spending in any meaningful way. In addition, a lot of Republicans who are otherwise conservative have gotten brainwashed by the system into thinking that those programs are actually good. And in addition to that, all current government programs, no matter how small, have entrenched advocates who fight tooth and nail against any cuts, even symbolic ones.

The upshot is that, for a combination of reasons, it is essentially impossible for the true conservatives to actually reduce government spending in any meaningful sense. About all we can do is prevent further increases--and even that's difficult.

Pro-life--
Planned Parenthood is designed to produce as many abortions as possible. Any other revenue it derives from any other services -- even though those services may be good in and of themselves -- all that revenue goes towards the goal of keeping the organization open, so that it can continue to provide abortions.

Yes, it is good and desirable for pregnant women to get checkups, preventative care, etc. BUT--that is the responsibility of the woman and her family. It is not a legitimate role of government, and there should be no government funds spent on that, in any way, form, or shape whatsoever.

Teaching children has absolutely nothing to do with "pro-life." You are conflating life itself with the quality of a person's life. Furthermore, when liberals want more funding for schools, they virtually never consider the quality of outcomes. If you look at the per-student level of funding that the various states spend, and then you look at the state-level test scores, you will find that there is NO correlation between money spent and results. Some of the highest-spending states have the worst test scores and graduation rates.

Marriage--
There are a lot of hypocrites and non-Christians in the church pews. A true Christian opposes adultery as strongly as he opposes gay marriage, because they are both sins. But out of all the people who go to church every Sunday, probably only about 30-40% of them are actually Christians. A lot of people who claim to be Christians try to redefine adultery, so that they can feel ok about divorce and remarriage. But when they die, they will find themselves in Hell because of their sins.
These all sound fine and dandy for your personal beliefs, but if you seek to impose these beliefs on the rest of us, many will fight (metaphorically) tooth and nail, since in many cases your beliefs as policy will do great personal harm to us and those we care about.
  #15  
Old 11-17-2018, 11:26 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
Pro-life--
Planned Parenthood is designed to produce as many abortions as possible. Any other revenue it derives from any other services -- even though those services may be good in and of themselves -- all that revenue goes towards the goal of keeping the organization open, so that it can continue to provide abortions.
Boy, I think the gulf of understanding between us may be too wide to cross. The single most effective way to limit abortions is to provide cheap and available birth control, especially to the young and poor. Preventing pregnancy on a wide scale will, by easy example, lower the amount of abortions.
  #16  
Old 11-17-2018, 11:51 AM
Fiveyearlurker Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Shouldn't a person have to explain why they want a conservative judiciary?
Or, for that matter, shouldn't they have to explain how Trump is a conservative?

There's no reason that "conservative" has to mean "dick" the way it has become. It didn't always.
  #17  
Old 11-17-2018, 12:40 PM
KidCharlemagne KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,955
- Many Christian Trump apologists believe that Trump is a vessel for, rather than an example of, the divine. He is often compared to Cyrus, the pagan King of Persia who liberated the Jews from the Babylonians.

- I pride myself on being particularly objective where politics are concerned and have voted mostly Republican (though i was a libertarian) in the past, but I can't find a single defense for Republican politicians in the age of Trump. I've never seen such reprehensible Machiavellianism in my life. But if you peruse the comments section of Breitbart, you'll see a people who genuinely believe they are on the high road. It's a mind-boggling wonder to behold. So while I can't forgive the politicians, who should know better, I can easily forgive Trump supporters who I see as simply ignorant. I can almost - ALMOST - forgive Trump who I see as a sort of Mad King George. Pence, not so much. McConnell, not at all.

Last edited by KidCharlemagne; 11-17-2018 at 12:43 PM.
  #18  
Old 11-17-2018, 01:00 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
- Many Christian Trump apologists believe that Trump is a vessel for, rather than an example of, the divine. He is often compared to Cyrus, the pagan King of Persia who liberated the Jews from the Babylonians.

