First off this is going to be somewhat of a rant and I am pretty socially liberal so I have a dim view of Fox News. I have watched and enjoyed Mr. Rogers during my childhood and even met him once during a religious conference in 1998. Now that full disclosure of my bias has been made, here we go...
I was just checking facebook and noticed that Malfred commented on one of his friends video links. I'll repost the video here:
While this is the sort of thing I expect from Fox News, I am pretty flabbergasted they would go to such lows as to blame Fred Rogers of all people for the sense of self entitlement americans are known for. Thats pretty base, even for them.
I know I am not the only child who grew up with less than positive parental influence. Honestly (and sadly) watching Mr. Rogers (along with other PBS shows) was one of the only ways I could get a positive influence during my childhood. He made childhood worth having. A gentle soul who never judged. He nurtured creativity and originality. To simply be you.
Yeah, I am pretty a cynical person, but I have to defend Mr. Rogers as one of the better influences in my life. He cant do it himself and even if he were alive I doubt he would lend enough credence to Fox News long enough to do so. The guy was a saint.
He was on Candid Camera once. They tried to annoy him to no end and he just wouldn't rise to the prank. Once it was revealed that he was being pranked by Candid Camera, he told Candid Camera that they could use the footage so long as part of the proceeds go to a local group that gave blankets to impoverished children.
Yes, what a foul and devious plot of evil that was. Putting the concerns of children first, who the hell does he think he is by practicing what he preaches?
And now according to Fox News, he and other similar programming such as sesame street are responsible for the decay of the american ethic to excel.
Pray tell, what are kids supposed to do? Start working the factories when they are 2 years old just because they are old enough to walk? Life is hard enough later on in life without some form of nurturing development. You can push a child to excel while still nurturing them. Perhaps if more parents took a stronger role in teaching their own children then their own self entitled drive to blame other for their own shortcoming wouldn't be so strong? I am a believer in behavioral psych and all things Skinner, and placing the blame on him is simply facile.
You may as well blame Cat Stevens for making his song "If you want to sing out, sing out" for mediocrity while they are at it.
However, I do agree that there is a large amount of damage to the american psyche. The self entitlement rampant in america celebrating mediocrity is astounding, even today. Though as a person who grew up in the 70's and 80's I think the blame is more squarely pegged on Public Education during that time by assuming that there aren't different needs for children. Pushing kids to excel is one thing that really was never prevalent in my experience in the majority of my classes throughout school. Only rarely were teachers capable of meeting the needs of their classes. I don't blame the teachers, I blame the entire education system for celebrating its own mediocrity instead of promoting excellence in their choice of teachers and the curriculums they taught. Hard to get great teachers who care when the whole education system is underfunded and the parents largely don't care enough to contribute. It really does take a village to raise a child.
Again, Fox News has shown severe displacement for placing blame for a problem so long as it suits their own Murdochian enforced political agenda.
Unsurprisingly, a lot of things that Fox News televises makes me irked, but this just drives me to furious anger.
I don't know where you grew up, but I fondly remembering that one ironclad rule of the playground jungle was that anybody who was found to be a fan of Mister Rogers was just begging for an atomic wedgie and a stiff kicking. Now THAT was a satisfying, empowering and self-esteem building exercise.
warpcrafter wrote:I don't know where you grew up, but I fondly remembering that one ironclad rule of the playground jungle was that anybody who was found to be a fan of Mister Rogers was just begging for an atomic wedgie and a stiff kicking. Now THAT was a satisfying, empowering and self-esteem building exercise.
Whats even better is years later when that same kid who was a bully is on the side of the road with a sign and asking if you have a buck as you drive by in your nice car.
Now THAT is a satisfying, empowering and self-esteem building experience.
warpcrafter wrote:I don't know where you grew up, but I fondly remembering that one ironclad rule of the playground jungle was that anybody who was found to be a fan of Mister Rogers was just begging for an atomic wedgie and a stiff kicking. Now THAT was a satisfying, empowering and self-esteem building exercise.
Whats even better is years later when that same kid who was a bully is on the side of the road with a sign and asking if you have a buck as you drive by in your nice car.
Now THAT is a satisfying, empowering and self-esteem building experience.
It sure is. Occasionally I read about the exploits of my former school alumni in the arrest log in the newspaper. Makes me feel good inside.
Do I sense a little repressed nerd rage? C'mon, admit it, those are the same guys now who sit in their cubicles just hoping for their coworkers to screw up so they can run to their boss and snitch on them. THAT's the sort of 'self-esteem' that Mister Rogers gave to the world.
That newsreel is so comically ironic I wondered if it was scripted. Especially when they started guffawing and laughing about the study on "gossip"... Don't these people have anything else to do? Do you wonder, like I do, if they cry themselves to sleep as soon as they get home from work??
I am a child of the 70s too. Grew up in the 80. I had to WROK for an A, and often, in subjective subjects (yeah that sounds wierd) like writing, I felt dissed by the edumacationing system because my teacher was dumber than me.
I could read when I was two, I could do algebra when I was 4, programmed my first video game (not a very good one, but...) when I was 5.
What did I watch as a kid? Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street. Almost exclusively.
The difference between my generation and the one immediately below mine (I'm 35 now) is that they grew up with cellphones, twitters, and INTERNET... all of which can be exploited for their little high school egos... "OOHH LOOK AT ME AND MY FRIENDS AT THE MALL! WE JUST PUBLISHED IT ON YOUTUBE SO EVERYONE KNOWS HOW COOL WE ARE!"
Every kid nowadays seems to think they are special. It isn't Fred's fault it got so twisted, he was just trying to let kids know they can be good kids and do their best. Instead, the nihilism of South Park and Futurama and all that cartoon stuff, while funny for a grown up who has already grown up enough to get the irony, is far more hurtful to society than Fred was. Parents used to make their kids go to bed, or not allow them to play violent video games, or help them with their homework.
Now, it's just children raised by children raised by children. College kids can brag about having a 4.0 GPA in their freshman year in college because they took COOKING and ANIME classes for chrissake... When I went I had to struggle and study and still end up with a 2.5
Was I dumb? Hell no. Was I held to a higher standard... well 15 years ago, yeah I was damn well held to a higher standard, and Mr. Rogers and Sesame street are a part of that. So when your boss is younger than you, dumber than you, and obviously more qualified than you because of dumber edumactiarrific standards that gave them the position, now you know why!
warpcrafter wrote:Do I sense a little repressed nerd rage? C'mon, admit it, those are the same guys now who sit in their cubicles just hoping for their coworkers to screw up so they can run to their boss and snitch on them. THAT's the sort of 'self-esteem' that Mister Rogers gave to the world.
Wow. I thought that I was cynical.
I think you should get a job working for Fox News. Blanket statements such as that fit right in there. You wont have to bum money off of me anymore if you get a job there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:That newsreel is so comically ironic I wondered if it was scripted. Especially when they started guffawing and laughing about the study on "gossip"... Don't these people have anything else to do? Do you wonder, like I do, if they cry themselves to sleep as soon as they get home from work??
You would have toi have a conscience in order for that to happen. More likely they are blissfully ignorant (ignorance is my shield! Lalalala cant hear you over the sound of how awesome I am) in their juicy set up as newscasters for the sloping brows of the inbred in america.
What I don't get is where Mr. Rodgers and his puppet show taught people to be narcissistic. Having compassion for yourself is not a negative thing, neither is managing your emotions.
Mr. Rodgers taught really, really basic stuff that has lost a bit of traction in the modern world. I am not saying that anything was better then, just that the way Mr. Rodgers message was delivered has lost the impact it once had. I am not entirely sure how effective honesty is, when things have gotten so much more complicated in general.
Wiki wrote:At its peak, in 1985, 8 percent of U.S households tuned in to the show.
Now that is something isn't it.
Moving on though. Bill Nye, did he teach us to break things?
Wrexasaur wrote:Mr. Rodgers taught really, really basic stuff that has lost a bit of traction in the modern world. I am not saying that anything was better then, just that the way Mr. Rodgers message was delivered has lost the impact it once had. I am not entirely sure how effective honesty is, when things have gotten so much more complicated in general.
I think it's sometimes hard to see how Fred Rogers' message and lesson -- be a decent fething human being -- matters in today's world. But it does. And Fred Rogers will win in the end.
Just look at Fox News. That bastion of morality and family values chose to point a finger at a *minister* and someone responsible for countless hours of non-violent children's television for society's ills. Real conservatives should be celebrating a good man like Fred Rogers. Instead they point fingers at him while promoting galactic-level a$$holes like Glenn Beck on their network.
The day Fred Rogers died, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette put a guestbook up on their site for fans to give their condolences, say what Fred Rogers meant to them, etc. I believe the guestbook was over 100 pages long before lunchtime.
There will be no such outpouring of emotion for Glenn Beck upon his death. Glenn Beck will have achieved nothing and touched no one. There will be no statues of Glenn Beck in public places. His life will have served as no positive message.
I don't know, the wife of a rival DJ that Beck called and mocked about her miscarriage probably still feel's 'touched.'
This is anecdotal and I don't have the time to find the source, but when someone tried to get Rogers to weigh in on homosexuality as a minister, his response was, 'God loves you just the way you are." He's really one of the few people I have ever seen who has was so consistently _good_ in thought and action throughout his public and private life. Probably why the myth that he was a deadly sniper in Vietnam is so popular.
warpcrafter wrote:I don't know where you grew up, but I fondly remembering that one ironclad rule of the playground jungle was that anybody who was found to be a fan of Mister Rogers was just begging for an atomic wedgie and a stiff kicking. Now THAT was a satisfying, empowering and self-esteem building exercise.
The funniest part about stories like these is how 'in the closet' you know the bullies are. Because if they're kicking the guy who watches the wrong show (or happens to be wearing green, and everyone knows green is the lame color, or at least it is that Thursday) then surely no one will ever suspect that as soon as they get home, the first thing they do is turn on PBS and sing along with what a beautiful day it is.
Well, after all, Bert and Ernie were responsible for the gays all coming out in the 90s too... Beavis and Butthead are responsible for the psychotic little arsonist burning his parents house down... and Judas Priest made your depressed son blow half his face off. There's always a culprit to help people with their denial.
NO
your kids are dumb because you don't teach them and use video games as a baby sitter
your kid burned the house down because he's a fething idiot trying to experiment and you werent paying attention
your kid blew his face off to Judas Priest because you were controling religious freaks and had him hopped up on anti-depressants (yeah that worked!)...
who can we blame now? oh yeah, it must be Mr. Rogers fault.
Sorry lousy parents, but you are running low on scapegoats.
Nurglitch wrote:Wait, there's a myth that Fred Rogers was a deadly sniper in Vietnam?
As ironic as it would be for the calm and collected Mr. Rogers to be a cold hearted sniper with thousands of kills marked into the stock of his 50. cal, the myth has only a marginal rumor rating due to its incredulous nature.
The folks over at Fox love making things up and blowing things out of proportion to push up ratings. Honestly, if they'd change their status from News to Comedy, they'd probably have the best television network around
Then it would be the Daily Show, just republican sided... oh wait... That would be The Colbert Report... I'm pretty sure that guy is serious. Its not an act. Nobody can love America as much as that guy...
Guitardian wrote:Then it would be the Daily Show, just republican sided... oh wait... That would be The Colbert Report... I'm pretty sure that guy is serious. Its not an act. Nobody can love America as much as that guy...
Ironically, if you've been watching them lately, it seems like Steven and John have switched roles John's been making lots of Democrat jokes and Steven has been going pro Obama on us.
I tried to watch that stupid "news" clip. It's ridiculous. I'd say it's definitely a correlation vs causation sort of thing. The kids they are talking about have grown up in an entirely different environment in the 90's where there was a lot more disposable income and less parent involvement that lead to spoiled kids. Also, the complete lack of parenting due to the increasing rate of families who have both parents working instead of paying attention to their children is a pretty important factor. Why teach your kids how to be responsible when you can give them an xbox? I highly doubt that Mr. Rogers telling them that everyone has something to offer is the real cause behind all this.
Also, why the hell are they talking about Asian kids who didn't watch Mr. Rogers and actually believe that is the reason that they work harder? That's ridiculous. They know nothing of the pressure that kids in those countries are put under to succeed which has also led to some of the highest suicide rates in the world.
dogma wrote:A 30-something Fox reporter claimed that he is a part of a hard working generation? Wow.
Hey I'm a thirty something too and you better believe I'm hard working... I have to work just to GET work, like many in my generation. I have to pay the baby boomers rent and medicare and ssi checks while they play golf... I have to pay my landlord who just owns stuff for a living, who is part of the previous generation and owns 4 properties because they were cheap enough to buy back in his time. The 90s were hard on me I wasn't spoiled at all I had to work through college, work for donkey-cave bosses since I was 16. Don't call us lazy just because we're Gen Xers raised on Mr. Rogers.
regarding the daily show vs/ally Colbert thing... I believe you are correct sir.
sorry for the rant but we 30 somethings were the LAST generation who didn't just have everything handed to us from computers to cellphones to video games to straight A's.
Mr. Rogers coming on T.V and boosting a kids self esteem a bit,isn't the problem.
Let's face it children (then and now) are bombarded by all sorts of messages via the media,some good,some crap.
It's the parents job to guide the child,to help the child to understand the difference between entertainment and the real world,and hopefully,to prepare that child to become a somewhat well adjusted THINKING individual.
Is there an overabundance of lazy,self absorbed,little nit wits running amok who seem to think the world owes them something...yep,there is.
Is it Fred Rodgers fault...no.
Is it the lazy,self absorbed,little nit wits parents fault..BINGO.
That's something that I really have trouble with. The way we try to avoid criticising parents.
Because usually, if somethings up with your kid, you've got something to do with it.
Da Boss wrote:That's something that I really have trouble with. The way we try to avoid criticising parents.
Because usually, if somethings up with your kid, you've got something to do with it.
Amen!
It is truly amazing the amount of parents who just will NOT take responsibility for their children's actions.
As Guitardian stated before,if little Johnny burns the house down,at some level..it's his parents fault...not Marilyn Manson's,not the Power Rangers and not Fred Rodgers.
Da Boss wrote:It absolutely boggles my mind that Fox is as successful as it is. It makes me think ungenerous thoughts about the viewing public in the US.
To be fair, my experience tells me that a lot of the viewership is constituted by liberals looking to be angered, and conservatives looking for catharsis. I've only met a couple people that legitimately get taken in by the nonsense, and they weren't the sort that I credited with an abundance of mental fortitude.
Mr. Rogers aired during the childhood of a certain generation of Americans, therefore he is completely and totally responsible for their faults. A shining example of Fox News' logic.
Da Boss wrote:It absolutely boggles my mind that Fox is as successful as it is. It makes me think ungenerous thoughts about the viewing public in the US.
To be fair, my experience tells me that a lot of the viewership is constituted by liberals looking to be angered, and conservatives looking for catharsis. I've only met a couple people that legitimately get taken in by the nonsense, and they weren't the sort that I credited with an abundance of mental fortitude.
That's good to know. I'm still confused as to why people would watch a news channel they know is rubbish, but I'm probably abnormal since I don't watch any television at all (barring shows I buy on DVD and Dr Who that I stream through BBC Iplayer).
Fitzz: Recently, my sister's kid started acting out in school, and I was really proud of how she dealt with it. I would have thought she'd be the sort that gets defensive, but she took it constructively and set about fixing the problem. I know that most of her friends would have blamed the teacher or dismissed it as "not a big deal". My Da was always hard on me growing up, and at times that meant I intensely disliked him, but in the end it was better for me. Some of the kids I teach, you can really see they're not getting those boundaries laid down for them- it's almost a form of neglect. But it could be several generations of that attitude, so do you blame the parents of the parents?
Heh. I just wish it was acceptable for me to give them a bollocking when their kid is cheeky to me.
I also get what you mean concerning your Father,my Grandmother (who raised me) was an "old school" disciplinarian,who would kick my butt at the drop of a hat,but,she would also take the time to explain to me the consequences of my actions,what was expected from me as well as encourage my endeavors (well most of them).
I do honestly feel for kids who don't seem to have anyone to really guide them,or parents who just won't,and unfortunately,it seems to be a growing problem.
Many times when I'm out with my son,we'll see a group of kids that are absolutely on a rampage,often their parents are no where to be found,or worse,they're socializing,on a cell phone,just not giving a gak...my son will ask me if anyone is going to tell the children what they are doing is wrong...most of the time I have to tell him no.
That is strange, as a kid, isn't it. When we asked why other kids didn't have such strict rules, my mam would say "Their name isn't Kennedy!"
Heh. No wonder we never integrated properly with the rest of the village.
Bloody right too, that place was ass backwards.
Da Boss wrote:That is strange, as a kid, isn't it. When we asked why other kids didn't have such strict rules, my mam would say "Their name isn't Kennedy!"
Heh. No wonder we never integrated properly with the rest of the village.
Bloody right too, that place was ass backwards.
Yes,I basically tell my kids the same sort of thing, when they ask me" why so and so can do such and such but they can't?",my answer is " Because they are not my kids."
I do however attempt to couple discipline with understanding (not always easy),and I also let my kids know they can always come to me about anything (and I mean anything),hopefully,when the eventual "rebelion" comes about,It won't be to bad.
dogma wrote:A 30-something Fox reporter claimed that he is a part of a hard working generation? Wow.
Hey I'm a thirty something too and you better believe I'm hard working... I have to work just to GET work, like many in my generation. I have to pay the baby boomers rent and medicare and ssi checks while they play golf... I have to pay my landlord who just owns stuff for a living, who is part of the previous generation and owns 4 properties because they were cheap enough to buy back in his time. The 90s were hard on me I wasn't spoiled at all I had to work through college, work for donkey-cave bosses since I was 16. Don't call us lazy just because we're Gen Xers raised on Mr. Rogers.
regarding the daily show vs/ally Colbert thing... I believe you are correct sir.
sorry for the rant but we 30 somethings were the LAST generation who didn't just have everything handed to us from computers to cellphones to video games to straight A's.
Bah, at least you could find jobs, I've spent my entire working life living in a recession (my home state, Michigan, was bad long before the rest of the nation).
I wouldn't exactly call Fox N Friends a news show. It's like GMA or the View, they have guests and riff about whats happening. It's not objective journalism, trying to lambast an entire channel as such is lazy itself. That would be me saying that Keith Olbermann is the only journalistic show on MSNBC (when his show is blatantly an opinion show)
I can see thew angle the hosts were making though, the generation I'm (regrettably) a part of is spoiled, self centered, lazy, complacent and has a total lack of initiative. The kids shows lie about how everyone is tolerant of everything, you'll be accepted for being different. I would rather a show like that be completely honest with me than lie about how everything is okay.
Kids in little league sports are taught that losing is OKAY. Losing isn't necessarily a bad thing, thinking that mediocrity is okay is not. Every kid shouldn't get a trophy for participating.
