I suppose I have to point it out because you seem to think that taking a religious slant on matters of science is a legitimate position. It’s not.
If I were to summarize the bias, it would be “thoughtful, reasoned, fact-based discussion vs. hidebound, intractable adherence to dogma and ideology.”
I can see an argument against being overly PC, where certain classical works (for example, n* bomb dropping Huck Finn) might be banned for fear of being “racially insensitive”. Or where an overly PC sensibilities become oppressive and draconian. Or where we allow professional incompetence and underperformance from individuals for fear of being seen as “intolerant”
However more often than not, people who complain about “PC” seem to be rednecks, dumb jocks and frat guys who are pissed that they can’t beat up weaker kids and call them “fags” anymore.
Again, I don’t know if I consider this a “bias” because it’s not clear to me what the opposing argument is. That bullying, homophobia and what not are acceptable behaviors? For some reason, whenever I hear the Right screaming about their “rights”, it’s often the “right” to be a jerk.
OK, but to put it another way, those hazards seem to crop up all the time in such an environment, and they lead to a heavily managed economy that is no longer laissez faire. In any case, my point is that people who advocate for such a thing (and actually take it seriously) aren’t conservatives. If anything, they’re right-libertarians, or anarcho-capitalists, among other things.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, but I would rather deal with the former than live in an environment where the latter is acceptable and unchallenged. You’re quite right, most of those who complain about “PC” are afraid of the slightest challenges to their privilege, and their ability to wield such privilege against others.
Laissez faire capitalism is more of a spectrum than an either/or. US government was far less involved in the economy before WW1, Keynesian economics, the forming of the Fed, etc.
I’m not arguing about nuclear family, but the idea of traditional family. Parents, their off spring, assorted extended relatives, etc. The main difference was that the family was seen as the foundational institution of society and was deferred to as such.
What of it? Neocons are a phenomenon of the Left that coopted the Republican party. If you have a camp in the supposed right wing party that carries as much weight as the neocons, it puts the lie to the idea of Republicans as conservatives.
That’s nonsensical and very uncharitable conception of what it is to be conservative.
Conservative thought would defer to the individual and his right to privacy. It is also extremely skeptical of government bureaucracy. As such, the idea of bulk collection of data and Homeland Security are not conservative.
Yes, labeling certain beliefs as thought crime is a bad thing. But that’s not the point. The point is that any society that takes PC as seriously as the US does is in fact possessed of a far left.
Not at all. Conservatives, pro-life conservatives anyway, believe a human being is being murdered in an abortion. Since conservatives, and pretty much everybody else, believes the government should stop murder, they’re anti-abortion.
If a person believes that a human being is not in fact murdered during abortion, then it makes sense not to be anti-abortion. The chatter about “choice” is a red herring.
It’s also a bit of a simplistic idealization. In theory, laissez faire capitalism would allow the free exchange of goods and services at whatever price could be negotiated. But that only works in perfectly competitive markets where buyers and sellers have no barrier to entry or exit, no one can corner the market and every unit of a product is indistinguishable from every other unit.
In reality, there are other market structures (monopolistic, oligopoly, etc) that naturally lend themselves to large players cornering the market and colluding with each other. There are externalities that are often not accounted for by the laissez faire market (pollution, resource depletion, etc). And what prevents fraud, corruption and abuses in a laissez faire economy?
IOW, the problem with laissez faire capitalism is that it’s extremely fragile and won’t stay a free market without government oversight and regulation.
Well, we’ve each “shown the flag,” so maybe we can let this go here, lest the thread become encumbered. Obviously, we disagree at a very, very fundamental level about what “rights” mean to individuals.
I’ll refer you back to the spectrum. Even the early US had central banks at times, the government did a lot to spur railroad construction, etc. The point being, even if a perfectly laissez faire economy never existed in the US, it was the ideal and government intervention in the economy was much less than in recent decades.
Essentially, Keynes theories carry much more cachet than Adam Smith.
Fine, but isn’t that more of a right-libertarian stance?