- I pride myself on being particularly objective where politics are concerned and have voted mostly Republican (though i was a libertarian) in the past, but I can't find a single defense for Republican politicians in the age of Trump. I've never seen such reprehensible Machiavellianism in my life. But if you peruse the comments section of Breitbart, you'll see a people who genuinely believe they are on the high road. It's a mind-boggling wonder to behold. So while I can't forgive the politicians, who should know better, I can easily forgive Trump supporters who I see as simply ignorant. I can almost - ALMOST - forgive Trump who I see as a sort of Mad King George. Pence, not so much. McConnell, not at all.
Many or most of these folks live in such immensely different moral and factual universes from myself that I mostly don't see any point in trying to discuss politics with them. There's virtually no common ground to start from. Many of them are decent neighbors and coworkers, but from a political perspective, they're from another planet, and the only thing to do is try to outvote them (and since they're generally older, wait for their generation to pass).
  #19  
Old 11-17-2018, 01:43 PM
KidCharlemagne KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Many or most of these folks live in such immensely different moral and factual universes from myself that I mostly don't see any point in trying to discuss politics with them. There's virtually no common ground to start from. Many of them are decent neighbors and coworkers, but from a political perspective, they're from another planet, and the only thing to do is try to outvote them (and since they're generally older, wait for their generation to pass).
Completely agree it would be utterly fruitless to approach them head-on. One dirty tricks approach that I think could work would be to have undercover liberals with a gift for rhetoric post pro-Trump messages on Breitbart and pro-Trump message boards until they become thought leaders at which time they slowly turn on Trump in a way that would resonate with the conservative mind. Given the readership of those boards I genuinely think it would be a great bang for the Democrats' buck. And if we ever got outed at least we'd give them a conspiracy they were right about.
  #20  
Old 11-17-2018, 01:54 PM
KidCharlemagne KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,955
Ok so that probably wouldn't work at all.
  #21  
Old 11-17-2018, 02:29 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Or, for that matter, shouldn't they have to explain how Trump is a conservative?

There's no reason that "conservative" has to mean "dick" the way it has become. It didn't always.
Part of the problem is mapping multiple dimensions onto a one dimensional liberal-conservative axis.
  #22  
Old 11-17-2018, 02:36 PM
Tatterdemalion Tatterdemalion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 503
Quote:
Republican Ethics and Values
World's shortest book?
  #23  
Old 11-17-2018, 03:22 PM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
- Many Christian Trump apologists believe that Trump is a vessel for, rather than an example of, the divine. He is often compared to Cyrus, the pagan King of Persia who liberated the Jews from the Babylonians.
People compare Trump to Cyrus the Great? Cyrus supported racial equality, freedom of religion, getting rid of slavery, etc. And this was over two thousand years ago. Had Trump been around back then, or if Cyrus was around now, I imagine the difference between the two of them would be even more obvious.
  #24  
Old 11-17-2018, 03:39 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 14,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Boy, I think the gulf of understanding between us may be too wide to cross. The single most effective way to limit abortions is to provide cheap and available birth control, especially to the young and poor. Preventing pregnancy on a wide scale will, by easy example, lower the amount of abortions.
Yes: Planned Parenthood reduces abortions, ironically enough. Countries such as Sweden with readily accessible birth control have low abortion rates.

While red states have lower abortion rates than blue states, they also have higher rates of unintended pregnancies. The highest rates for unintended pregnancies are in the deep south. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...d-pregnancies/

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 11-17-2018 at 03:39 PM.
  #25  
Old 11-17-2018, 03:48 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Part of the problem is mapping multiple dimensions onto a one dimensional liberal-conservative axis.
This thread would be a perfect place to explain those dimensions.
  #26  
Old 11-17-2018, 03:52 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 14,038
Don't confuse observational questions with question of principle or theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
Part of the reason for this dissertation and request for viewpoints is the ongoing struggle I am having with my parents. They support Trump whole-cloth, to the point if *you* don't support him BLINDLY no matter what he says or does, you're one of the bad guys. A great example is how in their eyes McCain went from "God's greatest hope for America" to "LIBERAL TRAITOR" simply by voicing that perhaps some of Trump's unethical behavior is...unethical.
The technical term for this is tribal epistemology: instead of grounding belief upon fact, you ground your belief on what your tribe thinks.
Quote:
Am I thinking about it wrong? Can you support totally immoral behavior and still have a well-calibrated moral compass?
Before Trump, I argued here that conservatives weren't evil and they weren't stupid. They simply lacked character. As evidence, I pointed that their information sources (Fox News, talk radio) routinely screwed up their facts, as documented any month at Media Matters for America.[1] Choosing such a demonstrably poor info source because it makes you feel good reflects poor character.

