Gizmodo wrote:Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users.
Several former Facebook “news curators,” as they were known internally, also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially “inject” selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant inclusion—or in some cases weren’t trending at all. The former curators, all of whom worked as contractors, also said they were directed not to include news about Facebook itself in the trending module.
In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation. Imposing human editorial values onto the lists of topics an algorithm spits out is by no means a bad thing—but it is in stark contrast to the company’s claims that the trending module simply lists “topics that have recently become popular on Facebook.”
Kilkrazy wrote: Didn't know Farcebook was considered a serious newspaper of record type of outlet like Fox.
FB doesn't report news. It's an aggregator like Drudge Report is. FB collects news items from all over and put the ones they like best on the feed. The problem is, they put ideology before click-bait and that's bad when you depend on clicks.
Breotan wrote: The problem is, they put ideology before click-bait and that's bad when you depend on clicks.
Besides Jihadin, Frazzled, and Killkrazy being right in each of their posts, I'm not sure a non-news entity and private organization is wrong to put up the trending news they believe their customers want to see.
We are fine with actual news sources, like CNN/Fox/MSNBC/HuffPo/TheBlaze/WaPo/etc, curating their news based on their ideology. So what's the deal with a non-news website doing the same?
From the article:
In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation.
Edit:
It also seems like some of the bias wasn't against "conservative news" as much as it was against the usual "conservative biased websites":
Stories covered by conservative outlets (like Breitbart, Washington Examiner, and Newsmax) that were trending enough to be picked up by Facebook’s algorithm were excluded unless mainstream sites like the New York Times, the BBC, and CNN covered the same stories.
Alex McCown via AV Club wrote:In a stunning revelation that has left your weird uncle that lives in rural Montana completely speechless, it turns out the world’s largest social media platform doesn’t just turn on its computers each morning and then give everybody the day off. Gizmodo reports Facebook’s “trending” news curation team engaged in the same bias-driven behaviors of cherry-picking news stories to promote as any other news aggregator. (Here’s a brand-new example of that very same bias at work, for what it’s worth: The A.V. Club is not going to report on today’s news from Variety that digital company Fullscreen is changing its name to Fullscreen Media, because that story sounds boring as hell.) What makes this noteworthy is less the fact of Facebook’s internal practices than its claims to neutrality, in which the online giant states the trending news section, in the upper right-hand corner of the main page, simply “shows you topics that have recently become popular on Facebook.”
In interviews with several former employees (known internally as “news curators”), Gizmodo claims conservative news stories in particular were routinely suppressed from the trending news feed, due not to any instructions from the company but simply because of bias on the part of whoever was manning the feed. “Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending,” said the ex-staffer, remaining anonymous for fear of retribution. “I’d come on shift and I’d discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn’t be trending because either the curator didn’t recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz.” Perhaps it was an equally shocking discovery on the part of this former worker, who admits to being one of the few politically conservative people on the team, to learn that roughly 99 percent of humanity has a natural bias against Ted Cruz.
This conservative former news curator for Facebook provided Gizmodo with a list they had kept during their employment, counting stories they had registered as being suppressed by the trending feed. It includes topics like right-wing muckraker site The Drudge Report, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, and Chris Kyle, the Navy SEAL murdered in 2013. But while another former curator agreed with the anti-conservative bias in curation (“It was absolutely bias... It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is”), other former curators denied consciously suppressing conservative news, and it was unclear if liberal news stories received similar treatment by politically conservative curators.
In a further turn that just flabbergasted your Aunt Esther who assumed Facebook was ideologically pure, the curators also said they were instructed to put stories considered important into the trending feed, regardless of whether users were reading them. “People stopped caring about Syria,” explains one former employee. “[And] if it wasn’t trending on Facebook, it would make Facebook look bad.” This was also the case with breaking news, which would often take too long to gain momentum organically and thus would be dropped into the feed via an “injection tool.” Opportunities for Archer-style “phrasing” aside, the injection tool reportedly was used to boost the profile of stories like the Black Lives Matter movement.
And in a final reveal that our Luddite cousin Derrick will probably describe as “utterly unbelievable,” the curators say they had explicit instructions from the company not to include any news about Facebook itself. So you likely won’t be seeing this story about the unsurprising but still newsworthy exposé on Facebook’s trending news practices in the trending news section of the site, regardless of how many times it gets organically shared—which, feel free to go ahead and do that. The former curators agree that the algorithm improved over time, resulting in less instances of injecting stories into the feed. Also, the process was in such constant flux that it’s difficult to say how it may be different now. What’s not difficult to say—as Gizmodo notes—is that Facebook engages in the same news practices involving personal bias and preference as any traditional news organization. Which might be a reasonable thing to admit, if you were Facebook, perhaps via one of the site’s descriptive options, “It’s complicated.” Aunt Esther is always stressing honesty, after all. Honesty and conspiracy theories about Benghazi.
Frazzled does not have FB. Ghost Tbone has a site, but is not impressed and only opens when Frazzled's wife makes him which about once a year. The last time I was on I unfriended a D Bag who had just bailed on his wife.
d-usa wrote: We are a pretty tiny and useless sample site: but has anybody here actually ever looked at that section or even clicked on any link to any story?
I’ve clicked on one or two.
I’m more likely to notice something there and look at other sites for more reliable information on the topic.
Like here in Dakka OT.
Facebook is basically a tool to harvest your personal info and deliver targeted adds. The fact that it lets you keep in touch with your friends is purely secondary.
Ahtman wrote:Besides Jihadin, Frazzled, and Killkrazy being right in each of their posts, I'm not sure a non-news entity and private organization is wrong to put up the trending news they believe their customers want to see.
The thing is, they're pretty clearly putting up the trending news that the individual curators want to see; organically trending conservative pieces on Facebook wouldn't be, you know, organically trending on Facebook if people on Facebook didn't want to see them.
d-usa wrote: We are fine with actual news sources, like CNN/Fox/MSNBC/HuffPo/TheBlaze/WaPo/etc, curating their news based on their ideology.
d-usa wrote: We are a pretty tiny and useless sample site: but has anybody here actually ever looked at that section or even clicked on any link to any story?
Only if it intrigued or amused me enough, and in the rare case of the former I go looking for verification from proper outlets if I'm still curious.
Nevelon wrote: Facebook is basically a tool to harvest your personal info and deliver targeted adds. The fact that it lets you keep in touch with your friends is purely secondary.
Are you saying I shouldn't look to Facebook to run hard-hitting news pieces underneath ads like this one, which appeared under my feed a few weeks ago:
Outrageous, I will ask for a full refund immediately.
At least there is always traditional print media to fall back on.
Facebook is an aggregator, much like Drudge. They don't write stories, they don't do investigations. They find stories and post them up for the people to read.
So, just like Drudge is an unapologetic righty, it would seem like Facebook works the other way.
Wyrmalla wrote: The same site which admitted to conducting social experiments in order to cause people to become depressed so as to refine their metrics...
FB is just the monitoring AI for this Vault-Tec virtual reality simulation we call life.
d-usa wrote: We are a pretty tiny and useless sample site: but has anybody here actually ever looked at that section or even clicked on any link to any story?
I must admit that I have... It's not like I actually get news from there, especially from the "trending" section (because really, do we really consider Justin Bieber getting a face tattoo, or what X Kardashian has done with their rear end this week to be news?)
Personally, I can also see an element of peace keeping about this. As anecdotal evidence, I'd suggest looking at the comments sections of various stories that are semi-related, particularly if they are political posts. Naturally, seeing the comments "in order" is impossible (damn you stupid algorithms!!!) but in many posts that I see, it is people who could broadly be described as "conservative" that tend to start flinging mud sooner. The trend tends to go (as I've seen it... could be wrong) ARTICLE: "Bernie Sanders combed his hair, you'll never guess what happened next!" 5 comments of "I feel the Bern, do you!?" and then one comment of "I really like Bernie, and I hope he wins, but we know Clinton is gonna win" with replies to that of "You're a dirty commie hippy, and YOU are the one that's destroying 'Murica!"
I mean, its all anecdotal... so pinches of salt, YMMV and all that. I'm sure that some folks here can show us articles where it was left-leaning supporters who turned ugly sooner.... Ironically, not as ugly as any Chevy vs. Ford page starts out as though
Personally, I can also see an element of peace keeping about this. As anecdotal evidence, I'd suggest looking at the comments sections of various stories that are semi-related, particularly if they are political posts. Naturally, seeing the comments "in order" is impossible (damn you stupid algorithms!!!) but in many posts that I see, it is people who could broadly be described as "conservative" that tend to start flinging mud sooner. The trend tends to go (as I've seen it... could be wrong) ARTICLE: "Bernie Sanders combed his hair, you'll never guess what happened next!" 5 comments of "I feel the Bern, do you!?" and then one comment of "I really like Bernie, and I hope he wins, but we know Clinton is gonna win" with replies to that of "You're a dirty commie hippy, and YOU are the one that's destroying 'Murica!"
