QUOTE(droop224 @ Dec 11 2017, 02:59 AM)

Let's go! That is, if I am invited to debate.

I think I am what you consider a "bad" liberal. For what its worth I think you are a quite typical conservative. I think you believe in your convictions, your "values" you just turn a blind eye to so much so that your values can feel "good".
But if you'll have me I'd like to debate.
QUOTE
Many leftists complain about Fox News bias and have a half dozen cute names for that network yet they can usually count on CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS just to name major networks comparable to Fox. Conservatives invent names like Clinton News Network and have hypocrisy issues of their own but look at how many networks back the left, they have an advantage in the News Media and are therefore pushing a larger double standard if they can't call those networks out yet make charges of bias against right-wing media. In the following thread, I've debated the media and shared substantiation that it's left-leaning in the opening post and in a few replies, so I'll keep this one short....
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...#entry100035097 See part of the difficulty is fighting through your reasoning process.
You, and many others will take a fact, any fact to prove your narrative. Then you dismiss facts counter to your narrative. But the facts never lead to your narrative. Case and point. The link you provide goes to a discussion where you state that Fox news was losing viewership. This support a narrative that right wing isn't as extreme as left wing makes them out to be. But the truth wasQUOTE
So far this year, Fox News is still first in viewers of all ages for the full day, with its audience up 23 percent, according to Brian Wieser, an analyst at Pivotal Research Group.
Comcast Corp.'s MSNBC, fueled by the growing appeal of commentators Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, has seen its followers more than double. CNN, part of
Time Warner Inc., is up 54 percent.
See Fox is doing just fine. They lost in a certain age bracket for a certain time frame (prime time) for a few weeks, but that was because the dramatic increase in MSNBC viewership, not a lost from fox.
But the truth as a whole didn't fit your narrative, so you picked a fact from that truth(that MSNBC beat out Fox for that small time frame) then misused that fact to support a narrative that isn't so true. Fox isn't really getting beat out by MSNBC and Fox doesn't have to moderate. So see how I just SHOWED you how you do, what you do?? It won't stop you from doing it. Honestly I don't even know if conservatives do this purposefully, or is it this type of processing ideas that leads one to be conservative. I mean maybe its something WE ALL do, but the greater degree we do it the more we would align with Right Wing politics.
My apologies for being longer than I said I'd be, it's hard to judge times around here sometimes with how crazy things are. Before I start with this reply consider that it's longer than most of my replies, I won't be able to expand on each part next time so choose wisely what you want to focus on here. I spent more time to get a little more in-depth for you as well. On the media stuff, I think we're likely to always disagree on this topic so decide how much time you want to spend on that too, there's other stuff that we haven't debated. If this is where you want to focus, please read this before you choose your arguments. This is a rundown of where I think we're at after months of debating, along with some new points.
For openers, there are no shortage of facts that back the idea that the media leans left and if you present something that contradicts that, I'll consider it you're presenting something new which steps it up from before. So far I haven't seen anything groundbreaking on your end but you're always welcome to try. As far as Fox News losing viewers goes, it'd help you if you paid attention to detail and asked questions before jumping to conclusions. For openers, mentioning that Fox News viewership was declining at that time was an afterthought mentioned long after the opening post of the thread I shared. It was far from being the crux of my debate or necessary to substantiate that left-wing media can be "extreme" or biased.
When I shared that link I specifically stated to check the
opening post and a
few replies for substantiation on media bias, not that one particular post. In retrospect, I should have noticed that I was linking the last page of the debate, instead of the first, just in case someone wasn't reading and absorbing what I wrote. However, that's pretty fundamental to debates and had you done that you'd know that the understanding that the media is biased comes with cumulative knowledge where each piece of the puzzle adds evidence. I'm trying not to be too harsh but work with me on being on the same page and I'll try to do the same.
To address your accusations in regards to Fox News, as with several other accusations you've made, my opinion on Fox isn't as simple as you're letting on. I've suggested quite bluntly, in many different ways, that Fox News has an overall bias towards the right, and can be extreme. In fact, sometimes I've done this directly to you, here I called out Tucker Carlson in a debate with you just recently....
QUOTE
If focusing on conservative media helps to drive home the point, let's consider Tucker Carlson on Fox News. You can learn things that are factual but every night on his show he's sharing information and offering opinions on that information which are favorable to conservatives. He's particularly bad, I've seen him invite liberal guests who he knows did or said something wrong, then he baits them and calls them out. When the liberal in question offers a defense he gets agitated and interrupts them. This is my pet peeve, one set of facts and opinions are valued while the opposition is disregarded.
