Exactly. Some of the folks were utterly shocked that someone like Trump could win. Advice about conservative views or arguments from them should be taken with a grain of salt.
You would take advice from any of these people with a grain of salt?
Because many folks on the right are in that camp too.
You sure?
Yes always.
So from now on only listen to those who predicted a donald victory? Because that’s the only thing that testifies to intelligence?
Who here did?
So you’re listening a lot to Michael Moore lately! Good for you.
I sense a disconnect. “Take with a grain of salt” != “only listen to”. Hope that is more clear for you. If the goal is to seek out more information from sources that don’t already align with existing liberal views, starting with recommendations from liberals is not what I’d recommend.
Well you said anyone who missed the call on 2016 is to be taken with a grain of salt.
You said not liberals but anyone, as you should, unless you were just talking about half of the people, which is not intellectually supportable.
If it gets you to listen to mike moore then that sounds good.
In reality, I think everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Skepticism is healthy.
Glad to hear that because as I pointed already, a lot of the opinion sites recommended by conservatives here demonstrated to have a lot of opinion that not only ignores science but advises also to ignore it, leading to really what amounts to uneducated opinion.
Yeah right.
I understand that climate science is high on your priority list when evaluating sources. How do you rank someone who agrees with the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists, believes that global warming is real and is a danger, but thinks that other things are more important right now? Is tat ignoring science or an uneducated opinion too?
None of the examples presented here showed that, The examples showed by conservatives do go to ignore huge parts of the science to then tell others that no effects will take place and therefore nothing needs to be done. If not an uneducated opinion, a reckless one. Do you have a thoughtful opinion maker that thinks that other things are more important but does not deny the science that you want to point at?
Mind you, the point I do make is that refusing to see the science and the problem we are getting or are likely to get points to sources that are crank attractors. It is not only one conspiracy theory that they use to twist reality.
BTW Qin Shi Huangdi is more on the conservative side, so it is not quite accurate to point at just liberals giving advice here; incidentally, I did take a look and reported that the example he pointed at does sound more reasonable regarding how politics has to defer to science and they are conservative. So to my bookmarks it did go.
When I’m looking for conservative opinion, I’ll usually read/listen to:
George Will (Washington Post)
David Brooks (New York Times)
Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post)
Peggy Noonnan (WSJ)
Granted, none of these guys are really on-board the Trump train…
“Looks like he was weaned on a pickle.”
- Dorothy Parker about Calvin Coolidge.
Megan McArdle at Bloomberg is good for thoughtful conservatism although she is a moderate.
The City Journal is good for longer pieces.
Slate Star Codex is a good blog by a liberalish guy who occasionally comes to conservative conclusions about issues so it might be a good leaping off point though some of his stuff is really long.
Reason is good in my book. Blogs like hotgas.net (most of the readership fled from hotair.com when they decided to go full on #nevertrump) are good reads. Ace of Spades used to be readable, but then he had a mental breakdown. National Review is okay to read again now that they’ve given up on their #nevertrumpism. The WSJ can be okay at times-- depending on the topic. Breitbart is literally no different than HuffPo, the Nation, Slate or Mother Jones.
This statement is literally the opposite of correct.
Highly recommend KCRW’s “Left, Right, and Center.” It’s hosted by Josh Barro of Business Insider (centrist) with someone from the left and usually Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, on the right. Sometimes they get David Frum. They hit three news topics and it’s definitely developed my appreciation for conservative perspectives.
ETA: Also check out the Intelligence Squared debate podcasts, which are about an hour long of Oxford style debate on subjects like immigration, drug legalization, Obamacare, etc.
Indeed, as our The Bad Astronomer doper Phil Plait* reports, from Slate, no less:
Any moment now I expect Breitbart to correct or add a note to that misleading article…
Not holding my breath for any corrections, the result is people that only repeat weapon’s grade ignorance, and the worst thing here is that Republicans in power are using those sources of fake news as information.
The only nit I should make is that I caught HuffPo falling several times for woo woo regarding health issues, but as long as one does not quote them for that it has been just a good source, but the other ones are more reliable IMHO.
- Yes, he is a real astronomer and scientist.
Phil Plait - Wikipedia
He used to be, but not recently to my notice. I’ve been most impressed by his development over the years on the Dope from an intelligent but ignorant 13 year old spouting right-wing rubbish to an educated young man of a liberal persuasion.