I mean, its all anecdotal... so pinches of salt, YMMV and all that. I'm sure that some folks here can show us articles where it was left-leaning supporters who turned ugly sooner.... Ironically, not as ugly as any Chevy vs. Ford page starts out as though
I think it's just the people who don't have "their guy" in power. Up here, we had Harper (rightie) running the country into the ground, and all the comment sections were abuzz with "dear Leader fascist overlord" hyperbole.
Now we have Trudeau (centre, but paints himself left) and it's all "Truderp secret muslim commie" hyperbole.
I'm interested to see what happens if Trump wins. Will that break the Internet (tm) worse then Ms Kardashian's rear end?
Nope. There is a "Trending" section which, at least on what I see on the screen is generally click-bait ads sourced from tabloids/pop culture type stuff.
Generally speaking, websites like Foxnews and CNN, somewhere on their articles have a "share" button that you can press to post onto your personal FB account, and people on your friendslist or whatever can see and read the article.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: There is a "Trending" section which, at least on what I see on the screen is generally click-bait ads sourced from tabloids/pop culture type stuff. .
In my experience, it's essentially like a hybrid of TMZ and the worst parts of CNN a week later - it's very rare for a news story to show up there less than 2 or 3 days before you've read it somewhere else. Additionally, it doesn't really customize itself to your interests the way you would think - I've forever hitting the little X and "I don't care about this" on stories about Bieber or the Kardashians, but they don't seen to pop up any less often.
Right now my news feed has in it a story about a bridge collapse anniversary in Florida - a state I have never visited or cared about in any way - an NBA player's mother's day message, even though I'm less interested in the NBA than I am in the state of Florida - and a story about Justin Bieber getting a face tattoo. I can't fathom in any way that how this gak shows up and honestly the idea that there is an organized suppression of conservative viewpoints is only surprising to me in the sense that there apparently is someone steering this ship after all.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: There is a "Trending" section which, at least on what I see on the screen is generally click-bait ads sourced from tabloids/pop culture type stuff. .
In my experience, it's essentially like a hybrid of TMZ and the worst parts of CNN a week later - it's very rare for a news story to show up there less than 2 or 3 days before you've read it somewhere else. Additionally, it doesn't really customize itself to your interests the way you would think - I've forever hitting the little X and "I don't care about this" on stories about Bieber or the Kardashians, but they don't seen to pop up any less often.
Right now my news feed has in it a story about a bridge collapse anniversary in Florida - a state I have never visited or cared about in any way - an NBA player's mother's day message, even though I'm less interested in the NBA than I am in the state of Florida - and a story about Justin Bieber getting a face tattoo. I can't fathom in any way that how this gak shows up and honestly the idea that there is an organized suppression of conservative viewpoints is only surprising to me in the sense that there apparently is someone steering this ship after all.
Same here.... I think that since I can recall ever starting to glance at what's trending, I think I've seen something that I was actually interested in maybe once... and it was a rugby story I'd already known about and seen.
Considering that they also didn't run a story with "actual news sources curate their stories to suite ideology", even Gizmodo is fine with it.
So yes, we are fine with it. Because we haven't done gak about it.
Maybe go back to ignoring me?
You're always welcome to not respond if it bothers you that much.
But yes, I certainly do take issue with being told I'm fine with major news outlets choosing not to run stories because they conflict with the ideological bent of the editors.
My only problem with this is that I subscribe to a few conservative sites that regularly post on facebook. Most of them are military related but I do have Steven Crowder on there as well so I don't like missing articles and such because FB wants to censor those sites.
But beyond that, they haven't done anything wrong. Just like in Hollywood where you aren't allowed to be a republican because you will be blacklisted.
But yes, I certainly do take issue with being told I'm fine with major news outlets choosing not to run stories because they conflict with the ideological bent of the editors.
Major news outlets choose not to run certain stories more for money reasons than they ever do for ideological ones.
An example one of my very good friends loved to tell me.... When he was fresh out of grad school, working in his first local news station, one of their "investigative journalists" had uncovered a major flaw with a vehicle that was manufactured in that area. The station management called up the manufacturer's management and said, "hey, we're XYZ news station, and we have a story that we are planning on running that may affect you" the manufacturer replied with, "if you run that story, we pull all our ad money"
While this kind of story may not be such a big deal for a company like CNN or Reuters, it certainly is a big deal for local affiliated broadcasts. "Eyewitness News Channel 7" absolutely cannot function without the local and regional advertising money that airs during news hour, and so this can have an affect on what kinds of news stories are aired. Just about the only way a story runs in spite of that kind of looming threat, are the HUGE stories (such as Flint's water) that tend to go national fairly quickly.
Major news outlets choose not to run certain stories more for money reasons than they ever do for ideological ones.
I'm in the camp that says there are all sorts of reasons a news outlet will choose one story over another. Ideology can play a role, though. Just ask Dan Rather. Or how remarkably quick the nomenclature switch from "illegal aliens" to the much softer "undocumented migrants" came about.
I'm also in the camp that's not fine with suppression of fact to fit a political agenda, despite d-usa's assertion that we all are. I'd like unbiased news, myself.
Seaward wrote: I'm also in the camp that's not fine with suppression of fact to fit a political agenda, despite d-usa's assertion that we all are. I'd like unbiased news, myself.
I'm with you on fact over narrative.... I think it was a line in season 1 of the Newsroom... the bossman said something like "the problem was that the Government, in granting the one hour mandatory "news" show for itself, did not have the foresight to also mandate that there be no advertising during that hour" (that is, honestly, a really bad paraphrase.... but generally gets the point across)
But I also see things in d-usa's way.... we're all biased in some way. The problem that I see now, especially with ideologically aligned 24 hour news stations, is that we can see numerous examples of where ideology masks the actual facts to better reflect the ideology.... that isn't fact based reporting.... and viewership numbers show that people are generally biased, and will "only" watch a news channel which agrees with their biases.
SemperMortis wrote: Just like in Hollywood where you aren't allowed to be a republican because you will be blacklisted.
Yes, this is why Arnold Schwarzenegger can't get a movie made, and Clint Eastwood hasn't won 4 Academy Awards, 3 golden globes, and a nomination for Best Picture for American Sniper, a movie about conservative hero Chris Kyle, and so on, and so forth.
But yes, I certainly do take issue with being told I'm fine with major news outlets choosing not to run stories because they conflict with the ideological bent of the editors.
Well, you are always welcome to start your own news outlet then
I don't know that I believe Facebook. Truthfully, I think any system of human curation is going to fall to at least some degree of bias.
Beyond that, tech companies of recent have a definitely trend of hiring former journalists and then utilizing them poorly, or at all. Disrupted covers this very well.
I don't think it's much of a scandal for all the reasons already well articulated here - the trending box has all the gravitas of a gak feed of Youtube comments, coupled with them not being a news organization and thus having no moral or ethical obligation to report anything at all, let alone provide editorial balance, and so on.
I agree that all the well-known cognitive biases that humans are prone to make it practically impossible for a single person to be truly objective, and group think creates dangers for small teams too.
Big reputable organisations like the BBC are about as reliable as you can ever get, and it's always useful to look at a variety of sources.
Facebook of course isn't remotely a reputable news organisation and doesn't pretend to be. Anyone who relies on their "trending" stream inevitably will be led astray even if it's only due to the inherent bias caused by trend selection which is due to people picking on popular stories first.
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree that all the well-known cognitive biases that humans are prone to make it practically impossible for a single person to be truly objective, and group think creates dangers for small teams too.
Big reputable organisations like the BBC are about as reliable as you can ever get, and it's always useful to look at a variety of sources.
Facebook of course isn't remotely a reputable news organisation and doesn't pretend to be. Anyone who relies on their "trending" stream inevitably will be led astray even if it's only due to the inherent bias caused by trend selection which is due to people picking on popular stories first.
I agree that Facebook's a horrible source for news. That's not my issue with what they're doing, though. Claiming they're explicitly not doing something while former employees say, "Actually, no, they totally are," in addition to all the other sketchball gak they do - including suppressing happy/sad items from users' feeds to see if they could manipulate an emotional response - suggest that none of this stuff is either benevolent or accidental.
I'm perfectly content believing the company that has a history of manipulating what its users see without their knowledge is lying about manipulating what its users see without their knowledge.
