What is it with Liberal Progressives Anyways

Post Reply New Topic

I've noticed several things even on this board with Liberal Progressives that I think they need to be called on.

1. If someone criticizes a person of a minority skin color they are called racist...

2. Constant class warfare of blaming the rich for everything, what is with people wanting to punish people cause they are successful. This is coupled with blaming business for everything...

3. Fox News Derangement Syndrome, seriously bashing Fox News for judgement calls they make, while ignoring the blatent hate from your own side as well as deliberate misreporting of news. I seem to recall New York Times losing a lawsuit due to defamation of charecter.

4. Glenn Beck derangement syndrome, seriously if the man didn't do his research he would have been kicked off the air by now either due to lawsuits or people not listening/watching programs he is on.

Yeah I know I get hot under the collar at times and word things in a way that will annoy people, but I don't hate people I disagree with and I don't consider people here to be a bunch of know nothings. If I don't consider what someone said to be credible I will say so, but I actually think their is malice behind some of what is said on the left (even on this board).

Part of me thinks this critique will fall on deaf ears, but here is hoping some people actually take note and stop and think.

fox news have said themselves that they are not in fact a news channel, but an entertainment channel - hence they do not have to reports 100% fact.

" hence they do not have to reports 100% fact."

Reminds me of the old "All the news that's fit to print" - and of course certain stories about certain facts are NOT "fit to print".

But on this subject - I have been disgusted by the rise iof the "memoir" - a genre that LOOKS like autobiography but proclaims that the author is free, perhaps encouraged, not only to pick and choose but to create a past.

Has Fox said that they reserve the right to do this with their news component? Myself I do NOT feel that NBC, for example, which ALSO exists primarily to entertain, has a call to fictionalize news.

Surely a NEWSpaper in certain sections is obligated to be entertaining?

Or is this not what you tell us Fox has said?

I don't get angry when people criticize someone who is a minority or whatever. I just get mad when people make general statements about the character or personality traits of one color group or another, as if they're all one monolithic group. That goes for anybody, the black panthers included. Speaking of which I notice Fox News gives the new BPP and groups like them a lot of air time, as if that's even a large phenomenon among the black community. They're just doing it mainly to scare viewers, and that kind of BS probably makes race relations more tense than they would already be.

all i remember was, they said that to avoid a lawsuit for, effectively gay-bashing (after they printed lies and more lies about a gay couple).

I think you answered your own question in the thread title 'liberal progressive'. Looking at the things you bring up in your list - what's there for them to like? They have their own program and you're listing things that are definitionally counter-clockwise to that.

"4. Glenn Beck derangement syndrome, seriously if the man didn't do his research he would have been kicked off the air by now either due to lawsuits or people not listening/watching programs he is on. "

The guy promoted a book written by an American Bund leader (Elizabeth Dilling) and didn't get fired. Its strong evidence he's deranged, scatter brained, and wasn't fired for plugging Nazi propaganda on his show. It definitely proves he doesn't take the time to fact check.

Glen Beck promotes Nazi sympathizer

No, but if you criticize minorities as a group you will be called racist, because that is kind of the definition of racism.


Again no. "Class warfare" in this country is practiced much more fervently by the rich (or rather, by a certain subset of the rich) than by the poor and middle classes. No one wants to punish people for being successful, but the government does need to be funded and it simply is not possible or moral to get that money exclusively from the poor. Businesses might be blamed for things that are obviously their fault, such as industrial disasters caused by a failure to adhere to safety regulations.


Fox is a propaganda outlet. I have no problem with that; we have freedom of speech in this country. I find them useless, and I am mildly annoyed that gullible people like yourself actually take them seriously as if they were a legitimate news source.


He's a paranoid idiot, and if you don't realize that from watching a few minutes of his show there is something wrong with you. But just for fun, let's apply your logic to ideologues you happen not to like. Obviously if Michael Moore, Ed Schultz, and Keith Olbermann didn't do their research they would have been kicked off the air by now, so everything they say must be true.


Once again, you are hallucinating motives that are not held.

