|
ISIS seems to be the latest right-wing bogeyman, as I've noticed it's popping up all over the place, including non-political websites. Al Qaeda's buzz must have died down.
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
Whole Foods has really good prepared food though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
"Guh, I don't get how anyone could listen to the radio for hours, they spend their whole day wrapped up in a little bubble that reinforces their worldview" -- Someone who reads and posts for hours a day on Somethingawful.com. While the left is not immune to charismatic leadership, in general we seem to favor more of a community-reinforcement model. When we get together as a group, it is a lot of people all saying the same thing and how much we agree with them (while occasionally censuring people for veering from whatever minor orthodoxy so we can feel like there is actually a "debate" or a "discussion"). When right-wingers want reinforcement of their view, they sit down and listen to one singular figure say what they are thinking (while occasionally disagreeing with them for veering from whatever minor orthodoxy so they can feel like there is actually a platform that they agree with only "in part"). It's the same poo poo, radio and TV is just awful mediums for how left-wingers tend to want reinforcement. When Huffington Post came out it was a cultural reaction to Bush. It because a gossip site because what we want is more of a forum where we can get together and kvetch about the state of the world and did you see what she was wearing in that dress? That's not a bug, it's a feature.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Is this a good thread to ask in about the "border crisis". I hodgepog thread I've been chatting in for awhile on another website has suddenly veered off into the abyss about "ISIS bombing everything using illegal immigrants and California wildfires and we need more guns and fences and wiretapping and racial profiling and-". Holy gently caress I feel overwhelmed and I'm trying to address the points because the thread has regulars who seem impressionable enough that I'd like to present a sane opinion, or at least facts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:ISIS seems to be the latest right-wing bogeyman, as I've noticed it's popping up all over the place, including non-political websites. Al Qaeda's buzz must have died down. Yes let's get involved as much as possible in a foreign threat in the middle east that presently isn't much of a domestic threat, that sounds like a great idea that won't result in literally this but worse all over again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
The thing with ISIS is that like three people inside the US have flown ISIS flags and NOW AMERICA IS COMPROMISED  .Shbobdb posted:"Guh, I don't get how anyone could listen to the radio for hours, they spend their whole day wrapped up in a little bubble that reinforces their worldview" -- Someone who reads and posts for hours a day on Somethingawful.com. There's a huge difference between passive listening and active engagement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:ISIS seems to be the latest right-wing bogeyman, as I've noticed it's popping up all over the place, including non-political websites. Al Qaeda's buzz must have died down. To be fair, ISIL is a huge loving deal. They definitely shouldn't be dismissed as just another entry in the long list of bullshit republican talking points. The fact that they're popping up all over the place is mostly justified at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
moths posted:There's a huge difference between passive listening and active engagement. Yeah, one is favored by right-wingers and the other is favored by left-wingers. Trying to present that as a moral argument is silly. This isn't some nobel pursuit, it's infotainment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Oh I hadn't realized the right wing doesn't use message boards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Way to completely miss the point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:Whole Foods has really good prepared food though. Ya know what else does? Any normal supermarket chain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Way to completely miss the point. Exactly. (Nobody's making a moral argument.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
moths posted:The thing with ISIS is that like three people inside the US have flown ISIS flags and NOW AMERICA IS COMPROMISED Just slap "heritage not hate" under it, problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
moths posted:Exactly. (Nobody's making a moral argument.) Really? Nobody is making a moral argument about right wing media consumption? Really? Edit: quote:He's still toxic. quote:The disease in question -- right wing paranoid populism -- doesn't have a left wing analogue in America. quote:These people inject into their veins and brains like a drug Frank Miller invented. quote:...incredibly shady advertisements on right-wing media quote:Left-wing political con artists don't exist to the same degree I mean that's just the last page. It's all well and good and entertaining to call out Rush Limbaugh et al. for the obvious asinine bullshit they come up with, but let's not be the pot calling the kettle black for consuming most media in an "echo chamber." sit on my Facebook fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Aug 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Nobody's making a moral argument about passive vs active media consumption, ie: the topic Shbobdb and I were going back and forth about. Holy poo poo man. Context.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I thought audiophiles were always self-righteous :P But yeah that was just the first link I found in google for "Bose sucks." With stuff like high-end audio equipment there's a lot of status symbol bullshit going on with it. The most expensive stuff people buy just because it's expensive and a recognizable name not because the sound quality is better. Most high end audio equipment is actually totally 100% bullshit anyway. There was a test a while back where some hardcore audiophiles were absolutely incapable of telling the difference between the sound going through top of the line cables and some coat hangers a guy grabbed out of his closed that morning. Really, a lot of it is just people with more money than sense buying something to impress other audiophiles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
AVS Forum are not audiophiles, hope this helps