Kilkrazy wrote: I am afraid it's a case where you must either believe that Facebook are lying or the former employees.
There's a middle ground, since the employees in question were not employed by Facebook. They were contractors who worked for Accenture. Facebook can literally claim it's employees had nothing to do with any alleged wrongdoing.
I would be prepared to believe that Facebook issued instructions for how the Accenture contractors were supposed to behave while carrying out Facebook work.
If you read the article I linked to, it's pretty clear that Facebook deny the claims, regardless of any semantic distinctions between an employee and a contractor.
Kilkrazy wrote: I would be prepared to believe that Facebook issued instructions for how the Accenture contractors were supposed to behave while carrying out Facebook work.
If you read the article I linked to, it's pretty clear that Facebook deny the claims, regardless of any semantic distinctions between an employee and a contractor.
A company denied a claim that would make them look bad? Gee
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree that all the well-known cognitive biases that humans are prone to make it practically impossible for a single person to be truly objective, and group think creates dangers for small teams too.
Big reputable organisations like the BBC are about as reliable as you can ever get, and it's always useful to look at a variety of sources.
Facebook of course isn't remotely a reputable news organisation and doesn't pretend to be. Anyone who relies on their "trending" stream inevitably will be led astray even if it's only due to the inherent bias caused by trend selection which is due to people picking on popular stories first.
BBC is far from unbiased it's like clamming fox is unbiased. Humans will be biased for whoever is giving them cash and fits thier ideology
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree that all the well-known cognitive biases that humans are prone to make it practically impossible for a single person to be truly objective, and group think creates dangers for small teams too.
Big reputable organisations like the BBC are about as reliable as you can ever get, and it's always useful to look at a variety of sources.
Facebook of course isn't remotely a reputable news organisation and doesn't pretend to be. Anyone who relies on their "trending" stream inevitably will be led astray even if it's only due to the inherent bias caused by trend selection which is due to people picking on popular stories first.
BBC is far from unbiased it's like clamming fox is unbiased. Humans will be biased for whoever is giving them cash and fits thier ideology
False equivalency. BBC's biases are no where as blatant as Fox's.
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree that all the well-known cognitive biases that humans are prone to make it practically impossible for a single person to be truly objective, and group think creates dangers for small teams too.
Big reputable organisations like the BBC are about as reliable as you can ever get, and it's always useful to look at a variety of sources.
Facebook of course isn't remotely a reputable news organisation and doesn't pretend to be. Anyone who relies on their "trending" stream inevitably will be led astray even if it's only due to the inherent bias caused by trend selection which is due to people picking on popular stories first.
BBC is far from unbiased it's like clamming fox is unbiased. Humans will be biased for whoever is giving them cash and fits thier ideology
In contradiction of your unsupported and untrue assertion, various university studies have shown a remarkably low degree of bias by the BBC.
Essentially they always lean slightly towards the government of the day, but always get blamed for bias against the government of the day.
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree that all the well-known cognitive biases that humans are prone to make it practically impossible for a single person to be truly objective, and group think creates dangers for small teams too.
Big reputable organisations like the BBC are about as reliable as you can ever get, and it's always useful to look at a variety of sources.
Facebook of course isn't remotely a reputable news organisation and doesn't pretend to be. Anyone who relies on their "trending" stream inevitably will be led astray even if it's only due to the inherent bias caused by trend selection which is due to people picking on popular stories first.
BBC is far from unbiased it's like clamming fox is unbiased. Humans will be biased for whoever is giving them cash and fits thier ideology
In contradiction of your unsupported and untrue assertion, various university studies have shown a remarkably low degree of bias by the BBC.
Essentially they always lean slightly towards the government of the day, but always get blamed for bias against the government of the day.
They seem pretty biased towards Manchester united to me, actually.
As much as I empathize... government is *not* the answer.
Simply a full public report of any malfeasance, if any, should suffice. Let's the public punish/reward FB's actions.
Surprisingly, I agree with Whembly here... but mostly because FB is NOT a news site. It's a social media site. The intent, design and purpose was to connect friends separated by distance. Yes, it has morphed a bit into something else maybe, but you can still see all of the original aspects of the site still present.
Really, people shouldn't put any credence to the idea that the Republicans are the party of less government. They just want government to regulate different things than the Democrats...
skyth wrote: Really, people shouldn't put any credence to the idea that the Republicans are the party of less government. They just want government to regulate different things than the Democrats...
WrentheFaceless wrote: Yea not sure what the issue is, FB is allowed to control its own website?
I'm not sure if I can get upset about a private business manipulating their product... I'm more upset at the idea that we must rely on the government to address these sorts of issues. But then again since the govt forces you to make a cake, and as of yesterday use whatever bathroom you like or face federal discrimination, I would say the Rubicon was crossed some time ago.
How is a story about Justin Beiber getting a face tattoo or Russel Simmons talking stupidly about the Beastie Boys manipulating people for political purposes? As far as I can tell it just tends to be idiotic headlines to get attention and about as political as The Enquirer. MAD magazine was more political.
Ahtman wrote: How is a story about Justin Beiber getting a face tattoo or Russel Simmons talking stupidly about the Beastie Boys manipulating people for political purposes? As far as I can tell it just tends to be idiotic headlines to get attention and about as political as The Enquirer. MAD magazine was more political.
Ahtman wrote: How is a story about Justin Beiber getting a face tattoo or Russel Simmons talking stupidly about the Beastie Boys manipulating people for political purposes? As far as I can tell it just tends to be idiotic headlines to get attention and about as political as The Enquirer. MAD magazine was more political.
Pretty accurate... It isn't often that actual news is put onto the "What's Trending" tab, because realistically, actual news doesn't generate the level of clicks as those things mentioned.
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree that all the well-known cognitive biases that humans are prone to make it practically impossible for a single person to be truly objective, and group think creates dangers for small teams too.
Big reputable organisations like the BBC are about as reliable as you can ever get, and it's always useful to look at a variety of sources.
Facebook of course isn't remotely a reputable news organisation and doesn't pretend to be. Anyone who relies on their "trending" stream inevitably will be led astray even if it's only due to the inherent bias caused by trend selection which is due to people picking on popular stories first.
BBC is far from unbiased it's like clamming fox is unbiased. Humans will be biased for whoever is giving them cash and fits thier ideology
In contradiction of your unsupported and untrue assertion, various university studies have shown a remarkably low degree of bias by the BBC.
Essentially they always lean slightly towards the government of the day, but always get blamed for bias against the government of the day.
The BBC and the university's are biased left. Most university's are very left leaning it's hard to see bias if it's swing your way.
I've seen plenty of conservative stuff on Farcebook when I had an account. 99% of it is from users, though.
I agree with others who point out that Zuckerberg's little money machine is not a news outlet, but social media. And in my view, social media isn't to be taken seriously since it's garbage, a haven for drama llamas, a venue for the gutless to lash out, and targets for script kiddies to troll.
My fellow rightists need to quit sweating the small crap. There are bigger issues to worry about.
SemperMortis wrote: Just like in Hollywood where you aren't allowed to be a republican because you will be blacklisted.
Yes, this is why Arnold Schwarzenegger can't get a movie made, and Clint Eastwood hasn't won 4 Academy Awards, 3 golden globes, and a nomination for Best Picture for American Sniper, a movie about conservative hero Chris Kyle, and so on, and so forth.
Funny, the Daily Show even had an exec admit that the show doesn't allow conservatives except in extreme situations.
You also have the Book written by Ben Shapiro (Prime time Propaganda) which documents a number of interviews he held with Television and network executives. Some of the more poignant points from the book include
“At least, you know, we put Obama in office, and so people, I think, are getting – have gotten – a little bit smarter.”
because by voting in a black man we are being smart...funny that sounds like racism to me
There is also,
Leonard Goldberg — who executive produces Blue Bloods for CBS and a few decades ago exec produced such hits as Fantasy Island, Charlie’s Angels and Starsky and Hutch — saying that liberalism in the TV industry is “100 percent dominant, and anyone who denies it is kidding, or not telling the truth.”
Shapiro asks if politics are a barrier to entry. “Absolutely,” Goldberg says.
d-usa wrote: If only there was some kind of difference between one ideology being dominant, and the other being blacklisted.
Yeah, this is pretty much the point I came here to make. I didn't say that liberal ideology wasn't more common, but you (Semper) did say that conservatives are blacklisted. This is obviously not true.
d-usa wrote: If only there was some kind of difference between one ideology being dominant, and the other being blacklisted.
