|
SilentD posted:It was the Jesuits at Georgetown University that gave Paul Ryan holy hell for focusing on abortion instead of taking care of the poor. If I remember right isn't the official Jesuit stance on poo poo like abortion and gays and all like 'hey guys you can disagree all you want but it's unfair to force laws and poo poo on people because of it?' Like, I only know them through knowing friends who are part of the church but they seem to focus on debate and education rather than 'ban it'?
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:If I remember right isn't the official Jesuit stance on poo poo like abortion and gays and all like 'hey guys you can disagree all you want but it's unfair to force laws and poo poo on people because of it?' Like, I only know them through knowing friends who are part of the church but they seem to focus on debate and education rather than 'ban it'? They often take more nuanced stances on both (for abortion, they admit that it would take more than simply banning the procedure for abortions to actually go down, and for gay marriage, they sometimes remark that the Church has bigger fish to fry and should divert its resources elsewhere). Overall, at least these days, they definitely allow more room for debate or even innovation than other orders in the Church (especially in America).
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:Benghazi Well, if you want to be kind of a dick you can see what comes out regarding Petraeus, his affair and what has happening within the CIA. I'm sure the behind the scenes picture was a shitshow with that, even without the Benghazi attack. But the Benghazi thing is really a tragedy and there probably isn't much that could have been done. Several of my family members started bringing it up recently and what seemed to cool them off was asking "Well, how could this have been fixed in your mind?" and after them giving the talking point of "Saying it wasn't a terrorist attack" or "Go kill some Libyans" you can ask "And how would they do that, realistically?" It would depend on them being willing to talk about it though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:If I remember right isn't the official Jesuit stance on poo poo like abortion and gays and all like 'hey guys you can disagree all you want but it's unfair to force laws and poo poo on people because of it?' Like, I only know them through knowing friends who are part of the church but they seem to focus on debate and education rather than 'ban it'? That's pretty much their exact stance. They don't agree with it, and they won't back it their own institutions, but they're completely OK with it being legal under secular government. They're also religious in the old "scholarly" sense. As in you have to study the real world as well. It's a pretty rigorous world view both from the religious and academic sense. Jesuit schools are top notch and don't dabble in creationism and other lunatic religious crap. A lot of top end colleges and highschools are run by the Jesuits, creating schools and education is kinda their shtick, always has been that way. Lastly they still firmly believe in education and charity. They define those as the actual goals of their order, not enforcing the decrees of the Pope and the bishops on personal behavior. Being properly educated lets you do greater deeds in the name Christ, and the greatest deed is the mandate to help the poor. The Catholic Bishops keep trying to sweep them under the rug. The Jesuits issue religious condemnation about failure to educate and failure to help the poor. They don't give a gently caress about birth control and gay marriage as long as it's out of their hands. This can land them in hot water though. They didn't want to provide birth control coverage through their schools and they fought it, half assed though. Yet at the same time they keep issuing edicts or whatever against Paul Ryan and John B for loving over poor people. As religious orders go, they aren't half bad. They build schools and hospitals and back helping the poor. They'll fight on social issues if it's being forced on them, but for the most part they don't care if men marry men or women have sex out of marriage, it's just not a concern.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
Nimmy posted:I posted some disparaging remarks about my fellow catholics in the election thread a few days ago because I always thought we were mostly good people and not divisive moral majoritarians. This has made the news, or at least the Atlanta Journal Constitution's blog (and the College President is awesome): http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2012/11/10/ann-coulter-vs-the-jesuits-a-college-invite-is-rescinded/?cxntfid=blogs_get_schooled_blog
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
All this jesuit love got me remembering when the Archbishop of St. Louis (who all but qualifies as right wing media) tried to silence St. Louis University basketball coach Rick Majerus about his personal views on abortion. He said he'd deny him communion if he didn't change his views. Majerus coached at SLU, which is a jesuit institution. The University and Majerus basically gave a big gently caress You to Archbishop Burke who, no real surprise, is a cardinal in the Vatican now. You can read all about it here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1960436/posts
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
Nimmy posted:All this jesuit love got me remembering when the Archbishop of St. Louis (who all but qualifies as right wing media) tried to silence St. Louis University basketball coach Rick Majerus about his personal views on abortion. He said he'd deny him communion if he didn't change his views. Majerus coached at SLU, which is a jesuit institution. The University and Majerus basically gave a big gently caress You to Archbishop Burke who, no real surprise, is a cardinal in the Vatican now. The Jesuits, while Catholic, don't take orders from the Vatican.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
SilentD posted:The Jesuits, while Catholic, don't take orders from the Vatican. As I understand it, this isn't strictly correct. They're outside the hierarchy of the diocesan churches, and as such are not subject to the instructions of bishops and archbishops of the diocese in which their institutions are located, but they are still subject to the rulings of the pope himself (and maybe to others but I'm not sure).