You also said that I'm turning a blind eye to information so that my values can feel good. That makes no sense if I'm doing things like starting a debate that was specifically directed at Bill O'Reilly, where I stated he's likely guilty of the charges against him several times. Forgetting the news, I call out the right on a number of things, both on some of the beliefs held and specific individuals if I feel a criticism is fair. I believe Roy Moore was guilty of the charges against him because I followed that closely. Along with Moore, others have misused the term Fake News to try to get away with something they're doing wrong, as with many other valid concepts that people exploit.
If I'm turning a blind eye for the sake of my values, it seems odd that I've branched out to develop beliefs that aren't conservative and that I'm okay with calling out conservatives when they do something wrong despite them being strong advocates of key values I share (I do
lean right overall). Do you simply expect that type of conformity and denial to be true of conservatives? Is it true of you? Can you show me a topic you've created,
where in the opening post, you called out someone who's on the left politically on something serious? How about that comment I made about Tucker, I agree with him on a good bit but said
"he's particularly bad" and got detailed explaining why I think that is.
So to go further, can you show me an example where you were extremely critical of someone who shares your values? It can't be something minor or a reply to someone else. In other words, if you were prompted or asked what you think about a certain person, that's not quite the same thing as coming out and saying something because
YOU felt it was important enough to mention. If you can show me examples of you doing those two things I'll take your charge that I'm turning a blind eye a little more seriously, I may not agree with the charge you're making but at least it won't sound so much like your spitting out random things which you feel could sound condemning. Even if you show one of those two things it'll sound a little more like you know something about considering difficult information on the beliefs you have or those who share them.
As far as my quote in the other thread, it was based on observations after the departure of Bill O'Reilly. It's true that they suffered in viewership/rating numbers, with other networks jumping ahead which your first link demonstrated...
QUOTE
"The reversal marks a big shakeup in TV news and could alter the fortunes of all three news networks -- Fox, MSNBC and CNN -- if it lasts. Audience ratings drive the subscriber fees and advertising rates that all three outlets charge, and being No. 1 for 15 years has made Fox News the most profitable channel at parent 21st Century Fox Inc. A long exile in third place would matter.
That's when investors will see it,â‚ said Brett Harriss, an analyst at Gabelli & Co. who recommends buying shares of 21st Century Fox. Until then, tâs kind of wait and see."
Fox shares have dropped 4.4 percent this year, compared with a 6 percent gain for the S&P 500 Media Index."
To go deeper, I believe that this is the comment of mine which you found troublesome in the other thread....
QUOTE
"I think some of the conservative viewers are departing. Fox News is in a bit of trouble, perhaps it has some to do with the sexual harassment charges against them too."
You aren't looking at wording when you blow this up into something it isn't. "I
think some of the conservative viewers are departing", is different than saying, (I
know that Fox News viewers are departing
for good and that the network will never recover.) The second part where I say they're in a bit of trouble due to some of the sexual harassment charges, who wouldn't have said that??? Multiple sexual scandals against Fox does not mean the network is doing "just fine" as if there's no problem. At minimum they took a credibility hit because workplace ethics will be on the minds of viewers and critics for some time. You're saying they bounced back some, if they have, thanks for the additional info. I'm usually willing to consider new information if it's not ridiculous or false. I'd still like to see consistent long-term growth, a lot has happened.
I consider a few factors when discussing potential future viewership problems or the potential that Fox News will moderate more. They lost one of the two men who envisioned and
founded Fox News to be the first
conservative major news network to challenge the monopoly that the left had and that's hard to compete with. By the way, the fact that Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch (who isn't getting any younger at 86 years old) even had to do that
and that it worked is a huge piece of the puzzle which points to a media that typically favors the left. Fox News thrives and generally has more viewers because it's true that other major networks lean to the left to various degrees which has created a hole that needs to be filled.
While that isn't insignificant, It'll take more than Fox News losing Ailes for the network to flounder or moderate further, some of which has happened but there are no certainties here. If they have more trouble with falling behind networks like MSNBC, it won't simply depend on what those networks are doing either. I believe you when you say MSNBC is doing better on their end but where Fox News stands depends on a number of factors, including what Fox News is doing. Ailes death was symbolic, and a spirit killer for the staff and some of the viewers. Losing Murdoch will do the same but also open up the potential for someone to take over who isn't as dedicated to the original purpose of Fox News. The Murdoch sons, James and Lachlan, will most likely run Fox News when Rupert goes and they're not near as conservative as their father. In fact, from what I read about James, he has views which strikingly contrast his father's views and this is one of the things which has lead to debate about the potential for Fox News moderating in the future, but I'm sure you knew that, right? There's already been some change within the network.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/business...entury-fox.html QUOTE
"Their father remains very involved, but his sons seem determined to rid the company of its roguish, old-guard internal culture and tilt operations toward the digital future."
