# Issues which conservatives need to listen more closely to liberals on **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2017, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989 "2017-04-22T15:31:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![GrumpyBunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc8723/32.png) [@GrumpyBunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrumpyBunny)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/261 "2017-04-26T17:13:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > When did it [healthcare] transform into a human need that the government must pay for? I don’t find that a very compelling argument. When did disease control? When did roads? When did snow plows? When did education? UHC has the benefit of improving the health of the citizenry, which leads to more people being able to work and be active members of the community for a longer time. In addition, UHC reduces costs and improves medical outcomes, particularly for chronic diseases. Additionally, insurance has proven over the past 30-odd years that they exist solely to make money, and spend a lot of money and time in trying to avoid paying for treatment, and millions in government lobbyists. That money could be better used to care for people. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/262 "2017-04-26T17:16:59Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I got “about as likely” from you directly comparing the two situations. If the only purpose of you making that particular comparison was to highlight that “conceivable” is a very broad phrase, well, yes, it is. That’s why I used it. You seemed to be dismissing the possibility that there could be any possible benefit at all from having that instruction in there. Now, we agree that not only is it possible that there’s a useful reason for having such an instruction, we have established that it happening is “more likely than drawing a straight flush in poker.” That’s a pretty good basement. Would you care to refine the possibility up any higher than that? > > Also, given that you agree that there’s a possibility (of some currently undefined likelihood) that someone could be helped by that pamphlet, what is meant to be demonstrated by the existence of that pamphlet? At this point, it appears to be, “Liberals are more likely to overestimate the effectiveness of explanatory pamphlets.” And as noted before, a pamphlet that was not for the whole school nor directed to students as the tabloid report wanted to pass it as. The point I made that stands there is that it may had been a slippery slope all right, but not even on a mole hill. ---
**Author:** ![GrumpyBunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc8723/32.png) [@GrumpyBunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrumpyBunny)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/263 "2017-04-26T17:19:25Z")
\*\*Bricker \*\*et al, my apologies; did not realize and should have done that someone else had gotten in the point about various things the government pays for. Been busy with work and lost track of time. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/264 "2017-04-26T17:23:14Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Post snipped. > > First, racism is bad. Actions that are based on racism are bad. > > The problem is the bolded piece. If person A doesn’t make eye contact with person B, it could be racism. Or it could be shyness. Or it could be that person A was checking out person Cs ass. How do you suss out which is true? > > With the microagression example Bricker gave, the other possible explanations are discounted immediately. It is racist by default. The guidance tells people to read other peoples minds and make harsh judgments about the people for behaviors that are not clear indicators of racism. > > Do you see how that is problematic and actually makes things worse? > > Slee In some ways you bring up good points, in your first two paragraphs. And if it were a matter of students being judged for not making eye contact as being racist, you would have a very good point in the latter ones as well. But, as you acknowledge that it is hard to tell whether not making eye contact is due to racism or other factors, the entire point of the pamphlet was advice to staff on how to make students feel more comfortable, as the student may take your aloofness the wrong way, and feel as though the staff is not treating them with respect. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/265 "2017-04-26T17:52:53Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I got “about as likely” from you directly comparing the two situations. I didn’t directly compare them. I compared each, in turn, to the word “conceivable.” > [@](#): > > If the only purpose of you making that particular comparison was to highlight that “conceivable” is a very broad phrase, well, yes, it is. That’s why I used it. You seemed to be dismissing the possibility that there could be any possible benefit at all from having that instruction in there. Now, we agree that not only is it possible that there’s a useful reason for having such an instruction, we have established that it happening is “more likely than drawing a straight flush in poker.” That’s a pretty good basement. Would you care to refine the possibility up any higher than that? Sure. About as likely as flopping a set – three of a kind. > [@](#): > > Also, given that you agree that there’s a possibility (of some currently undefined likelihood) that someone could be helped by that pamphlet, what is meant to be demonstrated by the existence of that pamphlet? At this point, it appears to be, “Liberals are more likely to overestimate the effectiveness of explanatory pamphlets.” No, **Miller** is more likely to overestimate the effectiveness of explanatory pamphlets. Liberals are more likely to suggest racism where none exists. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/266 "2017-04-26T18:03:22Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Were you trying to establish something as fact via this post? If so, what? It sounds like you and Vox have an opinion on the matter. I have a different opinion. Well, what’s _wrong_ about it? That the sources listed are not “mainstream”? The Post and the Times are the nation’s largest newspapers, and ABC and CNN are among the largest news networks. Breitbart is _the_ biggest right-wing news source when it comes to online shares and page views, FOX is the country’s largest cable network, Rush has fairly extreme influence over the party and voters, and the WSJ is, again, one of the largest newspapers. That most of the liberal sources I listed at least try to have even-handed, non-partisan journalism? Look at their reporting on Clinton, and how many stories each of them dedicated to Clinton’s email server and foundation; this is pretty trivially true. Again, it’s not “they’re perfectly balanced”, it’s “they’re trying to be non-partisan”. That most of the republican sources I listed do not, and explicitly target an almost exclusively right-wing perspective? Dude. FOX News, Breitbart, and Rush Limbaugh. That really shouldn’t take any explaining. So… what’s the problem here? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/267 "2017-04-26T18:07:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I didn’t directly compare them. I compared each, in turn, to the word “conceivable.” > > Sure. About as likely as flopping a set – three of a kind. So, you are saying that nearly 12% of the people who read this pamphlet will benefit from the instruction found in there? That’s a pretty good pamphlet. You probably don’t get nearly that good a return on a dentists pamphlet explaining the benefits of flossing. > [@](#): > > No, **Miller** is more likely to overestimate the effectiveness of explanatory pamphlets. Liberals are more likely to suggest racism where none exists. Possibly, but to be honest, I would rather err on the side of assuming racism where none exists, and work to alleviate the discomfort that people feel when they perceive they are being discriminated against due to racial bias than to ignore racism that does exist, and is being used to discriminate. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/268 "2017-04-26T18:14:06Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Well, what’s _wrong_ about it? > > That the sources listed are not “mainstream”? The Post and the Times are the nation’s largest newspapers, and ABC and CNN are among the largest news networks. Breitbart is _the_ biggest right-wing news source when it comes to online shares and page views, FOX is the country’s largest cable network, Rush has fairly extreme influence over the party and voters, and the WSJ is, again, one of the largest newspapers. > > That most of the liberal sources I listed at least try to have even-handed, non-partisan journalism? Look at their reporting on Clinton, and how many stories each of them dedicated to Clinton’s email server and foundation; this is pretty trivially true. Again, it’s not “they’re perfectly balanced”, it’s “they’re trying to be non-partisan”. > > That most of the republican sources I listed do not, and explicitly target an almost exclusively right-wing perspective? Dude. FOX News, Breitbart, and Rush Limbaugh. That really shouldn’t take any explaining. > > So… what’s the problem here? Nothing wrong with it, it’s just mostly opinion, or at least assertions unsupported by evidence. For example, earlier you asserted: > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > There’s _extensive_ documentation of the lengths these folks go to slag off the democrats and boost republicans. Would it be too much trouble for you to provide some links to this purportedly _extensive_ documentation? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/269 "2017-04-26T18:22:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I didn’t directly compare them. I compared each, in turn, to the word “conceivable.” I accept that was your intent. I don’t think that was entirely communicated by your post. > [@](#): > > Sure. About as likely as flopping a set – three of a kind. So, [per this cite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability), there’s about a 2-3% chance that someone might read, “Not making eye contact could be interpreted as racist,” and thinking, “I should be sure I’m making eye contact with people?” That’s a pretty specific percentage. How did you arrive at it? > [@](#): > > No, **Miller** is more likely to overestimate the effectiveness of explanatory pamphlets. Liberals are more likely to suggest racism where none exists. Well, perhaps - but how does this pamphlet demonstrate that? It says not making eye contact _might_ be construed as racist. Are you saying that it’s _impossible_ for that to be racist? Or that it might be racist, but nobody should care if it is? If the university deals with a lot of complaints from minority students that “racist administrators won’t look me in the eye,” would it be a proper response from the university to tell their employees to make more eye contact, if only to cut down on the number of baseless complaints they have to deal with? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/270 "2017-04-26T18:27:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Would it be too much trouble for you to provide some links to this purportedly extensive documentation? Yeah, **Budgie**! If you are going to suggest that rabidly tighty righty “news” outlets are slanted against liberals and progressives, you’re going to have to prove it! Good catch there, **Hurr**! Gotta get up pretty early in the afternoon to put one over on you! ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/271 "2017-04-26T18:33:43Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Would it be too much trouble for you to provide some links to this purportedly _extensive_ documentation? Exhibit A: [Is Fox News really all that bad? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=667548) Look, I’m sorry, you’re looking for documentation of a constant, pervasive trend that has been going on for years. For _this_. C’mon. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/272 "2017-04-26T18:44:07Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > What qualifies as “mainstream” left-wing news? Here are some of the big names. > > - New York Times > - Washington Post > - The Guardian > - CNN > - MSNBC > > Like it or not, these sources overwhelmingly attempt to provide a reasoned, balanced take of the news. They’re not going to keep something out of the headlines just because their side doesn’t like it. They didn’t slavishly defend Obama, or refuse to publish on major administration scandals simply because he was a democrat. As I’ve said before, left-wing bias in the MSM tends to be more subtle than the right-wing bias in FOX, but it is still present. It often makes itself manifest in 1) Crowding of articles/news stories meant to push a certain viewpoint, and/or 2) Use of adjectives in headlines, etc. to push a certain emotional “feel.” Examples: A month or two ago, CNN’s Facebook page was a series of one “Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ would deny help to people in need” article after the other, along with mention of a 2-year old who would be denied medical care because of not being able to enter the US, or something. It was clearly meant to tug at heartstrings. And then there were digital CNN headlines 1-2 months ago along the lines of, “Undocumented immigrant gives powerful speech, watch it here.” A neutral headline would be: “Undocumented immigrant gave a speech.” Simple, factual, objective. By saying, “Undocumented immigrant gives \*powerful \*speech,” that adjective - like “passionate,” or “moving,” or “eloquent,” or “inspirational,” is clearly meant to push the reader’s mind towards one particular viewpoint. The bias is there. It’s less obvious than at FOX, but it’s there. CNN and other MSM sources are NOT neutral referees. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/273 "2017-04-26T18:50:37Z")
You mean, as viewed from a totally objective, non-partisan position? Where is this position, who occupies it? Its not that “the center cannot hold”, to quote the poet. Its the center, for all practical purposes, does not exist. If ever it did. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/274 "2017-04-26T18:57:36Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You mean, as viewed from a totally objective, non-partisan position? Where is this position, who occupies it? Its not that “the center cannot hold”, to quote the poet. Its the center, for all practical purposes, does not exist. If ever it did. It may have never existed, but we sure need it. As someone else pointed out, Wikipedia is perhaps the purest example of unbiased/objective tone today in the way it narrates current events, far better than any mainstream or non-mainstream media group. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/275 "2017-04-26T19:04:26Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > In some ways you bring up good points, in your first two paragraphs. And if it were a matter of students being judged for not making eye contact as being racist, you would have a very good point in the latter ones as well. > > But, as you acknowledge that it is hard to tell whether not making eye contact is due to racism or other factors, the entire point of the pamphlet was advice to staff on how to make students feel more comfortable, as the student may take your aloofness the wrong way, and feel as though the staff is not treating them with respect. But if we go down the ‘\*\*\*feel \*\*\*as though the staff is not treating them with respect’ is racism path, then everything becomes subjective and, at that point, every single complaint is justified even if a) it doesn’t harm the person and b) it isn’t racist. As far as taking aloofness the wrong way goes, teaching people that it is right and proper to assume the very worst about another person for behavior that is not demonstrably wrong is short-sighted, stupid and will lead to nothing but problems. I have a general rule that I try and follow. It is hard at times, but it makes life quite a bit nicer. The rule is this: If a person does something I don’t think is right and I don’t know the reason they engaged in that behavior, I try find a rational reason\* the person might have acted the way that they did. I try and assume goodwill before going to other options. The policies like the one Bricker mentioned have the opposite effect. They assume the feelings of the observer matter more than the intent of the actor and, at that point, the intent of the actor does not matter at all. The Oxford Equality and Diversity newsletter states: > [@](#): > > Some people who do these things may be entirely well-meaning, and would be mortified to realise that they had caused offence. **But this is of little consequence if > a possible effect of their words or actions is to suggest to people that they may fulfill > a negative stereotype**, or do not belong. One of those ‘things’ is not making eye contact. [Link](http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/media/global/wwwadminoxacuk/localsites/equalityanddiversity/documents/newsletter/Equality_&_Diversity_Newsletter_trinity17_web.pdf). So, according to this, if person A does not make eye contact and person B find it offensive, it doesn’t matter why person A didn’t make eye contact. It is solely what person B felt that matters. Can you see why that might be jussssst a little problematic? Slee \*Note, by rational reason, I don’t mean a rational reason for the action but rather a rational reason the person may have acted that way. For example, if I come home and my wife snaps at me as soon as I walk in the door, my first assumption won’t be that my wife is an awful person or that she is trying to hurt me. My first assumption will be that she had a rough day with the twin boys and probably needs a break. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/276 "2017-04-26T19:25:52Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Exhibit A: [Is Fox News really all that bad? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=667548) > > Look, I’m sorry, you’re looking for documentation of a constant, pervasive trend that has been going on for years. For _this_. C’mon. That’s not really much more helpful than telling me to ‘go Google it’. Is there a particular post among the 1400+ posts in that thread that you felt did a particularly good job of laying out the factual evidence that supports your assertion here? If so, which one? Look, I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to provide evidence supporting your assertions here in this thread, I can’t be bothered to consider them anything more than your opinions. And there’s nothing wrong with having opinions, you just might want to lower your expectations on how persuasive your unsupported assertions are likely to be, at least with this audience. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/277 "2017-04-26T19:46:24Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That’s not really much more helpful than telling me to ‘go Google it’. Is there a particular post among the 1400+ posts in that thread that you felt did a particularly good job of laying out the factual evidence that supports your assertion here? If so, which one? [This](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=321995) is probably a better thread if you want to determine left-wing vs. right-wing bias. Because it establishes the standard for proof - studies, anecdotes, and inside information are sufficient to prove bias. For FoxNews, of course - no level of evidence is sufficient to prove left-wing bias. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/278 "2017-04-26T20:40:26Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > As I’ve said before, left-wing bias in the MSM tends to be more subtle than the right-wing bias in FOX, but it is still present. It often makes itself manifest in 1) Crowding of articles/news stories meant to push a certain viewpoint, and/or 2) Use of adjectives in headlines, etc. to push a certain emotional “feel.” > > Examples: A month or two ago, CNN’s Facebook page was a series of one “Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ would deny help to people in need” article after the other, along with mention of a 2-year old who would be denied medical care because of not being able to enter the US, or something. It was clearly meant to tug at heartstrings. > > And then there were digital CNN headlines 1-2 months ago along the lines of, “Undocumented immigrant gives powerful speech, watch it here.” > > A neutral headline would be: “Undocumented immigrant gave a speech.” Simple, factual, objective. And _utterly_ meaningless. Yes, “powerful” raises certain expectations. But the “sanitized” version says _nothing_. Okay, so an undocumented immigrant gave a speech. Why should anyone care? Is that such a rare occasion? “Powerful” is subjective. But if the reason anyone cares about the speech in the first place is that people viewed it as powerful, then it’s hardly wrong to include that in the headline. FWIW I can’t find that headline now on google, so maybe it fell afoul of their journalistic standards as well. Or you’re misremembering. Just as a thought experiment, what would a similarly biased headline look like on Breitbart? “Free Speech Dead - Coulter Berkeley Speech Called Off!” Literally the headline on the front page _right fucking now_. Of course, that _really_ doesn’t catch the scope of this. The problem is not just “Headline X is biased”. The problem is “The entire slate of news stories is completely slanted”. You will _never_ see a Breitbart article excoriating Trump. You will _never_ see a Breitbart article praising democrats. You will rarely see either on FOX News. What’s the breitbart analogue to, say, [this](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/us/politics/senate-report-cites-irs-mismanagement-in-targeting-of-tea-party-groups.html?_r=0)? Or hell, even [this?](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/upshot/grading-obamacare-successes-failures-and-incompletes.html) > [@](#): > > The bias is there. It’s less obvious than at FOX, but it’s there. CNN and other MSM sources are NOT neutral referees. Really? So why did MSNBC hire a bunch of conservative commentators? Why does CNN go out of its way to bring Trump spokespeople onto its shows? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/279 "2017-04-26T20:43:12Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That’s not really much more helpful than telling me to ‘go Google it’. Is there a particular post among the 1400+ posts in that thread that you felt did a particularly good job of laying out the factual evidence that supports your assertion here? If so, which one? > > Look, I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to provide evidence supporting your assertions here in this thread, I can’t be bothered to consider them anything more than your opinions. And there’s nothing wrong with having opinions, you just might want to lower your expectations on how persuasive your unsupported assertions are likely to be, at least with this audience. “There’s a forest here.” “Huh, all I see are trees. Any particular tree you want to point to?” FWIW I find [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16771193&postcount=307) particularly useful when trying to gauge Fox news, but it should be pretty obvious what the problem is with trying to establish a long-term pattern of bias and abuse via a single cite is, right? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989/280 "2017-04-26T21:08:48Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > FWIW I find [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16771193&postcount=307) particularly useful when trying to gauge Fox news, but it should be pretty obvious what the problem is with trying to establish a long-term pattern of bias and abuse via a single cite is, right? You find your own post useful? How, um, interesting.:rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/issues-which-conservatives-need-to-listen-more-closely-to-liberals-on/784989.md?page=15)