Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   brain...exploding...from...irony...
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 46 of 73 (354893)
10-06-2006 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by subbie
10-06-2006 7:01 PM


Re: Polarity
quote:
Arianna Huffington,
I am baffled as to why you would bring her up. She is a former Republican and now more or less a Libertarian. I'd love to know what you think it is about what she says and how she says it that even approaches the level of fact-ignoring and offensiveness of Limbaugh.
Any examples?
quote:
Michael Kinsley
I have never heard of this person, so he can't count as being in the same league as Limbaugh.
quote:
and James Carville come immediately to mind.
James Carville, I'll certainly grant you, is a fairly shrill Democratic political creature. However, he makes no bones about his job as an utter partisan, whereas Limbaugh portrays himself as being the messenger of the "truth" about social and political issues.
Still, I don't think that any of your examples can even approach Limbaugh's disdain for facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by subbie, posted 10-06-2006 7:01 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Chiroptera, posted 10-06-2006 8:15 PM nator has not replied

  
ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 47 of 73 (354898)
10-06-2006 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by nator
10-06-2006 6:43 PM


Call the show... I can't wait to hear
Who, on the other side, does the same thing?
And I don't think it is inappropriate to single Rush out. He is more reckless, more injurious to the facts, more insulting, and a much bigger liar than almost any other of his ilk, except maybe Ann Coulter.
There are at least couple of dozen more like him on the conservative side.
How many on the liberal side can you list that are just as bad?
You are so classic (liberal) in your attitude and misunderstanding of Rush's show and audience.
One of the great attractions to listeners of his show is how he handles liberals who call in. (maybe you should call!)
The entertainment value is why so many people listen.
Another part of the entertainment is how he exposes hypocrisy by playing clips of what a politician says now vs earlier.
If Rush makes you angry and/or frustrated, I would guess Michael Savage doubles it for you. He is more outlandish, but usually entertaining and can make me laugh. He is not a fan of either Republicans or Democrats.
The key thing for both of them is not literally what they say, but how they can provide perspectives that you might not have thought of, since the news media seeks entertainment by sensationalism and ignorant awareness of its own bias. Conservative talk radio tells its listeners what the liberal-oriented media chooses not to tell.

'Liberalism is a mental disorder' - Michael Savage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 10-06-2006 6:43 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by nator, posted 10-07-2006 4:12 PM ThingsChange has not replied
 Message 55 by nator, posted 10-07-2006 4:37 PM ThingsChange has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 73 (354906)
10-06-2006 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by nator
10-06-2006 7:34 PM


Re: Polarity
quote:
James Carville, I'll certainly grant you, is a fairly shrill Democratic political creature.
And not particularly Left, either, if I recall correctly.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nator, posted 10-06-2006 7:34 PM nator has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 49 of 73 (354968)
10-07-2006 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by skepticfaith
10-06-2006 5:38 PM


Parents' ideas aren't always preferable
I suspect that if a novel set as a reading assignment for his daughter were to contain the sentence "all firemen are cowards" for example, then it would mean for Verm that the author believed all firemen to be cowards; that the school authorities that set the text believed all firemen to be cowards; and furthermore, that the government want you to believe that all firemen are cowards. No matter that the statement might be ironic, or that the sentiment might be expressed by a craven idiot or a compulsive liar.
The key issue I think with the Farenheit 451 news item is that the pro-ban father cannot read critically. I suspect that he cannot see irony or multiple meanings in a text; and even if he can, he wants to actively deny their existence for himself and his daughter for pragmatic religious reasons.
I suspect that if Alton Verm was to admit to himself or his family that texts can contain irony or conflicting messages, then his relationship with whatever holy text he holds in the highest esteem would crumble into ash.
I think schools should teach children to read critically, but no doubt many of Verm's beliefs would interpret this, if his school board were to propose it, as a direct threat to his child's immortal soul.
I don't think parents have a duty or even a right to shape their children's outlook. Although it is impossible not to influence your kids, I believe that ideally one should nurture a child's critical faculties so that they are best able to shape their own beliefs.
Perhaps thats too much to ask for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by skepticfaith, posted 10-06-2006 5:38 PM skepticfaith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Chiroptera, posted 10-07-2006 2:11 PM Tusko has replied
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2006 2:27 PM Tusko has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 73 (354987)
10-07-2006 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tusko
10-07-2006 11:04 AM


Re: Parents' ideas aren't always preferable
quote:
I don't think parents have a duty or even a right to shape their children's outlook....Perhaps thats too much to ask for?
It probably is. This was the attitude of the Nazis and the Soviet Communists.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tusko, posted 10-07-2006 11:04 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Tusko, posted 10-07-2006 7:37 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 73 (354989)
10-07-2006 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tusko
10-07-2006 11:04 AM