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
So my father and I always seem to get into debates about the state of the media. He listens to conservative radio, reads the drudge report, and watches Fox News religiously. He was absolutely obsessed with Glen Beck, viewing him as 100% right. He admits that Fox does have a conservative bias, but it "doesn't even begin to remove the liberal bias of the other networks" so there is nothing wrong with that. My biggest problem though is that he keeps going on about how the Drudge Report is 100% unbiased because it just posts links to articles. Does anyone have any tips for things I can tell him that will back up my side of the argument that the media's focus on sensationalism and ratings generation makes it so that you can't base your political ideals around what they say, especially Fox News, Conservative Talk Radio and the Drudge Report? For context, I explained to him that I have based my views on the current political climate on History, and actually looking up the issues that are brought up.(Most of which turn out to be outright lies by the media, or things being blown out of proportion. Like Obama-phones, or how much of an "absolute failure" the Stimulus was. [hint: it was beneficial]) His response was to agree with me that that looking issues up was the best way to know what is going on, which is why he reads the Drudge Report.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 17:33
|
|
|
jadebullet posted:So my father and I always seem to get into debates about the state of the media. He listens to conservative radio, reads the drudge report, and watches Fox News religiously. He was absolutely obsessed with Glen Beck, viewing him as 100% right. One argument you could make is that the way that Matt Drudge chooses to emphasize certain articles and de-emphasize others is what causes the site to have a bias. It's not the links themselves that are biased, it's Matt Drudge's presentation of them. Argue that if he just posted pure text links with no emphasis on any one article, then the site could be considered unbiased. (Obviously it would still be biased for many other reasons, but hopefully this argument will help your dad see that Drudge is, at the very least, not an unbiased source of news.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
CaptainJuan posted:As I understand it, this isn't strictly correct. They're outside the hierarchy of the diocesan churches, and as such are not subject to the instructions of bishops and archbishops of the diocese in which their institutions are located, but they are still subject to the rulings of the pope himself (and maybe to others but I'm not sure). They're their own order outside of the normal church hierarchy. One of their earliest goals and accomplishments was reforming the church. Though they keep their interperatation of scripture along the lines of the pope. It's worth keeping in mind that papal decrees to supress the Jesuits weren't all that uncommon, and that a lot of what they believe (liberation theory) has been highly controversial within the church and often the subject of condemnation by the vatican and the pope, not that it stopped them. There might not be much light of day between them and the vatican on religious scripture, but there is a nasty history of them being on other sides of various issues and having the pope censor them, with little effect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
fade5 posted:One argument you could make is that the way that Matt Drudge chooses to emphasize certain articles and de-emphasize others is what causes the site to have a bias. It's not the links themselves that are biased, it's Matt Drudge's presentation of them. Argue that if he just posted pure text links with no emphasis on any one article, then the site could be considered unbiased. To add to this: for comparison, cite Google News as an example of a site that just collects links and displays them with zero effort at presentation or "spin". I've seen links from websites that leaned both left and right, as well as sites that sat squarely in the middle. By contrast, Drudge is pretty much posting anything that is even the slightest bit biased towards conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
This article was mentioned in the election thread, but it fits here pretty well I think: 'The Long Con: Mail-order conservatism' http://www.thebaffler.com/past/the_long_con/ It goes into detail about how conservatives are targeted with scams and snake-oil bullshit in media because marketing people have realized that it is far easier to play to these people's fears to make cash or take power. This leads into an observation that (paraphrasing) not a single prominent conservative figure denounced Romney for his constant, pathological lying while he was trying desperately to distance himself from his past. The author argues that conservatism has basically become entwined with dishonesty and it is expected that you will lie to the best of your ability to get to the top of the right-wing totem pole. Moreover, it states that people targeted by right wing media have been lied to so much, that they too have (at best) an indifference towards all the blatant lies spewed out at them everyday. Mercury_Storm fucked around with this message at 10:40 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 06:17
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:To add to this: for comparison, cite Google News as an example of a site that just collects links and displays them with zero effort at presentation or "spin". I've seen links from websites that leaned both left and right, as well as sites that sat squarely in the middle. By contrast, Drudge is pretty much posting anything that is even the slightest bit biased towards conservatives. Doesn't Google News serve you articles it thinks you will prefer based on your search history, physical location and what sites you visit if it has that data available? It does that with search results too, trying to give you things it thinks you will like which in political terms will serve up sites leaning toward the left or right depending on your online habits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 09:07