What has changed, and when and how did these changes occur? Parents, offspring, and other relatives are all still family members, and with the expansion of marriage equality (a rather conservative endeavor, actually), more people can be considered legally as family members than before. Personally (and I am not alone here), to the extent that I have relationships, I don’t want the state involved in them, but if gay folks want that, they should be able to have it. I also support marriage equality because it sends the God Squad into conniptions.
An improved social climate for sexual minorities means fewer sham marriages and fewer children disowned by their parents, and if anything, that strengthens family ties. Not everyone’s family looks like a Norman Rockwell painting or some nostalgic television depiction, and not everyone wants to live that way. Do you want to see a society in which there is great pressure to marry (especially young), great pressure to bear children, enforced shaming (or worse) towards unmarried parents and their offspring, strictly enforced gender roles, lack of any tolerance (let alone acceptance or understanding) towards sexual minorities, “discipline” enforced through fear and violence, even more paternalism and condescension from the medical community and society in general towards anyone with a different lifestyle, all-encompassing general conformity, and so on and so forth?
Conservatives very frequently talk about some kind of massive societal breakdown, and that might be the sentiment to which you are alluding here, but those fears are in many ways unfounded, and we have the empirical evidence for it.
There’s a lot more; here’s something about the overall decline in crime. Yes, you should definitely read this one; it starts with “Conservatives who insisted that the decline of the traditional nuclear family and growing ethnic diversity would unleash an unstoppable crime…”
In leftist circles, you won’t find some kind of plot to destroy America by somehow destroying the “traditional family.” What you will find is an insistence that society should be welcoming for those who are traditionally marginalized. In the spirit of prefigurative politics, that change must start within such movements. Oppression can be at its worst within biological families, but most people are social animals who need one another.
I have a much smaller personal stake in this aspect than a lot of people, who have suffered oppression from which my relative privilege has insulated me, but I hope you can see from the above paragraphs that this means a lot to me. Opposing the tyranny of the state and capitalism isn’t enough if such tyranny is practiced person-to-person, especially with societal approval.
My point is that the imperialism and jingoism of the neocons isn’t really unprecedented in American history and indeed in world history. It does put an interesting color on the situation, but it doesn’t add up to a drastic change in the big picture. There isn’t much of a caucus for peace within the two major parties. You won’t find anybody in Congress advocating that the workers of the US ought not to be fighting the workers and peasants of any of the countries where the US is at war. Now that would be a far-left statement.
No, that’s what it means. I side with the people who risked their lives (literally; the US has a very violent labor history) for such things as decent working hours, safe conditions, and living wages, rather than with the goons hired to kill “troublemakers” or those in the ruling class who hired said goons. I side with those who got slaves out of the fields, women out of the kitchen, and children out of the coal mines, rather than with those who said that such people should all stay there, because the free market/Bible/tradition/another fairy tale says they must.
After the French Revolution, the members of the National Assembly who most strongly supported the Old Regime of the Monarchy and Church sat farthest to the right, while those who most strongly opposed it sat farthest to the left. Liberals sat in the center, and in most countries they occupy that political space (sometimes center-left or center-right) today. In the US, where there is not much of a real left, conservatives and reactionaries paint liberals as “Leftists”, leading to the skewed and narrow window I’ve mentioned.
They would only defer to “his” (interesting language) right to privacy when dealing with more privileged sectors, who love to oppress and marginalize others (“I don’t need some pointy-headed bureaucrat to tell me I need a fire exit in my factory!”) without interference. On these issues specifically, conservatives insist that they are necessary to protect their “homeland” (stolen via ethnic cleansing, but never mind) from “those people” who are going to come take away our freedom. “We’re at war!! Don’t you support the troops!!? USA! USA!”
“Bomb the sand-niggers!”- Yelled by a passing motorist at my first anti-war protest, in 2002.
Nobody is being punished for thoughtcrime (one word); that’s hyperbolic. I only wish that the US could take PC principles so seriously. Stringbean referred to some excesses, and I acknowledge those (with the understanding that my ability to make such judgments is limited by my own privilege; it is not usually up to me to tell others what should not be seen as oppressive by them. Have you seen the film North Country? Those women faced brutal, constant sexism and misogyny, accompanied with exhortations to get a sense of humor and take a joke. Not funny.) while judging that I would rather deal with the excesses than live in a society where such oppression goes unchallenged.