I can't remember the source, but a little league in the Northeast somewhere made it a rule that if a team wins a Baseball game by 10 runs they actually lose the game to save the other kids feelings.
"The greatest drug is reality" Most of my Fellow "gimme generation" won't know what reality is until they get pounded upside the head by it and they have a nervous breakdown resultant from such.
dogma wrote:Mediocrity is acceptable by definition.
I tend to judge things down to the Individual level. I can't stand mediocrity. I want to be the best at everything, I might keep failing but I wont stop.
No, dogma... If you aren't good at something, do something you are good at doing, and feel happy that you too can contribute. Everybody is good at something.... at the risk of sounding like Ayn Rand, If you can make a damn good burger... then the world is a better place when you make people burgers. If you can build a huge damn or design a suspension bridge then you should do that too. I'll make the burgers for your lunch break.
Monster Rain wrote:The new dominos is pretty fething good. Just saying.?
It's better than the cardboard they used to sell
If you can make a damn good burger... then the world is a better place when you make people burgers.
Good burgers make me a happy Hat
Unfortunately the lowly burger flipper never gets proper appreciation. I'd know. I flipped burgers for my first job at 16. 120 degree North Carolina weather, no air conditioning, standing in front of the grill, and I got no respect for trying to keep the place neat and tidy
I just read his bio on wikipedia. I always thought the gak about him being a sniper in Korea was true. Anyway, he sounds like a Rosicrucian or something when you read about his lifestyle.
As for "the news", Fox or otherwise, do people still watch it and believe it? I gave up after OJ.
I get my news from flipping between channels. When its a press conference or a breaking catastrophy I stay. The moment it becomes a democrats versus republicans spat or some story about a little old lady who found her lost dog its time to flip, or who bradgelina adopted or who lady gaga sold the rights to or whatever, what actualy killed michael jackson... time to flip. If none of them have real news I'll turn to Jon Stewart for the real news. Pathetic of me and comical I suppose, but a hell of a lot more respectable than the gak we usually get shoveled.
Stormrider wrote:I wouldn't exactly call Fox N Friends a news show. It's like GMA or the View, they have guests and riff about whats happening. It's not objective journalism, trying to lambast an entire channel as such is lazy itself. That would be me saying that Keith Olbermann is the only journalistic show on MSNBC (when his show is blatantly an opinion show)
I think it would be entirely reasonable to say that both FOX and MSNBC produce little useful news content.
Kids in little league sports are taught that losing is OKAY. Losing isn't necessarily a bad thing, thinking that mediocrity is okay is not. Every kid shouldn't get a trophy for participating.
When a kid is 9 or 10 a few extra months development can make a huge difference in how good they are at a sport. While that development difference fades over time the encouragement and confidence they gained doesn't - as a result kids born in the first two or three months of a sport's age bracket are vastly over-represented at the elite level.
When a kid is 10 getting out and playing really is enough. Once you get into u-13s or thereabout you should start recognising performance, but before then it's not needed.
"The greatest drug is reality" Most of my Fellow "gimme generation" won't know what reality is until they get pounded upside the head by it and they have a nervous breakdown resultant from such.
Yeah, this is a thread on board for nerds to talk about miniatures, complaining about how kids these days can't handle reality.
"What continues in me is the knowledge that each one of us can be used in perfectly wonderful ways and it doesn't necessarily have to do with what the world would call great talents."
Mr. Rogers said this in his Archive of American Television interview but it would fit perfectly into Paul's letters or Augustine's Confessions. He had been asked whether his family was very religious and, in the course of answering that question affirmatively, he mentioned his friendship with Henri Nouwen and Fr. Nouwen's work with the disabled as a member of L'Arche. Mr. Rogers, who swam every morning, proceeded to tell a story about a disabled man named Jeff who worked at his local pool. At the time of the interview, John F. Kennedy, Jr., had recently died and Jeff was very invested in the news coverage. Mr. Rogers asked him why. "He said 'Well, I grew up with them. I was nine years old when his daddy died.' So I said to him 'How old were you when your dad died?' 'Eleven.' So, I think that what I want to say about all of that is that television is an exceedingly personal medium. It reflects the story back to us . . . whatever we happen to be watching, we bring our own story to the screen. And so consequently, it's like a dialog." Against the backdrop of breakneck technological development and all the ethical and moral questions such development raises, Mr. Rogers's work reaffirms the importance of compassion, humility, and solidarity--especially as facets of human communication. It is hardly a surprise that Mr. Rogers and Fr. Nouwen were great friends.
In reference to the effect of his work, specifically with regard to communications from viewers, Mr. Rogers said "that's not anything you can do yourself." Mr. Rogers told the interviewer of an e-mail he had recently received. It was from a lady who had very nearly committed suicide while driving fourteen years earlier. She was so depressed at the time that she did not even remember that her sixteen-month-old child was in the backseat. Just as she was about to swerve into an oncoming truck, she heard her child's tiny voice begin to sing 'it's a beautiful day in the neighborhood . . ." She was writing to thank Mr. Rogers. Hearing her child sing that song made her not only reconsider but also get the psychological help she needed. "The Holy Spririt informs and sends out our simple messages," Mr. Rogers told the interviewer.
I am pretty flabbergasted they would go to such lows as to blame Fred Rogers of all people for the sense of self entitlement americans are known for.
Meh, it's really just a sensationalist spin on a study that was released. They're trying to throw something in to add interest to their story. As you can see, they're laughing at the idea that he's an "evil genius," so basically they're trying to get people stirred up, but they're not comfortable enough with the riff to really stand behind it.
This is a chat show, not a reporting show. I mean, did you get upset when Rosie O'Donnell spewed idiocy about 9-11 on The View?
I am a believer in behavioral psych and all things Skinner, and placing the blame on him is simply facile.
And, again, I think they know that at Fox news. They're just trying to be silly/controversial.
They're also talking about a real study that was done, that made the claim he was responsible. I think it's laughable, but the study was done.
However, I do agree that there is a large amount of damage to the american psyche. The self entitlement rampant in america celebrating mediocrity is astounding, even today.
I agree. I also think the foundation for this was laid during the time that Mr. Rogers was on TV. That's not to say he's to blame, just that it was happening at that point in time. I think he's really just a manifestation of that time, not the cause of it. The US was going through an indocrination of self entitlement, and he's just what it looks like when a kind, friendly man has a TV show during such a moment in history.
This is not really a problem, we just have to correct it as we go along. Things like this tend to pendulum, because a culture the size of the US is large, and has a lot of inertia. People look at the nation, they say "people need better self-image" so they start pushing that direction, with no real idea how much impact they're having. Once it gets going, it tends to keep going. Then you end up with the ridiculous narcissim of today. It'll correct back, eventually.
In any case, as always, I feel my role in Fox News Bashing threads is to point out that, while it sucks, that's how news is done today. Fox News is no better or worse than MSNBC. It's just the conservative version of "idiot TV news."
Perhaps if the liberals running all the major media outlets allowed conservatives to have more than one channel, they could have one that DIDN'T cater to the lowest common denominator.
You make some good points Phryxis but I think what is most interesting about this is that Mr. Rogers promoted traditional values. In fact, for the millions of conservative Christians that watch Fox News, those values are easily recognizable as being from the Gospel. If Fox News really is a litmus test for American conservatism then this report shows that it suffers from a deep contradiction. But I suppose that's not news, either.
Phryxis wrote:This is a chat show, not a reporting show. I mean, did you get upset when Rosie O'Donnell spewed idiocy about 9-11 on The View?
Yes. Do you think we shouldn't?
"It's a chat show" does not grant an exemption from thought and reason.
Fox News is no better or worse than MSNBC. It's just the conservative version of "idiot TV news."
MSNBC and FOX News are both crap. In many ways CNN is worse than both of them. It's not an excuse for any of them that their competition are as bad as they are.
The issue with FOX News is beyond it's quality, though, and beyond simply being rightwing. The problem is that they have deliberately attached themselves to a main political party, and their bias doesn't come from holding political beliefs, it comes from wanting to show one party in the best light possible, and the other party in the worst light possible. That's a very different thing.
Just to put this into better context, this whole "they don't keep score in t-ball, out of control self-esteem" thing is a pet issue for conservatives. They think it's an angle they've really "got" on liberals, much in the same way liberals think they've "got" racism on conservatives (for example).
What's funny about it, is that most liberals hate the "self-esteem movement" just as much as conservatives do, and most conservatives hate racism just as much as liberals.
What's yet MORE funny about it, is that because liberals control the media so completely, it ends up being a one sided conversation. If you ask any conservative who started the "self esteem movement" they'll say it was the liberals. Many liberals have no idea it's being blamed on them.
My mother is a high school teacher and a pretty huge liberal. She's always lamenting how soft and coddled kids are. When I told her it was liberal ideology that caused it, she considered the idea completely alien and bizzare. To her, it was "overly controlling parents."
So, basically my point is that this whole "self-esteem movement" thing makes a lot more sense to a conservative audience, because they actually hear about it. Liberals never have to hear what conservatives think. Conservatives are constantly made to hear liberal ideas.
As a result, a self professed liberal like Hellfury doesn't have context on this, like most Fox viewers do. They realize it's one of their old saws, with a Mr. Rogers spin. They're focused on the old saw being played, the Mr. Rogers backup music is just for color. But to somebody who's never heard the saw played before, the Mr. Rogers part is most familliar, and seems like it's the focus.
But, I feel compelled to repeat: American liberals have NO idea what it's like to be an American conservative, and how constantly you're forced to hear ideology that you find offensive.
Imagine if every movie you saw, and about 6 out of 7 TV news channels you might watch, were all run by Fox news.
Do you really think that most people so completely define themselves as one way or the other? I know that for myself, I can't stand to hear about the "self esteem leads to entitlement and the welfare state" argument but I also hate hearing about how private ownership of firearms increases violent crime. Maybe I'm just projecting but I think most people are pretty mixed on the spectrum by issue. Channels like Fox News and MSNBC are not really for delivering news so much as being political organizations like any other, dedicated to mobilizing people to be all right or all left.
Hence why even Mr Rogers is ideologically suspect according to Fox News.
Well, nobody seemed to especially notice, so I assumed that nobody cared.
I think we should care about as much as we ever would about a person who has abused their privileged soapbox with ideas that kill puppies through their sheer stupid ignorance.
So, basically, we shouldn't worry about what fat, stupid morons like Rosie O'Donnell say, because they're beneath notice. But, if we're going to pass judgement on these sorts of things, then I judge that she should be shot at dawn, but preferrably with a suitably powerful round as is required to humanely kill a creature of her ponderous bulk.
The problem is that they have deliberately attached themselves to a main political party
It's my perception that this is exactly what MSNBC has done with the Democrats.
If it's not as obvious, I'd argue that that is because there's such a pervasive liberal bias in the mainstream media, that Fox sticks out like a sore thumb, while MSNBC blends in a bit more.
Phryxis wrote:But, I feel compelled to repeat: American liberals have NO idea what it's like to be an American conservative, and how constantly you're forced to hear ideology that you find offensive.
This sounds a lot like "identity politics." (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Do you really think that most people so completely define themselves as one way or the other?
I don't think most people define themselves one way or another, but I do think that there are some fundamental views that people hold, which will cause them to line up on one side or the other.
I think this whole "entitlement" vs. "compassion" discussion is actually core to it.
Once somebody gravitates toward a side, the scumshits who run the mainstream media will rush and find a way to metastisize that slight alignment into a cancerous partisan hatred. Once people are "activated" and angry, they tend to watch more TV.
warpcrafter wrote:Do I sense a little repressed nerd rage? C'mon, admit it, those are the same guys now who sit in their cubicles just hoping for their coworkers to screw up so they can run to their boss and snitch on them. THAT's the sort of 'self-esteem' that Mister Rogers gave to the world.
Wow. I thought that I was cynical.
I think you should get a job working for Fox News. Blanket statements such as that fit right in there. You wont have to bum money off of me anymore if you get a job there.
Huh? Who's making an unsubstantiated statement now? I have two jobs, and have NEVER taken unemployment or any other sort of assistance. By the way, the only people who call anyone cynical are in denial about their own wearing of rose-colored glasses.
warpcrafter wrote:I don't know where you grew up, but I fondly remembering that one ironclad rule of the playground jungle was that anybody who was found to be a fan of Mister Rogers was just begging for an atomic wedgie and a stiff kicking. Now THAT was a satisfying, empowering and self-esteem building exercise.
The funniest part about stories like these is how 'in the closet' you know the bullies are. Because if they're kicking the guy who watches the wrong show (or happens to be wearing green, and everyone knows green is the lame color, or at least it is that Thursday) then surely no one will ever suspect that as soon as they get home, the first thing they do is turn on PBS and sing along with what a beautiful day it is.
Heheheh... When I was 3 years old, when other kids my age were learning nursery rhymes, I was learning the words to Black Sabbath songs. Go back to your fantasy land and stop wasting other peoples' time.
Phryxis wrote:So, basically, we shouldn't worry about what fat, stupid morons like Rosie O'Donnell say, because they're beneath notice.
No, we should certainly care, and whenever anyone anywhere says that O'Donnell knows what she's talking about we should tell them she absolutely does not.
But, if we're going to pass judgement on these sorts of things, then I judge that she should be shot at dawn, but preferrably with a suitably powerful round as is required to humanely kill a creature of her ponderous bulk.
I think the world is, quite rightly, a little squeamish about the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and I'm not sure anything less would suffice.
It's my perception that this is exactly what MSNBC has done with the Democrats.
They're moving that way, for sure. And it's a bad, bad thing. It probably won't work, and certainly won't work as well has FOX News has, because MSNBC is pretty crappy anyway, and media dedicated to repeating liberal message rarely gets the viewing numbers that media dedicated to repeating the conservative message does.
If it's not as obvious, I'd argue that that is because there's such a pervasive liberal bias in the mainstream media, that Fox sticks out like a sore thumb, while MSNBC blends in a bit more.
There really isn't a liberal bias in the media. Everybody, everywhere watches the news and notes that it wasn't reported exactly like their perception of events, and believes it must be biased against them. But media just doesn't work that way.
The media is mercenary. The media is feeding a 24 hour demand for content. This means sensationalism and superficial reporting. There hasn't time for political bias. This changed, of course, when Rupert Murdoch realised movement conservatism could be targetted as a whole demographic, and that little idea got him the highest rating cable news channel.
I have a secret lesbien crush on Rachel Maddow, and I think that Countdown with Kieth guy is pretty much like a comedian in newsman's clothing and he knows it and plays up to it... why do the liberals get all the sarcastic witty hosts smug at their own wittiness while the conservatives get all the ditzy blonds who laugh at their own not-funny jokes... never mind I just answered my own question.
If I want what could come close to unbiased political or international news I will stick with Anderson Cooper on CNN, or BBC world news. Both FOX and MSNBC are clearly on either side of the fence to an extreme and I'm sure their all of their non-brain-dead viewers know it too.
As far as Rosie goes... I don't care if she is fat or ugly, but her opinion on current events is hardly relevant. Its a shame she got on a talkshow with a bunch of other opinionated bitches (BARBARA WALTERS?! look how far you have fallen...) and continued her loudmouthed bull gak on camera for so long. 4 dumb beyotches all gathered around a table squawking every morning, and the bored housewives of America eat it up and think its informative. Yeah throw in Oprah too while we're at it. Oprah's opinion MATTERS whether she is informed or not, every 40-50 year old woman with bad taste in books hangs on her every word.
Automatically Appended Next Post: When it comes to news the only thing worse than an uninformed public is an uninformed public who gets fed just enough news-lite to think it is informed.
Phryxis wrote:As a result, a self professed liberal like Hellfury doesn't have context on this, like most Fox viewers do. They realize it's one of their old saws, with a Mr. Rogers spin. They're focused on the old saw being played, the Mr. Rogers backup music is just for color. But to somebody who's never heard the saw played before, the Mr. Rogers part is most familliar, and seems like it's the focus.
But, I feel compelled to repeat: American liberals have NO idea what it's like to be an American conservative, and how constantly you're forced to hear ideology that you find offensive.
Imagine if every movie you saw, and about 6 out of 7 TV news channels you might watch, were all run by Fox news.
That's what it's like.
Not quite, but I see your point even if I disagree. I listen to and read a lot of conservative media because frankly it lets me know what people who are often diametrically opposed to me beliefs (if they happen to be very extreme leaning in their views) are thinking. I may be a social liberal, but I am also a fiscal moderate and don't blindly tow the liberal line to its extremes. But I also glean my own truths from what is going on in conservative media after I do some fact checking. Sadly, its up to the public to do their own fact checking since Journalism is all but dead in any major media source.
I will say though that you are exaggerating the media bias at large. I think looking at Rupert Murdoch's News Corp empire contradicts that stance.
Anyways back on topic. The reason why I posted this thread was to vent my anger at targeting a person who I view as sacrosanct. If there is proof then by all means show us but a finance professor pontificating that "They felt so entitled," he recalls, "and it just hit me. We can blame Mr. Rogers." "he's representative of a culture of excessive doting." is not something that could or should be regarded as news. But yet the very man who has given so much to society is blamed for the failings of others without anything more than biased observation.
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB118358476840657463.html
I don't think it is being overly paranoid to remark about how curious this is to be brought up in the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper that Rupert Murdoch himself owns.
It is interesting to note that shitstorm it caused for Don Chance, and how Fox changed its tone from accusatory "EVIL!" to compassionate "AWW!" in the span of 24 hours regarding this very subject. Credit to Fox for not being overly obtuse enough to continue on with the accusatory tone. But sadly not much credit since I am sure if Fox felt that way to begin with they would not have had such rancor for the man in their reporting.
Not sure if his report was taken out of context since I cannot find it anywhere on the net, but Fox was very willing to vilify the much-loved man at the drop of a hat. The only logical reason I can think of Fox's correction was because of Professor Chance's request.
Granted, this is a lampooning of Fox (as usual) but Lewis Black does make a valid point.
Less hypocrisy and intentional misdirection, but more actual content, please. I find Fox does a disservice to the conservative ideal and makes them look like buffoons where the public should be less inclined to be so separated by polar extremes that Fox/MSNBC promotes and make for a healthier public opinion where discourse is promoted, not crucifixion. The media and politicians go hand in hand in a vicious cycle that feeds itself. Its hard to be a political moderate with such dreck about.
The less child-friendly way of saying it is that you will all die alone, with only your eyes to see through as it happens. In your own head, the only head your mind has ever occupied. So yes you are all unique, which is why people try to be nice when they have the clarity of thought to do so. Reminding kids that they are unique but not alone because everyone else is too is hardly a liberal bias, it's just telling the truth.
Kids are lazy because their parents are lazy. Kids are misinformed because their parents withold the ugly truths about life from them or brainwash them with ambiguities like racism or religion or politics or homos or whatever particular hangup makes the parent angry and therefore want their kid to think the same way in order to justify their own poor logic inadequacy. Dumb parents make dumb kids.