"When his sons took over two years ago, however, they immediately set about creating a warmer and fuzzier workplace, at least in parts of the company, and moving away from an anti-politically correct environment"
If Fox moderates further it'll be because they hire more anchors like Chris Wallace, Shepard Smith, Juan Williams, and Megyn Kelly, (who in her case was let go but they seem very willing to hire multiple moderate or liberal Anchors). Those aren't the only voices on Fox which are critical of conservatives and get a lot of airtime either. I'm not saying that makes Fox centrist, balanced, or always fair but it's worth a mention. Something like that in combination with more sexual harassment scandals could certainly contribute to more conservatives changing the channel.
Additionally, they lost their best conservative Anchor for viewership and ratings (best in the industry for those things) and they're now competing with internet based conservative media outlets, both sides are worried about that actually. The News Media as a whole is now competing with a rise in internet based news sources and as far as Fox is concerned some of those online sources lean further to the right politically than they do. There's a lot of information to look at on this topic and reasons not to take the success of Fox News for granted but nobody can say definitively where the network will be years from now. Hopefully, that explains my position some.
QUOTE
Bottom line, I remember those "media" debate in various times with you. Getting you to define "liberal' or "left" was like pulling teeth from you and you never actually did define it. And when I defined it using a dictionary or wikipedia you said something like "well that what liberal may have used to been but it isn't anymore" or something like that. I think I just gave up, because for someone to call something bias to "anything" but not be able to define that "anything" means its just something they made up. Your substantiation was either cherry picked events or statistical events that showed something other than you point. Like, look at the statistics of people that are in media that vote Democratic... see that proves liberal bias. Oh .. and a lot of Prager U. You seem to love prager U.
On defining liberal media bias, we went over that many times, as with several other things you aren't looking at details and oversimplify my responses. You didn't even know I'm a moderate with some liberal beliefs and I've explained that to you several times as well, you say things like "typical conservative". Somehow I think you meant that as a compliment but many things you say have me think you're skimming through my post or baiting me. As I've said I think you make good or fair arguments when you focus so I view those as distractions and an unfortunate loss for you, something which hurts your ability to effectively communicate your message.
As far as the News Media goes, the substantiation for it being left-leaning is far from cherry-picked. If you want substantiation, apart from what I shared with the polls, the surveys, the misleading news stories, the PragerU clips which share more statistics, and the facts on Roger Ailes mentioned above, all you need to do on your end is simply turn on the TV. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow's show comes on during weekdays as well as Morning Joe's show. On CNN Don Lemons show comes on weekdays, as well as Brain Stelter's show. On every one of these shows, they share information which is more favorable to the left than the right and they do it on a daily basis, not occasionally, and that's only a small fraction of shows I could mention.
Mixed in with the fact that so many news shows focus primarily on facts which are sympathetic to the left while ignoring many other things, is the fact that multiple shows like these sometimes focus on or create false information and stories, that happens less frequently but it isn't rare. Recently they've had to retract multiple false or overblown comments, including reporting that Trump had ordered Michael Flynn to make contact with the Russians during the campaign which turned out to be false and an embarrassment for those who reported on it.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-01/a...nn-story?page=1https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/01/a...rvatives-275981The first link has a line graph on what that false story did to the stock market. That lie or "mistake" had an impact in a real and measurable way. Erroneous or misleading news stories can do damage in a number of ways, I debated that in the media thread I did where I suggest the media is having an influence on the divisive and sometimes violent nature of some in the general public.
When the media is caught reporting on a false story, they come back and call those types of things simple mistakes but why do so many of their "mistakes" go in one direction? These days, many, if not all of these major foul-ups from liberal dominate networks just happen to be damaging for Trump or conservatives unless it's a general mistake which hurts neither side. That's a hard one to explain, where are the mistakes on networks like ABC, CNN, and MSNBC which suggest Trump or conservatives did something good? Even in the sources above, there's a hint that there's a pattern here....
QUOTE
"Ross, the ABC News correspondent who broke the faulty report, has had some high profile errors. In 2012 he faced a firestorm of criticism after mistakenly reporting that the shooter responsible for the massacre in Aurora, Colorado, may have had ties to the Tea Party."
The only mistake of his they listed which could be spun as positive for conservatives happened in 2001, (almost 2 decades ago). I think it's fair to ask why so many of the major mistakes being made on left wing networks hurt the right in one way or another.
With everything else I've learned, it's clear to me that this is much deeper than making simple mistakes, there's bias at play here. I don't believe they lie in every circumstance like this but they're so eager to jump on information that hurts the right, they do it before they even know what they're dealing with.
With everything that's come to the surface in regards to Hillary's potential ties to criminal acts, they haven't taken the same leap of faith that they do with Trump, I've heard nothing about major foul-ups they've made which hurt Hillary and that speaks volumes, though your welcome to substantiate that they have made some. They're reluctantly criticising her more in recent months because they don't need her anymore, but where are the bombshell reports which brought new condemning information to light, where they were so eager to report on it that they messed up? If you find anything I'd be willing to bet it happened within the last few months if it's happened at all.