Arsonists are a minority. If I criticize arsonists as a group does that make me a racist? Or is it because I dislike people who burn other people's property. I also notice a lot of liberals criticizing other folks because they are Republicans (a group and a minority group at that). Is that racist or is that just liberals being liberals?

A racist is one who wrongs a member of a group which is defined by non-volitional properties as a member of that group and who casts aspersions on that group which is defined by an accidental property. Expressing nasty opinions (short of fomenting a riot or lying in court) is perfectly legal and not necessarily immoral. Is p*ssing on Catholic priests on the grounds that they are probably pedophiles or are covering up for other priests who or pedophiles, racist?

P*ssing on blondes (natural blondes) by this definition is racist. P*ssing on darker people who are darker because of (unchosen) genetic factors is racist. Picking on people who voluntarily are members of a group which tends to act in a non-sociable manner is not racist. It is criticizing people because of the choices they made.

ruveyn

Are you a troll?, and I mean, really? You seem to incarnate Poe's law so succinctly.

If the criticism is based on a criterion that is unrelated to the subject's race, e.g., "Robert Mugabe is a megalomaniacal f**kwit," then you are quiet correct, there is nothing racist in the criticism. But if the criticism is less clearly unrelated to race then there may be a legitimate question of whether or not race is a factor in the criticism.

I agree that, "racist," should not be applied uncritically. But the same applies to terms that are thrown about with wild abandon by the "Conservative Reactionaries."



Well, I am a Liberal Progressive of the first order, and I don't blame the rich for things of which I don't believe them to be blameworthy. Similarly, I don't want to see them punished for activities unless they are criminal. But let's be abundantly clear: taxation is not punishment. Neither is it theft. We can have a rational discussion about tax policy; but that can only happen when the left stops bleating about robber barons and the right stops bleating about government thieves.



Both the left and right can sling anecdotal evidence of media bias for years, and they will prove nothing in the exercise.

Traditionally, news media have had two principal functions: objective reporting, and opinion editorial. The distinction between the two has largely eroded in broadcast media as the attention span of listeners and viewers has diminished. Critical thinkers, I suggest, cull news from a variety of sources and read opinions that both support and oppose their own views.

Most importantly, a critical thinker will not cite opinion pieces as evidence of anything except the fact of the opinion. To cite editorial for proof of its substantive content is lazy research. Editorials should focus our thinking, and point us towards primary sources of information and data.

I will bash Fox News (and any other media outlet) that uses editorial control to impose the publisher's opinion on objective reporting. I will never bash a news organization for holding and presenting editorial opinion, provided that it is unambiguously identified as such.



Your syllogism does not hold. While I grant you that there is a rational link between objective research and accuracy in reporting, that does not mean that a paucity of lawsuits means, ipso facto that your research is good. You may research selectively, only pulling data that supports your conclusion. You may report facts accurately, but draw improper conclusions. You may report your own opinion, which is not subject to oversight by the courts. There are any number of ways in which you can insulate yourself from suit, without your reporting being objective.

As for ratings, I suggest that there is certainly anecdotal evidence to suggest that the more you lie, the greater your readership. The National Enquirer certainly maintained excellent readership with only the most tenuous relationship with reality.



Or, perhaps, they are simply getting hot under the collar as you do.



Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν

(Physician, heal thyself)

@ Inuyasha

I'd be surprised if no one has thrown this term at you before, but just in case I'm the first, consider this fair warning of how you're being perceived here. The term is "epistemic closure", and it refers to the tendency of some ideologues to operate in an information bubble where they only use information sources that fall within their ideology, and simply dismiss outside info as tainted or propaganda. This can happen to people of any political persuasion, but it is probably most visible amidst a certain subset of conservatives, mostly because they've been the most successful at establishing their own alternate media sources. The phrase, as applied to the modern political animal was coined by libertarian blogger Julian Sanchez (not a liberal), here is the original posting describing it: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2010/03/26 ... -of-doubt/
Whether or not the term actually applies to you, by focusing so exclusively on Fox News and Glenn Beck, you fall into the trap of being easily dismissed as someone who's suffering from epistemic closure and is not to be taken seriously. You make things easy for the liberals you're trying to engage when you do this, if you really want to get under their skin you need to be able to engage them and their points directly and with credible sources, e.g. not Fox and co.