Sesame street taught me how to read. Rogers taught me that I am important. Legos taught me geometry. Paper aeroplanes taught me aerodynamics and eventually, physics, and so on...
What do the kids nowadays have? Pokemon for encouragement, video games for hand-eye co-ordination, computer classes that teach them how to USE a computer but not actually how it WORKS, and absent parents, handout grades for school funding as implemented by "The Decider" Mr. Bush and his "No Child Left" idea... oh wait I forgot the "behind" part. Maybe I should just say ass.
I could rant forever about the dumbditude (yes it is a word... well it is now anyways) of my immediately younger high schoolers/college kid age people who I am supposed to work with, pretend to treat like adults, and just put up with how shallow and unedumacationed they are.
That isn't Rogers' fault. That isn't Fox News or MSNBCs fault. That is what happens in a culture of misinformed brainwashed placated children raising more misinformed brainwashed placated children.
If we made them study vocabulary instead of forcing them into sunday school , or made them learn the periodic table instead of learning the order of the books of the bible, if we had them WRITING instead of WATCHING, if we had them feeling good about themselves for something they DID instead of feeling good about themselves because they have cool new SHOES, If we taught them about what is REALLY GOING ON in the world instead of watching news footage about BEYONCE at the grammys... I think you all know what I'm getting at... then MAYBE KIDS WOULDN'T BE SO fething STUPID.
Religious education is not in anyway at odds with general education. Or rather, it does not have to be. But then I don't think "intelligent design" and other counterfactual subjects qualify as religious.
Anyone else find it amusingly ironic that we are in front of computers arguing over how lazy, unproductive and dependent on technology all these "stupid" kids are?
Maybe get off the Dakka you must. Volunteer at a reading program or as a Big Brother we should (As Yoda would say)
Dude, Mr. Rogers is the man. Seriously, it must be a very slow news day for Fox if they have to stoop to insulting the super awesome Mr. Rogers. No this isn't sarcasm.
I mean I'm 18 but they had reruns of his show when I was a wee lad. I still remember getting upset when I heard that he passed away. He influenced me way more positively as a kid then, say, Jurassic Park or something of that sort.
Vladsimpaler wrote:Dude, Mr. Rogers is the man. Seriously, it must be a very slow news day for Fox if they have to stoop to insulting the super awesome Mr. Rogers. No this isn't sarcasm.
I mean I'm 18 but they had reruns of his show when I was a wee lad. I still remember getting upset when I heard that he passed away. He influenced me way more positively as a kid then, say, Jurassic Park or something of that sort.
They were still making new ones when you were a wee lad. The show ran close to forever.
CT GAMER wrote:Anyone else find it amusingly ironic that we are in front of computers arguing over how lazy, unproductive and dependent on technology all these "stupid" kids are?
Maybe get off the Dakka you must. Volunteer at a reading program or as a Big Brother we should (As Yoda would say)
Well, I'm sure we're not going to reach an agreement on this, but let me make sure that I correctly present my view. There is a Democrat bias in the American media.
That's to say that the American media, by and large, side with Democrats.
I say it that way to clarify that I mean the American media, not the global media, and I say "Democrats," because, while the Democrats are left of American center, they're actually pretty centrist/conservative by the standards of many European countries.
There hasn't time for political bias.
I disagree strongly... Political bias IS the story. I agree, first and foremost, they're trying to make money. But, when people go to make money, they generally try to find a way to do it that's congruent with their values. The people that run the mainstream media in America are "liberals" by and large. So they feel that the way to get people consuming their product is to create an enemy, hype that enemy up, and get people frothy to hear more reasons that enemy is bad.
It's like any form of TV. You create a villain, then you get people tuning in to see what the villain has done today.
That villain is conservatives, and now, as you say, Fox news.
Why do you think Keith Olbermann has a "Worst Person in the World" segment on his show?
So, I agree, it's all about money. But they've found a way to make their political agenda core to their profits.
Unfortunately for them, as you point out, it's not all that effective for the left, because they already control almost all the media. Nothing in particular pushes people to watch them over one of the dozens of other sources of liberal propaganda. But Fox is virtually alone as the sole conservative propaganda machine, so it profits massively.
If you look at our elections, they're very close almost every year. The country is very evenly split... And, if I'm not mistaken, Fox gets roughly the same viewership as all the other news orgs combined. Fox gets the conservatives, the others get the liberals.
Countdown with Kieth guy is pretty much like a comedian in newsman's clothing
Actually he's a bad comedian in a sportscaster's clothing and then in a newsman's clothing. Plus he's a lunatic.
I may be a social liberal, but I am also a fiscal moderate and don't blindly tow the liberal line
Too bad we'll never get Rudy Giuliani, eh? I'd actually be excited if he ran, and managed to get through the process without anything horrible coming up.
I think looking at Rupert Murdoch's News Corp empire contradicts that stance.
Oh, there's no question, he's got a bias, and there's no question that AM radio is virtually 100% conservative. But I consider Murdoch's success to be PROOF of the bias. He's so successful because, as I said above, half the country is conservative, and NOBODY in the mainstream media is talking to them. Murdoch comes along, the ONLY voice conservatives have, and of course he succeeds.
When you've got an untapped market of 150 million people, you're going to do well.
I don't think it is being overly paranoid to remark about how curious this is to be brought up in the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper that Rupert Murdoch himself owns.
I think you're falling for a trap here that you don't want to fall for. Understand what I was saying earlier, this whole "self-esteem is hogwash" movement is big on the right. It's something that sells GREAT to conservatives, and even to many liberals. It sounds to me like Mr. Rogers was tossed into this PRECISELY to get the response it's gotten. We're talking about it. We're looking at the published study.
Would we be doing that if it was just another study published by a random conservative?
Nope.
This guy put Mr. Rogers in there in order to get some reaction, to create some buzz, to make a bold statement that demanded that people respond. Since you clearly don't like what this guy's saying, I don't think you want to rise to his bait.
They could be so close to being a valid news network while still being the conservative news network.
It's actually true, Fox has periods of fair, lucid coverage of the issues, and then the revert into the sensationalist garbage to draw in viewers. They really have a sideshow act at times, which people get really riled up over.
I don't actually watch Glenn Beck's TV show, but I do listen to him on the radio. In my experience, people seem a lot more calm and reasonable on the radio. Bill O'Reilly was the same way. He seemed VERY resonable to me on his radio show, and I couldn't figure out why people were so angry with him, but then I saw his TV show, and it was a whole different act. He would talk over people, get angry, yell, make irrational statements, etc. etc.
So, I dunno, I wonder if these guys aren't being directed to play things up on Fox, but when they're more on their own dime, doing a radio show, they calm it down and speak more of their actual mind.
It might just be the medium as well, prehaps radio is just more relaxed.
The less child-friendly way of saying it is that you will all die alone, with only your eyes to see through as it happens. In your own head, the only head your mind has ever occupied. So yes you are all unique, which is why people try to be nice when they have the clarity of thought to do so. Reminding kids that they are unique but not alone because everyone else is too is hardly a liberal bias, it's just telling the truth.
Kids are lazy because their parents are lazy. Kids are misinformed because their parents withold the ugly truths about life from them or brainwash them with ambiguities like racism or religion or politics or homos or whatever particular hangup makes the parent angry and therefore want their kid to think the same way in order to justify their own poor logic inadequacy. Dumb parents make dumb kids.
Sesame street taught me how to read. Rogers taught me that I am important. Legos taught me geometry. Paper aeroplanes taught me aerodynamics and eventually, physics, and so on...
What do the kids nowadays have? Pokemon for encouragement, video games for hand-eye co-ordination, computer classes that teach them how to USE a computer but not actually how it WORKS, and absent parents, handout grades for school funding as implemented by "The Decider" Mr. Bush and his "No Child Left" idea... oh wait I forgot the "behind" part. Maybe I should just say ass.
I could rant forever about the dumbditude (yes it is a word... well it is now anyways) of my immediately younger high schoolers/college kid age people who I am supposed to work with, pretend to treat like adults, and just put up with how shallow and unedumacationed they are.
That isn't Rogers' fault. That isn't Fox News or MSNBCs fault. That is what happens in a culture of misinformed brainwashed placated children raising more misinformed brainwashed placated children.
If we made them study vocabulary instead of forcing them into sunday school , or made them learn the periodic table instead of learning the order of the books of the bible, if we had them WRITING instead of WATCHING, if we had them feeling good about themselves for something they DID instead of feeling good about themselves because they have cool new SHOES, If we taught them about what is REALLY GOING ON in the world instead of watching news footage about BEYONCE at the grammys... I think you all know what I'm getting at... then MAYBE KIDS WOULDN'T BE SO fething STUPID.
How successful are your kids? How well can they read, write, etc?
Please continue to teach us, oh great sensei, because clearly you are the only one tuned into the great energy of this meaningless existence. Clearly things like Sunday School and Pop music degrade our social morality.
You are just a parrot, spouting conflicting views on how to raise children. Please calm down, and refrain from telling us just how hard it was for you coming up, again....
Phryxis wrote:I don't actually watch Glenn Beck's TV show, but I do listen to him on the radio. In my experience, people seem a lot more calm and reasonable on the radio. Bill O'Reilly was the same way. He seemed VERY resonable to me on his radio show, and I couldn't figure out why people were so angry with him, but then I saw his TV show, and it was a whole different act. He would talk over people, get angry, yell, make irrational statements, etc. etc.
So, I dunno, I wonder if these guys aren't being directed to play things up on Fox, but when they're more on their own dime, doing a radio show, they calm it down and speak more of their actual mind.
I have to agree, especially when you look at the precedent they set prior to doing Fox. Beck for instance, prior to the Obama administration, had a tv news gig (the name of the channel escapes me) but he was rather cogent on the show. He did display a conservative bias, but more often than not this social liberal agreed with him. Suddenly, merely days before Obama was sworn in, he got a job at Fox. I thought "Great! A bit of intelligent discussion on a talk show to counteract the typical crap on Fox." As we have all seen, I was very very wrong.
The guy makes mad bank now from Fox, so either his inner feelings are unleashed and he is paid handsomely for it, or the guy is towing the Murdochian line all the way to the bank.
Either way, I care not. I just cant take the guy seriously in any format after that. Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. all do the same thing and thus are rendered completely invalid by their TV personae. Dont even get me started on Limbaugh over the last 15 + years...
Its not just Fox personalities either who are guilty of selling out. MSNBC is just as bad even if I agree with some of what they say. They go from making a valid point and just cant leave well enough alone with that and have to take into the next level by wagging accusatory fingers of their own in a supreme editorial fashion that would make Murdoch proud.
But I am preaching to the choir since no matter what political alignment you may have, its agreed that extremest views should be considered with liberal amounts of salt. Few people with a modicum of intelligence are incapable of seeing past the provocative sensationalism.
I just cant take the guy seriously in any format after that.
I don't exactly take him seriously, but I take his impact very seriously.
In general, he's very emotional and hyperbolic. Everything is a last stand, everything is a tearful appeal to American pride. It's a bit too much. He has some comic bits on his radio show that I enjoy, but he's far too often getting carried away.
On the other hand, his impact is VERY important. It's actually a bit amazing how many stories he exposes that the rest of the media have ignored, and which he can drive home and make stick. For example, he went after Van Jones, and put Obama in a position where he simply couldn't defend his nomination.
Some might say that his attacks on Jones were false, but if that's truly the case, he wouldn't have been cut loose.
It's a bit depressing that a guy like Beck, who really isn't a journalist, who really isn't a scholar, is doing the work that those communities won't do for partisan reasons.
Phryxis wrote:
Some might say that his attacks on Jones were false, but if that's truly the case, he wouldn't have been cut loose.
I don't think that's true of politics in general, and its probably generally false regarding the Democrats in particular; especially an Obama Administration that wants to at least appear bipartisan. Public perception has always been more important than truth insofar as politics are concerned.
That said, Jones was a deeply entrenched member of the liberal side of the green movement, so I don't at all doubt that the majority of the allegations against him were true. Inevitably he was appointed for political reasons, and forced to resign for political reasons.
CT GAMER wrote:Anyone else find it amusingly ironic that we are in front of computers arguing over how lazy, unproductive and dependent on technology all these "stupid" kids are?
Maybe get off the Dakka you must. Volunteer at a reading program or as a Big Brother we should (As Yoda would say)
I'm just sayin...
-1
Sorry man, but lots of us do this in the middle of the night when the day's work is over. Time zones and work schedules are a bitch. It's either this or watching late night infomercials for me, so your timing comment is kind of unfair.
The less child-friendly way of saying it is that you will all die alone, with only your eyes to see through as it happens. In your own head, the only head your mind has ever occupied. So yes you are all unique, which is why people try to be nice when they have the clarity of thought to do so. Reminding kids that they are unique but not alone because everyone else is too is hardly a liberal bias, it's just telling the truth.
Kids are lazy because their parents are lazy. Kids are misinformed because their parents withold the ugly truths about life from them or brainwash them with ambiguities like racism or religion or politics or homos or whatever particular hangup makes the parent angry and therefore want their kid to think the same way in order to justify their own poor logic inadequacy. Dumb parents make dumb kids.
Sesame street taught me how to read. Rogers taught me that I am important. Legos taught me geometry. Paper aeroplanes taught me aerodynamics and eventually, physics, and so on...
What do the kids nowadays have? Pokemon for encouragement, video games for hand-eye co-ordination, computer classes that teach them how to USE a computer but not actually how it WORKS, and absent parents, handout grades for school funding as implemented by "The Decider" Mr. Bush and his "No Child Left" idea... oh wait I forgot the "behind" part. Maybe I should just say ass.
I could rant forever about the dumbditude (yes it is a word... well it is now anyways) of my immediately younger high schoolers/college kid age people who I am supposed to work with, pretend to treat like adults, and just put up with how shallow and unedumacationed they are.
That isn't Rogers' fault. That isn't Fox News or MSNBCs fault. That is what happens in a culture of misinformed brainwashed placated children raising more misinformed brainwashed placated children.
If we made them study vocabulary instead of forcing them into sunday school , or made them learn the periodic table instead of learning the order of the books of the bible, if we had them WRITING instead of WATCHING, if we had them feeling good about themselves for something they DID instead of feeling good about themselves because they have cool new SHOES, If we taught them about what is REALLY GOING ON in the world instead of watching news footage about BEYONCE at the grammys... I think you all know what I'm getting at... then MAYBE KIDS WOULDN'T BE SO fething STUPID.
How successful are your kids? How well can they read, write, etc?
Please continue to teach us, oh great sensei, because clearly you are the only one tuned into the great energy of this meaningless existence. Clearly things like Sunday School and Pop music degrade our social morality.
You are just a parrot, spouting conflicting views on how to raise children. Please calm down, and refrain from telling us just how hard it was for you coming up, again....
Wow. next time PM me if you want to talk gak. If you have any ideas go ahead and post them, but I am not "just a parrot" any more than anyone else. At least I'm not a rude reductionist piece of gak either.... But anyways...
-----
This has nothing to do with how hard any of us have it coming up, it is drawing a line between the parenting of kids 10 years younger than me, just as a forinstance, and the kids growing up when I did. The difference in work ethic, morals, general knowledge is VAST over a 10 year difference. I'm not griping about how hard it was back in the day man, I'm saying that because it WAS hard I actually came out into the adult world competent and educated, despite going to crappy public schools and all that whiney stuff... instead of emerging as an ignorant unprepared kid with straight As.
Since you asked how successful my kids have been... For the record, I raised Alex as a surrogate little brother since he was 8, walked him to school and signed him in, helped him with his homework through his junior high years, when, if left on his own he would have been ditching school and playing video games because his big brother (my best friend) was away and his mom was a single mom who had to work all the time to support her 5 daughters and all of their random babies... so while I have no kids of my own (thank god), I am still proud of him, as he is 17 now and I really do think of him as a little brother, and probably going to be his high school valedictorian. All he needed was someone to encourage him to be smarter in his decisions, guide him to be good at what the mind is set to, and pay enough attention to help him learn. So um...
what's with your judgemental personal attack? I know how to turn out good kids, and I don't think trying to share my opinion about it is something I should be insulted for. So yeah. bugger off if you don't have anything interesting to say other than insulting me. Next time PM me, unless you have anything constructive to say. Oh... hmmm.... looking back over thread... never mind, don't even bother.
Da Boss wrote:It absolutely boggles my mind that Fox is as successful as it is. It makes me think ungenerous thoughts about the viewing public in the US.
To be fair, my experience tells me that a lot of the viewership is constituted by liberals looking to be angered, and conservatives looking for catharsis. I've only met a couple people that legitimately get taken in by the nonsense, and they weren't the sort that I credited with an abundance of mental fortitude.
Yeah this is true boss. My missus and I love watching fox. I even listen to Sean hannity on the radio, and its cos the stuff is pure comedy!
Most yanks aren't as daft as European people tend to think when they see fox and stereotype them all and most seem to watch it for comedy value.
Not a single member of our lasses friends or family takes it seriously.
I agree with what Guitardian wrote.
Parents today seem to be all too eager to blame the way their children turn out on anything but their poor parenting skills.
Phryxis wrote:I say it that way to clarify that I mean the American media, not the global media, and I say "Democrats," because, while the Democrats are left of American center, they're actually pretty centrist/conservative by the standards of many European countries.
Yeah, I agree, as long we recognise the simple left/right axis doesn't account for every issue. The Democrats are as right wing or more right wing than the mainstream right wing party of just about every developed country on tax policy, welfare and other economic issues, but in other places they're fairly right wing - they're certainly a lot more protectionist than right wing parties elsewhere.
I disagree strongly... Political bias IS the story. I agree, first and foremost, they're trying to make money. But, when people go to make money, they generally try to find a way to do it that's congruent with their values.
I really wish media coverage wash congruent with people's values. We might get substance and informed opinion instead of the hype hype hype sensationalism we get instead. If it ended up with a liberal or conservative bias as result of that, it'd still be worth it, because the sheer lack of substance in news media today is a bigger problem than any bias.
The people that run the mainstream media in America are "liberals" by and large. So they feel that the way to get people consuming their product is to create an enemy, hype that enemy up, and get people frothy to hear more reasons that enemy is bad.
It's like any form of TV. You create a villain, then you get people tuning in to see what the villain has done today.
That villain is conservatives, and now, as you say, Fox news.
It's a big assumption that the only, or major, or even significant villain is conservatives. There is certainly villification of the wealthy, but there's no shortage of villification of ethnic minorities, other nations, the poor...
Why do you think Keith Olbermann has a "Worst Person in the World" segment on his show?
Because he's a hack that's fallen into a simple 'us vs them' dialectic?
Unfortunately for them, as you point out, it's not all that effective for the left, because they already control almost all the media. Nothing in particular pushes people to watch them over one of the dozens of other sources of liberal propaganda. But Fox is virtually alone as the sole conservative propaganda machine, so it profits massively.