Yeah, this is pretty much the point I came here to make. I didn't say that liberal ideology wasn't more common, but you (Semper) did say that conservatives are blacklisted. This is obviously not true.
except that I gave you documented proof from the mouth of the heads of several note worthy networks that openly say that Conservative views are frowned upon and are discriminated agianst.
You gave me 3 anecdotes, none of which indicate there is any sort of industry-wide blacklist. One unamed guy said they don't usually allow conservatives on the daily show - if he really did, I sure can't source that. Another indicated that electing a black guy seems to him to be a sign of social progress, which has exactly what to do with a conservative blacklist, I don't know, and finally a producer of a TV show whose median age is 65 saying that conservatives have barriers to entry, which again is not how a blacklist works at all.
I gave you many awards given to prominent conservatives, and I can give you even more, but I"m starting to see that might not be the best use of my time. Either you do not understand what a blacklist is, or you're a horse who isn't very thirsty.
The media as a whole does put Liberal and Left leaning stories in a more favorable spotlight.
Case in point, Tea part vs Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street.
When the Tea Party was going strong they, admittedly, had a few outlying people that made them look bad. However, on a whole their meetings would be rather civil. This didn't stop a majority of the new networks from labeling them as "a mob", "racists", "unruly", and any other number of other negative ways to refer to them. This wasn't once or twice. This was the norm for describing them.
Meanwhile, BLM and Occupy Wall Street were actually recorded as spouting racist remarks, vandalizing property, looting, physical assaults on civilians and police, and in some instances rape. Yet the most common descriptors of these groups would include "a gathering", "Protestors", "demonstrators", and "activists".
Ouze wrote: You gave me 3 anecdotes, none of which indicate there is any sort of industry-wide blacklist. One unamed guy said they don't usually allow conservatives on the daily show - if he really did, I sure can't source that. Another indicated that electing a black guy seems to him to be a sign of social progress, which has exactly what to do with a conservative blacklist, I don't know, and finally a producer of a TV show whose median age is 65 saying that conservatives have barriers to entry, which again is not how a blacklist works at all.
I gave you many awards given to prominent conservatives, and I can give you even more, but I"m starting to see that might not be the best use of my time. Either you do not understand what a blacklist is, or you're a horse who isn't very thirsty.
Please by all means read the book, as far as the Daily show comment? Steven Crowder has a great video on it, please go take a look. As far as not understanding what a blacklist is or being blacklisted means?
noun
noun: blacklist; plural noun: blacklists
1.
a list of people or products viewed with suspicion or disapproval.
Pretty sure that is exactly what I meant. I think you don't understand the term "Blacklist". You seem to think it means they are forbidden from working in the industry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: The media as a whole does put Liberal and Left leaning stories in a more favorable spotlight.
Case in point, Tea part vs Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street.
When the Tea Party was going strong they, admittedly, had a few outlying people that made them look bad. However, on a whole their meetings would be rather civil. This didn't stop a majority of the new networks from labeling them as "a mob", "racists", "unruly", and any other number of other negative ways to refer to them. This wasn't once or twice. This was the norm for describing them.
Meanwhile, BLM and Occupy Wall Street were actually recorded as spouting racist remarks, vandalizing property, looting, physical assaults on civilians and police, and in some instances rape. Yet the most common descriptors of these groups would include "a gathering", "Protestors", "demonstrators", and "activists".
This entirely. How many Tea Party protests ended in looting/rioting? How many BLM Protests started with Looting and Rioting?
And your correct, for the most part Tea Party members were considered Racists, even though nothing in their group is racist and a number of prominent black politicians identified as Tea Party members.
On the other hand you have countless video's of BLM groups running rampant, attacking white people simply because they are white. A great example of this is the Marine Veteran who helped then 1st Sergeant Kasal out of an ambush, he was beaten so badly he had to hospitalized, why? because a bunch of BLM men asked him if Black Lives mattered, when he refused to answer they beat the living hell out of him.
d-usa wrote: He will be happy to see that his blood will be used to win an online argument on a toy forum.
You never know, us Marines are a sick twisted group
My dad always said that if you wanted a scalpel you sent in the Air Force, if you wanted a Hammer you sent in the Army, if you wanted a nice vacation you sent in the Navy, and if you wanted someone beaten into a bloody pulp in a raw display of brutal efficiency and lethality you called the Marines and asked nicely
SemperMortis wrote: Please by all means read the book, as far as the Daily show comment? Steven Crowder has a great video on it, please go take a look. As far as not understanding what a blacklist is or being blacklisted means?
noun
noun: blacklist; plural noun: blacklists
1.
a list of people or products viewed with suspicion or disapproval.
[/url
Pretty sure that is exactly what I meant. I think you don't understand the term "Blacklist". You seem to think it means they are forbidden from working in the industry.
There is a much more specific definition to that word when used in regards to Hollywood.
SemperMortis wrote: Please by all means read the book, as far as the Daily show comment? Steven Crowder has a great video on it, please go take a look. As far as not understanding what a blacklist is or being blacklisted means?
noun
noun: blacklist; plural noun: blacklists
1.
a list of people or products viewed with suspicion or disapproval.
[/url
Pretty sure that is exactly what I meant. I think you don't understand the term "Blacklist". You seem to think it means they are forbidden from working in the industry.
There is a much more specific definition to that word when used in regards to Hollywood.
When talking about blacklists in Hollywood, it's kind of splitting hairs to point our you didn't say "Hollywood Blacklist" because when talking about blacklists in Hollywood the first thing a lot of people might think of is the "Hollywood Blacklist."
SemperMortis wrote: Pretty sure I said Black list and not "Hollywood Blacklist"
I see. When you were talking about people in hollywood being blacklisted, you didn't mean in the usage of "a Hollywood blacklist".
My suspicions that I should be doing something else - anything else - clearly were well founded, and while that is a sunk cost, I am definitely going to now listen to the advise of Ouze From The Past and stop engaging in increasingly tortured semantic arguments.
By the way, I too found it very impressive that you were willing to whore out a wounded vet to bolster a totally unrelated argument on a toy soldier forum. As Nuggz would say, stay classy.
SemperMortis wrote: Pretty sure I said Black list and not "Hollywood Blacklist"
Also, you might have missed this when you read that website but it starts with this
"This article is about political blacklists in the 1940s and 1950s"
not exactly useful as a definition in this context is it?
Sure it is. Referring to the "Hollywood Blacklist" implies that you're talking about a similar situation happening in 2016, just with a different group blacklisted. If you want to instead talk about "conservatives are sometimes not liked as much" then it's your job to clarify that you aren't talking about the thing everyone immediately thinks of.
LordofHats wrote: When talking about blacklists in Hollywood, it's kind of splitting hairs to point our you didn't say "Hollywood Blacklist" because when talking about blacklists in Hollywood the first thing a lot of people might think of is the "Hollywood Blacklist."
Well not really, because the context i put it in was hollywood blacklists conservatives, and when using the ACTUAL definition of black list
"noun
noun: blacklist; plural noun: blacklists
1.
a list of people or products viewed with suspicion or disapproval."
It makes complete and total sense.
When you then use Ouze's definition it makes ZERO sense because he is using a definition that hasn't existed since the 1950s. I never once asserted that I was bringing back that specific type of blacklist. He himself decided to take my words and turn it into a 1950s definition....which is kind of strange because I highly doubt Ouze was alive in the 1950s and unless he is a scholar for civil rights in the 1950s or a hollywood fanatic I am rather surprised he would know of that definition in the first place...Unless he goofed when he read the term blacklist and thought it meant "banned" when it does not mean that at all, and went out of his way to find a way to fix his mistake, but that is just sheer speculation, unsubstantiated by fact.
SemperMortis wrote: Pretty sure I said Black list and not "Hollywood Blacklist"
Also, you might have missed this when you read that website but it starts with this
"This article is about political blacklists in the 1940s and 1950s"
not exactly useful as a definition in this context is it?
Sure it is. Referring to the "Hollywood Blacklist" implies that you're talking about a similar situation happening in 2016, just with a different group blacklisted. If you want to instead talk about "conservatives are sometimes not liked as much" then it's your job to clarify that you aren't talking about the thing everyone immediately thinks of.
So by that logic I should then have to look up the definition of every word I use just in case it had a different meaning 60+ years ago that someone on dakka might know or find?
SemperMortis wrote: unless he is a scholar for civil rights in the 1950s or a hollywood fanatic I am rather surprised he would know of that definition in the first place
Perhaps you should have paid more attention in your history classes? The whole "left-wing people were blacklisted by Hollywood" thing is kind of high-school level at most. I'm honestly a bit surprised that you didn't know about it, especially given your concern about similar things possibly happening in 2016.