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:To be fair, ISIL is a huge loving deal. They definitely shouldn't be dismissed as just another entry in the long list of bullshit republican talking points. The fact that they're popping up all over the place is mostly justified at the moment. No, they shouldn't be dismissed - but the hysterical idiots yammering on places like Fox News are offering the worst possible strategic ideas on how to deal with them. When we need sobering clarity to deal with this very difficult crisis, the same morons who created the situation that created Isis are all geared up to make more horrible historic strategic blunders. These blithering bunglers should not be listened to or taken seriously in the least when it comes to the safety of our nation, or the world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Don't forget that Whole Foods has 'employee democracy' where they answer a binary question on a computer ballot now and then in lieu of a union and collective bargaining. This is the most American thing I've ever heard. Put this in a museum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:To be fair, ISIL is a huge loving deal. They definitely shouldn't be dismissed as just another entry in the long list of bullshit republican talking points. The fact that they're popping up all over the place is mostly justified at the moment. To be fair, you should explain why that's the case and not another bullshit talking point. You may be right, or wrong, but simply stating something as if it's fact doesn't settle that. They have taken over areas in a completely destabilized country that we hosed up, and what... 2 Americans joined them during Syria? I understand they can make some people's day pretty bad in the middle east but how is that any different from the last 4 decades other than residing in a massive power vacuum created by Western interventions w/r/t Saddam?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
I should point out that, while Howard Stern is a bit libertarian, he was certainly listened to for hours by many leftists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:While the left is not immune to charismatic leadership, in general we seem to favor more of a community-reinforcement model. When we get together as a group, it is a lot of people all saying the same thing and how much we agree with them (while occasionally censuring people for veering from whatever minor orthodoxy so we can feel like there is actually a "debate" or a "discussion"). When right-wingers want reinforcement of their view, they sit down and listen to one singular figure say what they are thinking (while occasionally disagreeing with them for veering from whatever minor orthodoxy so they can feel like there is actually a platform that they agree with only "in part"). Yes, there will always be identical trends in all political thought regardless of ideology, but it's a matter of degree. In terms of how conservatives and liberals actually think however, this has actually been studied - repeatedly - and many of the studies have remarkably similar conclusions. You can certainly argue that this isn't a moral argument as the studies have argued much of these differences are based in personality and therefore somewhat unconscious (and of course it's almost impossible to identify personality traits alone as "good" or "bad" outside of the context in which they affect certain moral/ethical situations), but regardless of the point of origin, so far the available data does indicate there are some fundamental distinctions in which how conservatives vs liberals approach certain arguments. It's probably safe to say that these wingnut shows survive largely on outrage, and hence on one of its primary emotional predecessors - fear. And that personality trait in particular seems to have repeatedly been shown as a primary difference between the liberal and conservative mindset. quote:"Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions. “Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living,” says social psychologist Paul Nail of the University of Central Arkansas. “The fact is we don't live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.” It's fundamentally far more difficult to market these types of shows to a base that is going to be less amenable to simplistic and outrage-based arguments, as well as the basic "cost" of this approach is more economical - it's far easier and well, basically cheaper to just spew bullshit vs. nuance and performing some level of research. Again, it's not a binary choice, I wouldn't be surprised for example that there would be more liberal-oriented supporters (albeit assumptions can be wrong) of the awful Food Babe than conservative, and her market is largely fear and ignorance-oriented as well. I don't believe though, that the adherence to orthodoxy is equivalent across the political spectrum and it's simply a matter of groupthink vs individual ideologues as you seem to imply. It's not just a question of venue from what I've seen, there appears to be some distinct differences that have an impact on being open to argument. Happy_Misanthrope fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Aug 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:
That's because "liberals" include anyone that's not a partisan. If you compared to honest dyed in the wool communists then you'd probably get similar responses and thought patterns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's because "liberals" include anyone that's not a partisan. If you compared to honest dyed in the wool communists then you'd probably get similar responses and thought patterns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:In the context of the actual question this conversation is about, which is "Why does the left not have an equivalent to right-wing media?", the fact that there might be some communists which might appeal to the same approach that these shows use is largely irrelevant as they're such a ridiculously small minority in NA and have virtually no impact in terms of potential market. By which you mean, "The answer is that there aren't enough partisans on the left to make such an enterprise worthwhile, for whatever reason (existing cultural values, population distributions, Red Scares, etc)". I mean there *is* a liberal version of Fox News - it's MSNBC. The reason it's not as popular is because Fox News derives its audience from partisans who are more likely to be unified (at least up to a point), whereas "liberals" are "literally anyone that's not explicitly anti-gay or pro-white".