FOX News' point of difference isn't that it's right wing and everyone else is left, that's just FOX News' crappy justification to keep pushing their yellow journalism. FOX News' point of differentiation is that they are overtly biased towards one political faction, to the point where supporting and reinforcing the ideas of that political faction over and above any other concerns for substance.
The business model used by the other channels is more traditional, to just show whatever shocks and scares people, regardless of politics.
If you look at our elections, they're very close almost every year. The country is very evenly split... And, if I'm not mistaken, Fox gets roughly the same viewership as all the other news orgs combined. Fox gets the conservatives, the others get the liberals.
They dominate cable news. Which is great for them, but Cable news is very minor compared to overall news coverage. Look what happened when O'Reilly moved off of FOX and tried his hand at a network show, he got decent ratings by the standards of his FOX show, but woeful ratings compared to what is expected on network television.
Looked at it terms of ratings the cable news channels are minor, even if you combine them all. FOX matters because so many of the right wing talking points begin with FOX, and they're often very dubious.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:Some might say that his attacks on Jones were false, but if that's truly the case, he wouldn't have been cut loose.
That's a very odd belief about the principles of the Democrats you have there. Cutting political inconveniences loose in the hope the right wing will stop criticising them is the one thing you can count on the Democrats doing.
Public perception has always been more important than truth insofar as politics are concerned.
Well, sorta... In this case, the truth was the truth, and public perception wasn't favorable towards that sort of truth.
I'm not suggesting that Van Jones did anything illegal, or there was some sort of legal basis that he had to be dismissed. In the end, what it comes down to is that Obama is NOT a moderate, that he was staffing his cabinet with radicals, and that it so obviously true that even a guy like Beck can spot it and make a convincing case.
What's disturbing about it for me, is that it comes down to a clown like Beck to force Obama's hand. Where were the "journalists" on this thing? You can bet they'd be all over a Republican appointment with similarly extremist history and views.
There is certainly villification of the wealthy, but there's no shortage of villification of ethnic minorities, other nations, the poor...
There is very little villainization of ethnic minorities. Minorities are a protected class in the liberal ideology, and the media know this rule.
There is certainly demonization of other nations. China is a big one.
They never demonize the poor, as far as I can see. Again, victims, thus a protected class.
Now, I don't mean to say that the conservatives are the only villain... They're just the most popular, and the one the media go back to time and time again.
When I was 3 I lived in a trailer park and my dad let me watch all the B movies I would enjoy while my mom fretted about Wizard of Oz being too scary for me.
I too had to work for my grades, a 93 was a B. We had no B+, we had no B-, we had solid letters. The lowest score we could get and pass was a 64(used to be 70). I studied hard, took 5 AP classes and got 4's on every one of them.
I was messing up in Calculus and I switched my study room to my math teacher's room so I could get help.
Now they're considering adding the pluses in, but not the minuses, and I missed my scholarship by .1 in my GPA.
I have a 2.67 in college now, but I'm taking organic chem, physics, calc 3, and upper level psychologies now.
I'm only 20.
I watched Mr. Rodgers when I was young and he was the second best person on the television compared to Bill Nye the Science Guy. Mr. Rodgers taught me to be a decent person and my parents helped to enforce it while saying I shouldn't do stuff that I saw on the sci-fi channels. It really is amazing how some television shows have stuff that even parents should learn from and enforce in their children while others don't.
Its a shame there aren't too many shows on tv similar to Mr. Rodgers, we teach the kids spanish, we teach them math, we teach them letters, but we don't teach them how to be decent enough as humans. Sesame Street gets a little bit of it, but nowhere near the dosages Mr. Rodgers prescribed.
For example, I work at a toy store and know my way around the inventory system and such. Last week, a family friend who we haven't really seen in almost a year was looking for a toy for her son. We didn't have it, but a store a mile away did. So I went on a roadtrip with my brother and a visiting cousin to get it. I paid for it and brought it back to them(getting there at about 9:30ish) and even though she wanted to pay me, I didn't want the money.
My friends and I cleaned out a shed that had dead rats in it and the lady we did it for was older and wanted to pay us $80 each. We told her not to worry and that if she really wanted to pay us, lunch would be nice(it was around 90 degrees in the shed as it was near the summer). The only reason we got paid $80 each was because she put it at the bottom of a pizza box we took home with us when we were done.
Same lady wants to pay me and my brother a total of $400 to paint the same shed. We are currently negotiating the price down.
The people I babysit for knew that I got a raise at work and wanted to give me a raise as well, I turned it down as I make a lot from it already( $7.00 an hour for a 4, 6, and 7 year old). I make $7.85 working retail and I'm blessed to have a job.
You do stuff for your friends for free, and when you do it for free you still give that extra 10% because its the nice thing to do. You don't ask for too much money. You don't try to take advantage of people. You work hard and earn what you earn.
Thank you Mr. Rodgers and my parents for teaching me all of that.
Phryxis wrote:There is very little villainization of ethnic minorities. Minorities are a protected class in the liberal ideology, and the media know this rule.
They'll never say 'black people are bad' but they when faced between the story of 'mosque at ground zero causes outrage' and 'mosque focussed on reconciliation of Islam and the West to be built a few blocks ground zero'... they choose the version that sounds more scary.
There is certainly demonization of other nations. China is a big one.
Yep, what's scarier than the US being overtaken by socialist villain China? There's no agenda, it's just a good story regardless of facts or context, so it gets play.
They never demonize the poor, as far as I can see. Again, victims, thus a protected class.
Stories of welfare queens and fraud are a constant, and never are these stories given in the context of actual rates of fraud in the welfare system. Never is the cost of that fraud put against the cost of fraud and corruption at the top end of town, which is several orders of magnitude greater.
Phryxis wrote:I'm not suggesting that Van Jones did anything illegal, or there was some sort of legal basis that he had to be dismissed. In the end, what it comes down to is that Obama is NOT a moderate, that he was staffing his cabinet with radicals, and that it so obviously true that even a guy like Beck can spot it and make a convincing case.
What's disturbing about it for me, is that it comes down to a clown like Beck to force Obama's hand. Where were the "journalists" on this thing? You can bet they'd be all over a Republican appointment with similarly extremist history and views.
Van Jones wasn't a member of the cabinet. He was a 'czar' on what I consider to be a throwaway White House committee on the environment. Given the the nature, and breadth, of the American environmentalist movement I don't consider Van Jones to be any more radical than someone like Eric J. Keroack; who also flew under the radar despite his views on premarital sex, and his tendency to prescribe drugs to people he wasn't treating.
'mosque at ground zero causes outrage' and 'mosque focussed on reconciliation of Islam and the West to be built a few blocks ground zero'... they choose the version that sounds more scary.
Well, your version has more words....
And, honestly, I think they'd say something more like "Tea Party Riots Over Ground Zero Mosque." Never miss an opportunity to be confused by and scared of the Tea Party!
As an experiment, I just googled "mosque" on the "news" tab.
Fox News Poll: 64 Percent Think It's Wrong to Build Mosque Near ...‎
The great "Ground Zero mosque" hoax‎ - Washington Post (blog)
Obama may address Ground Zero mosque issue tonight‎ - USA Today
Intolerance Zoning and the Ground Zero Mosque‎ - TIME (blog)
Free Speech Wins A Narrow Victory In New York‎
FOXNews - Pamela Geller - 9 hours ago
The absurdity of the anti-mosque camp‎ - Washington Post (blog)
The Fox News ones are both anti-mosque, the others are pro-mosque.
Like all zealots, all I see in the world is confirming data, and this is confirming data for me. You've got Fox saying one thing, everyone else saying the opposite, and they're all kinda angry about it. You've also got 64% of people agreeing with Fox news.
This is exactly what I'm describing. Setting aside judgement of the mosque, and of people who pontificate on the mosque, in the end what it comes down to is that 64% of Americans think building the mosque is "wrong," and only ONE news organization is willing to take that side.
This is why I say that there's a bias in the media. They're not mainsteam Americans, they're liberal intellectuals.
Is it really the job of journalists to teach us what to think? I think that job is actually called "propagandist."
Now, that's not to say that I agree with the 64%, but I feel that at times you have to pull back, accept that people have different opinions, and look at the dynamics at work without getting embroiled in the issue itself.
For people that claim to be concilliatory and compassionate, liberals are very casual about dominating the discourse and shouting over those that think differently. Is it any wonder that Fox news is so sensationalistic and bombastic? They're a symptom of a debate where volume has replaced logic, they're not the cause of it.
So, if nothing else, not only does it seem to me that the headlines aren't as you suggest they are, but if they were, they'd actually agree with what most Americans think. This is not sensationalism based journalism, this is ideology based journalism.
Stories of welfare queens and fraud are a constant
That's not my experience. I see countless stories about people out of work, people who can't pay their bills, etc.
Now, to be fair, they also had stories of abuse of government money after Katrina, etc. etc. But right now the economy is slow, and they're running lots of victim stories.
Van Jones wasn't a member of the cabinet. He was a 'czar' on what I consider to be a throwaway White House committee on the environment.
Correct, I mistakenly thought that all the people that a President hires to advise him in an official capacity are his "cabinet."
Eric J. Keroack; who also flew under the radar
Well, it seems like he didn't right? He was in for about half a year, then got run out for precisely the reasons you describe. It wasn't exactly big news, but then again, I don't think anybody really knows who Van Jones is, either.
I also think that Keroak's views are far more mainstream than Jones', his problems are more legal and ethical than ideological.
All presidents deal with their cronies having ethics issues... Just look at Obama's friends in Congress... What's more unusual is the appointment of radicals, which I think it's pretty clear Van Jones is.
Phryxis wrote:
Obama may address Ground Zero mosque issue tonight‎ - USA Today
Phryxis wrote:
The Fox News ones are both anti-mosque, the others are pro-mosque.
I don't mean to nitpick, but I think this gets at one of my pet peeves about today's judgment of the media. Many times, on both sides of the political spectrum, anything which isn't for your position is perceived as for the opposite position. The USA Today headline is neutral. It doesn't take a stance of the mosque other than to state that it is an issue, which is self-evident from the presence of a series of headlines about it. It also states, flatly, that Obama might address it. These are both base, factual statements and yet many people will interpret this as either a clearly liberal, or conservative headline.
I'm not implying that you did this, Phrxis. I credit you enough to assume that you were simply being general in your comment. I simply noticed that the two quotes, in combination, illustrate the way that otherwise neutral media can be skewed by the perception of the reader.
Phryxis wrote:
Well, it seems like he didn't right? He was in for about half a year, then got run out for precisely the reasons you describe. It wasn't exactly big news, but then again, I don't think anybody really knows who Van Jones is, either.
I also think that Keroak's views are far more mainstream than Jones', his problems are more legal and ethical than ideological.
All presidents deal with their cronies having ethics issues... Just look at Obama's friends in Congress... What's more unusual is the appointment of radicals, which I think it's pretty clear Van Jones is.
Van Jones isn't a radical in the environmentalist movement. He may look that way to someone that hasn't had a lot of contact with it, but he was one of the more popular figures in what was, and is, a very widespread (geographically and politically) ideological group. That's why I compared him to Keroack. Keroack doesn't appear radical to a very large segment of the American public because his views aren't terribly different from their own, but to the average liberal, or even centrist libertarian, the dude was a nutbag. He also flew largely under the radar, without major scandal from mainstream media, because no one really knew or cared who he was. Not unlike Van Jones.
If fox news announced a poll of the issue in their programming while using the term ground zero mosque then of course their going to agree with them. their poll is completely invalid
Fox only reports that Mr. Rodgers and self-esteem are to blame for the excesses of modernity because they don't want to look at the real culprits. No one in the mainstream media does, because they are part of the problem.
It's not self-esteem that is the problem -- the "personal worth = net worth" type of thinking, that equates goodness with crass materialism and celebrity with prestige, that's the problem.
The problem is not that Paris Hilton thinks she's the most awesome person ever, it's that TV producers lionize her vapid emptiness and present her as a success, while at the same time mocking and trivializing people who have dedicated themselves to quiet lives in service to others.
Self-esteem is not arrogance, it is not vanity, it is not self-delusion and ego run amok, it is simply compassion and acceptance of one's self as one truly is. And without that love for one's self, one can never love others. Without accepting one's self, one can never accept others for who they are, without jealousy and without judgment.
But that's not what Fox is selling. They want you to be jealous, judgmental, angry and afraid. They want you to envy and admire the rich and famous, and to hate and fear the downtrodden and oppressed. And most of all, they want you to believe that black is white, up is down, compassion is hate, selfishness is love, and most of all that evil is good.
They are the mouth of Big Brother, and everything that comes from them is doublespeak.
These are both base, factual statements and yet many people will interpret this as either a clearly liberal, or conservative headline.
Yeah, sorry, this was more of an editing issue. I was basically trying to quickly skim each headline/article, and reduce it down to the ones that were taking some sort of a stance. I felt that was fair, since it seemed to me that it was basically 10 or so headlines, 2 anti-mosque, 6 pro, and then 2 that were informational. I felt that the overall impact of that was "generally pro mosque and then Fox."
That's why I sorta suggested that anyone care do the google search themselves.
That said, I don't see why you'd extend such credit to the mainstream media as you seem to want to. After all, this is a search where basically 80% of the hits were venom spitting polemics, and not the sort of objective reporting that you want to credit the media with producing.
I agree, they should simply objectively report the facts, and while opinion has it's place, it should be closer to the 20% side, preferrably even less.
Van Jones isn't a radical in the environmentalist movement.
Right, but that's precisely the problem. It's the whole "yer doing a great job, Brownie" thing. I'm not saying that Van Jones was/is an environmentalist lunatic. It's precisely the opposite, he's really got minimal environmental credentials, so you know he was brought around just to be brought around. So, the claim is that he's a "refrormed" Marxist. Just like Bush was kicking down jobs to his old boys network, so was Obama. What's disturbing to me, is that Obama's old boys network is Marxist radicals who have essentially admitted that they realized that real change can only be effected from within, which one presumes means that they're still Marxist radicals, but they learned to wear a suit and pose for headshots.
I don't like old boy nepotism, but I certainly don't like it when you're old boy nepotistic with people that hate America as it's currently constituted.
As far as Keroack goes, I'm really no expert, but I got the impression he's just an abstinence, traditional values sort of guy, which is certainly not mainstream, but it's also not at all uncommon. There are a LOT of people who have a similar outlook. Hell, I'm married to one of them. By comparison, a legitimate Marxist is a real fringe lunatic in this country, and unless I've been presented with total falsehoods on Van Jones, then the dude is a Marxist. He's the equivalent of, say, a David Duke type figure being given a role in government, because he claims to have grown up and seen the light.
In fact, Van Jones is exactly what a Marxist David Duke would look like.
I can't claim to see into the dude's soul, maybe he's changed his outlook. But the history is there, in his own words. David Duke was a white supremacist who saw that dressing like a slow and yelling wasn't the game, and that looking classy and playing by the rules was. Now, maybe that's not Van Jones, maybe he really has matured, but a Marxist David Duke would look exactly like Van Jones.
You better believe there'd be a colossal freakout if David Duke got a czar position, even if he claimed to have "changed."
And yet, Robert Byrd, who WAS a Klansman, who DID recruit for the Klan, gets an apologetic at his funeral delivered by none other than Bill Clinton. How does that sort of thing go on, without willing complicity from the mainstream media?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
their poll is completely invalid
It's not "their poll." It's a poll by Opinion Dynamics Corp, which seems to be a popular source for Fox, but I'm not sure what their reputation as a polling agency is. Regardless, they're going to publish their methodology, and the content of the survey.
Plus, HONESTLY, do you think it's so unlikely that Americans would object to a mosque being build near the WTC site? It's a pretty standard response from a country of fairly nationalistic, Christian oriented people.
I find myself spending a great deal of time defending Islam to people in my day to day life. It's not like any sizeable portion of Americans have taken the time to understand or sympathize with it at all.
Phryxis wrote:
That said, I don't see why you'd extend such credit to the mainstream media as you seem to want to. After all, this is a search where basically 80% of the hits were venom spitting polemics, and not the sort of objective reporting that you want to credit the media with producing.
Why wouldn't I credit them with producing objective work when they produce objective work? Failing to do so seems like it would reinforce the perception that the public wants to see bias in their reporting, or at least reinforce the notion that anything that comes from a mainstream agency can be immediately discarded.
Phryxis wrote:
I agree, they should simply objectively report the facts, and while opinion has it's place, it should be closer to the 20% side, preferrably even less.
Honestly, given the brevity of articles that are purely factual, I think that a lot of the problems with modern journalism could be dealt with through simple editorial changes. Something like the return of the old, old school cable section.
Phryxis wrote:
What's disturbing to me, is that Obama's old boys network is Marxist radicals who have essentially admitted that they realized that real change can only be effected from within, which one presumes means that they're still Marxist radicals, but they learned to wear a suit and pose for headshots.
Maybe I'm just sympathetic given that I have many friends ranging from Marxist radicals to jingoistic Neoconservatives, but the only thing that bothers me regarding Jones' appointment is the nepotism involved. Had he been made, say, Secretary of Labor, the Marxist history would bother me a lot.
Phryxis wrote:
And yet, Robert Byrd, who WAS a Klansman, who DID recruit for the Klan, gets an apologetic at his funeral delivered by none other than Bill Clinton. How does that sort of thing go on, without willing complicity from the mainstream media?
I don't even think Fox reported on that, though that may be the result of Byrd's opposition to Obama, same-sex marriage, and abortion.
Phryxis wrote:
I find myself spending a great deal of time defending Islam to people in my day to day life. It's not like any sizeable portion of Americans have taken the time to understand or sympathize with it at all.
Yeah, no doubt. I was actually surprised that the numbers have come back so low regarding national opposition.
Phryxis wrote:
I find myself spending a great deal of time defending Islam to people in my day to day life. It's not like any sizeable portion of Americans have taken the time to understand or sympathize with it at all.
Phyrixis, i dont think of myself as ignorant or uninformed, i have been taught about Islam at work, taught about its culture, flicked through a Koran, and im not an activist or a reactionary, i wouldnt attend a march or go knocking on doors, but seriously, i think i DO understand it, and thats the REASON i dont sympathise with it?
I mean, i sympathise with people in that i think they get their religious views forced upon them as children in almost every case where somebody is extremely devout (that or personal tragedy, but its usually the former) so im not saying i loathe Muslims or anything, but i have scorn for all the very devout religious people, because they never seem to be satisfied with leaving everybody alone, indeed, do the scriptures not all in some way demand that its followers try and convert others? Religions must propagate effectively or die out right?
So, i think i understand all of the big three monothestic dogmas, and its that understanding that makes me fearful of them, Muslims (devout ones) really do want me to be a Muslim, they really do want me to stop drinking beer (tasty.. tasty beer) Muslims in the UK really are pushing to get halal meat served in schools (and succeeding in some) etc etc
People that adhere too strictly to their ancient texts really are a threat to my way of life. They are never satisfied with just them being strict Muslims or Orthodox Jews or Devout Catholics or whatever, they want me to do what they tell me to do, and live my life how their manuscripts dictate, and as a free man who makes his own decisions and thinks that their texts are merely questionably translated fables, i just think "why should i listen to you?"