Media outlets didn’t just decide to stop using the racist name of the Washington DC NFL team because they were already leftists who sympathized with these concerns. It took, and is taking, a campaign of pressure from below, from a Left which is hardly in a position of power.
Yeah, I can see where you’re at on this. But however we label it, the idea of a government that makes more interventions into the economy is an idea of the left.
Again, it’s the concept. I agree that family structure changes. But the idea of the family as the foundation of society and deference being paid there to has changed.
I agree that the government has no business regulating relationships. But legal recognition of gay marriage is further evidence of the great success of the left in the US.
Vis-à-vis the government, I want to see them only prevent people being the victim of fraud or physical force.
People have a right to be left alone and to live how they see fit. But, nobody has a right to demand that others accept their way of life.
Seems like your arguing that our society’s relation to the traditional family has changed but that it hasn’t led to societal collapse. But the key point is that there has indeed been a change, and we both seem to agree about this.
I’m simply saying that the traditional family has indeed been uprooted, and it’s a phenomenon of the left. Just more evidence that there is indeed a robust left in the US.
Right, and the insistence of these leftist circles has seen it’s support grow steadily. Which points to the major leftist elements in modern America.
There has always been imperialism and jingoism, I agree. What is the big change is that what passes for a right wing party in the US is to such a large degree overtaken with a left wing ideology.
No, you won’t find anybody reading Marx on the floor of the Senate. But that’s not proof there’s no far left in the US.
You can side with whomever you like. What I objected to is the tendency people have to make statements that equate to “Those who disagree with me are immoral and/or stupid.” That’s why I argued you were resorting to uncharitable interpretations of what it means to be a conservative.
Smart, well informed and well intentioned people sometimes hold opposing views on things. Debate tends to be more civil if we work on this assumption until there’s proof to the contrary.
The nomenclature of the French Revolution isn’t operative in modern America. There’s no monarchy, but there’s plenty of folks who strongly oppose the Church, or religion in general.
Again, this is uncharitable. You’re not really arguing against the idea of bulk collection of data as being against the traditional right wing deference to an individual’s right to privacy. You’re just calling right wingers hypocrites.
Are you really rebutting the idea of the right being anti-bureaucracy by referring to what somebody yelled from a car 13 years ago?
I said “Yes, labeling certain beliefs as thought crime is a bad thing.” Would it be uncharitable to say you are in favor of labeling certain beliefs thought crime?
Haven’t seen the film.
This seems to be another instance where you’re saying there is left wing action in the US, but then saying it’s not going far enough. Obviously we disagree about whether or not it’s gone far enough. But, there is indeed a powerful left wing in the US.
Well, I don’t know if that’s actually true that government was less back in the day.
However I will say this - whether you lived during the Gilded Age, the Great Depression or now with our 1%/99% split, it’s hard to convince people that a particular economic solution is “ideal” if willing and able-bodied people are unable to find work to support their families while most of the wealth is centralized within a small percentage of the population.
Looking this, it’s evident that government spending as a part of the overall economy was very small prior to the New Deal. The Revolutionary War, the Civil War and WW1 cause big spikes in debt to GDP, but it normalized afterwards.
And yet, most of the most stringent opponents of this are squarely on the political left.
Not according to the supreme court. And as nice as your interpretation is, theirs is the one that holds legal weight. When Rand Paul said that the supreme court didn’t get to decide what was in the constitution he was, legally, wrong. And which of these aren’t serving a vital role in governance? Maybe the TSA? But when I hear from conservatives, I often hear things like the EPA, or the department of education. Those conservatives are, to put it mildly, completely nuts.
Again: the most stringent opponents to this are all on the left, not the right.
We’ve lost some elements of the right to be suicidally stupid. Big fucking deal. I’m really curious why you opted to make this an issue.