You have to look at the bigger picture when determining whether or not the News Media is biased towards the left, this is one small piece of the puzzle. The very fact that someone like Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch needed to create a conservative network to compete with the monopoly the left had is a larger piece of the puzzle and the polls and surveys add even more, etc etc.
You may suggest again that I blame everything on biased left wing media but that's been a strawman argument. To reiterate from other posts, I believe that criticisms of Trump and conservatives need to be made and that many of them have been understandable. The problem is that too many networks don't mix it up enough and share positive stories for Trump or the right. Much of what they say may be factual, but are they seeking the truth or simply facts that back a negative narrative? There's some good with the bad, but there's no question that the News Media has taken a massive credibility hit and are more prone to backing those on the left. The left includes Modern Liberals, Democrats, Progressives, and many of the subgroups within. The definitions you provided of liberal were more consistent with what is now considered a "classical liberal". The media will back them sooner than they would a conservative but liberalism has strayed away from where it was 30 years ago. Unfortunately, this is the left-wing group which I feel could contribute the most if they were embraced, but a lot has changed on the left.
It appears to me that suggesting the media
doesn't have an overall bias in favor of the left has been one of the hardest positions for some on the left to defend. The best counterargument that I've heard from you which doesn't include dismissing evidence or going after those who are revealing the substantiation, is that the news media functions on what they believe will make them money. The argument is true, which is what makes it a good argument, but it's not the whole truth because partisan politics is another factor in how they function. I think I can explain it like this....
Imagine we're debating the Solar System, I explain to you that the Earth orbits the Sun and show the substantiating evidence and then you counter that by saying (no no, it's Mars that orbits the Sun!) While what you're saying is true, it doesn't negate the fact that Earth also orbits the Sun. Your best argument is coming off as if the medias corporate ties is being used as a scapegoat to explain what's happening with bias in the media. Even if this is only about making money they'd still be corrupt either way but there's so much evidence that partisan politics are at play as well.
For example, Comcast is the worlds largest broadcasting and cable television conglomerate in the world. They have their hands in other things such as being the largest home internet service provider in America as well as being our third largest home telephone service provider. In relation to this debate, Comcast also owns NBCUniversal Media and therefore NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC. The CEO of Comcast is Brian Roberts who's a major donor for the Democrats....
QUOTE
"Comcast CEO Brian Roberts has donated $76,000 to Democrats since 2006, compared to $13,500 in contributions to Republicans."
As you'll read in the link, other top executives and employees have also favored the Democrats so it's clear that overall Comcast has been donating far more to Democrats than Republicans...
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/19835...bama-supportersWhy is this significant? Because in some fashion you were trying to tie the media in with conservatism. To be specific, here's one of the things you said...
QUOTE
"The relevancy bringing up corporations is to show that like everywhere else you have a consolidation of wealth and power. In 1983, 50 media companies, which still isn't a lot, controlled most media. Within 3 decade we are down to 6. Consolidation of power is a right wing thing. That's not a left wing thing. So my point is that while I can quickly admit to journalism and media arts in general have a liberal calling to the individual, they will work for individuals that are corporate minded."
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...23107&st=60 Post #63
You say that yet even the highest ranking executives and CEOs in the News Media appear to be on the left ideologically speaking. You can argue that they often make fiscally conservative decisions (because, when it comes down to it, liberals know those concepts are practical) but it often ends there. They're more prone to supporting left-leaning policies, politicians, and more importantly, they're more prone to hiring other liberals, most of whom report the news in a way that's sympathetic to the left.
The idea that money is the only significant factor that's considered when they hire staff, or when the media reports the news, flat out ignores a number of facts and dismisses much of what we're witnessing. For example, it'd be easy and factual to argue that sometimes the News Media stirs the pot and either helps cause a controversy or focuses on one for ratings, but the fact of the matter is that they can effectively make money by doing that regardless of what side they focus the controversy on. Fox News has gotten by, in part, because they often focus on all of the corruption, lies, and violence that the left has to offer, yet most networks don't take that route, they focus on all of the corruption conservatives have to offer and individual networks have actually made less money than Fox News because they're not branching out enough.
Networks like CNN choose to target the right, for political reasons, same is true for Fox News in regards the left. Money is a factor in many of the decisions the media makes but let's get real here, generally speaking, News Anchors and CEO's are well off, they have money and will continue to make it regardless of what side they focus on, (as long as they make it interesting). Money and the media's corporate ties do not explain why more of the negative coverage from the MSM is directed at the right rather than the left. The political affiliations of media pundits does explain it, (which you've even admitted more of them are liberal than conservative.)