Now we're a ways beyond that. You ask a good question. I'd submit though that it turns on the ability of conservatives to compartimentalize their political ethics from their personal ethics. That's an empirical question, not a question of principle. My guess is that when Fox News gives their viewers permission to base their opinions on feelings rather than fact, that such habits bleed out into the remainder of their lives: such viewers are more likely to be head cases. But if that's the case you should be able to easily come up examples among your conservative acquaintances showing such an effect.

(One documentary: The Brainwashing of My Dad, about a dentist who turned conservative after listening to Rush during his commute. Meh: anecdotal evidence: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...mentary-Update )




[1] In contrast, conservative media critics such as Accuracy in Media harp on bias which is something different: essentially it reflects hurt feelings.
  #27  
Old 11-17-2018, 04:03 PM
Locrian Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 3,986
Politics and religion are a dangerous mix. I find some support for Trump by religious people a perfect, walking, moving and breathing example of what hypocrisy means. Both politics and religion support each other: one tells you to blindly worship while the other preaches being rich, white and racist are true American values.

Last edited by Locrian; 11-17-2018 at 04:03 PM.
  #28  
Old 11-17-2018, 05:47 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,464
What this kind of discussion comes back to is that we need to save little old white folks from Fox News.
  #29  
Old 11-17-2018, 07:01 PM
KidCharlemagne KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
People compare Trump to Cyrus the Great? Cyrus supported racial equality, freedom of religion, getting rid of slavery, etc. And this was over two thousand years ago. Had Trump been around back then, or if Cyrus was around now, I imagine the difference between the two of them would be even more obvious.
I didn't say they were right.

I realize you're only questioning rhetorically so I'll just link for your amusement:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...t-donald-trump
  #30  
Old 11-17-2018, 07:27 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 14,038
Wilful suspension of disbelief

Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
What this kind of discussion comes back to is that we need to save little old white folks from Fox News.
Yes.

But it's difficult. Trump made up a 10% tax cut proposal on the fly while campaigning. After the election was over, they shelved the idea and stopped talking about it. Similarly, Trump jizzed up his base with talk of an invasion of Guatamalan mothers with baby strollers. But taking cues from the administration Fox News barely mentioned the caravan the first morning after midterms. More crickets on the topics they purportedly ran on.

Trump treats the base as easy marks, and they are just fine with it. As Trump once told Billy Bush regarding intentionally false claims: "Billy, look, you just tell them and they believe it. That's it: you just tell them and they believe. They just do."



Not all people do. But Trump's base does, even when it's against their financial interest. Trump's proposed tariffs represent tax increases far exceeding the taxes used to fund Obama's healthcare reform. Unlike the Dec 2017 tax cuts, they fall most heavily on the middle class.
  #31  
Old 11-17-2018, 09:12 PM
dontbesojumpy dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Chronos's point is that Brett Kavanaugh is "right-wing," not "conservative." If "conservative" can mean whatsoever the present party leadership want, it has no consistent meaning. It loses any meaning that might be important to voters voting for "conservative values."
Not disagreeing but can you elaborate on why Kav-Dawg isn't a conservative?
  #32  
Old 11-17-2018, 09:28 PM
dontbesojumpy dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
These three points I will address.
Pro-life--
Planned Parenthood is designed to produce as many abortions as possible. Any other revenue it derives from any other services -- even though those services may be good in and of themselves -- all that revenue goes towards the goal of keeping the organization open, so that it can continue to provide abortions.

Yes, it is good and desirable for pregnant women to get checkups, preventative care, etc. BUT--that is the responsibility of the woman and her family. It is not a legitimate role of government, and there should be no government funds spent on that, in any way, form, or shape whatsoever.
Hey nice to meet you. I want to first say I really value you your input and hope to read more from you.

The "responsibility" of the woman, who may or may not have a family who can support her, might incur more difficulty than others depending on the availability of opportunities, which we all know are not evenly distributed. Part of why the USA is ranked either 8th or 10th in Best Nations to Live In is due to how terrible our healthcare is.

Yesterday I read a story of someone who called a suicide prevention hotline, who in turn rushed an ambulance to get him. He spent 4 hours in a room at the hospital waiting to talk to a psychiatrist, which he did for around 20 minutes before being discharged under his own recognizance. He was hit with a bill for over 3 grand...for seeking help for a suicide.

I think it's hard to argue the system ISN'T broken.

Believe me, it took me a long time to realize how hard some people struggle to make ends meet. I as an adult have never been able to afford healthcare so I just have never gotten anything I need. Now I have an esophageal ulcer to deal with. Needless to say, I can't afford it.