|
|
|
jadebullet posted:So my father... Your Dad sounds a lot like my Father was. We'd argue all the time about politics and he wasn't so much a dick as he was just generally misinformed. He always accused me of reading and watching news that confirmed what I already wanted to hear and said he would watch FOX News and attempt to see a conservative slant to it but couldn't find one. There's some weird combination of confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance and false equivalencies all at once here. If you start with the idea that everyone but FOX is liberally slanted and extrapolate your subsequent opinions out from there, then you'll never see FOX for what it is because in your mind, they're just balancing out what all the other networks do. It's bullshit, of course, but once you've managed to let FOX convince you that you can only trust THEM then that's the only place you go and the propaganda starts to feed off of itself. My Dad used to ask me how I knew what was true and who to believe, and would chuckle when I said I get most of my news from the internet, cross reference and confirm sources and weigh credibility and then form my own opinions about things. He seemed to think that the web was the worst place to garner information and always wondered "but how do you know" when I would tell him that I'd confirmed quotes and stories by checking citations. I guess the fact that Ann Coulter had footnotes in her book automatically made her as credible as Richard Clark or Joe Wilson. He was a weird cat, my Dad, who just never quite got it. He thought that Sean Hannity and Dan Rather were just two sides of the same coin. He also hated Walter Cronkite and blamed him for the U.S. losing in Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Death Himself posted:Doesn't Google News serve you articles it thinks you will prefer based on your search history, physical location and what sites you visit if it has that data available? It does that with search results too, trying to give you things it thinks you will like which in political terms will serve up sites leaning toward the left or right depending on your online habits. It's entirely possible, I just know that when I visit it I always get a mixture of things. Of course I also have Firefox set to delete all the cookies and stuff when I close it out too, so there's that. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
I think that this thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3515797&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=147 has stolen a lot of the thunder from this one and has been way better and more in line with what I had in mind when I started it. Feel free to cross post relevant items and news that could just as well fit in here. Watching the right wing and their media outlets react to this election has been glorious, depressing, fascinating and enjoyable all at once. I hope that once the election one dies we can continue this one because I think the subject deserves constant scrutiny, daily monitoring and lots of energy. I've laready been struck several times by posters in the election thread who say "I had no idea it was like this" or who report poo poo their parents say that are word for word verbatim whatever it was Sean and Rush shat out on the radio that day. Whoever drew the parallels between Sunday sermons and what these people and their listeners do was absolutely spot on, the more I reflect on it. When I look at video of Glenn Beck at the height of his popularity, crying and feigning sincerity while he counts his money, I'm reminded of my younger days when I watched Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker do the same things and bilk people out of their savings in the name of salvation and patriotism. I even wondered back then how anyone could take these hustlers so seriously, but now they're mainstream and do "news" instead of Jesus. It's still the same thing though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
Its begun Michael Barry has been ranting about the rino Bill Kristol all day today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
goatsecks posted:Its begun Michael Barry has been ranting about the rino Bill Kristol all day today. Rev. Al on MSNBC is doing a segment right now about how it's apparently Rush Limbaugh vs. "The (Republican party) Establishment". He played Limbaugh ranting and raving yet again about how Republicans will continue to lose "until I am denounced", and Hannity telling Dick Morris "a lot of people are furious at you right now". 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
Dick Morris says what we all already knewquote:Sean, I hope people aren’t mad at me about it… I spoke about what I believed and I think that there was a period of time when the Romney campaign was falling apart, people were not optimistic, nobody thought there was a chance of victory and I felt that it was my duty at that point to go out and say what I said. And at the time that I said it, I believe I was right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:Don't write this guy off, he means well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
Vladimir Poutine posted:Just wait until Gina Rinehart becomes the richest person in the world. Its almost unbearable to think about. Should Gina go global, people will be catching airplanes to australia just to punch locals in retaliation for inflicting that loony warlock on them. In case anyone wonders who I'm refering to, I'll just post her poem: quote:Our Future And she wants to buy free to air television and newspapers around the world to push hard-core right wing politics that'd make Murdoch look like an old commie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kan_ntBnBWA
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 02:11
|
|
Her whole thing is buying the media to promote Milton Friedman style Libertarianism.