Im not trying to be a dick, im just giving you my thought process and telling you why i dont "respect" Religious groups, and its because i dont think they afford me any.
What about this is wrong? Im sure some of it is, and id appreciate you telling me. If you do a good job i promise ill start eating hummus.
Phryxis wrote:
I find myself spending a great deal of time defending Islam to people in my day to day life. It's not like any sizeable portion of Americans have taken the time to understand or sympathize with it at all.
Phyrixis, i dont think of myself as ignorant or uninformed, i have been taught about Islam at work, taught about its culture, flicked through a Koran, and im not an activist or a reactionary, i wouldnt attend a march or go knocking on doors, but seriously, i think i DO understand it, and thats the REASON i dont sympathise with it?
I mean, i sympathise with people in that i think they get their religious views forced upon them as children in almost every case where somebody is extremely devout (that or personal tragedy, but its usually the former) so im not saying i loathe Muslims or anything, but i have scorn for all the very devout religious people, because they never seem to be satisfied with leaving everybody alone, indeed, do the scriptures not all in some way demand that its followers try and convert others? Religions must propagate effectively or die out right?
So, i think i understand all of the big three monothestic dogmas, and its that understanding that makes me fearful of them, Muslims (devout ones) really do want me to be a Muslim, they really do want me to stop drinking beer (tasty.. tasty beer) Muslims in the UK really are pushing to get halal meat served in schools (and succeeding in some) etc etc
People that adhere too strictly to their ancient texts really are a threat to my way of life. They are never satisfied with just them being strict Muslims or Orthodox Jews or Devout Catholics or whatever, they want me to do what they tell me to do, and live my life how their manuscripts dictate, and as a free man who makes his own decisions and thinks that their texts are merely questionably translated fables, i just think "why should i listen to you?"
Im not trying to be a dick, im just giving you my thought process and telling you why i dont "respect" Religious groups, and its because i dont think they afford me any.
What about this is wrong? Im sure some of it is, and id appreciate you telling me. If you do a good job i promise ill start eating hummus.
We have the exact same view of religion. Want to be devout? Fine, just keep it to yourself.
Part of being devout in some denominations is 'witnessing' to others, converting the heathens (jahovas witnesses and momon and "modern christian" youth groups come to mind. Other groups also shovel it on you passive-aggressively by not giving you the time of day if you aren't one of them.
Still, good to see your view expressed so clearly and free of vitriol, Matty. I sort of agree with you, but it doesn't irritate me as much as it irritates you, it seems.
mattyrm wrote:...indeed, do the scriptures not all in some way demand that its followers try and convert others?
Judaism doesn't.
No actually the orthodox Hassids in New York believes that they are God's chosen people. Sorry you're not invited everyone else. Try taking a walk through Flatbush and see how many of them will even speak to you if you aren't dressed like them and have cute little ringlets for sideburns, unless it is to ask you why you are in their neighborhoods, or if you are working for them. I seen it. They don't try to convert people at all, they just try to avoid them and stick to their own. I don't know which is nastier; The arrogance of flounting whatever belief you have on others, or the segregationist thinking of "us" versus "everybody not us". They are both pretty obnoxious in my slightly humble opinion. When they accept the fact that I am the High Priest Ambassador to Earth from the planet Zoltar, I will accept their wierd stories and happily take a pamphlet and listen to some ideas.
People that adhere too strictly to their ancient texts really are a threat to my way of life.
I certainly agree, but I don't think this is about Islam, so much as authoritarians.
The issue we face is that Islam is prevalent in areas of cultural backwardness. This is not because of Islam, and Islam is not because of it. There were times in history when the most powerful and progressive states were Islamic. Now just doesn't happen to be one of those times.
If I understand your history, you went and fought the Taliban in Afghanistan. It would certainly be difficult not to view Islam in a disfavorable light, given that experience. But, then again, there are Christian nations in Africa where you could just as easily find that sort of horribleness, if not worse. It's not about Islam, it's about poverty, authoritarian/dictatorial governments, and generally crap cultures.
So, when it comes to a mosque in NYC, you're basically talking about American Muslims, and while, technically they're Muslims, I think you'll find the really operative descriptor there is "American." An American Muslim is VASTLY more like an American of any other type, than they are like an Afghan Talibani.
So, put it this way: You like beer, and Muslims don't drink beer. Ok. Well, I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the US we have (and are just now finally getting rid of), blue laws. You couldn't sell beer on Sundays. In some places you couldn't seel ANYTHING on Sundays. And we had prohibition, etc. etc. Point being, there's a strong religious basis for all of this, and it's Christian religion. You're worried about Muslims taking away your beer, but Christians already have done it.
The issue isn't the specific scriptures, it's the people behind it. Authoritarians are authoritarians.
Similarly, take halal. It's basically the exact same thing as kosher. The Jews have kosher guidelines, but they're not trying to impose anything on anybody else, even though their scriptures are very similar in this regard. So, you don't HAVE to get in people's faces about things like this if you don't want to. The reason it's a problem for you in the UK isn't because the people in question are Muslims, it's because they're DOUCHEBAGS. They could just as easily be douchebag tories, or douchebag marxists, or douchebag environmentalists, or douchebag footie fans.
Everyone's got their perspective. Having a perspective isn't a problem. Being a douche about it is.
And, honestly, this is me "defending" Islam. I'm not really even defending it, so much as saying that it's not really what people are mad at. I'm not saying Islam is good. I'm saying I hate the same things you do, but let's make sure to identify them correctly.
We both hate backwards, authoritarian, jerkwater douchebags. I want to know where these people sleep, so I can shoot a Hellfire missile at it. If somebody knows where that is, I don't want to miss that info, just cause the person in question identifies as a Muslim.
We have the exact same view of religion. Want to be devout? Fine, just keep it to yourself.
I somewhat agree. I wouldn't say "keep it to yourself" so much as "don't try to force me to follow it." If somebody is religious and they think it's important that I know it, that's fine. If they think I could benefit from it, and want to tell me the address of ther church, that's fine. I'm not going to pay it that much mind, but it's realy their right to tell me what they think is important, the same way somebody might tell me about homeopathic remedies, or the healing power of meditation, or how they're much healthier now that they job.
Whatever...
The problem is when you start making laws that force me to go to your church, or use your remedies, or go jogging with you.
I think people are much too sensitive to religion being "forced" on them. You can always walk away from a conversation. Somebody being pushy isn't forcing you to do anything. It might be rude, but people are rude all the time.
I mean, i sympathise with people in that i think they get their religious views forced upon them as children in almost every case where somebody is extremely devout (that or personal tragedy, but its usually the former) so im not saying i loathe Muslims or anything, but i have scorn for all the very devout religious people, because they never seem to be satisfied with leaving everybody alone, indeed, do the scriptures not all in some way demand that its followers try and convert others? Religions must propagate effectively or die out right?
How is that unique to religion? When people think they are in on some big secret, they like talking. There are plenty of atheists/agnostics/scientists/politcal activists/whatever's out there doing the exact same thing. What you've said is true of all ideas, movements, or even just social groups. It's hardly something only the religious do.
Phyxis hit the nail with this:
Everyone's got their perspective. Having a perspective isn't a problem. Being a douche about it is.
Welcome to the human experience. Political, Religious, Scientific; doesn't matter what it is someone's always out there pushing it a little harder than the rest of us would like.
Phryxis wrote:Well, your version has more words....
Substance tends to need more words than sensationalism, yeah.
As an experiment, I just googled "mosque" on the "news" tab.
I didn't get those results at all. The ones that related to the Ground Zero mosque were...
"Obama in a muddle over Ground Zero Mosque"
"Mosque dispute takes Obama off message on Gulf Coast"
"Ground Zero mosque plans 'fuelling anti-Muslim protests across USA"
"Ground Zero mosque debate rages on"
"Passions remain high over proposed New York City mosque"
They're all neutral, commenting on the contraversy but not on the merits of either side.
Like all zealots, all I see in the world is confirming data, and this is confirming data for me.
Did I read that right? Did you just say you're a zealot
You've got Fox saying one thing, everyone else saying the opposite, and they're all kinda angry about it. You've also got 64% of people agreeing with Fox news.
This is exactly what I'm describing. Setting aside judgement of the mosque, and of people who pontificate on the mosque, in the end what it comes down to is that 64% of Americans think building the mosque is "wrong," and only ONE news organization is willing to take that side.
This is why I say that there's a bias in the media. They're not mainsteam Americans, they're liberal intellectuals.
Is it really the job of journalists to teach us what to think? I think that job is actually called "propagandist."
What you've said there is the entire problem with how so many people see the media. It isn't propaganda to inform people, it is the basic responsibility of the media. On the other hand, picking a 'side' as you've accepted FOX News has and reporting news in a way most agreeable to that side is propaganda, and is a big problem.
The idea that a news organisation should pick a demographic and set about reinforcing the beliefs of that demographic is absolutely awful. Reports should provide the most important facts of the issue, regardless of how agreeable they are to any group... it is just that simple. Now, bias is inevitable (to argue there should be no bias is to argue an article on a murder shouldn't contain the personal belief 'murder is bad') but there is a massive difference between bias and disingenuous reporting. To write an article is accept there will be bias, to align yourself with a political faction is to embrace disingenuous reporting.
For people that claim to be concilliatory and compassionate, liberals are very casual about dominating the discourse and shouting over those that think differently
Rebecca Soint's recent Hope in the Dark is an excellent read, it makes some excellent comments on the nature of left wing politics. Simply put, the way the left wing views itself is not at all how it actually is. It is frequently shrill, and simple constructive policies are over-ridden by doomsaying and self-flagellation.
But the answer to this is not an equally shrill, equally pessimistic right wing. I don't know even know which came first... but I do know that they're both absolute poison to constructive political debate.
So, if nothing else, not only does it seem to me that the headlines aren't as you suggest they are, but if they were, they'd actually agree with what most Americans think. This is not sensationalism based journalism, this is ideology based journalism.
"Here's an outrageous thing to be outraged by and here's a poll that shows how outraged other people are about this outrageous thing" is exactly sensationalistic journalism is. I simple refuse to believe you can't see that, what FOX did with it's article is grade-A sensationalism.
What you've said there is the entire problem with how so many people see the media. It isn't propaganda to inform people, it is the basic responsibility of the media. On the other hand, picking a 'side' as you've accepted FOX News has and reporting news in a way most agreeable to that side is propaganda, and is a big problem.
How big of a problem is it? How many other sources of news are there and what is the actual impact on those sources, due to XBOXnews existing?
I don't live in Korea and microwave news doesn't necessarily present the threat you suggest. At least, it isn't as big of a problem as it seems you are suggesting. There are so many opinions in the media and they appear diverse enough for me, to the point where I am not particularly concerned about one relatively loud cable news network. There is enough balance IMO, which in itself does not preclude the need for excessive liberal outlets. I don't think we have an excess of either, nor does either side appear excessive over it's counterpart. Perhaps FOXbox has higher ratings because more conservatives are interested in that kind of infotainment.
The idea that a news organisation should pick a demographic and set about reinforcing the beliefs of that demographic is absolutely awful. Reports should provide the most important facts of the issue, regardless of how agreeable they are to any group... it is just that simple. Now, bias is inevitable (to argue there should be no bias is to argue an article on a murder shouldn't contain the personal belief 'murder is bad') but there is a massive difference between bias and disingenuous reporting. To write an article is accept there will be bias, to align yourself with a political faction is to embrace disingenuous reporting.
I would say that every media outlet is required to work with generic demographics. If I were to split the middle between far right and far left, I would be left with something that was better written by a robot. It seems like FOXnews caters to angry people. Maybe that is a stupid thing to say but I would back it up by suggesting that is true of cable news in general. Person A is angry about one thing, which happens to bring them in to watch a certain show, while person B will probably never watch that show. Person B doesn't want a show that talks from the center, they want something that speaks to their perspective. It pays to target your audience and I still fail to see how cable news could destroy the planet.
If I want serious journalism, I can find it in a matter of 30 seconds. The internet is awesome and until I am forced to watch cable news as my only source of information (via censorship or what have you), I'll continue to be content with the point that my options are incredibly diverse.
It would be great if I could see a study or something that shows a serious threat on the part of FOXnews and similar news outlets. I understand how it could be perceived as a threat but we are hardly without other options. I also see no way to remedy the problems you bring up. Maybe a disclaimer. That would be hilarious.
FOXnews... isn't really news so much as large amounts of opinion mixed with bits of information.
My theory regarding the absence of truly neutral news agencies essentially boils down to this: neutral people don't care about sensationalism at all.
It frustrates me to see sensationalism everywhere in the media, but a sensationalist media source serves the same purpose, for me, that a non-sensationalist source would; ie. it makes me aware of something that I can further inquire into. Even if a media source would present me with nothing beyond fact, I would still look to verify it before considering it true or representative. As such, sensationalism doesn't keep people like me from watching the news, but it does draw people that wouldn't otherwise watch the news to watch the news.
Wrexasaur wrote:How big of a problem is it? How many other sources of news are there and what is the actual impact on those sources, due to XBOXnews existing?
The lack of substance in all media is a much bigger problem than the presence of one or more politically aligned stations. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
And yes, there are lots of different opinions presented in the media, but how many of them are actually considered views built on an understanding of the complexities of the issues? How many are built around simple talking points repeated over and over again?
Perhaps FOXbox has higher ratings because more conservatives are interested in that kind of infotainment.
Yeah, that's a big part of it. It's why rightwing talkback radio does well, and leftwing variants don't - the rightwing audience looking to tune in and get outraged is bigger than the leftwing equivalent. The other part is that FOX News is a more skillfully run production than the other channels - not in terms of news quality, but in terms of hype, message control and all the rest they know what they're doing.
I would say that every media outlet is required to work with generic demographics. If I were to split the middle between far right and far left, I would be left with something that was better written by a robot.
No, you don't split the line between any political faction. It doesn't matter what the right or left wing views are on the issue, you simply state the facts of the case. Some bias is inevitable, but the moment you start tailoring your bias towards a political faction, you stop being an informative source of news.
It seems like FOXnews caters to angry people. Maybe that is a stupid thing to say but I would back it up by suggesting that is true of cable news in general. Person A is angry about one thing, which happens to bring them in to watch a certain show, while person B will probably never watch that show. Person B doesn't want a show that talks from the center, they want something that speaks to their perspective. It pays to target your audience and I still fail to see how cable news could destroy the planet.
Yes, FOX News caters to angry people. Yes, FOX News will not destroy the planet. No, not destroying the planet doesn't mean a thing isn't bad enough to be a major problem. And yes, it is bad when people are relying on disingenuous news services to make their political judgements. And no, the ability of a person to find decent journalism doesn't make it less of a problem, because most people are happy to tune into various crap merchants (there's plenty more than just FOX) to get safe news that lines up with their political beliefs.
sebster wrote:The lack of substance in all media is a much bigger problem than the presence of one or more politically aligned stations. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
No problem, I hope that I didn't come across as antagonistic. I think that the major changes in news and the many forms that it has come to be distributed in, speaks very clearly to the point that all news can't be set to the same standards. Some information when combined with a large enough dose of opinion, becomes flatly useless. As dogma suggests, many people that watch 'insta-news' would not otherwise and do not currently find their news in any other form.
And yes, there are lots of different opinions presented in the media, but how many of them are actually considered views built on an understanding of the complexities of the issues? How many are built around simple talking points repeated over and over again?
Repeating talking points is not entirely a bad thing. If one wishes to send a message beyond the immediate conversation, it is helpful to be somewhat consistent in the manner that a message is conveyed. Personality branding is not a useless thing and does a great deal to reinforce an overall image or idea. Talking points are repeated because diverting from that would be detrimental to both broadcasters and those trying to make their arguments. Not that all arguments are equal but there is hardly enough reason to limit all national news to what most would consider informative debate.
I will not say that a further extreme of what we have would be a good thing. I believe that at least to some degree there is a problem that goes beyond finding better news; I also feel that considering mainstream journalism nothing less than opinion journalism (which would obviously be considered something besides journalism in many situations) is a fairly reasonable statement. Perhaps you feel there is more opinion journalism than we could possibly ever need. Maybe the amount of it in itself is a bad thing, I wouldn't entirely disagree with that. It still doesn't seem to be enough of a problem from my perspective, until the point that I literally can't find serious journalism.
I can most definitely still find 10 shades of serious journalism, no matter what FOXnews' presence does to my psyche. Taco. Hmmm... it doesn't do much of anything besides make money and possibly trigger a noticeable amount of influence within politics. There IS a noticeable influence but I see no reason to consider that influence in it's entirety a bad thing. I'm not going to eat it but I can see why some would want FOXbox around so they can agree with the heads on TV.
Yeah, that's a big part of it. It's why rightwing talkback radio does well, and leftwing variants don't - the rightwing audience looking to tune in and get outraged is bigger than the leftwing equivalent. The other part is that FOX News is a more skillfully run production than the other channels - not in terms of news quality, but in terms of hype, message control and all the rest they know what they're doing.
IMO they are allowed to do what they know how, if for nothing but the fact that they hold no sort of monopoly on 'news'. Nor does their genre. You can say that professionalism is generally lacking within news organizations and I would simply ask who's standard are they living up to? Should there be further restrictions on what can be called news? I wouldn't disagree with that premise but I would certainly question the ease and practicalities of which such standards could be implemented.
No, you don't split the line between any political faction. It doesn't matter what the right or left wing views are on the issue, you simply state the facts of the case. Some bias is inevitable, but the moment you start tailoring your bias towards a political faction, you stop being an informative source of news.
You actually stop being news... just to be clear. There has already been a case against FOXnews for having 'news' in their name, so you obviously have some sort of argument. The problem is that they are still allowed to claim the same title because the term 'news' can be loosely interpreted, as underhanded some of those interpretations may be.
Yes, FOX News caters to angry people. Yes, FOX News will not destroy the planet. No, not destroying the planet doesn't mean a thing isn't bad enough to be a major problem. And yes, it is bad when people are relying on disingenuous news services to make their political judgements. And no, the ability of a person to find decent journalism doesn't make it less of a problem, because most people are happy to tune into various crap merchants (there's plenty more than just FOX) to get safe news that lines up with their political beliefs.
What are you suggesting be done about it? The best I can come up with within my own power, is to share what news sources I use and how I come to the opinions that I have.
If people need sensationalist 'news' I see few reasons why they should be denied it. Some people watch Judge Judy and take it seriously. Some people took Jerry Springer seriously, even though on many counts he did not regard his show in the same way. Other people take FOXbox seriously and even further some take MSNBC in much the same way.
I don't take them that seriously and whenever I do find out about something via cable news, I will look further into it using several news outlets. That is what I do, I don't feel that is what everyone should HAVE to do.