I am a full-functioning, self-employed person who makes a living wage. But the cost of what I need is astronomical.

As far as Planned Parenthood, I was unaware of what you were saying, so I did a little research.

According to government oversight groups, PP provides around 34% of its services in contraceptive care, which prevents 600,000 unwanted pregnancies. They say only 3% of the provided services comprise abortions.

On that stat, there is a lot of miss-information floating around. The board of Catholic Bishops, for example, say that "100% of PP branches **MUST** provide abortions." This is patently untrue, as there literally isn't a single PP in my state that will preform them. To that end, there is, that I know of, only 1 single clinic that will provide abortions in my state.

Quote:
Teaching children has absolutely nothing to do with "pro-life." You are conflating life itself with the quality of a person's life.
I suppose this accounts for the state of adoption and foster children--"we don't care about you after you're born but by God we demand you have to exist, in hell and squalor or not."

Last edited by dontbesojumpy; 11-17-2018 at 09:31 PM.
  #33  
Old 11-17-2018, 09:33 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 6,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
Hey nice to meet you. I want to first say I really value you your input and hope to read more from you.

The "responsibility" of the woman, who may or may not have a family who can support her, might incur more difficulty than others depending on the availability of opportunities, which we all know are not evenly distributed. Part of why the USA is ranked either 8th or 10th in Best Nations to Live In is due to how terrible our healthcare is.

Yesterday I read a story of someone who called a suicide prevention hotline, who in turn rushed an ambulance to get him. He spent 4 hours in a room at the hospital waiting to talk to a psychiatrist, which he did for around 20 minutes before being discharged under his own recognizance. He was hit with a bill for over 3 grand...for seeking help for a suicide.

I think it's hard to argue the system ISN'T broken.

Believe me, it took me a long time to realize how hard some people struggle to make ends meet. I as an adult have never been able to afford healthcare so I just have never gotten anything I need. Now I have an esophageal ulcer to deal with. Needless to say, I can't afford it.

I am a full-functioning, self-employed person who makes a living wage. But the cost of what I need is astronomical.

As far as Planned Parenthood, I was unaware of what you were saying, so I did a little research.

According to government oversight groups, PP provides around 34% of its services in contraceptive care, which prevents 600,000 unwanted pregnancies. They say only 3% of the provided services comprise abortions.

On that stat, there is a lot of miss-information floating around. The board of Catholic Bishops, for example, say that "100% of PP branches **MUST** provide abortions." This is patently untrue, as there literally isn't a single PP in my state that will preform them. To that end, there is, that I know of, only 1 single clinic that will provide abortions in my state.



I suppose this accounts for the state of adoption and foster children--"we don't care about you after you're born but by God we demand you have to exist, in hell and squalor or not."
Search for more posts by that guy if you really hate yourself and like being flabbergasted and angered.
  #34  
Old 11-17-2018, 09:37 PM
dontbesojumpy dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
Yes.

But it's difficult. Trump made up a 10% tax cut proposal on the fly while campaigning. After the election was over, they shelved the idea and stopped talking about it. Similarly, Trump jizzed up his base with talk of an invasion of Guatamalan mothers with baby strollers. But taking cues from the administration Fox News barely mentioned the caravan the first morning after midterms. More crickets on the topics they purportedly ran on.

Trump treats the base as easy marks, and they are just fine with it. As Trump once told Billy Bush regarding intentionally false claims: "Billy, look, you just tell them and they believe it. That's it: you just tell them and they believe. They just do."



Not all people do. But Trump's base does, even when it's against their financial interest. Trump's proposed tariffs represent tax increases far exceeding the taxes used to fund Obama's healthcare reform. Unlike the Dec 2017 tax cuts, they fall most heavily on the middle class.
I'm starting to fear we are living in a "post-truth" era. For example, my parents are just OVER "truth."

Trump has adeptly--strange to say he is adept at anything--but he has adeptly muddied the waters over if there even IS truth. He constantly appeals to false higher authorities--"MANY PEOPLE ARE SAYING. MANY PEOPLE." "They tell me...They are Saying..."

Not only that, but if he doesn't like it, it's fake news. He accuses everyone of doing what he is or has done.