Re: Parents' ideas aren't always preferable
Farenheit 451 is about NOT burning books.
The problem for Alton Verm and his ilk is that they are NOT against burning books, just against burning the bible -- he doesn't see the similarity of burning all but one book and burning all books.
I don't think parents have a duty or even a right to shape their children's outlook.
I think they do, as long as it is not a shaping that is based on ignorance, irrationality and poor logic.
Unfortunately that leaves out all americans that voted for schwubbia in 2004.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tusko, posted 10-07-2006 11:04 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by subbie, posted 10-07-2006 3:33 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 62 by Tusko, posted 10-07-2006 7:52 PM RAZD has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 52 of 73 (354995)
10-07-2006 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
10-07-2006 2:27 PM


Re: Parents' ideas aren't always preferable
Farenheit 451 is about NOT burning books.
Hmm. Okay, what is it about then?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2006 2:27 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 10-07-2006 4:15 PM subbie has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 53 of 73 (355001)
10-07-2006 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ThingsChange
10-06-2006 7:55 PM


Re: Call the show... I can't wait to hear
quote:
You are so classic (liberal) in your attitude and misunderstanding of Rush's show and audience.
One of the great attractions to listeners of his show is how he handles liberals who call in. (maybe you should call!)
The entertainment value is why so many people listen.
Another part of the entertainment is how he exposes hypocrisy by playing clips of what a politician says now vs earlier.
If Rush makes you angry and/or frustrated, I would guess Michael Savage doubles it for you. He is more outlandish, but usually entertaining and can make me laugh. He is not a fan of either Republicans or Democrats.
The key thing for both of them is not literally what they say, but how they can provide perspectives that you might not have thought of, since the news media seeks entertainment by sensationalism and ignorant awareness of its own bias. Conservative talk radio tells its listeners what the liberal-oriented media chooses not to tell.
Rush limbaugh lies.
He lies, and lies, and lies, but portrays himself as someone who exposes the "truth". He is utterly irresponsible reagarding the what he states as fact.
I don't for a minute believe that most people who listen to Rush Limbaugh understand that.
Sure, they listen for entertainment, but I also think they believe that what he claims is true when it often is false.
Have you ever read the rather large section devoted to Rush Limbaugh at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting? His lies are documented in exhaustive detail there.
I've read the entire thing, and it's pathetic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ThingsChange, posted 10-06-2006 7:55 PM ThingsChange has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 54 of 73 (355004)
10-07-2006 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by subbie
10-07-2006 3:33 PM


Re: Parents' ideas aren't always preferable
Message #46?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by subbie, posted 10-07-2006 3:33 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by subbie, posted 10-07-2006 4:48 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 55 of 73 (355010)
10-07-2006 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ThingsChange
10-06-2006 7:55 PM


Re: Call the show... I can't wait to hear
quote:
Conservative talk radio tells its listeners what the liberal-oriented media chooses not to tell.
Conservative talk radio tells its listeners what they want to hear. It's a business, and is in the business to make money, just the same as any other for-profit media outlet. Therefore, they just feed all of those right-wingers exactly what they love to keep them happy. (kick out the immigrants, everything is Clinton's fault, fags are destroying Chritian marriage, everything is Clinton's fault, flag-burning is the most important issue of the day, everything is Clinton's fault...)
Unlike professional journalists in the mainstream media, conservative talk show personalities don't have any sort of pressures to bother with fact-checking or curbing outright bias. Nor are they required to tell the truth as long as they don't commit slander or libel.
Oh, and WHAT liberal media?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140002
The Sunday-morning talk shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC are where the prevailing opinions are aired and tested, policymakers state their cases, and the left and right in American politics debate the pressing issues of the day on equal ground. Both sides have their say and face probing questions. Or so you would think.
In fact, as this study reveals, conservative voices significantly outnumber progressive voices on the Sunday talk shows. Media Matters for America conducted a content analysis of ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and NBC's Meet the Press, classifying each one of the nearly 7,000 guest appearances during President Bill Clinton's second term, President George W. Bush's first term, and the year 2005 as either Democrat, Republican, conservative, progressive, or neutral. The conclusion is clear: Republicans and conservatives have been offered more opportunities to appear on the Sunday shows - in some cases, dramatically so.
Tell me, does this seem like a liberal bias to you?
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ThingsChange, posted 10-06-2006 7:55 PM ThingsChange has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 56 of 73 (355012)
10-07-2006 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nator
10-07-2006 4:15 PM