Wrexasaur wrote:No problem, I hope that I didn't come across as antagonistic.
Not at all.
I think that the major changes in news and the many forms that it has come to be distributed in, speaks very clearly to the point that all news can't be set to the same standards. Some information when combined with a large enough dose of opinion, becomes flatly useless. As dogma suggests, many people that watch 'insta-news' would not otherwise and do not currently find their news in any other form.
No, and it is a fair point. I guess my issue is with the high proportion of light weight news compared to substantive, in-depth material.
Repeating talking points is not entirely a bad thing. If one wishes to send a message beyond the immediate conversation, it is helpful to be somewhat consistent in the manner that a message is conveyed. Personality branding is not a useless thing and does a great deal to reinforce an overall image or idea. Talking points are repeated because diverting from that would be detrimental to both broadcasters and those trying to make their arguments. Not that all arguments are equal but there is hardly enough reason to limit all national news to what most would consider informative debate.
Repeating talking points is fine for politicians, it's what they need to do win. The media needs to take them off message, but frequently fails to even try.
Perhaps you feel there is more opinion journalism than we could possibly ever need. Maybe the amount of it in itself is a bad thing, I wouldn't entirely disagree with that. It still doesn't seem to be enough of a problem from my perspective, until the point that I literally can't find serious journalism.
I think the amount of opinion journalism is fine, it's the quality of it that's the issue. Too many editorials do little more than compare and contrast the talking points of the two sides, rather than look to the substance of what's really happening in an issue.
What are you suggesting be done about it?
And that is the really big question. I certainly agree that we shouldn't be banning anyone or anything like that.
I think the first thing is for people to get a clear picture of the problem, and it isn't limited to crap merchants like FOX, I think the bigger problem is the quality of media being put out by respected outlets.
sebster wrote:No, and it is a fair point. I guess my issue is with the high proportion of light weight news compared to substantive, in-depth material.
There is probably more 'insta-news' because it simply sells better. I am not a media studies major even if the concept interests me. I have had a bit of a hard time finding reputable studies that I can readily share via a forum.
Maybe this addresses some of your point, I haven't personally read it myself. You'll need an account, though.
Repeating talking points is fine for politicians, it's what they need to do win. The media needs to take them off message, but frequently fails to even try.
I have a problem with many of the 'experts' you run into watching TV. There is so much noise sometimes, that it becomes difficult to sort through everything. A higher standard on that point, seems a pretty reasonable change in general. I want the right people asking the right questions, it would also be nice if they actually had experience in what they are talking about.
You'll find that even the best professional journalism has to offer will still be forced to stick to talking points, because in many situations that is what it takes to wear down people in power. They say potato five times, you say tomato ten times. If it pays to work a conversation in a different way, that is great but I hardly see many arguments in which you don't repeat yourself several times. It would be nice if politicians simply moved in the direction a conversation needs them to go but forcing them is a more practical solution.
There is also the problem of keeping the politicians around to ask questions to. If the politicians simply avoid the conversation within a professional setting and stick with news organizations that reinforce their views and goals, the outlets that choose not to do so will inevitably lose material to work with. You can reference as many clips from other stations as you'd like but you still need the politician on YOUR station to actually ask the questions that you're 'obligated' to. Most companies are obligated to stay in business above all else, it isn't particularly hard to see why much of television/cable is so watered down.
I think the amount of opinion journalism is fine, it's the quality of it that's the issue. Too many editorials do little more than compare and contrast the talking points of the two sides, rather than look to the substance of what's really happening in an issue.
It is probably cheaper to write articles in that way. You can find a lot of information that shows many news outlets are simply cutting back on actual journalists, and/or overworking the journalist they still have on staff. It isn't surprising that pressures related to business, end up forcing the substance of an issue out of many articles.
And that is the really big question. I certainly agree that we shouldn't be banning anyone or anything like that.
I think the first thing is for people to get a clear picture of the problem, and it isn't limited to crap merchants like FOX, I think the bigger problem is the quality of media being put out by respected outlets.
There are likely incentives that could be put in place in order to promote 'better' journalism. More professional and substantive journalism, really.
The private sector has responded to the market and produces news that sells. I see few expedient ways in which a large shift in the quality of mainstream journalism could be accomplished. Whether or not the quality continues to decrease because of increasing pressures on the pockets of news outlets overall, is basically left to be seen. Maybe the future will not be kind to serious journalism, maybe it will. Perhaps we will have to read more to gain the information we seek and that will be the bottom line for our consumption of news. I can only create so much incentive on my own and much of that is derived from the fact that I give advertising dollars to several news outlets on any given day of the week. It might be the case that by not choosing fewer sources of news, I am promoting what news I find important. That all depends on how the news outlets that I visit, interpret my actions.
I expect to have to pay for much of what I read in the future. If not, I expect to be left with fewer choices overall and the need to use many outlets to piece together my own opinion.
Yes. Half in jest, but half in truth. Self awareness is one of the things that separates us from the animals. Like Shuma.
They're all neutral, commenting on the contraversy but not on the merits of either side.
Ok, but you also did it a couple days later, after Obama weighed in, and the story became that.
In addition to sensationalist idiocy, another function of the media is to rapidly cycle in near perfect unison.
In general, I think the pattern will remain that FOX is against, everyone else is for, and then everyone will run a certain amount of semi-objective coverage.
It isn't propaganda to inform people, it is the basic responsibility of the media.
I agree with all you're saying here, I just don't think the media are objectively reporting, or really even trying to do so.
I agree that it's bad for news orgs to pick a side and preach to that choir as well...
But what I think is even worse, is when there's not only a political bias to the reporting, but it's out of sync with the nation. That means that not only are the orgs picking a side, but they're picking a side with the specific aim of pulling the national consciousness in a given direction.
This isn't just "giving the people what they want" this is "telling the people what to want." It's not just stooping to the level of the masses, it's thought control.
I simple refuse to believe you can't see that, what FOX did with it's article is grade-A sensationalism.
Don't get me wrong, they all LOVE some senationalism. I'm not suggesting they're not sensationalists. I'm simply prioritizing their hierarchy of needs, and at the very top, IMO, is politics.
My point here is that these news orgs all know that most Americans are against the mosque. If you were simply trying to get attention, had no political ideology at all, you'd hype up how terrible the mosque is, and sell that majority your product.
But that's NOT what these news orgs (FOX aside) do. They go against the prevailing sentiment, despite the obvious cost that entails. They place the importance of presenting their ideology over pandering to their potential audience. This is a fundamentally ideologically driven mentality.
it makes me aware of something that I can further inquire into.
This is also how I view it. For example, when I listen to Glenn Beck, and he makes some damning accusation against somebody I hate, I go home and cross my fingers and hope it's true. When all the google hits are Free Republic notesboards, I feel somewhat sad, and hope that he will actually prove what he's saying at some point.
But, basically, I don't believe anything I hear on TV or the radio.
the rightwing audience looking to tune in and get outraged is bigger than the leftwing equivalent.
I understand the basis for your logic, and I don't really have a counter argument, but (as Stephen Colbert would say) my gut tells me this isn't exactly right.
My feeling is that the American right feels silenced and ignored. They're not really more prone to outrage as they are looking for validation of their outrage. Americans are all pretty much spouting with self-righteous outrage, the conservative ones just have a much more limited number of venues to "me too" about it.
Most Americans are opposed to a 'ground zero mosque' most Americans are not opposed to 'a Muslim cultural center with a small area for religious purposes located two blocks away'.
Its all semantics and how you ask the question. now which of these questions is based on fact and which is sensationalist.
mattyrm wrote:...indeed, do the scriptures not all in some way demand that its followers try and convert others?
Judaism doesn't.
No actually the orthodox Hassids in New York believes that they are God's chosen people. Sorry you're not invited everyone else. Try taking a walk through Flatbush and see how many of them will even speak to you if you aren't dressed like them and have cute little ringlets for sideburns, unless it is to ask you why you are in their neighborhoods, or if you are working for them. I seen it. They don't try to convert people at all, they just try to avoid them and stick to their own. I don't know which is nastier; The arrogance of flounting whatever belief you have on others, or the segregationist thinking of "us" versus "everybody not us". They are both pretty obnoxious in my slightly humble opinion. When they accept the fact that I am the High Priest Ambassador to Earth from the planet Zoltar, I will accept their wierd stories and happily take a pamphlet and listen to some ideas.
Maybe being ignored by them isn't so bad, just 200 years ago you could get burned at the stake if you turned up in the wrong neighborhood.
Speaking of people's appearances, have you considered that if your appearance is similar to that of your avatar, pretty much anybody that isn't homeless is going to avoid you or ask why you're wandering around their neighborhood?
I'll have a look at it when I get home. Thanks for the link.
I have a problem with many of the 'experts' you run into watching TV. There is so much noise sometimes, that it becomes difficult to sort through everything. A higher standard on that point, seems a pretty reasonable change in general. I want the right people asking the right questions, it would also be nice if they actually had experience in what they are talking about.
One of the great shames is that many of the talking heads are quite interesting when they are taken off message. They are well informed and they do often have interesting things to say if the debate is approached in a new way. Unfortunately that rarely happens.
You'll find that even the best professional journalism has to offer will still be forced to stick to talking points, because in many situations that is what it takes to wear down people in power. They say potato five times, you say tomato ten times. If it pays to work a conversation in a different way, that is great but I hardly see many arguments in which you don't repeat yourself several times. It would be nice if politicians simply moved in the direction a conversation needs them to go but forcing them is a more practical solution.
Yeah, that's true.
There is also the problem of keeping the politicians around to ask questions to. If the politicians simply avoid the conversation within a professional setting and stick with news organizations that reinforce their views and goals, the outlets that choose not to do so will inevitably lose material to work with. You can reference as many clips from other stations as you'd like but you still need the politician on YOUR station to actually ask the questions that you're 'obligated' to. Most companies are obligated to stay in business above all else, it isn't particularly hard to see why much of television/cable is so watered down.
It was interesting in Australia to see the media steadily turn on our former Prime Minister, after he consistantly refused to engage the serious news programs, instead sticking to softball stuff on semi-news programs. But we're a small country with few media outlets and a fairly small collection of political journalists, what appears to have worked here wouldn't work elsewhere.
It is probably cheaper to write articles in that way. You can find a lot of information that shows many news outlets are simply cutting back on actual journalists, and/or overworking the journalist they still have on staff. It isn't surprising that pressures related to business, end up forcing the substance of an issue out of many articles.
This is a huge part of it, media sources are constantly cutting back on staff so there just isn't time allowed for a journalist to cover issues with the necessary rigour.
There are likely incentives that could be put in place in order to promote 'better' journalism. More professional and substantive journalism, really.
Yeah, there are awards and the like, and they serve as a good incentive. It's important to keep those kind of things independant from government, though.
The private sector has responded to the market and produces news that sells. I see few expedient ways in which a large shift in the quality of mainstream journalism could be accomplished. Whether or not the quality continues to decrease because of increasing pressures on the pockets of news outlets overall, is basically left to be seen. Maybe the future will not be kind to serious journalism, maybe it will. Perhaps we will have to read more to gain the information we seek and that will be the bottom line for our consumption of news. I can only create so much incentive on my own and much of that is derived from the fact that I give advertising dollars to several news outlets on any given day of the week. It might be the case that by not choosing fewer sources of news, I am promoting what news I find important. That all depends on how the news outlets that I visit, interpret my actions.
I suspect journalism is a thing that goes through good patches and bad. Right now it appears to me it's trending downwards, but it's certainly nowhere near as bad as it has been.
I expect to have to pay for much of what I read in the future. If not, I expect to be left with fewer choices overall and the need to use many outlets to piece together my own opinion.
I'd be happy to pay a premium for a decent service.
Phryxis wrote:Yes. Half in jest, but half in truth. Self awareness is one of the things that separates us from the animals. Like Shuma.
Shuma keeps us seperate from the animals? Like, physically, with fences and stuff?
Ok, but you also did it a couple days later, after Obama weighed in, and the story became that.
Ah, that'd be what it was.
In addition to sensationalist idiocy, another function of the media is to rapidly cycle in near perfect unison.
Oh yeah, they can turn a complex issue into a simplistic narrative at near light speed.
I agree with all you're saying here, I just don't think the media are objectively reporting, or really even trying to do so.
I agree that it's bad for news orgs to pick a side and preach to that choir as well...
Yeah, I don't think we see objective reporting, and I don't think that purely objective reporting is either achievable or a good thing (the crime reporter should hold the personal bias that murder is bad). But there is a difference between a person who happens to be a journalist having personal views that colour his story to some extent, and a news organisations that aligns itself so closely with a political party they become part of their media machine.
Take something like The Daily Show for instance (ignore that it's a comedy show because lets be honest it's where a lot of people get their news). The Daily Show is overtly leftwing, and doesn't pretend to be otherwise, but it hasn't attached itself to Democrats, in fact it regularly criticises the Democrats for not being as left wing as The Daily Show, as well as for being incompetent and cowardly. While Stewart views the stories through his own belief set and that is bias of a sort, it is a wholly different thing to what FOX does, and what MSNBC is trying to do.
This isn't just "giving the people what they want" this is "telling the people what to want." It's not just stooping to the level of the masses, it's thought control.
The job of the media isn’t to reinforce the natural bias of the population. The truth of a story isn’t democratically determined. The job of the media is to challenge the population, and if the facts appear one way, and the population feels another, you tell it as it is anyway.
There would be an issue if the political convictions of a group were not being covered at all, but that just isn’t happening. Well, it certainly isn’t happening to either of the major parties, who both manage to exert a massive amount of influence on the overall narrative, despite neither party’s talking points having a great deal of relation to the real world.
Don't get me wrong, they all LOVE some senationalism. I'm not suggesting they're not sensationalists. I'm simply prioritizing their hierarchy of needs, and at the very top, IMO, is politics.
No, selling print is priority number 1, plain and simple. People who write stories that don’t appeal to readers get fired, regardless of how much their political ideology fits with whoever else.
My feeling is that the American right feels silenced and ignored.
The American left also feels silenced and ignored. That’s the nature of politics.
They're not really more prone to outrage as they are looking for validation of their outrage.
It’s not that they’re more prone to outrage, it’s that their kind of outrage just works in a talk radio/political hack format. The left wing version of the same doesn’t.
At the same time, the leftwing have coffee houses playing gak world music where everyone wears black rimmed glasses to show they’re unique and complain about how Hugo Chavez is getting a raw deal. It isn’t because the left is more inclined to echo chambers, it’s just a format that works for the kind of people they are.
I was going to comment on how the presence of intelligence in a child's life will make a world of difference to what are their values and beliefs when it comes to the world around them. I can say with certainty that the professions of my father and mother, both working at universities that are considered above average made an enormous impact on my beliefs of the value of education and respect. However I recently had an incredible experience that most children aren't given, and for the opportunity I was thankful, but it also changed my view of intelligence in relation to education.
I took courses from my local university offered to high school students. The program was held at Carnegie mellon and offered college level courses that are accelerated 2.5 times to make a semester fit into 6 weeks. If you were successful you got real college credit, but you had to work for it. I worked my butt off studying and completing assignments and projects in order to make good on the opportunity (and my parents money). I expected to be average in the class, I'm not stupid by any measure but I was taking courses that did not play to my strengths, because they were the only ones offered that I saw possible personal use for. Instead I was close to the top of the class, while most of the class had test scores that amazed me. I want to really stress that this was not a "How could you not get this by the first lecture like I did" but more of a "exactly how much time were you studying, because I saw you sleeping in class and it would take a lot of work to make up that mistake". This actually happened, I was amazed someone would waste their parents money and such an opportunity like that. I spent time studying, and got an 89 on my first test, which I though A) was significantly larger then what I expected to receive, and B) was even more surprised that my professor refused to calculate the class average because the number would embarrass him to look at. Most people, who were equal to me in intelligence, got grades in the teens. This was a trend throughout the semester. At the end I did well, and I think most people did really badly based upon in class public work and former test grades. Based upon my previous experience I had, perhaps wrongly, assumed that intelligence would lead to the understanding that the input of work is required in life. 6 weeks after this experience my understanding was radically shaken, and it worried me a little bit that perhaps even I too was a little like them. I get average grades in high school, and am sometimes surprised that my grades are lower then what I expected (which to be fare is not straight A's). I am really at a loss to explain this. Is it really bad parenting, or is something else there that I'm missing. Someone please point this out if I'm missing it because I'm at a loss.
Unrelated, but relevant to the op, I met mr. Rogers great nephew . He was in my grade but transferred schools after his first year in my high school. In that time I got to hear a lot of stories about his great uncle, and it proved that the man was a shining beacon of kindness and encouragement in his personal life as well as on TV.
standards for grades have drastically decreased. Lots of extremely mediocre kids parents like to flaunt the fact that their kid has a 4.0 GPA, straight As, and they didn't have the benifit of college educated parents (my Dad is a proffessor too so I know what it's like growing up in academics).
I was babysitting for an 8 year old the other day because his parents just sort of left him with us while they took off (if I wanted to play with kids I would have one... but that's another issue)
So I take him for a walk to the store to pass the time while his parents did their thing, hoping they would get back soon. Bought him some chips, a soda, a candy bar, tossed some rocks in the river from the bridge with him. etc cool kid.... we get home and he sees my girlfriend's XBox in the corner... asked if he could play it. Now keep in mind this kid is 8 years old. He knew the ins and outs and secret codes and stuff to every level of LEGO STAR WARS. I asked him if he could spell "video game". He didn't, but he sure can play it well.
There is your problem. Mr Rogers or Kermit used to be our babysitters and we learned to read. Now They learn cheat codes, memorize levels, and the school system, in order to save face on something that isnt really their fault, has to dumb down the standards, hence all the straight-A-ignorant-kids. Not only that, but when all the old 'real' newspeople left the building, sensationalism became the new thing, so when a kid actually does bother to watch the news, said kid ends up with as warped a view of reality as the parents quite probably have. Grab some popcorn and watch a movie called "Idiocracy".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote:Guitardian:
Speaking of people's appearances, have you considered that if your appearance is similar to that of your avatar, pretty much anybody that isn't homeless is going to avoid you or ask why you're wandering around their neighborhood?
Dude it's NYC There's far more freaky hair going on there than mine (including the wierd ringlet kids) so I don't know what you were getting at with that.
Yes it is just me, and that is their problem not mine, when I am there to fix their computer for them. I hope yours is similar to your avatar if you take that approach to judging people. Oooooh I have long hair and don't need to bother cutting it to kiss ass, or wear a tie for a cush job in a cubicle. Yeah I've been homeless too, and met some of the best people I know while out there. I can also teach your kid math, edit your term paper, and so on. Don't judge books by their covers, that's kind of rude. Ever tried talking to a homeless person before making such a classist remark?
It's okay though, Rogers told me I'm okay just the way I am. When I puss out and get a haircut I'll let you know.
