WTF is "liberal media"

[Lemmytheseal2]

@Waymore

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.

No it isn’t. Conservative governments, or regimes even farther to the right, have always intervened substantially in the economy to benefit themselves, their contributors, and other privileged sectors. That’s a form of welfare for the rich, and it’s often coupled with austerity for everyone else.

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.

How so? What has changed, and specifically what has changed for the worse?

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.

Not necessarily. Marriage is such a propertarian, patriarchial institution that many radicals (within LGBTQ communities, but outside as well) see it as the wrong fight, and just another step towards assimilation.

Vis-à-vis the government, I want to see them only prevent people being the victim of fraud or physical force.

Even when that fraud/force is being wielded by employers, police, patriarchal figures, and other privileged sectors? Conservatives see nothing wrong with that sort of thing, because of tradition, you know.

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.

Why not? Are you suggesting that people be punished by the state for their statements?

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.

I’m saying that to the extent that this is true (and what is the “traditional family”, and isn’t it still around?), these changes have been good or neutral, and they’re not the work of a powerful Left with its hands on the levers of political and media power.

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.

The neocons have their origins in such things as Trotskyism, but they underwent an ideological mutation of sorts over time. That isn’t unprecedented. I would agree with you, if the neocons had been able to orient a large part of the Republican party towards supporting left-wing militarism, such as support for the PFLP and other leftist/secular Palestinian movements opposing Israeli apartheid, or support for Manuel Zelaya, Fernando Lugo, and Jean-Bertrand Aristide, or at least the progressive social movements in those countries. Instead, the neocons support and engineer very reactionary militarism, which gets absolutely no support from the political sectors that spawned them originally. There are Trotskyists around, and they are diametrically opposed to the neocons.

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.

I would prefer Bakunin to Marx, but in any case there is no such political tendency with any power in government or media sectors.

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.

I didn’t say anything about immorality or stupidity. I did describe the situation in terms of the past and the present. That illustrates what it means to be a conservative, or anything else applicable.

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.

Sure it is. There are no Bourbons, but we do have plutocrats, and the situation is getting more plutocratic all the time, and particularly since the neoliberal era began around 1980.

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.

It’s the same thing. Rightists don’t show deference to an individual’s right to privacy. Opponents of bulk collection of data come from various political tendencies, but not from conservatives, who love the idea of the state having more power to protect privilege. Have you ever heard of COINTELPRO, or the Red Squads, or the Palmer Raids, or what the FBI did to the Central American solidarity movements?

Are you really rebutting the idea of the right being anti-bureaucracy by referring to what somebody yelled from a car 13 years ago?

No, but I thought it belonged there.

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?

Not thoughtcrime, which would entail the state punishing those who hold such beliefs, or preventing the voicing of said beliefs. Many stances should not be acceptable, and should not go unchallenged. The complaints about “political correctness” arise when one challenges such stances.

Haven’t seen the film.

It’s drawn from life, and I used it to illustrate the problem I’m discussing. Do you want another example? How about all the men (and some women, unfortunately) defending cat-calling and such?

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.

I’m saying that this illustrates the relative weakness of the US Left.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Red_Wiggler

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?

Yeah, it makes a person wonder. It’s like, what if the vast majority of economists were liberal - would that mean we can’t trust anything out of economics? Or would it imply, quite strongly, that conservative “economics” is a load of bollocks, and that economists have gone the way of, say, climatologists, in that almost all of them have turned their back on the party that ignores them?

@Lemmytheseal2

Not necessarily. Marriage is such a propertarian, patriarchial institution that many radicals (within LGBTQ communities, but outside as well) see it as the wrong fight, and just another step towards assimilation.

Oh come off it. Gay marriage is a substantial liberal victory. However, it’s also something that could easily be held up by either side as a “win”, as it means more freedoms for more people, and an end to oppression. The fact that conservatives deride it as a “liberal” thing is, in and of itself, a red flag.

[eschereal]

@Lemmytheseal2

Sure it is. There are no Bourbons, but we do have plutocrats, and the situation is getting more plutocratic all the time, and particularly since the neoliberal era began around 1980.

I am guessing you probably do not listen to Clay Jenkinson, but he says prettymuch the same thing, comparing the situation in America right now to the class division in late 18th century France (using the perspective of Thomas Jefferson, who spent a lot of time there). Jenkinson is such a wild-eyed leftist that he once claimed that Mitt Romney was a nice, decent guy.

[BigT]

@Waymore

You’re doubling down on the “everybody but me is blind” theory. I disagree, but that’s your prerogative.

No, he’s pointing out there’s a whole other world of countries besides America. From the standpoint of WORLD POLITICS the U.S. is center-right. It doesn’t have any actual far left. It barely has anyone on the left, and none of them are in power.

The norm in most countries is centralized health care, higher taxes, and bigger government. They lean further left on freedom of speech, with the right to be forgotten and rights against hate speech. They embrace the fact that they are socialist democracies, while everyone in the U.S. freaks out about the hint of socialism. And they have no problems with banning guns, something we have problems with on both sides.

When conservatives talk about the far left in America, they are usually talking about people who would be centrists elsewhere. One thing people like to point out is that the conservative party in Canada mostly aligns with the Democratic party in the U.S.

That’s how far we are to the right in this country. Our liberal party is the same as the conservative party in other counties. We have no far left.

[Little_Pig]

@msmith537

Can someone please explain the difference between the “liberal media” and the regular media?

This should sum it up nicely. A Single Factual Error.

Questions?