I feel like my parents are angry all the time because they have come to HATE truth. What the fake media is saying (about what Trump did wrong this time) and how angry it makes them! I feel like they hate truth now because they are simply on the wrong side of it. Fox has as well engendered a ferocious disdain for academia. I am the only person in my entire family who ever attended college--much less graduate--but my father will tell you ALL ABOUT *exactly* what godless treachery they are teaching kids at colleges all over the nation.

I don't know how I can ever have a "come to Jesus" meeting with them about this. At most, I want to assert my personal aversion to Republicanism as a whole concept--as to no personally attack THEM--but when we cannot agree on the concept of "truth" or "facts" any longer, how do you even have a rational conversation?
  #35  
Old 11-17-2018, 11:50 PM
Tee Tee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
I don't know how I can ever have a "come to Jesus" meeting with them about this. At most, I want to assert my personal aversion to Republicanism as a whole concept--as to no personally attack THEM--but when we cannot agree on the concept of "truth" or "facts" any longer, how do you even have a rational conversation?
The fight is the point, not the facts. I have some experience with this and a Fox News parent of my own, and I've been where you are. People like this are locked into a passionate battle against caricatures of their own creation for the soul of the country, and they are dying to unload all of this righteous anger upon whatever adversary. Meanwhile, you know, I just want more attention paid to public health and welfare. It would be tough for me to match their anger level on a regular basis. Plus I don't have time for bullshit games, but often they do.

So, the idea of Planned Parenthood requiring abortions, or having an abortion quota or what have you, is the kind of thing that is demonstrably untrue and weird and exactly the the type of thing they will say to kick off the game. Our job is essentially punt return – catch the ball by reacting to what is said, run it downfield by countering the point, and then their defense is up and running and saying Liberals this and Leftists that, and the battle is on.

If you play. I don't. I am in the camp that believes that people like this, known and loved by many, do not actually believe the things they are saying. These things (insert your crazy factoid of choice) rather represent their feelings about any given topic. Saying them has the effect of expressing their derision and poking at liberals at the same time, and maybe releasing some of that anger, or perhaps casting for more sources to sustain it.

This is kind of an evolving subject. It's fascinating.
  #36  
Old 11-18-2018, 03:21 AM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
Not disagreeing but can you elaborate on why Kav-Dawg isn't a conservative?
Well, he probably is politically "conservative" by several measures; unfortunately, there is not one agreed-upon meaning of that word. But judicially, he is a partisan, and known for "interpreting" the law to mean what he wants it to mean. That makes him a judicial "activist," which is arguably in opposition to sober conservative jurisprudence. Specifically, he once tried to interpolate into existence a whole bit of labor law that contradicted actual written labor law. As I understand it, he has also been accused of being an active part of the GWB administration's reinterpretation of the Geneva Accords to let them do things the Geneva Accords were specifically written to prohibit--but I'm not sure how much he had to do with that.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 11-18-2018 at 03:22 AM.
  #37  
Old 11-18-2018, 02:50 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 14,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tee View Post
The fight is the point, not the facts. I have some experience with this and a Fox News parent of my own, and I've been where you are. People like this are locked into a passionate battle against caricatures of their own creation for the soul of the country, and they are dying to unload all of this righteous anger upon whatever adversary. Meanwhile, you know, I just want more attention paid to public health and welfare. It would be tough for me to match their anger level on a regular basis. Plus I don't have time for bullshit games, but often they do.

So, the idea of Planned Parenthood requiring abortions, or having an abortion quota or what have you, is the kind of thing that is demonstrably untrue and weird and exactly the the type of thing they will say to kick off the game. Our job is essentially punt return – catch the ball by reacting to what is said, run it downfield by countering the point, and then their defense is up and running and saying Liberals this and Leftists that, and the battle is on.

If you play. I don't. I am in the camp that believes that people like this, known and loved by many, do not actually believe the things they are saying. These things (insert your crazy factoid of choice) rather represent their feelings about any given topic. Saying them has the effect of expressing their derision and poking at liberals at the same time, and maybe releasing some of that anger, or perhaps casting for more sources to sustain it.

This is kind of an evolving subject. It's fascinating.
To get an idea of the endpoint of this conservative process, look at WAPO's article on America’s Last Line of Defense. Written by a liberal, it contains the disclaimer, "Nothing on this page is real". The author says, "No matter how racist, how bigoted, how offensive, how obviously fake we get, people keep coming back. Where is the edge? Is there ever a point where people realize they’re being fed garbage and decide to return to reality?"