Demogogue wars
I think somewhere we got crossed up. When I talked about those on the other side, I wasn't addressing your complaint about Rush's factual inaccuracies. I was referring to this part of my post:
IMO, Rush is no worse than any other demogogue who is more interested in pushing a party line than pushing the interests of all americans. And there are plenty of those kinds of liars, thieves and villians on both sides of the aisle.
The three that I mentioned are the sort of demogogue I was discussing. Does Rush lie more than anyone else on the national scene? Dunno, never looked into it. Thus, if your measure of comparison is who lies more, I can't really respond. But I don't really think who lies more or less is the only, or even necessarily the best, measure of who is the worse demogogue. You might argue that Rush is worse because his impact is larger. Possibly. But my point was never that those on the other side are worse than or as bad as Rush. It was simply that all deomgogues need to be fought against, not just those whom you happen to disagree with.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 10-07-2006 4:15 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by nator, posted 10-07-2006 5:06 PM subbie has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 57 of 73 (355018)
10-07-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by subbie
10-07-2006 4:48 PM


Re: Demogogue wars
quote:
The three that I mentioned are the sort of demogogue I was discussing. Does Rush lie more than anyone else on the national scene? Dunno, never looked into it. Thus, if your measure of comparison is who lies more, I can't really respond.
I specifically described my objections to Limbaugh as being that he has an almost complete disregard for the truth (while his schtick is that he portrays himself as particularly truthful).
You then said that "there are plenty of those kinds of liars, thieves and villians on both sides of the aisle."
My contention is that there aren't plenty of those kinds of liars, thieves and villians on both sides of the aisle. I think that the great majority of them are to be found on the conservative side of the aisle.
This is why I asked you to name the people on the left who could be considered on a par with Limbaugh.
I do not see how any of the three people you mentioned could be remotely compared.
quote:
But I don't really think who lies more or less is the only, or even necessarily the best, measure of who is the worse demogogue. You might argue that Rush is worse because his impact is larger. Possibly. But my point was never that those on the other side are worse than or as bad as Rush.
Well, then, perhaps you would like to retract or rephrase this statement:
"there are plenty of those kinds of liars, thieves and villians on both sides of the aisle."
If there aren't "plenty", and in fact, none even remotely comparable to Limbaugh, then why did you claim that there was?
quote:
It was simply that all deomgogues need to be fought against, not just those whom you happen to disagree with.
Of course I agree.
But my point is that the claim oft-repeated by conservatives that there are "just as many" liberal "liars, thieves and villians" in the world of political media personalities is simply a falsehood.
That's why you couldn't name any.

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by subbie, posted 10-07-2006 4:48 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by subbie, posted 10-07-2006 5:23 PM nator has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 58 of 73 (355023)
10-07-2006 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by nator
10-07-2006 5:06 PM


Re: Demogogue wars
Or maybe you can't see it that way because your political blinders won't let you see it.
In any event, if it's going to take me agreeing with you to bring this relatively off topic strain in this thread to a close, then I shall. After all, I'm not particularly trying to defend my soil here since I don't really have a dog in this fight anyway.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by nator, posted 10-07-2006 5:06 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 10-07-2006 5:59 PM subbie has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 59 of 73 (355026)
10-07-2006 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by subbie
10-07-2006 5:23 PM


Re: Demogogue wars
quote:
Or maybe you can't see it that way because your political blinders won't let you see it.
Oh, no, you are gravely mistaken.
I am perfectly ready to see all of the left-wing media people who are just as bad as Rush Limbaugh.
That's is, of course, why I asked you to list them.
Now, you accuse me of having "political blinders" even though you are the one refusing to answer my questions regarding your claim that there exist many liberal media personalities which are just as bad as Limbaugh.
I was skeptical that those people you listed were in even remotely the same league as Limbaugh, and gave my reasons why, and asked you to explain why you thought they were.
You declined providing an explanation or examples of their statements to compare to Limbaugh's, and you now seem to been backing away from your initial statement as fast as possible.
It is a myth, subbie, that media personalities on the right and on the left are somehow "equivalent" in behavior and number.
It is a myth that there are just as many Limbaughs, O'Reillys, and Coulters in the media on the liberal side of the fence as on the conservative side.
I am more than happy to be shown that I am wrong, however, and if we started a new thread I'd be happy to read and honestly consider any comparable lists of liars on the left you'd like to show me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by subbie, posted 10-07-2006 5:23 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by subbie, posted 10-07-2006 6:23 PM nator has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 60 of 73 (355033)
10-07-2006 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by nator
10-07-2006 5:59 PM


Re: Demogogue wars
Not backing away, clarifying. I was never talking about just liars, and don't particularly care to, as I don't happen to think that mere liars are the worst of 'em.
I don't believe I ever said there were as many one the left as there are on the right, not even sure I ever said they were "equivalent." IIRC, I said there were plenty on both sides. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. If it makes you feel better to characterize my disinclination to continue to discuss this matter further as a retreat, by all means do so. I was simply trying to make the point that demogoguery is not the exclusive domain of any political party.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 10-07-2006 5:59 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 10-08-2006 7:15 AM subbie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024