What I'm getting at with this is that I don't see how your arguments have defended your position. Another counter-argument you made which didn't include across the board denial or taking cracks at conservatives, was in regards to the media's alleged focus on facts...
QUOTE
"News by its nature is liberal in my opinion. Journalist who are called to this profession out of a desire to inform the populace are going to be of a liberal psyche. However, I'm sure there are journalists that find themselves of a conservative nature a.) from the start or b.) they become more career orientated, self indulged worried more about paying bills then informing.
That being said... I acknowledge that journalism is a liberal art with more liberals, but it does not favor liberals. When facts are given in its most unfiltered nature it favors us all. Facts are not bias, but opinions are."
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...23107&st=40This argument doesn't hold up as well as the one where you're pointing out the media's obsession with money because the idea that the media is out to reveal facts in the most unfiltered way possible is true far less often. Networks are good at letting on as if they're simply trying to help and work as hard as possible to be fair and honest, like CNN saying they're
"The most trusted name in news", but far too many pundits think the narrative they favor is just as important as the truth or more so. Again, some anchors are worse than others, but it isn't difficult to show examples of numerous things the media is doing which are disingenuous.
Also, when they do give facts, for you to say they're unfiltered is rarely true within liberal or conservative media. Most of the time they present a piece of information along with their
opinion, or bring up the information while mentioning another topic so they can try to connect the two in some fashion. If, for example, they show Trump's approval rating, they may do so after they've mentioned a policy they think is wrong or a comment of his they found to be unfair, then try to connect the action to the poll. That's understandable compared to some of what they do but unfiltered means that you share the information and allow the viewer or reader to decide who that information helps or hurts.
What's happening is that they're mixing up opinion and fact in the same story and often don't specify when they're sharing an opinion, they want their opinion to be as close to that fact as possible but here's the problem. As hinted at before, they're selective with the information they share and if you're a media buff, you darn well know it, especially given you're trying to make that argument on me. Consider looking into confirmation bias in regards to the News Media you're defending, it won't take long for things to become clear.
On something like the media having an overall bias that favors the left, again, it's been
cumulative knowledge which has pointed me in the right direction, I can't emphasize that enough. The numerous polls, surveys, slanted news stories, the medias campaign contributions, data and stories that other members have shared, so much of that points to there being a problem. The recent employee and viewer shakeup at Fox is peanuts by comparison to all of that so it shouldn't be isolated and considered on its own. In contrast, your
best counter-argument
on this topic (which for me was the media's corporate ties and focus on money) doesn't discredit the case for a left-wing biased media or demonstrate the opposite is more common for sure.
I welcome that though, I want you to be able show that you're right when you are. I could show examples to where I've conceded when I was wrong about something, I figure it's better to be shown I've made a mistake than to go around spreading false information but you haven't done that here, much of it has been oriented around spin, distraction, and debating my credibility. You've gotten the same type of credibility questioning in return and there's a lot of material to work with so where does this debate go from here, we've exhausted many sub-topics on media bias? If there isn't a new tone between us or new information that you have, I'm okay to agree to disagree on this one with you because much of this is simply on repeat. To move on to the rest of your reply....
QUOTE
QUOTE
Does anyone know of a situation, in recent history, where an American Christian killed 26 people or more because they held different values or beliefs? I don't, but share this information if you have it, I'm usually willing to refine my beliefs.
Sure Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria. Chris Kyle, best known as American Sniper stated in his book.
"My shots saved several Americans, whose lives were clearly worth more than that woman's twisted soul," he wrote. "I can stand before God with a clear conscience about doing my job. But I truly, deeply hated the evil that woman possessed. I hate it to this day." -
Chris KyleLet me guess, that's different. See that's how you and many other conservatives will process this and many other example of Christian going into foreign countries and killing muslims. The overall truth derived from the abundance of facts is that nations predominately Christians have been invading and killing non-Christians at an exponential rate. But once you get in the mindset of... no no no no no we're not going to count that... or that... or that... or that.... JUST THIS!!! Well then, yes, I guess you can prove your point.
It sounds to me like you wrote that with knowledge that this wasn't an apples to apples comparison. If each situation is vastly different yet the comparison is drawn anyway, are you sure it's conservatives who'd be processing this in a concerning way? Is what Chris Kyle did different than Devin Patrick Kelley? Why don't you tell me?
Were any of the Christians that Devin Patrick Kelly killed in Texas armed with machine guns or hand grenades?
Were any of the Christians Kelly killed part of a terrorist group or closely linked to one?
Did any of the church members who died in Texas have a plot to kill anyone for any reason?
Were any of the victims in Texas currently fighting a war? A literal war, not a spin.
I'm not highly researched on him but know that Chris Kyle suggested that his motive was to save American lives and from what I've read he wasn't dishonorably discharged as some have been for war crimes. He was blunt and often unapologetic but does that make him a criminal who's comparable to someone who opened fire on unarmed civilians in a Church?
