|
TrixRabbi posted:If Democrats want to effectively counter right-wing propaganda, it's through action, not through "epic takedowns" and "eviscerations" from the John Olivers of the liberal media elite, whom those people have been trained to hate. Related to this, but I find that for many years now (at least since ~2000 or so) how liberal/leftist a politician is has been defined not by the policies they support, but by how strongly they oppose and condemn Republicans. This leads to situations where someone with thoroughly centrist political views is considered "very liberal" because they spend a bunch of time laying down sweet burns on Republicans. Jon Stewart is a good example of this. His personal politics are very centrist for a Democrat, but he was considered by many people (both Democrats and Republicans) to be very liberal/left-leaning due to the fervor with which he made fun of and condemned conservatives. I feel like the Democratic Party can best be defined as the party for relatively good rich people, while Republicans are the party for the worst rich people. Basically, they represent the interests of wealthy people who believe bigotry is wrong and, at least on paper, truly would like to fight poverty. The problem is that, due to their background, there's a strict limit to how much they're willing to sacrifice, and it isn't really of as dire importance to them as it is to people who actually experience poverty first-hand. They're completely willing to donate some of their time and money, because ending poverty is something they actually do desire, but only up to a point. Even if it's not conscious, they will constantly seek out solutions that don't require a big material sacrifice on their part. It's not so much that they're thinking "I wanna stay rich and gently caress over the poor," but there's just this bias where they think "well, maybe it's not really necessary to increase taxes a bunch and we can figure out a ~smarter~ wave to solve this problem." This is also why most Democrats have no problem with coming out strongly against bigotry; a rich person loses nothing at all from wanting to end discrimination, so it's a good way for them to gain liberal cred without losing anything themselves. And, just to be clear, there is a meaningful difference between these two groups. Good rich people are still drastically better than bad ones, and even their half-measures are preferable to what you'd get under the alternative. But there's a limit to how much they're willing to do. Main Paineframe posted:The narrative of liberal elitists laughing at poor rural whites from afar while doing nothing to help them is certainly a common one, but it's hard to square that with the actual facts. On the other hand, it sure bears an uncanny resemblance to cultural resentment of Northeastern elites that the South has held since before the Civil War! Liberal elitism is definitely an actual thing. I've been involved in "highly educated/professional" circles since college, and I can't count the number of times I've seen very liberal acquaintances and friends talk about how rednecks/Trump voters/etc should be sterilized or whatever. In recent years I've said "hey, that's kinda hosed up?" in response and they usually won't fight the point but they still act surprised since they're used to just being able to circle-jerk about how terrible and dumb the rural proles are. Heck, I used to actively participate in those conversations during my first couple years of college. That being said, this same sort of stuff happens among conservatives, but it takes the form of stuff like "heh, all those liberals/marxists/whatever who don't understand the real world." I think the main take-away from this is that liberals are susceptible to the same hosed up thought processes as a lot of conservatives. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Mar 27, 2017 |
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 02:25 |
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:npr is a neoliberal shithole that pushed some anti-sanders messaging during the primaries. they only covered sanders from the context of a horse race and not from the context of what policies will benefit americans. theyre currently on the russia hysteria bandwagon. im glad other people call 'em out for what they are because im sick of the insufferable attitude of people who listen to that station as if it's an unbiased or decent news network. I've found that a lot of NPR's coverage of leftists isn't usually explicitly negative (though it sometimes is), but it's almost always covered with this sort of skeptical/incredulous tone. Like the person talking about something a leftist said will have this tone to their voice like "but isn't this dumb and weird?" They also almost always end the segment with the anti-leftist perspective in such cases (though to be fair one of the inevitable problems with presenting two sides to an issue in the news is that you have to give one side the last word, so to speak). I find that NPR is good for covering anything that isn't that important. Like their coverage of random stuff that isn't related to politics, the economy, or foreign policy is pretty good. edit: Oh, I forgot to mention NPR's love affair with natural gas. One of NPR's big sponsors (at least for a while, not sure if they're still a sponsor) was a natural gas industry advocate group, and they would frequently give these extremely positive spots on natural gas/fracking. It got to the point where it became an in-joke of sorts where my friend and I would text each other when NPR did a pro-natural gas spot. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/04/can-brain-science-pull-families-out-of-poverty/523479/ Hahahaha this is pretty much the most liberal thing ever. Liberals get wet to the idea of fixing poverty with ~elegant~ solutions involving science/technology that don't actually require any significant material sacrifice on the part of the wealthy. Their mindset is more or less "I genuinely want to fix poverty, but we should hold off on things like significant tax increases because maybe there's a better more elegant solution!" It's basically a rationalization to paper over what is essentially a selfish fear of losing their current privileged status.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:My wife has a PhD in Cognitive Science and works with another non-profit doing similar programs. The goal is to do more with less, because nobody is funding full scale interventions and the nobody in government really seems interested in doing anything to address economic justice and equality (except Bernie, PBUH). So finding relatively cheap ways to help bridge the gap for low income kids is the best they can do. The researchers aren't sitting on a lever that says FULL COMMUNISM NOW but don't want to pull it because it would inconvenience them. They're trying to find ways to have maximum impact with the resources they have at hand. Simple poo poo like helping parents feel more confident with their kids and encouraging early literacy pays huge dividends and is a relatively cheap program to implement. Oh, I have no problem with the actual researchers doing this work. My issue is more with the way stuff like this is treated seriously as a solution to issues like poverty and enthusiastically discussed by liberal journalists and what have you. Not a Step posted:You wouldn't tell someone with depression from living in poverty that it was actually a social condition and therefore SSRIs and CBT are really just treating a symptom. If the depression was caused by living in poverty, wouldn't it actually be 100% accurate to call that treating a symptom? I mean, it's still definitely better to do that than to do nothing at all, but any solution to mental health issues created by living in poverty that isn't ending the poverty itself is, in fact, treating a symptom. Carmant posted:I think its just scientists doing science you retard. Sorry you cant understand neurons or whatever. As mentioned above, I have nothing against the scientists. I literally work with geneticists who mostly focus on brain stuff (albeit with mice instead of humans). It's the way liberals tend to view science as preferable to government policy with regards to fixing social problems that is bad. edit: I'm going to create a non-profit whose mission is to raise money to allow poor people to see the hit Broadway musical Hamilton. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 19:04
|
|