So by that logic I should then have to look up the definition of every word I use just in case it had a different meaning 60+ years ago that someone on dakka might know or find?
It's hardly an obscure technical definition that nobody would have heard of. I don't see why you're being so stubborn about this. Just admit that you didn't know about the common meaning of the term, clarify what you did mean, and move on. You don't need to defend this to the death.
Perhaps you should have paid more attention in your history classes? The whole "left-wing people were blacklisted by Hollywood" thing is kind of high-school level at most. I'm honestly a bit surprised that you didn't know about it, especially given your concern about similar things possibly happening in 2016.
Really, we shouldn't be surprised... McCarthyism was touched for all of 5 minutes in all of my HS level history classes, and while the Hollywood Blacklist may not be directly linked to McCarthy or his -ism, since I've been in college and been introduced to it, the two go hand-in-hand.
SemperMortis wrote: unless he is a scholar for civil rights in the 1950s or a hollywood fanatic I am rather surprised he would know of that definition in the first place
Perhaps you should have paid more attention in your history classes? The whole "left-wing people were blacklisted by Hollywood" thing is kind of high-school level at most. I'm honestly a bit surprised that you didn't know about it, especially given your concern about similar things possibly happening in 2016.
So by that logic I should then have to look up the definition of every word I use just in case it had a different meaning 60+ years ago that someone on dakka might know or find?
It's hardly an obscure technical definition that nobody would have heard of. I don't see why you're being so stubborn about this. Just admit that you didn't know about the common meaning of the term, clarify what you did mean, and move on. You don't need to defend this to the death.
So your friend posts something stupid because he thought a word had a different meaning. You rush to his defense and come up with this bull? When someone says Hollywood blacklist and puts it in the context of 2000s to present they don't think of a definition used back in 1950. I am sorry that is just idiotic. "Just admit you didn't know about the common meaning of the term" Well I wouldn't consider that the "common meaning" but since your rushing to the defense of your liberal pal I understand the complete lack of a logical thought process that brought you to your statement. please continue to make references to the 1950s its fun.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Really, we shouldn't be surprised... McCarthyism was touched for all of 5 minutes in all of my HS level history classes, and while the Hollywood Blacklist may not be directly linked to McCarthy or his -ism, since I've been in college and been introduced to it, the two go hand-in-hand.
I suppose that's a fair point, in my classes it was covered in more detail, but maybe in right-leaning areas it's kind of skipped over. Either way though it's certainly common knowledge, not some obscure fact of history that only a dedicated researcher would ever find.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: So your friend posts something stupid because he thought a word had a different meaning.
They aren't my friend. I just enjoy pointing out when people are wrong. And you're wrong.
When someone says Hollywood blacklist and puts it in the context of 2000s to present they don't think of a definition used back in 1950. I am sorry that is just idiotic.
Err, lol? Maybe you honestly didn't mean it that way and aren't just desperately trying to back off from your claim now that you've been called on it, but the analogy between the 1950s blacklisting and supposed modern blacklisting is pretty obvious. When you talk about "Hollywood blacklists" people are going to think of the old anti-Communist blacklisting because that was a significant historical event with obvious parallels with the (supposed) modern situation. In fact, that connection and the emotional impact of "blacklisting" is deliberately evoked by critics of "liberal Hollywood" to present a situation where conservatives are unable to get work in the industry because of their political beliefs. That's why it's called blacklisting, not "some people in the industry look down on conservatives".
So, like I said, just admit that you didn't mean it that way and move on. You don't need to defend it to the death and stubbornly insist that everyone else has to be unreasonable for thinking of a common historical reference.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Really, we shouldn't be surprised... McCarthyism was touched for all of 5 minutes in all of my HS level history classes, and while the Hollywood Blacklist may not be directly linked to McCarthy or his -ism, since I've been in college and been introduced to it, the two go hand-in-hand.
I suppose that's a fair point, in my classes it was covered in more detail, but maybe in right-leaning areas it's kind of skipped over. Either way though it's certainly common knowledge, not some obscure fact of history that only a dedicated researcher would ever find.
Another wonderful conclusion drawn from Pergrine. "IN my area this and this happen so therefore it must be true for everyone" that is anecdotal evidence Peregrine "no it isn't because its me saying it not some right wing jerk face".. Ok peregrine calm down.
SemperMortis wrote: Another wonderful conclusion drawn from Pergrine. "IN my area this and this happen so therefore it must be true for everyone" that is anecdotal evidence Peregrine "no it isn't because its me saying it not some right wing jerk face".. Ok peregrine calm down.
Oh FFS. Let's go back to what you originally said:
unless he is a scholar for civil rights in the 1950s or a hollywood fanatic I am rather surprised he would know of that definition in the first place
Whether or not my high school experience is the default everywhere it was still covered, and I didn't go to some elite 0.000001% school that is way beyond what is normal. The historical reference is clearly something that lots of people are aware of, not some obscure bit of trivia that only a "scholar for civil rights" or "Hollywood fanatic" would be expected to know.
Anyway, if anyone is interested in the subject matter, I suggest you check out the movie "Trumbo", which covers the Hollywood Blacklist. It came out less than a year ago, and Bryan Cranston was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actor for his performance back in February.
SemperMortis wrote: Another wonderful conclusion drawn from Pergrine. "IN my area this and this happen so therefore it must be true for everyone" that is anecdotal evidence Peregrine "no it isn't because its me saying it not some right wing jerk face".. Ok peregrine calm down.
Oh FFS. Let's go back to what you originally said:
unless he is a scholar for civil rights in the 1950s or a hollywood fanatic I am rather surprised he would know of that definition in the first place
Whether or not my high school experience is the default everywhere it was still covered, and I didn't go to some elite 0.000001% school that is way beyond what is normal. The historical reference is clearly something that lots of people are aware of, not some obscure bit of trivia that only a "scholar for civil rights" or "Hollywood fanatic" would be expected to know.
I grew up in a quite odd state... certain population areas make the state look blue, but based on land areas, the state should be considered red...
Anyhow, To further clarify, in the context of McCarthyism, during that 5 minutes of "discussion" I'm sure that the teachers mentioned how it had permeated the entire country, including hollywood. I was probably asleep for it, because I was gonna ace the upcoming test regardless
And thinking on it more.... I think it may have been covered in my "Film as Lit" class of all places... it was a long time ago, so forgive me if I don't have an elephant's memory And for the record, I went to one of the crap schools in my home town (demographics and neighborhood wise)
SemperMortis wrote: Another wonderful conclusion drawn from Pergrine. "IN my area this and this happen so therefore it must be true for everyone" that is anecdotal evidence Peregrine "no it isn't because its me saying it not some right wing jerk face".. Ok peregrine calm down.
Oh FFS. Let's go back to what you originally said:
unless he is a scholar for civil rights in the 1950s or a hollywood fanatic I am rather surprised he would know of that definition in the first place
Whether or not my high school experience is the default everywhere it was still covered, and I didn't go to some elite 0.000001% school that is way beyond what is normal. The historical reference is clearly something that lots of people are aware of, not some obscure bit of trivia that only a "scholar for civil rights" or "Hollywood fanatic" would be expected to know.
McCarthyism was covered in my school, but none of the time on that subject was placed on Hollywood. So sorry that my school didn't bother to inform me that in the 1950s the term "Hollywood Blacklisting" meant something completely different then the context I used it in just now. Rather ironic to because I doubt very much your public school did mention it. Provide proof? no you cant? so I just have your word to go on?
Anyway, if anyone is interested in the subject matter, I suggest you check out the movie "Trumbo", which covers the Hollywood Blacklist. It came out less than a year ago, and Bryan Cranston was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actor for his performance back in February.
Pretty obscure stuff
Yes Ouze it is in fact OBSCURE. Trumbo raked in
Worldwide Box Office $10,370,642
Trumbo finished the year in 149th place in regards to earnings. To put that in context, the Spongebob movie earned $162,994,032
If everyone could drop the snark and rudeness, that'd be great. In fact, given the level of discussion displayed here, we're going to drop the whole hollywood thing entirely. This is about FB and the news.
motyak wrote: If everyone could drop the snark and rudeness, that'd be great. In fact, given the level of discussion displayed here, we're going to drop the whole hollywood thing entirely. This is about FB and the news.
Which brings me back to my original point which is that Facebook and the media in general as well as the word motyak said to drop, are BLACKLISTING Conservatives in favor of liberals.
motyak wrote: If everyone could drop the snark and rudeness, that'd be great. In fact, given the level of discussion displayed here, we're going to drop the whole hollywood thing entirely. This is about FB and the news.