|
Strange, one would think that the minerals would remain there and waiting for other sources to be depleted would increase the price. Of course the real point, I'm sure, is she wants more monies, but.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
Can public radio be right-wing media too? The answer is yes, yes it can. This is how they conduct a debate on what the effects of all this fiscal cliff horseshit will be: Robert Frank, Prof. Economics and Management, Cornell University vs. Dan Holler, Communications Director, Heritage Foundation PAC Certainly, an economics professor and an honest-to-god propagandist carry the same intellectual weight in the chief disagreement in U.S. economic policy (the effect of tax cuts). Dear NPR, you don't have to ask this man if he intends to come on your program and lie to your audience. It's right there in his loving title. He is the communications director for a conservative fundamentalist organization's political action committee. God help us. God help us. The next time the house GOP makes a run at NPR's budget, I'm stepping right the gently caress out of the way. I can't support this. It doesn't seem possible that corporate influence could poison a media organization to the extent that NPR is influenced by fear of the congressional Republicans.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 15:04
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:God help us. God help us. NPR is not one monolithic entity. What program was this? Different programs have different biases and different models of what meets broadcast standards. Marketplace and Democracy Now! are clearly not even in the same league, yet share NPR radio space.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 15:15
|
|
Kiwi Bigtree posted:NPR is not one monolithic entity. What program was this? Different programs have different biases and different models of what meets broadcast standards. Marketplace and Democracy Now! are clearly not even in the same league, yet share NPR radio space. This was Joy Cardin's call-in show on Wisconsin Public Radio, from 7:00-8:00 this morning. Local public broadcasting orgs like Wisconsin Public Media are, of course, responsible for their own guests and content. WPR's content is more likely than average to contain openly progressive viewpoints, and NPR goes batty over any opportunity to have the Heritage or Cato guys on to poo poo up debates they have no credentials in. I don't think WPR found this guy on their own. It's academy vs. think-tank each and every time with an economics debate where NPR is involved. I'm also kind of using NPR as a synonym for federally-funded public media. NPR is public media's connection to the federal government, and I am left wondering again and again if public media under the supervision of the Congressional Republicans can ever be free media. I know federally funded public media is important and I am probably wrong to be blaming NPR so quickly for the actions of a local station. But NPR is local public media's connection to the congressional Republicans. Is the federal funding worth it if that connection starts to poison the entire public media structure, national and local?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:This was Joy Cardin's call-in show on Wisconsin Public Radio, from 7:00-8:00 this morning. Local public broadcasting orgs like Wisconsin Public Media are, of course, responsible for their own guests and content. WPR's content is more likely than average to contain openly progressive viewpoints, and NPR goes batty over any opportunity to have the Heritage or Cato guys on to poo poo up debates they have no credentials in. I don't think WPR found this guy on their own. It's academy vs. think-tank each and every time with an economics debate where NPR is involved. I didn't get much sleep last night, so I could be badly misreading it, but it sounds like you're saying national public radio should have its funding removed if they have people on whose politics you disagree with. What am I missing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm going to have to come down on the "rather silly" side of this thing here. NPR as a whole should be defunded because Wisconsin radio couldn't get a more credible conservative guest? I think we're definitely in "throw the baby out with the bathwater" territory here. Just because the people running the local station might be a bunch of morons, don't piss all over NPR for the rest of the nation as a result. I can't speak for Wisconsin NPR stations, but I can assure you down here in Florida they don't tend to jizz all over any conservative they happen to get in the studio. NPR down here is like a beacon of liberal light in an often conservative (or just indifferent) wasteland. Don't kill off the NPR stations here just because the Wisconsin stations couldn't get a conservative numbers wonk. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
Was a bit of an unsupported ragepost. I can't really prove that NPR had anything to do with the booking of this guy, a terrible choice for a crucial debate. I want to blame the national org because I can't believe people who live outside of Washington DC, running a fairly progressive outfit, would think that this was anything but an irresponsible way to present the issue. The guy just read off a list of Luntz-derived evangelistic talking points, without addressing a single word of the econ professor's pleas to reason, of which he made rather few (not shocking, given that he is a professor of Management). This is the norm for NPR-distributed content, not for my local stations.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
They had David Horowitz do Howard Zinn's obituary in the interest of "fairness".