Examples in the article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...fed_story.html

Twitter link: https://twitter.com/PostBaron/status...46009058668544
In the last two years on his page, America’s Last Line of Defense, Blair had made up stories about California instituting sharia, former president Bill Clinton becoming a serial killer, undocumented immigrants defacing Mount Rushmore, and former president Barack Obama dodging the Vietnam draft when he was 9. “Share if you’re outraged!” his posts often read, and thousands of people on Facebook had clicked “like” and then “share,” most of whom did not recognize his posts as satire. Instead, Blair’s page had become one of the most popular on Facebook among Trump-supporting conservatives over 55.
  #38  
Old 11-18-2018, 03:10 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 14,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
I don't know how I can ever have a "come to Jesus" meeting with them about this. At most, I want to assert my personal aversion to Republicanism as a whole concept--as to no personally attack THEM--but when we cannot agree on the concept of "truth" or "facts" any longer, how do you even have a rational conversation?
1. Timothy Snyder: "Believe in truth. To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights."

2. My summary of Christian scripture follows: "Love God and His Creation, Love thy Neighbor as thyself, but try not to be a sanctimonious prick about it."

The part about His Creation is old testament: it comes from Genesis and Job. So set it aside. The eagerness of conservative Christians to judge others, even flying in the face of facts, is not only False Witness in practice, it's the sort of thing that Jesus constantly railed against. We can set aside Love thy Neighbor. That leaves the first aspect, Love God. That they do. Sort of. Though I perceive a great deal of pride.

This mismatch is puzzling. I guess righteous anger is quite the drug, overcoming not only fact and economic self-interest but also Christian doctrine.
  #39  
Old 11-18-2018, 03:59 PM
ohiomstr2 ohiomstr2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
What this kind of discussion comes back to is that we need to save little old white folks from Fox News.
I am sorry for the hijack but I could not ignore this.

I am a not so little old white guy. Please explain how exactly you plan to save me from Fox News.

Last edited by ohiomstr2; 11-18-2018 at 04:00 PM.
  #40  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:19 PM
dontbesojumpy dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
1. Timothy Snyder: "Believe in truth. To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights."

2. My summary of Christian scripture follows: "Love God and His Creation, Love thy Neighbor as thyself, but try not to be a sanctimonious prick about it."

The part about His Creation is old testament: it comes from Genesis and Job. So set it aside. The eagerness of conservative Christians to judge others, even flying in the face of facts, is not only False Witness in practice, it's the sort of thing that Jesus constantly railed against. We can set aside Love thy Neighbor. That leaves the first aspect, Love God. That they do. Sort of. Though I perceive a great deal of pride.

This mismatch is puzzling. I guess righteous anger is quite the drug, overcoming not only fact and economic self-interest but also Christian doctrine.
You are starting to touch on the crux of what I think bothers me so much--how dangerously close we are getting to the point of just saying (or even thinking) "ok, well--that makes you a hypocrite." Perhaps I'm being old-fashioned--and I realize everyone is a bit of a hypocrite to some nth degree--but being a complete wishy-washy, "right and wrong cannot be evenly applied because if MY GUY does it, it's not wrong anymore" level hypocrite seems to me is one of the worst moral stances I can think of. It's in my mind the goal of any moralist to AVOID being that kind of bone-marrow-deep hypocrite.

Part of the issue is the immediacy of the folk they are judging. I said I can cite they are good people--they are, if you're a tangible human they are faced with. They had their own ministries over the years and would help anyone who came and asked.

Another example is when we were out at dinner and my mom started complaining about the illegals. When I pointed around the restaurant to the bus boy, the cooks, the guy doing the dishes, and speculated that at least SOME of these people are 100% illegals, she promptly said "WELL, not THESE people. I mean the BAD ones." Which is just the problem--she's abstracted a whole faction of humans into imaginary bad guys.

And there's the problem--an uneven distribution of ethics. She just doesn't apply them when she's faced with the humanity of it all. She also lacks even a rudimentary understanding of the legal immigration process, so her attitude that anyone who wants to just come be a legal American is welcomed so long as you fill out the paperwork is so misguided I don't even know if she'll ever grasp the reality of it.

For me, I know there is a way to discuss this where I can go under the politics and talk about the principles, and I know we could see eye-to-eye. But honestly I feel like it's going to be a huge battle just to get them to look at things as humans, as Christians, or with empathy instead of only seeing everything through their myopic Fox News Republican eyes. "Stop being a Republican for just one conversation..."
  #41  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:24 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 14,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohiomstr2 View Post
I am sorry for the hijack but I could not ignore this.