QUOTE
QUOTE
In order to make this seem like an epidemic, some have decided to rewrite the rules on what qualifies as a White Supremacist. It's no longer about actual White Supremacists who join a movement. To some if you're a Trump supporter you're a White Supremacist, that's it, that's all it takes in the eyes of some! Trump supporters are lumped together with a group that few people respect and most people, understandably, hate. I didn't vote for Trump and question some of his actions, but here again I have a problem with injustice. Both sides need to be called out for divisive rhetoric and violent actions.
Are you sure its the "left" that's rewriting the rules.
Lately it seems that Whites, especially conservative Whites think they are only White Supremacist if they get caught saying the "N-Word" out loud or they are part of a racist group. How about English only mentality... you think that might stem from a little White Supremacy? How about thinking that keeping or creating monuments to leaders of a confederate who fought to further the enslavement of Blacks, you think that is a form of White Supremacy? You think predominately White nation with armies throughout the world in foreign countries is a form of White supremacy?
Probably not.
Alright here is a question, I'll put it in bold so you know I think its important.
Blacks and Hispanic greatly outnumber Whites in incarceration rates. Why? Is it because a bunch of laws and social conditions created within this nation that targets Blacks and Hispanics... or is it because Blacks and Hispanics have inferior mentalities to Whites and thus resort to crime more?Which flavor of White Supremacy do you want to choose?
The reason why Trump voters are consistently labeled as White Supremacists is because he ran a campaign of White Supremacy. No he didn't come out and say "let's go Nazis". But here is what he did say... "Lets make America Great... again" A call back to the past, to a better time for minorities, wait, not us. Must be some other group. What group you think that is? Middle Class?
If that last question is important to you then don't frame it in a way that makes someone who answers it out to be a White Supremacist. I don't agree with either of those answers, I think it's more complicated than that. I will say that white supremacy isn't about those who say the N-Word, which you believe is how conservatives define it, and it's not about whether or not someone advocates speaking English. A white supremacist is
"a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races." You've speculated on some of what you wrote, particularly when talking about the English language. White supremacy is probably a factor for some who prefer English to be spoken, but you have to
assume that everyone who wants English spoken has no sensible reason for holding that position to say what you did. I'd state first that a lot of people who favor English aren't forcing the issue, at least not from what I've seen. It's common that people believe we should keep the dominant language that we have and that other languages should be allowed. I don't believe it should be English only but I think it's smart to learn English in America given that it's the dominant language here. That could even be explained as a benefit that opens up opportunities for those who move here from a foreign country, success would be easier for them.
It'd also be a greater inconvenience to have English speaking Americans change based on the needs of foreigners than vice vera given so many people already speak English here. I mention that because
not being inconvenienced is where many, who want English spoken only, are coming from. I'm not saying that's good because we should allow others to celebrate their native language if they choose but it's a rational explanation that's an alternative to the white supremacy narrative. White Supremacists are selfish by nature, but people can be selfish and not be a White Supremacist.
Also for those who
do believe others should speak English because whites do, that's not a fair thing to believe but I'd call that person racist (at least on that issue) before I would say it stems from white supremacy, simply because that can't be determined by that issue alone. The word White Supremacist is being used for one reason above any other, the term has history. White Supremacist groups have been associated with violent acts and that's the motivation for using that as a one size fits all term.
People do the same thing when they suggest that our president (or someone else they don't like) is comparable to Hitler. I didn't like it when they did it to Obama, and and I don't like it when they do it to Trump. Arguments like that are made because they're easy, either that or to invoke an emotional response. There may indeed be a similarity or two, but in many of these types of circumstances similar comparisons could have been drawn with those who aren't despised, the underlying reason for going straight to people like Hitler or White Surprimisist, is that millions of people suffered and died. That fact becomes more clear when you watch how some of these blowhards debate on other topics, it's quite often the worst case scenario with no exceptions unless that person agrees with them.
Putting the blowhards aside, I think we all have our own preferred beliefs which we favor and generally try to defend but sometimes things get mixed up or out off track in the process. Personally, I don't quite have things down the way I want either, but I try to give credit where it's due in regards to those who don't share my beliefs. Criticisms are needed in debates but having a consistently negative tone on those who don't think like us can lead to both inaccurate conclusions and do damage to the causes each of us favor if things get out of hand. Suggesting someone is a white supremacist or Hitler has the habit delegitimizing the one making the argument in the eyes of those receiving those labels. Consider that most people don't like debating politics or racial issues enough to do it more than occasionally and part of the reason for that is the fighting and childish behavior.