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
computer parts posted:By which you mean, "The answer is that there aren't enough partisans on the left to make such an enterprise worthwhile, for whatever reason (existing cultural values, population distributions, Red Scares, etc)". A liberal version of Fox News wouldn't give a former GOP congressman a platform for several hours a day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The reason it's not as popular is because Fox News derives its audience from partisans who are more likely to be unified (at least up to a point), whereas "liberals" are "literally anyone that's not explicitly anti-gay or pro-white". As well, despite you arguing that this "liberal" definition may be overly wide in terms of the range of political views that can fall under the umbrella, I'm not so sure MSNBC is the best counter-example to my argument that an overtly partisan approach is simply far more difficult to market successfully - MSNBC has but a fraction of the viewership of Fox, and of course the ratio is all but nonexistent amongst radio. You seem to be using the term "liberal" to mean something far more narrow on the political spectrum than is actually reflected by the opinions of those who would self-identify as such in the US - that people who identify as "liberal" in these studies aren't really liberals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:
I'm not sure how I'm doing that, if anything I'm making the definition of conservative much more narrow than what people who self-identify as it believe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm not sure how I'm doing that, if anything I'm making the definition of conservative much more narrow than what people who self-identify as it believe. Ok then, but then that would be difficult to explain why conservative media enjoys such an audience and wide domination of large media venues. The audience they're appealing to can't be that narrow, and even if you did believe that, it would seem to only lend credence to the argument that the approach they employ is indeed at least far more marketable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:Then you're simply making the argument that people who self-identify as conservative aren't the "true" ones as opposed to liberal. What I'm arguing is that there's a much larger amount of partisan conservatives than partisan leftists. This makes it so the argument isn't between leftists and rightists but rightists and everyone else. Or tl;dr - America is a center-right country, so obviously partisans are more common on the right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Ya know what else does? Any normal supermarket chain. Yeah but I can't needlessly pay extra for that equally good prepared food.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
moths posted:Nobody's making a moral argument about passive vs active media consumption, ie: the topic Shbobdb and I were going back and forth about. i would argue that the words "passive" and "active" do have a strong moral dimension, but more importantly (and more within context), the types of media consumption are tied to the political ideology. It is a discussion about political media, come on! Don't argue "context" while ignoring it. It's not some lazy "both sides do it" but rather trying to get at the root of understanding why these trends exist as opposed to lionizing one and demonizing the other. As mentioned previously, there are clear psychological differences between right-wingers and left-wingers. These differences have strong influences on the types of infotainment and echo chambers that we seek out. A bunch of hens clucking on SA or at a PTA meeting has a lot less impact that national media campaigns. "All politics is local", sure, but since the CRA, power has been taken away from local organizations (at the county and state level) and given to the federal level. That's a good thing, but it also means that with few exceptions (Schoolboards in Texas, for example) they do really have as much impact as a federal representative or senator.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Don't argue "context" while ignoring it. That was more aimed at the guy who flipped his poo poo ands made a huge effort post showing that someone had made a moral judgement somewhere, to refute what I was telling you: I'm not judging the relative morality of social media vs talk radio, and neither is anyone else. Something frustrating about this site is that you can't make a statement without some contrarian getting a bug up his rear end to disprove it. And tedious as it can be, I think it demonstrates one of the most substantial differences between the media types. I don't think there's any real moral component to media presentation. Malicious opinions, distortions, and outright lies thrive in an environment where they cannot be challenged, and - big loving surprise - that's where you find the lion's share of them. That doesn't make talk radio inherently sinister, just as Tumblr doesn't put a halo over social media.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's because "liberals" include anyone that's not a partisan. If you compared to honest dyed in the wool communists then you'd probably get similar responses and thought patterns. You sort of seem like you're trying to argue semantics in order to define the terms in such a way as to make your argument correct. Wouldn't the relevant distinction be who the authors of the studies cited classified as conservative vs. liberal?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Clearly the answer is to test people for this inclination towards stability and nerve staple them. Sean Hannity can pitch it as identity theft protection (or die).