Yeah. In fact, if many on the left had it their way, we’d have singe-payer national health care. But the fact that this is somehow “government overreach” ignores one simple thing: this is what works. Privatized medical care without government intervention is a system that fails. Virtually every democracy in the world has reached this conclusion; America is the last place willing to drag its feet on this one. Similarly:
Again, this is something that most western democracies have, because it’s proven itself to be a phenomenally good and necessary thing. You’re basically complaining about things that have been wildly successful. Yeah, the government is getting bigger. But what is actually happening? Well, let’s take the case of Obamacare, the most recent improvement to our social safety net: what’s happening here is that the government is stepping in to provide a service to its citizens that it should provide, and which every other western democracy provides with far, far better results than our old system. Is that “creeping leftism”?
And who is responsible for this? The right, or the left? I mean, Obama has cut public sector jobs like nobody’s business. Left or right?
See, part of the problem here is that “conservative”, “liberal”, “right”, and “left” are pheomenally ill-defined. You’re attributing things to the “left” and the “liberals” which are really republican issues, and which most liberals do not support - not everything, but quite a few things. Like, Obama is warlike - that’s one of the main things liberals are calling him on! That’s one thing that pisses us off! That’s why Clinton lost the 2008 primary.
What agenda, exactly, does altering Zimmerman’s 911 call further? What agenda is furthered by falling for rape hoaxes? I’ll get to the minimum wage issue in a second, but in the case of the 911 call, that seemed like pure media sensationalism (now there’s a bias you don’t hear about enough!) - there was a story, and someone wanted to make the story more titillating. After all, isn’t it a more interesting story if Zimmerman is a racist?
Similarly, the rape hoaxes may very simply be sensationalism - “people are getting raped like crazy at college” is one hell of a story; “people are lying about rape” is not only not as interesting of a story, but it’s one that furthers certain very nasty viewpoints that most people don’t want to support. You know, the typical, misogynist, “most women are lying about rape” kind of crap. Nobody wants to run that story, nobody wants to be that guy, because you just know that misogynist shitbags will be all over it, screaming “I TOLD YOU SO!” This leads to a real issue in journalism dealing with rape, but again, it’s not exactly a “liberal” bias. It’s hardly even a “feminist” bias.
As for Walter Williams, he’s an economist. I might as well complain that they don’t cite Paul Krugman very often in the news - his models in the last few years have been phenomenally good, after all. But I’m not seeing much about the economics of the minimum wage hikes anywhere - the first page of google news results for “minimum wage” is all “place X is considering a minimum wage hike” “here’s what people think about minimum wage hike” etc. Not a whole lot of economic analysis. That’s not a liberal bias - after all, there’s some pretty convincing data out there from big-name economists that contradict Williams’s work, and all kinds of interesting studies on all kinds of economic studies that they could (but don’t) cite - that’s a laziness bias.
This always intrigued me - why is this the case? Why are so many journalists democrats? Is it because republicans aren’t interested in going into journalism? Or is it because journalists see many things that go against the republican viewpoint? Most journalists (something like 90%) have college degrees, and there’s a tendency for the highly educated to bank liberal. Although the thing you’re missing in your analysis is that while there are four times as many who identify as democrats, there are twice as many again who identify as independents.
Speaking of which, where is the conservative media? Why the hell is there not a more serious popular republican news source than FOX? I mean, are the liberals to blame that virtually every popular right-wing news source is a fucking laughing stock? Does “Politico” count as right-wing? When I think “Right-Wing Sources”, you know what comes to mind?
Am I missing the ones that deserve to be taken seriously, that don’t lie all the time, that don’t lack the integrity of my old school’s 4th-grade school paper? Because those are definitely the power players (although WND and American Thinker might just be in there because they’re easy, cheap shots). Drudge is about as reliable as the National Enquirer, but people pay attention when he speaks. Rush Limbaugh is a hypocritical, dishonest blowhard who spent almost an entire week calling a woman who wanted the pill covered as medicine for PCS a whore.
I mean, looking at this list, is it any wonder that most journalists aren’t republicans?
It’s always been one of the things that makes me suspicious of conservatives.
Complaints about ideological detours notwithstanding, the fundamental function of the press is to serve as watchdogs of the nation’s (or even the community’s) powerful as it goes about its business. Why aren’t conservatives interested in this line of work?