Guitardian, earlier you said that kids (Generation One) are lazy because their parents (Generation Two) are lazy. Yet, if this is true, wouldn't Generation Three also have to be lazy in order to make Generation Two lazy? Wouldn't this leave your generation at fault for the crisis you see looming? The idea that your generation is at fault is further reinforced by your complaints against absent parents (who would be of your generation).
Absolutely true. That's why I don't have kids. children raised by children raised by children... When I feel I am in the right life situation and settled with the right mom, I will raise a little ninja jedi master kiddo. But until then I don't want to do a botch job either just because I was horney and didn't have a condom. There's enough of those kids already (like the one I was babysitting a couple days ago). I do resent absent parents, especially those of my generation. They are the worst offenders. My GF's friend has 2 kids from 2 different dads and a 3rd one on the way.... She also has a large collection of disney movies and doesn't do gak for herself. She is my generation. I dont really like her, but she has been my GF's friend since they were kids, so I just follow along, silently disgusted.
I take it back. It's clearly your winning personality that draws out the best in people, not your appearance. Though the notion of you editing one of my term papers is comedy gold...
Some good quotes I pulled regarding self-centered, lazy generations, etc...
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
-Socrates
I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond
words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise (meaning disrespectful) and impatient of restraint.
-Hesiod
The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for
parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress.
Peter the Hermit in 1274 AD
Look, I shudder too when I hear stories about Gen Yers bring their mom to a job interview, etc. But overall, kids are just kids. The real issue is we adults glossing over all the times we were lazy, self-centered louts at that age.
Perhaps the laziness of people and children is cyclic?
Gen 1 is hard working and has children given a lot of extras.
Gen 2 is less hard working and not as respectful as Gen 1.
Gen 3 suffers due to lack of work and lack of respect.
Gen 4 realizes the mistakes of Gen 3 and returns to the ethics of Gen 1.
Although, it could be sporadic.
Gen 1: 15% of children are disrespectful
Gen 2: 64% of children are disrespectful.
Gen 3: 31% of children are disrespectful.
So on, and so on.
Some people feel like life is owed to them, as if the world is in debt to them for some unforseen reason. These people often suffer because the world does not owe them a wooden nickel. Cases of this are like the yuppies that you let in your lane during rush hour traffic and they don't even bother to acknowledge your existence.
Then there are people who want to work, they love manual labor and don't care to go higher up in education or pay. These people are often respectful and respected and have friends who are willing to lend a hand if necessary. These people will also often find ways to pay their friends back. This is the guy that who's friends suddenly need work done on something when the guy is hurting for money.
There's the person who started from lower class and worked his/her way to the top and is successful. Depending on the family and background this person could be a disrespectful jerk, or a respectful philanthropist.
It all just depends on who and how you were raised. Where can matter, but not always.
On another note I agree with guitardian on the kid issue. I don't plan to get married or have kids till I can support a family comfortably.
On another other note, the whole "ground zero mosque" thing is really annoying. Do they have the right to build there, absolutely. Is it right for them to build there, personally no. Are we at war with islam, no. Are we at war with radical islam, yes.
As some people argue, it is wrong for the japanese to put a shrine near Pearl Harbor, it is wrong for the nazis to put a symbol near the Holocaust Museum, but it would be wrong for a Klan rally to be held near the MLK Jr Memorial, or a shrine for John Wilkes Booth to be put near the Lincoln Memorial, etc.
People will argue "But its not a radical islamic mosque that tey are building." I will say that we don't know that for sure and I will also say that one of the bigger issues may be that radical islamic terrorists believe in the same Allah that normal followers of Islam do. This could be enough to warrant the negative response from the people.
gorgon wrote:Look, I shudder too when I hear stories about Gen Yers bring their mom to a job interview, etc. But overall, kids are just kids. The real issue is we adults glossing over all the times we were lazy, self-centered louts at that age.
halonachos wrote:Perhaps the laziness of people and children is cyclic?
That's the central premise of the book 13th Gen, which is about Generation X (the 13th generation of Americans since the founding). The idea is that every few generations America faces a great crises, and the generation at the heart of the crises is forced to resolve the crises and becomes a transformative generation. This is followed by maintaining generation, that appreciates and attempts to maintain the transformative generation's achievements but fails to maintain its values (having not faced the crises themselves). The maintaining generation is followed by a wasting generation, which has no appreciation for
Basically that book argues that the Greatest Generation, having grown up dealing with the hardship of their parent's folly (the Gilded age) in the Great Depression and having fought World War 2, was deeply committed to having a society that functioned well and was fair for everyone. They were a generation of team players who had learned the necessity of good communal values the hard way.
They were followed by the Silent Generation, which grew up in the Depression and during the war, but came of age up in the post war boom era and didn't face the crises themselves. A few of them fought in Korea, but for the most part they had it very easy their whole lives. They served as the vanguard which shaped the worldview of the Baby Boomer generation, but for the most part they held to the ideals of the Greatest Generation.
The Baby Boom was born after the crises was over, and into the new world made possible by the achievements of the transformers, but they had no appreciation for it. They did not understand the sacrifices the greatest generation made to give them post-war America, and began to break the systems that maintained it. Reagan was their president, and America has been on a downward slide ever since, all driven by Baby Boomer greed. The elites of the Greatest Generation were happy to pay a 90% rate on the highest brackets of income, because they wanted to create an America where everyone had opportunity. But their children never saw a world full of people with no opportunity and no hope, their children didn't see how the Depression gave rise to violence and horrors, their children only knew a world where everything was given to them on a golden platter, where everything was made easy for them by the sacrifices of their parents.
And when they came of age, and their parents started retiring and dying off, and they were asked to shoulder the burden their parents had carried for them, they said...Nah. Screw that. It's about Me Me Me. And they let it become their children's problem. That's Generation X, my generation. We're in the tail end of the Boomer's reign, and the Boomer's fully intend to foist all of the problems they have avoided dealing with, the costs of repairing all of the damage they have done in their selfishness, onto Gen X.
Gen X is not lazy. Gen X is disaffected. Gen X realizes that Gen X got an extremely raw deal, and that the Boomers have shafted us hard. Now we may be the ones who solve the problem. Most of Gen X is somewhere between the ages of 26 and 46, with the real core of the generation around my age (34). We're the generation that is taking over the political machinery, and taking over the businesses, and within twenty years we will be running this country. I think we're going to fix it, because my sense is that my generation is a sleeping bear, just waiting for the long winter of the Boomers to end. My generation responded powerfully to Barrack Obama's message of hope and "Yes we can!" and is disappointed by his lack of radicalism. We want to shake things up, and to change things.
I don't think we're ever going to get to have the American Dream -- white picket fenced house of nuclear families -- but that's okay. Because the generation before the Greatest Generation had a very different idea of the American Dream, and the Greatest Generation changed the dream. And I think Gen X is going to change the Dream again, and give the Millenials a new golden age, which they will try to maintain, and which Gen Z will inevitably screw up.
I'm part of Generation X? I always put myself right into Y territory. I don't like to think of myself as being the flawed, emo product of the Baby Boomers' lameness.
Nah, it's a constant. There are always loads of disrespectful, lazy kids. There are always loads of people complaining about disrespectful, lazy kids. And there is a proportion of the population who sees the number of proportion of kids who are disrespectful and lazy are much more numerous than the number of adults who are disrespectful and lazy, and don't realise that many disrespectful, lazy kids grow up into respectful, hardworking adults... so instead they assume that this new generation suddenly has more disrespectful and lazy kids than any other generation and now we're all doomed.
That's demonstrated with gorgon's excellent historical quotes.
Then there are people who want to work, they love manual labor and don't care to go higher up in education or pay. These people are often respectful and respected and have friends who are willing to lend a hand if necessary. These people will also often find ways to pay their friends back. This is the guy that who's friends suddenly need work done on something when the guy is hurting for money.
Umm, I get your point that in any generation is takes all kinds, but your idea that people who like manual labour are somehow a type more inclined being respectful and supportive of their mates is crazy. Have you been on a building site? It's not exactly a place dedicated towards respect for all.
As some people argue, it is wrong for the japanese to put a shrine near Pearl Harbor, it is wrong for the nazis to put a symbol near the Holocaust Museum, but it would be wrong for a Klan rally to be held near the MLK Jr Memorial, or a shrine for John Wilkes Booth to be put near the Lincoln Memorial, etc.
You're really missing the point. The people who built the mosque are totally different to the people who flew planes into the building. Really, totally different. It would be like banning buddhist temples near Pearl Harbour, when that shrine was dedicated to building closer ties between Japan and the US.
People will argue "But its not a radical islamic mosque that tey are building." I will say that we don't know that for sure
We do know that it isn't a radical mosque, the briefest reading on the issue will make that absolutely clear. The guy behind the mosque wrote a book called "What is right with Islam is Right with the US". His entire political career is dedicated towards bridging the gap between Islam and the West. He was part of the Muslim advisory group to President Bush.
He is a moderate. Whoever has told you anything to contrary is a liar, or someone who listens to liars. You need to stop listening to those people.
and I will also say that one of the bigger issues may be that radical islamic terrorists believe in the same Allah that normal followers of Islam do. This could be enough to warrant the negative response from the people.
What? The God believed in by IRA bombers and the Lord's Army is the same God believed in by moderate Christians. Yet the actions of those extremist nuts don't discredit normal Christians. Why would it be any different for muslims?
I'd strongly argue that what made the Greatest Generation great are their circumstances. Other generations would have risen to the occasion if faced with the same issues. I recall people volunteering in the aftermath of 9/11. And while that was one of the most tragic days in our nation's history, it still wasn't equivalent to Pearl Harbor in terms of how the country had to mobilize afterward. Iraq and Afghanistan have been expensive, bloody affairs, but they aren't a *world war.* Faced with something like that, our people would have reacted similarly to how they did in the 1940s.
So I'm clear -- my intent here is not to diminish the achievements of that generation, because they certainly are many. The point is that for the most part, people are just people no matter what time period you're looking at. Sure, you get cultural differences, etc. But for the most part, parents want the same things for their children and will sacrifice as needed to make that happen. It's just that less sacrifice is needed now than during the 1930s and 1940s.
Perhaps more on topic, I honestly tend to ignore criticisms of modern parenting from those who aren't a parent. After I became a parent I realized two things. First, I realized just how hard a job it is. Another poster on this site once equated parenting with marriage and sex as things you have to experience before you understand them. I think that's about right. Second, I realized just how many good parents there are out there. We're all flawed individuals, so we're all flawed parents. But most parents love their children and do the best they can.
Gailbraithe wrote:Gen X is not lazy. Gen X is disaffected. Gen X realizes that Gen X got an extremely raw deal, and that the Boomers have shafted us hard. Now we may be the ones who solve the problem. Most of Gen X is somewhere between the ages of 26 and 46, with the real core of the generation around my age (34). We're the generation that is taking over the political machinery, and taking over the businesses, and within twenty years we will be running this country. I think we're going to fix it, because my sense is that my generation is a sleeping bear, just waiting for the long winter of the Boomers to end.
The fundamental problem with this is that the Boomers are a gigantic voting bloc that is now reaching retirement age. And no one -- no one -- votes with regularity like retirees. That's why politicians pander to them and are loathe to cut their entitlements, etc. And unfortunately because the Boomers are a very large generation, it's going to mean a high cost to Gen X and Y. Size matters even in politics.
Sebster, by sporadic I didn't mean in terms of time, I actually meant in terms of location and population. There are always disrespectful kids, but just because you live in the inner city doesn't mean you kick old people down stairs and just because you come from the suburbs doesn't mean you would help them up.
That was my bad for not clarifying.
Now with the work sites, there is a difference between doing something that you love and something that is your job. I love doing manual labor; building sheds, shoveling dirt, laying down tar paper, etc. This will not be my job though, I plan to be a trauma surgeon and chances are I will enjoy that job as well, but I love to get my hands dirty.
Now we have people at a construction site and we may have people that love to get their hads dirty, people who fething hate their job, and people who are only there because they decided to drop out of high school. Not every worker there is respectful because they may not love what they are doing.
Its just that from my personal experience I'v found that people who love to do hard work are generally more respectful.
The truth is we really don't know. The kind old man working in the church seems nice and we trusted him, this was all fine and good except for the fact that he was the BTK killer. FDR seemed like a strong leader, except he was crippled by polio. We don't actually know how a person is like even after their death most of the time, ths guy could be a closeted radical intent on enslaving our young and imprisoning everyone else while pushing the elderly down the stairs. Chances are he isn't that evil, but we never know.
Of course it isn't the same people who attacked the world trade centers, they were suicide bombers and seeing as though they did their job are dead. Here's another issue for you though. They were proclaimed martyrs of the islamic faith, the saints we worship today were martyrs of the christian faith. Compare the two and you will see that islamic "martyrs" were suicide bombers after that one kid blew himself up with a grenade decades ago, christian martyrs usually were crucified, or imprisoned, or tortured giving different cultural definitions and impressions.
While most muslims may not see suicide bombers as martyrs, the fact that some do see them as martyrs is enough to make the christians iffy about the islamic faith and muslim culture.
That's all one needs to warrant the mistrust about a cultural site being put up near a site where said culture did something really bad.
A german cultural center being put up near the Holocaust Museum is a bad idea as is putting up a japanese cultural center near Pearl Harbor. They may not be the same people who did the bad thing, but they represent the people who did and the culture that allowed them to be.
Also, I don't know what world you live in but I get flak all of the time for being a catholic because of the crusades and other religious nut jobs. Its just that most of the people giving me garbage are either "wiccans" or atheists saying that the christian faith is bullocks.
halonachos wrote:We don't actually know how a person is like even after their death most of the time, ths guy could be a closeted radical intent on enslaving our young and imprisoning everyone else while pushing the elderly down the stairs. Chances are he isn't that evil, but we never know.
If that statement is true of the imam in question, then it is also true of everyone else in the world. You've basically argued that we can never know what will happen in the future, and while this is true, we can make educated guesses.
In this instance the relevant data points to a moderate imam trying to build a mosque near Ground Zero. Its also possible that the mosque will become a den of radicals, but if we aren't interested in probability at all, then its also possible that the mosque will sprout wings and fly. Or, for that matter, that a Muslim terrorist cell will set up shop at a Catholic Church, Jewish Synagogue, or Yankee Stadium.
halonachos wrote:
They were proclaimed martyrs of the islamic faith, the saints we worship today were martyrs of the christian faith. Compare the two and you will see that islamic "martyrs" were suicide bombers after that one kid blew himself up with a grenade decades ago, christian martyrs usually were crucified, or imprisoned, or tortured giving different cultural definitions and impressions.
There is a lot wrong there. First, not all saints are martyrs and not all martyrs are saints. Second, martyrdom is a Christian idea, shahid is a similar Islamic concept, but it isn't similar enough to be considered the same. Third, suicide bombing is not universally considered to be an acceptable means of establishing martyrdom. Fourth, Islam doesn't have a rigid hierarchy. When a Muslim proclaims someone to be shahid, he speaks only for himself in much the same way that a Protestant speaks only for himself.
halonachos wrote:
That's all one needs to warrant the mistrust about a cultural site being put up near a site where said culture did something really bad.
Well, that's all one needs to cause mistrust. It doesn't necessarily mean that said mistrust is warranted.
I don't think you would claim that an atheist was justified in mistrusting Christians because of the actions of Fred Phelps, so it seems strange to me that you would take the same line here.
halonachos wrote:
A german cultural center being put up near the Holocaust Museum is a bad idea...
Why? Many Holocaust victims were German.
halonachos wrote:
They may not be the same people who did the bad thing, but they represent the people who did and the culture that allowed them to be.
So, the Holocaust museum at Auschwitz is offensive because it was built by Germans, contains things written in German, is dedicated to German history, and was built to memorialize Germans who died?
halonachos wrote:
Also, I don't know what world you live in but I get flak all of the time for being a catholic because of the crusades and other religious nut jobs. Its just that most of the people giving me garbage are either "wiccans" or atheists saying that the christian faith is bullocks.
You guys make the ghost of Mr. Rogers cry. He would sit us all in a circle and ask us to say something nice about the person next to us.
-
anyhoo... I agree with the idea that gen X-ers (aforementioned 30-45 ish) did get a raw deal. I also don't think we are nearly as lazy or lacking in ethics as the internet generation immediately below us, or the twitter generation immediately below them.
I dont have an adequate education by modern standards, other than what I taught myself. We just didn't have computers in every classroom when I was a kid. Additionaly, while I agree that mostly all parents want what's best for their children, the Boomer and Sleeper (or "silent") generations are rife with selfish people who only want the best for THEIR children, not for me. I pay hiked up rent to a schmuck who didn't have to ever work a crap job and live with housemates just to share the bills that one full time job can't pay for. They own everything and there is nothing left for us but to pay in their coffers because they could buy everything back when it was cheap and life was good.
Some of my peers have good jobs, usually because their daddy or uncle or friend-of-family gave it to them, and they will continue the cycle of ownership, voting on the issues that only concern them, and leaving the bill in their wake for us to mop up, while we pay them hiked up rent, pay into SSI that we will never see, and do their dirty work. Precious few that I know have 'good' jobs based solely on merit. And we wonder why the system is so trashed?
Greatest Generation? sure. I give props to anyone who served in WW2, but we dont get that opportunity either, war is now a calculated endeavor, not a absolute necessity. There will be no other Hitler craziness because it was dealt with and the world now knows not to let things get that far again. It just happened to be that moment in time when they did something, and were rightfully proud of their achievement. We would have done the same.
It isn't the 'greatest generation' that owns everything and greedily overcharges us for it, its their kids. Its the sleepers/silents and the boomers that got to grow up with the white picket fence and everything handed to them who I have to pay overpriced rent to.
I didn't really know my grandparents, so, I actually just hate old people and their sense of entitlement, their voting concerns, their expectations, their supposedly justifiable racism, in general... just like they hate my generation. The cool this is, the DIE FIRST, GET OUT OF THE WAY and let us fix their greedy mess. We are not lazy, we just have precious few opportunities until they keel over.
Guitardian wrote:You guys make the ghost of Mr. Rogers cry. He would sit us all in a circle and ask us to say something nice about the person next to us.
I'd immediately get up and get a hammer...
Greatest Generation? sure. I give props to anyone who served in WW2, but we dont get that opportunity either, war is now a calculated endeavor, not a absolute necessity. There will be no other Hitler craziness because it was dealt with and the world now knows not to let things get that far again. It just happened to be that moment in time when they did something, and were rightfully proud of their achievement. We would have done the same
(Looks at Iran, North Korea, Leichtenstein, Venezuela, the rising power that is China) Er what was that again?
China is centered on China, not trying to subjugate the world like Nazi Germany was. Korean war was not between the people, just the commie scare and U.S.S.R., Venezuela offered us their natural gas a couple of years ago when we had a crisis and it was refused by Dubyah because he didn't want Chavez on his friends list. next?