Which brings me back to my original point which is that Facebook and the media in general as well as the word motyak said to drop, are BLACKLISTING Conservatives in favor of liberals.
You mean the case where the guy was a bigoted in public and his employer said "nope, I don't think we want to be associated with this"? That went well beyond merely being a conservative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: Which brings me back to my original point which is that Facebook and the media in general as well as the word motyak said to drop, are BLACKLISTING Conservatives in favor of liberals.
They really aren't, except under the most strictly literal dictionary definitions. Under the more common definition of "refused service/employment/etc" rather than "viewed with suspicion" this supposed blacklisting is a lot less credible. A more accurate description of the situation is that extremists and bigots are given the treatment they deserve, while "mainstream" conservatives have much fewer problems. And since the media, like all industries, exists to make a profit, its content is decided by what sells best. And it turns out that conservative propaganda just doesn't sell very well.
For people who do not use facebook, here is what my trending section looks like today.
Scouts honor: I have not adjusted, tweaked, or altered this in any way other than what my record of "i'm not interested in this" might have influenced the results.
A story about 2 people I don't know in a place I'm barely aware of
Some guy I don't know apologizing for something I've never heard of in a place I don't know
A Doom map, which is I guess sort of tangentially relevant since I play video games, but not Doom since at least 1995
A company I've never heard of is having a bad quarter
Taylor Swift, who I don't like or follow, is having problems with a stalker
A TV show I've never heard of is premiering on a network I've never watched
A story about Walmart feuding with Visa, which are at least brands I know
A restaraunt I've never been to is closing in a state I've never been to
A ghost ship in Liberia is being investigated, and to be honest, I'll probably click this link The stars of a reality show I've never seen are divorcing
If there's a bias in that list, it's towards "gak I don't care about", and it's a pretty incredible bias.
Kilkrazy wrote: Which is proof that the US media is very far from closed to the conservative voice.
Lets take a look at the major news outlets in the US. This is based on a study done by the Pew Research Center.
CONSERVATIVE NEWS OUTLETS:
Fox, Drudge Report, Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh Show, The Blaze, Sean Hannity Show, and finally the Glen Beck program.
LIBERAL NEWS OUTLETS:
Yahoo News, Wallstreet Journal, CBS News, Google News, Bloomberg, ABC News, USA Today, NBC News, CNN, MSNBC, Buzzfeed, PBS, BBC, Huffington Post, Washington Post, The Economist, Politico, Daily Show, The Guardian, Al Jazeera America, NPR, Colbert Report, New York Times and Finally New Yorker State.
So the conservatives have 3 news agencies and a handful of individuals, the liberas have .....well a whole lot more then that. But your right KilKrazy, there is clearly not a bias against Conservatism in the US. *SIDE NOTE: I have never heard of "The Blaze" so that was something new for me.
Kilkrazy wrote: Which is proof that the US media is very far from closed to the conservative voice.
Lets take a look at the major news outlets in the US. This is based on a study done by the Pew Research Center.
CONSERVATIVE NEWS OUTLETS:
Fox, Drudge Report, Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh Show, The Blaze, Sean Hannity Show, and finally the Glen Beck program.
LIBERAL NEWS OUTLETS:
Yahoo News, Wallstreet Journal, CBS News, Google News, Bloomberg, ABC News, USA Today, NBC News, CNN, MSNBC, Buzzfeed, PBS, BBC, Huffington Post, Washington Post, The Economist, Politico, Daily Show, The Guardian, Al Jazeera America, NPR, Colbert Report, New York Times and Finally New Yorker State.
So the conservatives have 3 news agencies and a handful of individuals, the liberas have .....well a whole lot more then that. But your right KilKrazy, there is clearly not a bias against Conservatism in the US. *SIDE NOTE: I have never heard of "The Blaze" so that was something new for me.
And yet how much revenue does Fox generate compared to the others? It's not just the quantity, it's the size that matters. Also, I think Yahoo is about to go under, so there's that.
Kilkrazy wrote: Which is proof that the US media is very far from closed to the conservative voice.
Lets take a look at the major news outlets in the US. This is based on a study done by the Pew Research Center.
CONSERVATIVE NEWS OUTLETS:
Fox, Drudge Report, Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh Show, The Blaze, Sean Hannity Show, and finally the Glen Beck program.
LIBERAL NEWS OUTLETS:
Yahoo News, Wallstreet Journal, CBS News, Google News, Bloomberg, ABC News, USA Today, NBC News, CNN, MSNBC, Buzzfeed, PBS, BBC, Huffington Post, Washington Post, The Economist, Politico, Daily Show, The Guardian, Al Jazeera America, NPR, Colbert Report, New York Times and Finally New Yorker State.
So the conservatives have 3 news agencies and a handful of individuals, the liberas have .....well a whole lot more then that. But your right KilKrazy, there is clearly not a bias against Conservatism in the US. *SIDE NOTE: I have never heard of "The Blaze" so that was something new for me.
I didn't say there isn't a bias against conservatism, I said they aren't shut out of the media, and they aren't.
However if you feel there aren't enough right wing TV stations and newspapers, you should ask some rich conservatives for money to make some more.
It's an interesting read, and ultimately what it shows is that conservatives tend to get their news from few sources (47% say Fox News) and liberals tend to get their news from a wide range of sources. It makes no claims as to if those sources themselves are liberal or conservative (as the poster seems to indicate), only the demographic makeup of who tends to consume them.
That makes much more sense. And the "conservatives distrust more news sources" is on full display here with the "I don't agree with them, so they have a liberal bias" arguments.
Are you doubting that a actual poll listed The Daily Show as a news outlet?
I personally don't trust any poll that doesn't give The Onion any journalistic credit.
There's a lot odd in that list. Beyond including comedy shows as news outlets, one of which has been off the air since 2014 - something a partisan with an axe to grind might do, but I sort of doubt a actual polling company would do unless the question was phrased oddly - some things stood out as unlikely. The Daily Caller isn't there - and some other odd inclusions, like The Guardian, which isn't even a US news service.
It's an interesting read, and ultimately what it shows is that conservatives tend to get their news from few sources (47% say Fox News) and liberals tend to get their news from a wide range of sources. It makes no claims as to if those sources themselves are liberal or conservative (as the poster seems to indicate), only the demographic makeup of who tends to consume them.
Ooooh, thanks. Reading this explains a lot, mostly that the source doesn't at all state what he claimed it did.
As a liberal, I must be a weird duck. I mostly watch Fox News, though I do switch to PBS during the News Hour. On the radio, the only two stations I have on my radio memory is a conservative talk station (Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Medved, etc.) and NPR (for the Science Fridays and Car Talk and Fresh Air interviews).
Gordon Shumway wrote: As a liberal, I must be a weird duck. I mostly watch Fox News, though I do switch to PBS during the News Hour. On the radio, the only two stations I have on my radio memory is a conservative talk station (Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Medved, etc.) and NPR (for the Science Fridays and Car Talk and Fresh Air interviews).
It's an interesting read, and ultimately what it shows is that conservatives tend to get their news from few sources (47% say Fox News) and liberals tend to get their news from a wide range of sources. It makes no claims as to if those sources themselves are liberal or conservative (as the poster seems to indicate), only the demographic makeup of who tends to consume them.
Ooooh, thanks. Reading this explains a lot, mostly that the source doesn't at all state what he claimed it did.
It's interesting that the study doesn't make any claims of any kind regarding the political leanings and ideologies of the news sources, spend zero effort on looking at the ideology of any of the news sources, and wasn't designed to make any observation regarding the political or ideological leanings of news agencies.
It's a simple "what do you watch" and "who do you trust" poll.
We have pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, pro-military, pro-america people who look at Dakka. I guess it's a pretty conservative website for people who enjoy tabletop gaming.
Gordon Shumway wrote: As a liberal, I must be a weird duck. I mostly watch Fox News, though I do switch to PBS during the News Hour. On the radio, the only two stations I have on my radio memory is a conservative talk station (Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Medved, etc.) and NPR (for the Science Fridays and Car Talk and Fresh Air interviews).
I don't really ever watch the news on TV. I get pretty much all of my news from various sites online. My political stuff I tend to get from RCP since it's a more or less random aggregation of political news stories. I usually try to avoid the absolute ends of the spectrum - Fox and NBC - since I feel like both have their thumbs on the scale but will go there to contrast their coverage of stuff sometimes. That being said I have found that for the last few elections running, Foxnews.com has consistently the best website layout and information available - when I follow the big races I check several networks and they always are really good in terms of information displayed.
I check CNN all the time and I always immediately regret that choice, but I still do it all the time. It's very much like McDonalds in that regard. I know I'm making a bad choice and it's never turned out otherwise.