I am a not so little old white guy. Please explain how exactly you plan to save me from Fox News.
That's what we're trying to figure out!


Greetings, ohiomstr2, and welcome to the Straight Dope Message board! We really have no idea of how to move the country forward into a fact-based discussion, along the lines of what the founding father's intended. Jefferson, Washington, Madison, and Hamilton cared a lot about liberty, but they also were big supporters of science and reason-based policy.

On any week, Fox News screws its facts up. They also push an agenda that tends to divide the country, weakening it in the face of its enemies.

If true that's a problem, right?

Right?
  #42  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:29 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 14,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
You are starting to touch on the crux of what I think bothers me so much--how dangerously close we are getting to the point of just saying (or even thinking) "ok, well--that makes you a hypocrite." Perhaps I'm being old-fashioned--and I realize everyone is a bit of a hypocrite to some nth degree--but being a complete wishy-washy, "right and wrong cannot be evenly applied because if MY GUY does it, it's not wrong anymore" level hypocrite seems to me is one of the worst moral stances I can think of. It's in my mind the goal of any moralist to AVOID being that kind of bone-marrow-deep hypocrite.
There are different forms of hypocrisy. Some hypocrites do wrong, but they know they do wrong; the flesh is weak. "Hypocrisy is the complement that vice pays to virtue."

It's when folks lie to themselves that it gets into more dangerous territory. I'm guessing they do so, because they get some sort of charge from it. Sort of like I do, when I hit "Like" or "Retweet" on twitter. Positive reinforcement: hit the lever, get a food pellet.

As I said above though, I don't know the way out of this morass. We have our work cut out for us, if we want to advance evidenced based policy.
  #43  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:34 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohiomstr2 View Post
Please explain how exactly you plan to save me from Fox News.
Can't. You have to save yourself. To do that, you first have to suspect there's a problem. But all it takes is to change the channel once in awhile.
  #44  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:59 PM
ohiomstr2 ohiomstr2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
That's what we're trying to figure out!


Greetings, ohiomstr2, and welcome to the Straight Dope Message board! We really have no idea of how to move the country forward into a fact-based discussion, along the lines of what the founding father's intended. Jefferson, Washington, Madison, and Hamilton cared a lot about liberty, but they also were big supporters of science and reason-based policy.

On any week, Fox News screws its facts up. They also push an agenda that tends to divide the country, weakening it in the face of its enemies.

If true that's a problem, right?

Right?
My question was not about how to interpret information presented on TV. It was how, *exactly*, as an old white guy, am I to be protected from a particular broadcaster?

Most folks with enhanced experience are able to figure out if the scripts on tv news are accurate, so, I am curious about how I can be protected from making evaluations as i choose.

Please consider starting a new thread with the answer as i really dislike hijacks but cannot ignore suggestions to protect me.
  #45  
Old 11-18-2018, 07:03 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohiomstr2 View Post
I am sorry for the hijack but I could not ignore this.

I am a not so little old white guy. Please explain how exactly you plan to save me from Fox News.
Just stop watching it. Take a break from it. You don't need hours of Washington chatter a day, for one thing. And Fox is a twisted enterprise.

Fox News's reputation rests on two elements: One, that it's news. Two, that it's American. Both are dubious.

In the USA, even a high school journalism class would teach you to have better journalistic standards than Fox News. Shep Smith is actually an OK newsreader/anchorman. But Chris Wallace is worryingly partisan and slanted. The talk shows are not news, whatever they are.

Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News, is an Australian billionaire who has no respect for journalistic standards. He is largely deplored by people who care about integrity in journalism. He's a joke at best.
  #46  
Old 11-18-2018, 07:17 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 14,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohiomstr2 View Post
My question was not about how to interpret information presented on TV. It was how, *exactly*, as an old white guy, am I to be protected from a particular broadcaster?

Most folks with enhanced experience are able to figure out if the scripts on tv news are accurate, so, I am curious about how I can be protected from making evaluations as i choose.

Please consider starting a new thread with the answer as i really dislike hijacks but cannot ignore suggestions to protect me.
I'm not certain I understand your question - but I don't think that it's a hijack!