Guitardian wrote:China is centered on China, not trying to subjugate the world like Nazi Germany was. Korean war was not between the people, just the commie scare and U.S.S.R., Venezuela offered us their natural gas a couple of years ago when we had a crisis and it was refused by Dubyah because he didn't want Chavez on his friends list. next?
China is expanding.
Korean war was between the people? WTF? My Dad and Uncle would disagree with you, but they were busy ducking and listening to bugles at the time.
Venezuela doesn't have natural gas.
You didn't mention Iran.
Should note. The USA and USSR only went after Germany because Germany attacked or declared war first...
Iran has repeatedly claimed that their only interest in nuclear weapons is because everyone around them (esp. crazy ass Israel) has them. However, Ackmhudclearmythroat guy has said things about wanting to destroy Israel in the past. Sez my uncaring ass: good riddance to you both. Have fun in your respective Heavens. just another bs primitive religious bickering crap to wipe off the to-do-list.
Guitardian wrote:Iran has repeatedly claimed that their only interest in nuclear weapons is because everyone around them (esp. crazy ass Israel) has them. However, Ackmhudclearmythroat guy has said things about wanting to destroy Israel in the past. Sez my uncaring ass: good riddance to you both. Have fun in your respective Heavens. just another bs primitive religious bickering crap to wipe off the to-do-list.
So you're pretty much disagreeing with your own post. We haven't learned.
Guitardian wrote:Hey bud I'm not advocating that WE wipe them off the map. But if they want to wipe each other off the map, that simply isn't our problem. Any more.
True that, unless they throw a few nukes our way or activate their Hezbullah units that are in the US.
Having said that, same statement could have been made about Hitler, or Imperial Japan, or expansionist USSR. Its the same argument. Doesn't effect me so why should I care?
Strangely enough the US did rather well with that as a doctrine for much of its life. Sounds like a plan man.
halonachos wrote:We don't actually know how a person is like even after their death most of the time, ths guy could be a closeted radical intent on enslaving our young and imprisoning everyone else while pushing the elderly down the stairs. Chances are he isn't that evil, but we never know.
If that statement is true of the imam in question, then it is also true of everyone else in the world. You've basically argued that we can never know what will happen in the future, and while this is true, we can make educated guesses.
In this instance the relevant data points to a moderate imam trying to build a mosque near Ground Zero. Its also possible that the mosque will become a den of radicals, but if we aren't interested in probability at all, then its also possible that the mosque will sprout wings and fly. Or, for that matter, that a Muslim terrorist cell will set up shop at a Catholic Church, Jewish Synagogue, or Yankee Stadium.
See, anything is possible. Although, it is more likely that the mosque will sprout radical islamic wings than say a catholic church or another non-muslim place. See that's the thing with probability, there's a chance it could sprout wings although that is incredibly unlikely and will most likely not happen. However, a radical islamic fighter being recruited in a place where the islamic faith is practiced and taught has a significant higher chance of actually occuring. So you can say that with probabilities something silly may happen, but seriously be a little realistic here. You're comparing something that is rather fanciful to something that is rather real.
dogma wrote:
halonachos wrote:
They were proclaimed martyrs of the islamic faith, the saints we worship today were martyrs of the christian faith. Compare the two and you will see that islamic "martyrs" were suicide bombers after that one kid blew himself up with a grenade decades ago, christian martyrs usually were crucified, or imprisoned, or tortured giving different cultural definitions and impressions.
There is a lot wrong there. First, not all saints are martyrs and not all martyrs are saints. Second, martyrdom is a Christian idea, shahid is a similar Islamic concept, but it isn't similar enough to be considered the same. Third, suicide bombing is not universally considered to be an acceptable means of establishing martyrdom. Fourth, Islam doesn't have a rigid hierarchy. When a Muslim proclaims someone to be shahid, he speaks only for himself in much the same way that a Protestant speaks only for himself.
Isn't it awesome when you skip lines?
halonachos wrote:While most muslims may not see suicide bombers as martyrs, the fact that some do see them as martyrs is enough to make the christians iffy about the islamic faith and muslim culture.
I would also like to add that I put quotation marks around the "martyrs" in islamic "martyrs" for a reason. They aren't martyrs, but are called martyrs by some. See, I said some again that means "not all".
dogma wrote:
halonachos wrote:
That's all one needs to warrant the mistrust about a cultural site being put up near a site where said culture did something really bad.
Well, that's all one needs to cause mistrust. It doesn't necessarily mean that said mistrust is warranted.
I don't think you would claim that an atheist was justified in mistrusting Christians because of the actions of Fred Phelps, so it seems strange to me that you would take the same line here.
Here I meant that to the person it is warranted. Not to me or the world, but the people against it, it is their reasoning I am trying to convey. Also, I don't trust fanatics of any religion, a guy down the street from me cut the head off of his own kid because he thought the anti-christ was going to get his son. The anti-christ were his wife and his mother-in-law.
dogma wrote:
halonachos wrote:
A german cultural center being put up near the Holocaust Museum is a bad idea...
Why? Many Holocaust victims were German.
halonachos wrote:
They may not be the same people who did the bad thing, but they represent the people who did and the culture that allowed them to be.
So, the Holocaust museum at Auschwitz is offensive because it was built by Germans, contains things written in German, is dedicated to German history, and was built to memorialize Germans who died?
Okay, I will agree that the first one was a bad example. However, you missed the point with the second one. Last time I checked the jews didn't commit genocide in Germany, so in your example we have a center for the victim culture being set up near the perpetrator culture. That is just a little bit different from what we have in my previous examples and in the situation we are discussing.
dogma wrote:
halonachos wrote:
Also, I don't know what world you live in but I get flak all of the time for being a catholic because of the crusades and other religious nut jobs. Its just that most of the people giving me garbage are either "wiccans" or atheists saying that the christian faith is bullocks.
Are they right to do that?
Yes, they are right. The christian faith has caused a lot of issues and it still does, how many catholic presidents have we had after all? However, the faith is a culture of its own and has its dark spots that cause mistrust at first. The Westboro Baptist Church is a shining example of the dark spots and I'm sure that the news is filled with reports of priest molesting children. I personally live by the policy of not trusting a group, but trusting the individual. Can all christians be trusted, no. Can all muslims be trusted, no. You can learn about the individual and decide whether or not that individual can be trusted. Like I said I don't trust the christians as a group, but there are more than several christians I do trust as individuals.
halonachos wrote:
See, anything is possible. Although, it is more likely that the mosque will sprout radical islamic wings than say a catholic church or another non-muslim place. See that's the thing with probability, there's a chance it could sprout wings although that is incredibly unlikely and will most likely not happen. However, a radical islamic fighter being recruited in a place where the islamic faith is practiced and taught has a significant higher chance of actually occuring. So you can say that with probabilities something silly may happen, but seriously be a little realistic here. You're comparing something that is rather fanciful to something that is rather real.
Why should I be realistic? You're essentially discarding all relevant data in order to reach what isn't even the worst possible conclusion. What I did was use reductio ad absurdum in order to point out that you weren't approaching this reasonably by indicating that you were ignoring what is a very large body of relevant information; presumably in order to verify your own feelings about the matter.
halonachos wrote:
Isn't it awesome when you skip lines?
I read your whole post, and nothing you wrote corrected the basic, factual errors that I pointed out.
halonachos wrote:
I would also like to add that I put quotation marks around the "martyrs" in islamic "martyrs" for a reason. They aren't martyrs, but are called martyrs by some. See, I said some again that means "not all".
Sure, they're called martyrs by English speakers that want to distort the meaning of source material for political ends, or by similar translators with lazy principals. Arabic speakers do not use the word martyr when speaking to Arabic audiences.
halonachos wrote:
Okay, I will agree that the first one was a bad example. However, you missed the point with the second one. Last time I checked the jews didn't commit genocide in Germany, so in your example we have a center for the victim culture being set up near the perpetrator culture. That is just a little bit different from what we have in my previous examples and in the situation we are discussing.
But the perpetrator culture wasn't German culture. The perpetrator culture was Nazi culture, at least to the extent that Nazism is a culture. You have to be careful to accurately describe what culture was actually responsible for actions, lest you accidentally do something silly like include victims (like German Jews, for instance) in the perpetrator culture. Similarly, its wrong to state that Islam was responsible for 9/11 when the reality is that a variation of Wahhabism was responsible for the attack. The first variant of each example is broadly accurate in that Germans were indeed involved in the Holocaust and Muslims were involved in 9/11, but they are both imprecise to a degree that leaves on to wonder about the motivation of the speaker.
halonachos wrote:
Yes, they are right. The christian faith has caused a lot of issues and it still does, how many catholic presidents have we had after all? However, the faith is a culture of its own and has its dark spots that cause mistrust at first. The Westboro Baptist Church is a shining example of the dark spots and I'm sure that the news is filled with reports of priest molesting children. I personally live by the policy of not trusting a group, but trusting the individual. Can all christians be trusted, no. Can all muslims be trusted, no. You can learn about the individual and decide whether or not that individual can be trusted. Like I said I don't trust the christians as a group, but there are more than several christians I do trust as individuals.
You've switched ideas here. There is a difference between trusting someone because they profess something, and refraining from harassing someone because they profess something. In the prior post you described people harassing you for being Catholic, and in this one you're referring to refraining from granting trust simply because someone is of a given faith. I agree with the latter point, but not the former.
Moreover, I think there is a big difference between the basic courtesy that permits a civic society to function, and trusting someone to the degree that you do not police them as you would any other member of said society. We allow Muslims to build mosques in this country because we grant them a degree of trust with regard to not wanting to cause any physical harm. We also trust that, should they attempt to cause that harm, the agencies designed to prevent such action will be able to intercede; or even that more common individuals would step in. This combination of forces is what allows society to function at all. After all, some people in Montana are pedophiles, therefore, by your argument, it would be right for me to oppose allowing people from Montana (or anywhere where there are pedophiles) to have children.
Actually, I would prevent anyone from montana from being around children and I would think that anyone can be a pedophile, but some people I trust to not be a pedophile.
Although, certain harassment is not right. For example, harassing senators because you think they're illegal immigrants is kind of out there. If a region has a higher chance of a certain behavior then a belief that people from that region will act that way is understandable. Whether or not they are harassed is determined by that action. Christians have a bad habit of trying to convert non-christians or even christians of other faiths and it gets annoying so atheists and such return the favor.
Also, the mosque was approved because the person who asked to build it was trusted. The people who go to the mosque and the things they do in the mosque are the responsibility of the guy who got the approval in the first place. The guy is trusted to allow only certain people into the mosque and is trusted to bring good people into the mosque.
And yes, Germany was a culture. The nazi's didn't just pop up out of nowhere and take over through magic. The german people were down, poor, and suffering. The germans had a strong sense of nation and a strong sense of pride, being made to admit fault for starting the war injured their pride while debt wounded their sense of nation. The nazi's just exploited the german culture to gain power and the german culture allowed the nazi's to take control.
How were you using reductio ad absurdum? I didn't lead to the definite logic that the person is erecting a mosque for the sole purpose of destroying america. The worst possible outcome would be that he is actually constructing a doomsday device that will destroy the world. Although that is also incredibly unlikely.
Besides, I do remember saying "chances are he isn't that evil" so I clearly stated that chances are the negative actions are unlikely. Meaning that while I did say that there was a chance he was a maniac, there was a stronger chance he wasn't. Also, while there is proof that he is a moderate, there is proof that some moderates are actually radicals. There is proof that some people who preach peace are violent. There is proof that some mosques are used to recruit for terror cells and there is proof that some americans are terrorist recruits or recruiters. I have yet to find proof of a building sprouting wings and flying away except in fairy tales. So I will contnue with your supposed "reductio ad absurdum" if the building sprouts wings then it is a fanciful idea and that means we are living in a fantasy world which means elves are real which means orks are real which means that warhammer 40k is real which means intergalactic space travel is real which means Star Wars is real which means R2-D2 is real which means midgets are actually droids. There, I can get silly if you want to, but did that actually prove anything? No not really.
If you want to have fun not truly reading into what I am writing, you can use all of the logic fallacy attacks you want because you are arguing against the wrong thing and the wrong person.
The whole entire time I've been trying to get other people to understand what I think the people opposing it are thinking because the truth is I really don't care if the mosque is built. You are arguing against the reasonings I believe they are having and not arguing against what their reasons truly are. So yeah, go ahead and attack the logic because it isn't my actual logic, its the logic I believe they have.
Although the whole trust thing is a personal belief of mine.
halonachos wrote:Actually, I would prevent anyone from montana from being around children and I would think that anyone can be a pedophile, but some people I trust to not be a pedophile.
He sided with Hitler, but whether or not he trusted him is up for debate.
I think it's safe to say there was (as halonachos says) a modicum of trust, but there was clearly not full trust.
I recall seeing a show about an Italian reporter (I think) who Mussolini sent to Germany to look for evidence of the development of superweapons. Clearly Mussolini didn't fully trust Hitler, but that's also really the default situation for any nation towards any other... For example, Israel spies on the US, even though we're by far their staunchest ally.
Well, their could always be a trust that Hitler would wipe him off of face of the planet if he didn't side with him. Trust can be different from believing that a person never lies.
That's an example of belief, not trust. To trust is to rely on a person or thing. Belief is common in the world, but trust is really pretty rare, at least in my experience; particularly in modern society. You don't have to do a lot of trusting when your life rarely hinges on individual events.
halonachos wrote:Sebster, by sporadic I didn't mean in terms of time, I actually meant in terms of location and population. There are always disrespectful kids, but just because you live in the inner city doesn't mean you kick old people down stairs and just because you come from the suburbs doesn't mean you would help them up.
That was my bad for not clarifying.
Ah, that's fair enough and I agree with you.
[qote]Now with the work sites, there is a difference between doing something that you love and something that is your job. I love doing manual labor; building sheds, shoveling dirt, laying down tar paper, etc. This will not be my job though, I plan to be a trauma surgeon and chances are I will enjoy that job as well, but I love to get my hands dirty.
Now we have people at a construction site and we may have people that love to get their hads dirty, people who fething hate their job, and people who are only there because they decided to drop out of high school. Not every worker there is respectful because they may not love what they are doing.
Its just that from my personal experience I'v found that people who love to do hard work are generally more respectful.
I've met plenty of aggressive and rude tradies, in addition to plenty of considerate, mannered ones. I just don't see that they're naturally better natured people, and think you may be falling into the trap of assuming people who like things you like are naturally better people. It's no biggie either way.
The truth is we really don't know.
Yeah, we do know. People don't spend their lives following a moderate branch of Islam preaching tolerance and arguing for a more moderate Islam so they can one day sneakily build a mosque near the site of a terror attack. We really do know this guy's politics. The only reason to think he might be extreme is because he's Islamic, which is unfortunately enough for some people.
They were proclaimed martyrs of the islamic faith, the saints we worship today were martyrs of the christian faith. Compare the two and you will see that islamic "martyrs" were suicide bombers after that one kid blew himself up with a grenade decades ago, christian martyrs usually were crucified, or imprisoned, or tortured giving different cultural definitions and impressions.
They declared themselves martyrs, and a couple of other terrorists like Khaled Sheikh Mohammed said the same, but that doesn't make them martyrs. It certainly doesn't make them saints.
While most muslims may not see suicide bombers as martyrs, the fact that some do see them as martyrs is enough to make the christians iffy about the islamic faith and muslim culture.
There is a minority of Muslims who are radical. Yes. We all know this. It is an act, not just of intolerance but absolute stupidity, to think this somehow tars all one billion muslims as being somehow.
A very small number of Islamic terrorist loons want a culture war. Don't give it to them.
That's all one needs to warrant the mistrust about a cultural site being put up near a site where said culture did something really bad.
The culture didn't do something bad there. Some loons who claimed to be part of that culture did something bad there.
I mean seriously, think about this, if anything near a majority, or even a substantial minority, wanted a great culture war with the West, don't you think they would have achieved a little more than a handful of attacks over a decade? If 10% were radical, there'd be 100 million people plotting... they would have done a whole lot. And yet, there's been a handful of attempts. Because the terrorist element of Islam is vanishingly small.
Also, I don't know what world you live in but I get flak all of the time for being a catholic because of the crusades and other religious nut jobs. Its just that most of the people giving me garbage are either "wiccans" or atheists saying that the christian faith is bullocks.
That Wiccan burning times thing is also very stupid. The only real response to that kind of silliness is a full and proper understanding of the facts, not more silliness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:So, the Holocaust museum at Auschwitz is offensive because it was built by Germans, contains things written in German, is dedicated to German history, and was built to memorialize Germans who died?
Auschwitz is in Poland. Just saying, your point still stands and was well made, I'm just being a bit pedantic.
halonachos wrote:See, anything is possible. Although, it is more likely that the mosque will sprout radical islamic wings than say a catholic church or another non-muslim place. See that's the thing with probability, there's a chance it could sprout wings although that is incredibly unlikely and will most likely not happen. However, a radical islamic fighter being recruited in a place where the islamic faith is practiced and taught has a significant higher chance of actually occuring. So you can say that with probabilities something silly may happen, but seriously be a little realistic here. You're comparing something that is rather fanciful to something that is rather real.
A moderate Islamic mosque has no more chance of producing a terrorist as a moderate Christian church. It's the extreme mosques that are problematic. The mosque being proposed in New York isn't a radical mosque.
Here I meant that to the person it is warranted. Not to me or the world, but the people against it, it is their reasoning I am trying to convey. Also, I don't trust fanatics of any religion, a guy down the street from me cut the head off of his own kid because he thought the anti-christ was going to get his son. The anti-christ were his wife and his mother-in-law.
SO you get that the actions of a minority of a faith do not condemn the whole of the faith, yeah?
Yes, they are right. The christian faith has caused a lot of issues and it still does, how many catholic presidents have we had after all? However, the faith is a culture of its own and has its dark spots that cause mistrust at first. The Westboro Baptist Church is a shining example of the dark spots and I'm sure that the news is filled with reports of priest molesting children. I personally live by the policy of not trusting a group, but trusting the individual. Can all christians be trusted, no. Can all muslims be trusted, no. You can learn about the individual and decide whether or not that individual can be trusted. Like I said I don't trust the christians as a group, but there are more than several christians I do trust as individuals.
So all I'm asking is that you learn about the fellow involved in trying to build Cordoba House, Imam Feisal Rauf. He's one of the good guys.
Around 55 to 58 seconds in the main guy says that "you're not special just for being who you are".
yes. you. are.
And being special is good (in most senses). The special in my signature isn't as good, but if you're posting on a toy soldier forum, then you're the good type of special. congrats.
Oh, and on the previous page some people are arguing about the whole "ground zero mosque" thing. I'm goint to try to not get involved too deeply but I just want to point out that they're not building a mosque. There has been a mosque there for a few years. What they want to do is add onto it. What do they want to add on? An interfaith community center where people of any race or religion could come together. Seems to me like a good thing. Y'know, many different people uniting into one group, a community. Out of many, one. E Pluribus Unum.