Gordon Shumway wrote: As a liberal, I must be a weird duck. I mostly watch Fox News, though I do switch to PBS during the News Hour. On the radio, the only two stations I have on my radio memory is a conservative talk station (Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Medved, etc.) and NPR (for the Science Fridays and Car Talk and Fresh Air interviews).
I don't really ever watch the news on TV. I get pretty much all of my news from various sites online. My political stuff I tend to get from RCP since it's a more or less random aggregation of political news stories. I usually try to avoid the absolute ends of the spectrum - Fox and NBC - since I feel like both have their thumbs on the scale but will go there to contrast their coverage of stuff sometimes. That being said I have found that for the last few elections running, Foxnews.com has consistently the best website layout and information available - when I follow the big races I check several networks and they always are really good in terms of information displayed.
I tend to do most of my online reading on RCP as well (with a healthy smattering of the WaPo.) Really, I think I watch Fox and listen to talk radio so much is for the lols (I'm just waiting for Levin to have a heart attack while on air). Plus, it helps to see why exactly certain people believe things that seem so utterly alien to my thinking.
I check CNN all the time and I always immediately regret that choice, but I still do it all the time. It's very much like McDonalds in that regard. I know I'm making a bad choice and it's never turned out otherwise.
d-usa wrote: That makes much more sense. And the "conservatives distrust more news sources" is on full display here with the "I don't agree with them, so they have a liberal bias" arguments.
So a handful of interviews with people with first hand experience on the matter (Former Facebook employees), teamed with more interviews from Television and network executives that all say that there is open discrimination against conservatives is completely irrelevant somehow then?
Ouze wrote: It's more than enough if a persecution complex is a strong part of your brand identity, however.
Ouze it gets a bit old that anyone who disagrees with your stance is automatically either Evil, stupid, ignorant or have some kind of complex. I really like debating and talking about politics and other issues in a more polite manner, but against you it comes down to insults and passive aggressive comments like
it's more than enough if a persecution complex is a strong part of your brand identity, however.
Jihadin wrote: Why I watch Fox News, Local (KOUMO), and CNN. Three sources of confusion to assimilate
Stiff Fox News has hotter looking females
Yeah, it reminds me of The Watchmen's Adrian Viedt's ability to predict the future (consume vast quantiles of disparate sources of information to get a puzzle of reality). Plus, as you say, hot anchors.
Ouze wrote: It's more than enough if a persecution complex is a strong part of your brand identity, however.
Ouze it gets a bit old that anyone who disagrees with your stance is automatically either Evil, stupid, ignorant or have some kind of complex. I really like debating and talking about politics and other issues in a more polite manner, but against you it comes down to insults and passive aggressive comments like
it's more than enough if a persecution complex is a strong part of your brand identity, however.
Can you be more civil?
There's a little yellow triangle you can hit if you think I'm breaking a rule. I'm not sure which one I'm breaking by pointing out that what appears to (now) be a significant element of conservatism is constant campaigns of butthurt over the most insipid of causes, like the war on christmas, people saying happy hollidays, and of course, complaining that some of the their most mediocre purveyors of dubious truths, like Breitbart, aren't getting equal facetime in a little box filled with news about Justin Bieber and reality TV show developments.
If you're upset that you were called out for misrepresenting a poll you provided as "evidence" when it didn't say what you think it said - I'm afraid that isn't being rude, even if revealing your errors makes you uncomfortable.
skyth wrote: You act as if there isn't a persecution complex theme running through conservative talking points. Just see the 'war' on Christmas.
To be fair, as a commie lefty liberal scum myself, I'd like to point both sides have a persecution complex, the right for thinking that Obama is coming after his Christmas/Guns/baby jesus and the left for thinking that the right wants to go back to a lawless wild west shootout.
Each sides have their pet causes, obviously. It just seems like some of the dumber louder stuff has been coming from the right, though, and with more frequency. I mean, look at the thread we're in! Look at the thread slightly below this about people arguing in presumably good faith that pedophiles are prevented from molesting children if they're not allowed to be in the bathroom! It's just gotten stranger and stranger.
Donald Trump is going to be the GOP nominee for president. To say things have taken a turn seems self evident at this point.
lmao at Yahoo News being "liberal." And the Washington Post? What is this 1975?
So we're just throwing news sources under random banners based on personal preference then?
cuda1179 wrote: Since Fox News is the highest rated news network (by a large margin), they are either a very liberal news network, or conservative news does sell.
Media plays what they want you to hear.
If every news network were willing to shill itself into a political propaganda platform that ignores the inconvenience of facts you might have a point. It's being really general to call a lot of Fox's programming "news." I overheard O'Reilly the other day. Guy is funnier than Colbert ever was.
If every news network were willing to shill itself into a political propaganda platform that ignores the inconvenience of facts you might have a point. It's being really general to call a lot of Fox's programming "news." I overheard O'Reilly the other day. Guy is funnier than Colbert ever was.
Well... to be fair, MSNBC shills for the opposite of the FoxNews viewers... and, MSNBC is getting their asses kicked.
d-usa wrote: That makes much more sense. And the "conservatives distrust more news sources" is on full display here with the "I don't agree with them, so they have a liberal bias" arguments.
Well... to be fair, MSNBC shills for the opposite of the FoxNews viewers... and, MSNBC is getting their asses kicked.
Pretty sure they're number 3 behind Fox and CNN, aren't they? Well. They were like a year ago at least.
And I wouldn't call MSNBC shills for the "opposite of the Fox News viewers." MSNBC and Fox are both very special kinds of "news." Fox is unapologetic propaganda that equates anything that disagrees with the ideology of Rupert Murdoch as "bias." I doubt I'll ever see anything on MSNBC as insane as back to back commentators saying Donald Trump is all Obama's fault (because Obama elects the Republican nominee...). MSNBC at least acknowledges facts exist. They just love slanting them.
Well... to be fair, MSNBC shills for the opposite of the FoxNews viewers... and, MSNBC is getting their asses kicked.
Pretty sure they're number 3 behind Fox and CNN, aren't they? Well. They were like a year ago at least.
They're number 3.
I'm not sure of the exact numbers now as I'm sure the year's election cycle will skew the results a bit... but last year, Fox had double the number of views than MSNBC. At #2, CNN was closer to MSNBC than fox.
But... with this guy going to all the shows:
Spoiler:
He's gold in the rating games. Goes to show that folks are still morbidly-fascinated by the impending trainwreck.
And I wouldn't call MSNBC shills for the "opposite of the Fox News viewers." MSNBC and Fox are both very special kinds of "news." Fox is unapologetic propaganda that equates anything that disagrees with the ideology of Rupert Murdoch as "bias." I doubt I'll ever see anything on MSNBC as insane as back to back commentators saying Donald Trump is all Obama's fault (because Obama elects the Republican nominee...). MSNBC at least acknowledges facts exist. They just love slanting them.
Oh... hell no. MSNBC shills to the left alright.
Besides, the election of Obama *is* partially to blame for Trump's rise. (Mostly, its the GOP's failure to tap into their constituents anger in the way the Trump has).
skyth wrote: You act as if there isn't a persecution complex theme running through conservative talking points. Just see the 'war' on Christmas.
To be fair, as a commie lefty liberal scum myself, I'd like to point both sides have a persecution complex, the right for thinking that Obama is coming after his Christmas/Guns/baby jesus and the left for thinking that the right wants to go back to a lawless wild west shootout.
The difference between these two persecution complexes being that the constitution backed by the supreme court robustly defends gun ownership and there is very few major restrictions, while in 2015 more people were shot by toddlers than by terrorists.
skyth wrote: You act as if there isn't a persecution complex theme running through conservative talking points. Just see the 'war' on Christmas.
To be fair, as a commie lefty liberal scum myself, I'd like to point both sides have a persecution complex, the right for thinking that Obama is coming after his Christmas/Guns/baby jesus and the left for thinking that the right wants to go back to a lawless wild west shootout.
The difference between these two persecution complexes being that the constitution backed by the supreme court robustly defends gun ownership and there is very few major restrictions, while in 2015 more people were shot by toddlers than by terrorists.
Not in Africa
Not in Europe
Not in the Syria/the Artist Formerly Known As Iraq
It just proves that, in America, even our toddlers are dangerous than you are.
He's gold in the rating games. Goes to show that folks are still morbidly-fascinated by the impending trainwreck.
It's what makes reality TV turn
Oh... hell no. MSNBC shills to the left alright.
Why? Because they report on issues important to the Left, generally side with them, and call the Right out on insipid BS? That's an argument for bias, but it's not remotely on par with the kind of stuff that gets pushed on Fox.