Let me speak for myself. If I find an information source that is factually unreliable, I deweight it a lot. Here's an example from the liberal side. Years ago, I would stumble across provocative Daily Kos headlines. I'd read the article. I'd click through to the news article they were commenting on. There was a mismatch. I had gotten burnt. After getting burnt like that a couple of times, I lost a lot of interest in the Daily Kos. That was years ago. Maybe they're better now. I haven't visited them recently.

Second example. Bill O'Reilly at Fox News. I was told by my Mom (who was a fan) what he was going to be covering over the next half hour. I looked up the topic at google news and found an AP article.

Did O'Reilly's show cover the basic facts of the topic? No. Admittedly, there were not actual falsehoods (something that occurs regularly at Fox). But it wasn't informative either. It was just noise, assertion, with a little innuendo mixed in.
----

I think CNN is crummy frankly. But it's markedly superior to Fox. I don't get my news from the television. I go to newspapers like the New York Times and magazines like The Economist (but that has a hefty price tag). Vox.com has excellent explainers, and their news coverage is decent as well. They don't label their op-ed pieces as well as they could though (they call them First Person I think). fivethirtyeight.com is also solid.

Are you asking for a list of good and bad sources of information? We could start a thread about that.
  #47  
Old 11-18-2018, 08:44 PM
ohiomstr2 ohiomstr2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 159
My question was not about which sources are good or bad. While I appreciate the examples supplied, I believe that I am able to independently evaluate the accuracy of a news report. The comment I was responding to was to the effect that "little old white folks" need protection from Fox News

Leaving aside the assumptions made about older women and men, my question remains. How am I, an old white guy, going to be protected? Are my news viewing habits to be monitored and redirected to a correct source? Who decides what is correct?

Is Fox News to be banned? What about other news outlets that make errors in their reporting?

Someone up thread mentioned a Federalist Papers type discussion about the political divides we here in middle north america are currently experiencing. I think this is a great idea.

Perhaps we can begin with a discussion of the First Amendment
  #48  
Old 11-18-2018, 09:18 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 14,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohiomstr2 View Post
Leaving aside the assumptions made about older women and men, my question remains. How am I, an old white guy, going to be protected? Are my news viewing habits to be monitored and redirected to a correct source? Who decides what is correct?

Is Fox News to be banned? What about other news outlets that make errors in their reporting?
Nobody is proposing anything like that in this thread. I think you misinterpreted the original comment.


We're discussing persuasion. How to you persuade someone to avoid information sources with demonstrably non-factual and emotive content? The first step is understanding the target, which is what we've dwelt on so far.

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 11-18-2018 at 09:21 PM.
  #49  
Old 11-18-2018, 10:20 PM
ohiomstr2 ohiomstr2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
What this kind of discussion comes back to is that we need to save little old white folks from Fox News.
Again, my question is how am I, as an apparent class of individuals who need saving from a corporate evil doer, going to be protected? If it is by redirecting my news consumption?
If so, am I to rely on someone younger and less experienced to take my hand and guide me through the intricacies of interpreting the veracity of a news or opinion piece?

Perhaps, in spite of being old and white, I am able to use multiple outlets, most of whom are guilty of sloppy reporting and biased opinion, and form my own opinions without outside assistance. Making assumptions about a particular group of folks ability to think for themselves, and that potentially disagreeing with one ideology or another requires some kind of intervention is just, you know, a little bit arrogant and, dare I say, oppressive.

One wonders what the reaction would be to stating that "little youngsters" need protection from CNN and the NYT
  #50  
Old 11-18-2018, 10:42 PM
ohiomstr2 ohiomstr2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
What this kind of discussion comes back to is that we need to save little old white folks from Fox News.
QUOTE=foolsguinea;21328927]What this kind of discussion comes back to is that we need to save little old white folks from Fox News.[/QUOTE]

Again, my question is how am I, as an apparent class of individuals who need saving from a corporate evil doer, going to be protected? If it is by redirecting my news consumption to a different corporation, am I to rely on someone younger and less experienced to take my hand and guide me through the intricacies of interpreting the veracity of a news or opinion piece?

Perhaps, in spite of being old and white, I am able to use multiple outlets, most of whom are guilty of sloppy reporting and biased opinion, and form my own opinions without outside assistance. Making assumptions about a particular group of folks ability to think for themselves, and that potentially disagreeing with one ideology or another requires some kind of intervention is just, you know, a little bit arrogant and, dare I say, oppressive.

One wonders what the reaction would be to stating that "little youngsters" need protection from CNN and the NYT
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017