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:I should point out that, while Howard Stern is a bit libertarian, he was certainly listened to for hours by many leftists. He was listened to a lot of people of a lot pf political leanings. It was a comedy show that made fun of goofy people, exploited porn stars and had risque interviews with celebrities. Nobody I know listens to Stern to learn about politics, lawmakers and their bills. Shbobdb posted:"Guh, I don't get how anyone could listen to the radio for hours, they spend their whole day wrapped up in a little bubble that reinforces their worldview" -- Someone who reads and posts for hours a day on Somethingawful.com. I find this a tad disingenuous as well and an unfair comparison. I bounce around all over these forums and like them because they're usually funny and people are generally smart. Unlike, say, people who watch FOX News, listen to talk radio or donate money to televangelists. I don't camp out and post in D&D all day waiting for someone to tell me what to think or reinforce my worldview. The other difference is that I get to speak (write), actually interact with people and exchange jokes and information. I think this is an important distinction and something you're missing. Passively listening to and subconsciously absorbing Rush and Hannity as they drone on for 8-12 hours a day is a lot different than skimming around and posting on SA. I also listen to a few minutes of right wing radio and FOX almost every day and, yeah, the more I thin about it, this comparison sucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:You sort of seem like you're trying to argue semantics in order to define the terms in such a way as to make your argument correct. Wouldn't the relevant distinction be who the authors of the studies cited classified as conservative vs. liberal? Sure, but I can guarantee they didn't poll socialists in any large number and those are the left equivalent of the conservatives we know and love.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
And now, some entertainment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aNLFdFxHs8 So the 'constitutional conservatives' repeatedly quoted several 'founding fathers' quotes that weren't actually real. What's more, they've been doing this for several years now up to now. More on that here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/jody-hice#rxhk3i Spacedad fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Aug 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I find this a tad disingenuous as well and an unfair comparison. I bounce around all over these forums and like them because they're usually funny and people are generally smart. Unlike, say, people who watch FOX News, listen to talk radio or donate money to televangelists. I don't camp out and post in D&D all day waiting for someone to tell me what to think or reinforce my worldview. Well no one thinks "I'm just an idiot looking to have my worldview validated". To someone who thinks minorities are lazy and the president is communist, someone saying "minorities are lazy and the president is communist" is smart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Sure, but I can guarantee they didn't poll socialists in any large number and those are the left equivalent of the conservatives we know and love. They are really not. Perhaps there can be some equivalency between real socialists in america and real libertarians in america but the overwhelming share of the conservatives we know and love are not nearly far right enough to be the right's socialist equivalent. I'm going to have to invoke it for the 2nd time today and as much as it pains me, your post is a shining example of "both sides do it." and by "it" in this case I mean exaggerate. In the past few pages I've seen multiple references referring to "leftists not being taken in by a charismatic personality" (who is the current President again? He's a hard-line centrist which isn't what most voters wanted when they voted for him twice but his charisma and rhetoric was captivating and you'd have to be a liar to deny it) and "leftists being the underdog" which, I'm sorry, just isn't the case. This country is very evenly divided with no clear dominant ideology. I think a lot of people in this thread are doing themselves a disservice by framing their worldview otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 22:44
|
|