Similarly, however you may happen to feel about them, Fox, Beck, Limbaugh etc are not taken seriously as sources around here because they are generally known to have a specific agenda (though I'd argue that Fox is not as tainted as it is often made out to be) and Beck and Limbaugh are entertainers first and foremost. You can easily argue against the liberals without using these sources, but it takes a bit more effort and commitment, you need to dig up different primary sources and be able to articulate an argument without simply cutting and pasting from the same commentators over and over. There's nothing wrong with posting thought provoking articles that may further a point that you're trying to make, but relying on other people arguments exclusively does not help your cause.

Like the sources I've mentioned above, you've created a credibility problem for yourself by so strongly establishing yourself in the conservative corner, there is nothing wrong with bias, but a strong and obvious one causes people to take what you say with several grains of salt if not outright dismiss it. Other conservatives might support what you're saying because they happen to agree with it, but liberals and unaligned people will be unlikely to take your opinion as anything other than another conservative mouthpiece saying whatever will further his agenda. If you tone down your liberal bashing and stop defending conservatives when they're indefensible, people will take you more seriously and you'll be harder to dismiss in general, which counter-intuitively will annoy the liberals that much more. Persuasion is a subtle knife, not a bludgeon.

I'll have to see how you carry this, I've given nearly identical advice to others in the past and it hasn't gone over well.

Yeah I hate when people pull the race card, especially when gays and aspies get discriminated against much worse than minority races.

I know, it's ridiculous. It's like people love to assume all the rich got rich through unethical means.

I think most talk radio and news channels from both sides are a joke. Fox News isn't much different from MSNBC to me.

Are you serious? That's like saying Justin Bieber would've stopped selling records if his music wasn't good.

@Vexcalibur: Why would he be a troll? Because you disagree with him?

I would extend the playing the race card to include playing the sexual orientation card as well. Anyways, my point is that it tends to be used as a weapon to try to silence people.



I think it is more of envy and greed rather than actually making the effort to pull oneself up.



Well, I would say Fox News tends to have a better sense of humor, and I seem to recall them being the only major media outlet that actually did some checking into Barack Obama's background rather than falling all over themselves trying to kiss Obama's feet. The other sad thing is that I have seen Fox News report stories that the other media outlets then report a few weeks later. Yes, they try to be entertaining, but they also try to report the facts accurately so they maintain credibility with their viewers.



My point is that Glenn Beck isn't making money by being an idiot, when he does his broadcasts he has to do research on the topic to make sure he knows what he is talking about. Additionally, Glenn Beck was also the one that found out that ACORN was operating out of a Funeral Home in New Orleans.



Actually, I think that is precisely why he called me a troll.

@ visagrunt

If you say you bash any media outlet that the editor demands something be covered a certain way yet you only bash Fox News. I would say you are either completely blind to the behavior on the left (which actually crosses into out and out lieing (see New York Times and CBS News)) or you are being a hypocrit. The examples that have been given on this forum about the editor at Fox News making a judgement call on reporting, have all been completely reasonable calls. I could even argue it was the correct call to make.

@ Dox47
Concerning your statements about Fox News, last I checked Fox News wasn't the one that lost a lawsuit for slander, it was supposedly a "reputable" source known as the New York Times. I would argue Fox News is actually has more credibility than the sources that people here tend to use (considering they rarely even post their sources). Now I agree everything has to be taken with a grain of salt, but when you have people going bananas about what Fox News reports and try to do everything in their power to go after Fox News to get them silenced, it actually gives Fox News added credibility.

If Michael Moore was as popular on the left as Glenn Beck is on the right I think you would begin to understand.

Because his posts almost look crafted to cause dissent in here. I am starting to doubt anyone would be as naive and clueless about reality as this guy is and the only point in his posts seems to cause aggressive replies. He has also shown a complete lack of even trying to follow other people's arguments. If you are claiming to agree with him, then you are probably as troll as well or really need some help.