QUOTE
Lastly, the way you create a narrative you don't seem to see the action that cause the reaction. A group like the Black Panthers does not exist without white Supremacy. BLM doesn't exist with out unarmed Blacks being killed in the street and many Whites feeling these killing were completely justified. My only point is these so called "hate groups" on the left only exist because of White Supremacy and would cease to exist if White Supremacy ceased to exist.
But if working class Whites weren't blinded with White Supremacy then maybe they'd start looking at the facts of what it means to be working class, and then you'd have a real left wing problem. Not some BLM and Antifa.
I will agree that
some of our current situation stems from white supremacy,
which is now a shadow of what it once was, but our current situation (the bad and the good) stems from a lot of things and the ones most responsible for violent or hateful behavior are those who are acting violent or hateful. It comes down to each of us first and foremost, few people are forced to say or do rotten things to others. Slavery didn't start with the African Slave Trade, but the same thing applies to the English and early American settlers, those who were doing something wrong were most responsible for the things which were done in those days.
Nobody forced Barbary Corsairs (from Africa) to enslave over a million white Europeans and do things like underfeed them to the point of starvation, crack them with whips, shackle them, force them to use the bathroom where they were shackled, or use the women as sex slaves. Many cultures have enslaved others and done rotten things and in each case, the responsibility primarily rested on those who make the choice to do something inhumane. There's no doubt been influence or outside contributing factors for each group who's done this kind of thing, or who are doing what left-wing hate groups can get away with these days but there are those who are pushing narratives that much of their bad behavior is due to what others are doing, it's another reason people don't debate politics or racial matters and it's a mindset that generally hurts those who cant be self-critical or critical of those with similar beliefs and appearance.
http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-pla...-barbary-002171Questions for Debate
QUOTE
1. Do you believe the left has an issue with hypocrisy and projection, if so can you give an example of either?
I think hypocrisy is a part of humanity. I've never met a human that wasn't a hypocrite on some level. I think politically the left and the values of the left aren't too hypocritical.
Agreed, most people have it on some level, some are more hypocritical than others though, people like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump often don't even try in that department. Both of them lie, treat some groups better than others, and have been prone to preaching things they don't practice.
QUOTE
2. Hypocrisy is an argument that the right makes often but do you believe that Conservatives have this problem to the same degree? (give examples if you wish)
LMAO!! Can the cherry picking and lets look at the political picture for a second. Lets talk right wing politics and projection. I'm not talking about politicians the constituents and consumers of right wing ideology.
The right wing is the party of Jesus and the party of war mongers
The right wing is the party of "pro Life" and "pro death penalty"
The right wing rails against a corrupt government while adoring the military and police who are the enforcement of said corrupt government.
The right wing consistently, CONSISTENTLY, call offensive acts of violence and intimidation self defense. You go to war for 15 years in a foreign land, its self defense. You chase a child behind apartment and he starts whooping you tail and then you get to kill the kid in self-defense. You could drop a NUKE, in fact I've debated members on this board that pretty much argued that dropping a Nuke was a necessary act of self defense. I mean, you don't think its weird that you think its OK to invade all these other nations and think its wrong for people to invade ours?
Republican rail against welfare and 16 out of 20 of the biggest welfare recipients are conservative dominated red states.
You yell "Freedom" but I've never see conservative fight for anything but domination and incarceration. You want to kill these people, lock those people up, take away those people rights.
You call yourselves constitutionalist... but other than the 13th and 2nd what amendment does the right truly defend?
I'd say, politically speaking nothing rises to the level of hypocrisy and projection of the Right. But as I said, as individuals I haven't met a human that isn't a hypocrite. Not you, not me.
Some of those examples are fair, though they could be expanded on because there's more to it. I'm not religious in large part due to hypocrisy, though they're not alone in that for sure. I think I was more turned away by the inconsistencies between each religion and that some of the ideas clash heavily with science. Having said that so do some of the stances taken on something like transgenderism. In many ways, I'm less concerned about religion than I used to be, I now see that there are good aspects to it as well, religion helps a lot of people and things like abortion clinic bombings are way down, I can't remember the last time I heard about one happening in the U.S. Many of the judmental aspects to religion are likely not to change but it's a mixed bag and it's obvious that many who are religious are being discriminated against, attacked, and feel marginalized so I have to consider that as well.
To determine who's more hypocritical between the left and right would be no easy task because we'd both be able to show multiple examples of hypocritical behavior. A safe assumption is that both sides have the same problem and personally I'd leave it there if it weren't for one thing. As mentioned in the opening post, I believe that the left is more vocal and therefore hypocritical statements appear more frequently coming from them. To try to be fair, It's hard to say whether or not that means they're more hypocritical. If conservatives had the numbers that leftist do in the News Media, College Campuses, Hollywood, and if the rights protesting movements were as massive as what's seen on the left, then we could be looking at a very different picture.