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
Diane Rehm's always terrible about that. Here's some token neoliberal guy and here's a couple conservative think-tank guests. On a related note, I can't stand David Brooks or EJ Dionne.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
EJ Dionne's normally tolerable for an establishment liberal except for when that whole Catholic church contraception nonsense was happening then he went super-theocratic out of nowhere. The UN should rebuild Treblinka solely to have a productive place to stick David Brooks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
S.E. Cupp may be my current most despised conservative pundit (that I still have googly-eyes over at times  ). drat near everything that woman says sounds like she's just parroting Fox News talking points in an effort to be edgy, without being shrill and off-putting like Malkin or Coulter. Instead she just ends up in some mushy half-hearted "kinda sorta conservative" area that makes her just sound stupid. At least Coulter and Malkin know what they say is going to be incredibly offensive, but they know it'll also get them a ton of press. Cupp is just kinda sorta...there.
Sydney Bottocks fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
I just got my first dose of Neal Boortz, recommended by a libertarian friend who said he was more civil liberties-oriented and level-headed. See, talk radio is not all bad, she said. Wow. It may be post-election blues, but the whole show was borderline nuts Obama-is-worse-than-Terrorism similes, ritual desecration of anything to the left of Tom Delay, mourning for the death of America and so on. At one point he was straying close to eugenics ("Moochers are breeding and passing on bad genes that make american WEAK!")
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:I just got my first dose of Neal Boortz, recommended by a libertarian friend who said he was more civil liberties-oriented and level-headed. See, talk radio is not all bad, she said. Boortz used to be a pretty middle of the road Libertarian and equal opportunity when it came to lambasting the big parties. Another one of those guys that got started doing sports radio and moved into politics, capitalizing on bashing both sides. And then 9/11 happened and he's been sliding towards the right end of the spectrum ever since.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:I just got my first dose of Neal Boortz, recommended by a libertarian friend who said he was more civil liberties-oriented and level-headed. See, talk radio is not all bad, she said. Ironically I first heard him the day after obama got elected flipping around to hear the tears. His opening segment was pretty good I thought, get rid of all the social conservatives etc. His next segment was batshit 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:They had David Horowitz do Howard Zinn's obituary in the interest of "fairness". It was a shitful smear piece that I was honestly loving infuriated. Not one of their finest moments by a mile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 12:48
|
|
|
I heard a Terry Gross (probably) interview that kinda blew my mind. I saw it as  giving both sides equal time but it was a show about ALEC. They explained what ALEC was and what ALEC did. They let a guy tear down ALEC for the backwards, destructive, exclusionary, corrupting influence it is. Then they had some top guy from ALEC on to say that was all bullshit.For me, it pissed me off on my ride to work and left me feeling .
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 13:25
|
|
|
I am eternally pissed at NPR for not asserting the fact that Grover Norquist is "full of poo poo" everytime he comes on. Defund NPR!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 13:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:I heard a Terry Gross (probably) interview that kinda blew my mind. I saw it as It's probably not Terry Gross since she's away from the show giving some kind of award right now, and her stand-in yesterday did an interview about some kind of horrible mental illness caused by an autoimmune disease. Plus she's made Bill O'Reilly cry and run off her show, so basically she's a secular saint at this point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 13:54
|
|