Sure the religious right and churches push some double standards but they no longer reach the same amount of people as a number of other institutions do and religion has become less central to the lives of Americans. In short, it's a complicated situation and I couldn't say for sure who's more hypocritical, I can only say that the left appears to be more intrusive with the hypocrisy and double standards they're pushing so we differ here.
QUOTE
3. Can you name some things which would help both sides to come together?
Sure. Tell me what Conservative values are. Imagine you are a parent of not one but two children. Tell me the values that you would teach your children that you as a conservative project out in you domestic and global policies.
I'd want to emphasize freedom of choice and allow my child to see a range of opinions. For example, when I explain a belief that I have (that's political in nature) I'd explain why it's worked for me but add that there are different ways to tackle the same problem. In my eyes many of these types of topics would get brought up in the teen years, kids should have fun being kids before worrying about most of these issues. I'd educate a child on something like the importance of being responsible with money when they're younger if you want to call that a fiscally conservative belief.
To wrap this up, I got to a lot of your reply here but keep in mind that I may not have time to expand on each part of it due to the time constraints I face here. If you really want to go over the term "liberal media bias" again, we can but pick the parts that are most important to you if you want those covered, I'll probably have to shorten my next reply somewhat.
Gray SealQUOTE
1. Do you believe the left has an issue with hypocrisy and projection, if so can you give an example of either?
There are no principles. How can you be hypocrite if you have no principles to begin with? Phrases which sound like they may be principles are meaningless when there is no consistency. I would not give the benefit of the doubt and call contradictory ideas and actions hypocrisy. It is simply bull. We have stateism, progressivism, and unprincipled control for the benefit of government and groups which ride their coattails.
2. Hypocrisy is an argument that the right makes often but do you believe that Conservatives have
this problem to the same degree? (give examples if you wish)
The bull is bipartisan.
3. Can you name some things which would help both sides to come together?
They are together. Quibbling over details keeps the masses engaged and clueless.
4. Do you have hope that we will heal some of this division or is our future grim?
It will come to an end. Hopefully, people will realize government can have a different purpose than authoritarian control. Freedom should be the focal point of our culture. To not realize this is to keep having empire governments which rise and fall.
If you're still around, after that long break, I just had a couple things to add. I'm fairly moderate on how much control I believe the government should have but at minimum, the idea that government has been too large with too much control for some time is definitely an agreement between us. Your largest concern seems to have been the size of government, I tend to be most concerned with sociological developments, though the two are linked in some respects.
QUOTE
"There are no principles. How can you be hypocrite if you have no principles to begin with? Phrases which sound like they may be principles are meaningless when there is no consistency. I would not give the benefit of the doubt and call contradictory ideas and actions hypocrisy. It is simply bull. We have stateism, progressivism, and unprincipled control for the benefit of government and groups which ride their coattails."
Though I have a hard time believing that there aren't those on the left who have principals they believe in, in many respects things have gotten worse for them, particularly in the last couple of decades. Much of that has to do with how some of them fight for the principals they have and the issues have certainly changed in many areas as well. Men like John F. Kennedy would be a conservative on several issues by today's standards. When he said things like
"Ask not what your country can do for youâ€â€ask what you can do for your country" that struck an entirely different tone that resembles something a conservative would say today. These days, leftist aren't fighting for principals like that nearly as often so some of the issues have flipped between the left and the right. I've tried to explain that liberal no longer means what it used to, I think that's what it boils down to in many circumstances.
I do believe there's a segment of people who fit your description as well which is what this thread touches on, though some of that change has happened on the right as well, which you've hinted at. People who care less about the argument they're making and more about winning the argument. I've often wondered what Hillary Clinton believes in, she's in that group where she's changed tone a lot and got caught lying enough for a substantial chunk of the public to question how genuine she really is. Chuck Schumer is probably my least favorite politician, everything conservatives do seems to be the end of the world in his eyes but how much of that can be serious when half the time he's fighting against things the left has done in excess? He acts as if he's worried about the national debt for goodess' sake.
The left makes a similar argument of hypocrisy in regards to conservatives who are worried about the debt yet have spent enough money to increase it, or who have chosen to put in place a new regulation. While I think it's an okay argument, I think there's an important difference that should be considered. At minimum conservatives spend and regulate less than someone like Obama, the fact that conservatives are showing hypocrisy on this issue may be true but they adhere to small government principals more than the left does for sure so there isn't an exact equivalency between the two arguments.
False equivalencies is something I keep an eye out for because when someone is doing something wrong, often they're going to want to portray others in the same light and that comes full circle back the issue of projection. Not enough people are taking responsibility for their actions, it seems particularly true in the case of our government and the media, (people with power or influence). The worst part about that is that it's filtering down to the public in some circumstances, it's contagious behavior that's doing a lot of damage.