Besides, the election of Obama *is* partially to blame for Trump's rise. (Mostly, its the GOP's failure to tap into their constituents anger in the way the Trump has).
And this is why Fox news is it's own brand of special. Because it gets otherwise smart people to repeat this nonsense.
Obama has nothing to do with Trump beyond being a Democrat who beat classic Republicans in national elections twice. Trump's rise isn't about "tapping into anger" with Obama. It's about the GOP's failure to actually realize how far gone it's become. One of the great ironies is that Fox's "News" has heavily contributed to this, feeding a cycle of insanity in right wing politics where facts don't matter, everything else is a lie, and you should be angry angryANGRY because America "sucks now" all based on dubious double speak about "traditional values", "Un-Americanism", and "make America great because the 'liberals' are ruining it." Fox created Trump. To watch them spend hours trying to say it's all Obama's fault is the greatest comedy I've seen in years. And by Fox I mean right wing politics, which have for years boxed themselves into an ideological corner doomed to explode on itself.
Trump isn't a creation of anyone or anything but right wing politics and its gradual collapse since the Bush administration failed to reignite that Reagan magic everyone has convinced themselves existed.
skyth wrote: You act as if there isn't a persecution complex theme running through conservative talking points. Just see the 'war' on Christmas.
To be fair, as a commie lefty liberal scum myself, I'd like to point both sides have a persecution complex, the right for thinking that Obama is coming after his Christmas/Guns/baby jesus and the left for thinking that the right wants to go back to a lawless wild west shootout.
The difference between these two persecution complexes being that the constitution backed by the supreme court robustly defends gun ownership and there is very few major restrictions, while in 2015 more people were shot by toddlers than by terrorists.
Not in Africa
Not in Europe
Not in the Syria/the Artist Formerly Known As Iraq
It just proves that, in America, even our toddlers are dangerous than you are.
Take that, Australia! Finally, America is top dog when it comes to danger.
Australia may be a deathworld, but New Mexico is a radioactive mutie wasteland. Your killer bears, insects, bunnies, fish etc. just can't make it to the next level without some nice lethal background rads. In fact when the Soviets bankrupted themselves making their version of New Mexico (Chernobyl) they quit the Cold War. Thats why our state's motto is: 'Texas, gateway to New Mexico.'
And this is why Fox news is it's own brand of special. Because it gets otherwise smart people to repeat this nonsense.
Obama has nothing to do with Trump beyond being a Democrat who beat classic Republicans in national elections twice. Trump's rise isn't about "tapping into anger" with Obama. It's about the GOP's failure to actually realize how far gone it's become. One of the great ironies is that Fox's "News" has heavily contributed to this, feeding a cycle of insanity in right wing politics where facts don't matter, everything else is a lie, and you should be angry angryANGRY because America "sucks now" all based on dubious double speak about "traditional values", "Un-Americanism", and "make America great because the 'liberals' are ruining it." Fox created Trump. To watch them spend hours trying to say it's all Obama's fault is the greatest comedy I've seen in years. And by Fox I mean right wing politics, which have for years boxed themselves into an ideological corner doomed to explode on itself.
Trump isn't a creation of anyone or anything but right wing politics and its gradual collapse since the Bush administration failed to reignite that Reagan magic everyone has convinced themselves existed.
Uh... so, everything that Obama does is rainbow colored icecream shat by a Unicorn?
Trump is simply a product of the GOP's failure post Dubya. Guess who's been president since that time?
cuda1179 wrote: Since Fox News is the highest rated news network (by a large margin), they are either a very liberal news network, or conservative news does sell.
Media plays what they want you to hear.
But why does the media play what they want you to hear? Are you forgetting that "the media" is a bunch of corporations owned by shareholders that want to see a profit on their investment? If conservative news did sell (and Fox News hasn't already taken that entire market) then more of those profit-seeking corporations would start offering conservative news products and make easy money. The fact that nobody really bothers to do so pretty strongly suggests that the market for conservative news isn't very profitable.
And really, conservatives should have the least room to disagree with this fact. After all, it is conservatives who are the strongest advocates of the power of the free market. If you want to dispute the fact that conservative news doesn't sell then you're going to need to make some major revisions to your economic theories.
What? That all you got for that youtube vid? Seriously, check it out, it's hysterical. (not political at all, just looking for an excuse to post it).
Funny, but that doesn't change that no one argued Obama is perfect.
Had Romney won in '12, do you think Trump would be enjoying his successes now?
Except he didn't win.
Its an asinine to take the stance that Obama's actions had no bearing to the current election cycle.
In 2008, Obama ran against Dubya to great success. Right?
Yet in many key instances he didn't govern very differently than Dubya. He maintained many of the same policies in place and followed similar agendas. What do you think McCain or Romney would have done that was significantly divergent from much of the domestic and foreign policy decisions made by the Obama administration? Dubya wasn't very conservative, neither was McCain and neither was Romney. Sure they're more conservative than Trump but it's not like they're Jeff Sessions or Jim Demint. There would have been more similarities than you're accounting for.
Its an asinine to take the stance that Obama's actions had no bearing to the current election cycle.
Ignore that there were 16 candidates in the GOP primary. Ignore that the party itself, despite desperately wanting anyone but Trump, failed to produce an alternative. Ignore that at their lowest point their best alternative was Ted Cruze, and even then they still couldn't rally around the guy they hate to stop the guy they supposedly hate more.
Yes. Lets ignore all of that, which is infinitely more news worthy, to whine for hours about how Obama has destroyed America and Trump is his fault.
Ouze wrote: Each sides have their pet causes, obviously. It just seems like some of the dumber louder stuff has been coming from the right, though, and with more frequency. I mean, look at the thread we're in! Look at the thread slightly below this about people arguing in presumably good faith that pedophiles are prevented from molesting children if they're not allowed to be in the bathroom! It's just gotten stranger and stranger.
Donald Trump is going to be the GOP nominee for president. To say things have taken a turn seems self evident at this point.
Look up the term "Triggly Puff". After watching that I dare you to say that the loudest and stupidest causes are from conservatives. Demands for Safe Spaces and Trigger warnings, free housing and tuition based on race, Reparations, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: lmao at Yahoo News being "liberal." And the Washington Post? What is this 1975?
So we're just throwing news sources under random banners based on personal preference then?
cuda1179 wrote: Since Fox News is the highest rated news network (by a large margin), they are either a very liberal news network, or conservative news does sell.
Media plays what they want you to hear.
If every news network were willing to shill itself into a political propaganda platform that ignores the inconvenience of facts you might have a point. It's being really general to call a lot of Fox's programming "news." I overheard O'Reilly the other day. Guy is funnier than Colbert ever was.
I don't argue that FOX doesn't sell itself to the right. I am amused that you think NBC and the others don't sell themselves to the Left. Have you ever heard Rachel Maddow talk? She's just the Female, leftish version of O'Reilly.
Ouze wrote: Each sides have their pet causes, obviously. It just seems like some of the dumber louder stuff has been coming from the right, though, and with more frequency. I mean, look at the thread we're in! Look at the thread slightly below this about people arguing in presumably good faith that pedophiles are prevented from molesting children if they're not allowed to be in the bathroom! It's just gotten stranger and stranger.
Donald Trump is going to be the GOP nominee for president. To say things have taken a turn seems self evident at this point.
Look up the term "Triggly Puff". After watching that I dare you to say that the loudest and stupidest causes are from conservatives. Demands for Safe Spaces and Trigger warnings, free housing and tuition based on race, Reparations, etc.
Going with Cuda her. I have some dumb stuff coming from the Left. Like getting/allowing a Depper Delay Entry Contract into joining the Military to help make the US Naturalization part go faster because he/she are about to serve in the US Military
Ouze wrote: Each sides have their pet causes, obviously. It just seems like some of the dumber louder stuff has been coming from the right, though, and with more frequency. I mean, look at the thread we're in! Look at the thread slightly below this about people arguing in presumably good faith that pedophiles are prevented from molesting children if they're not allowed to be in the bathroom! It's just gotten stranger and stranger.
Donald Trump is going to be the GOP nominee for president. To say things have taken a turn seems self evident at this point.
Look up the term "Triggly Puff". After watching that I dare you to say that the loudest and stupidest causes are from conservatives. Demands for Safe Spaces and Trigger warnings, free housing and tuition based on race, Reparations, etc.
The first three links on Google is to right-wing outrage machine pages like Infowars helpfully declaring this "Trigglypuff" the "new bloated face of Feminism". I think you might be proving our point for us. If nothing else, compare Trump to Clinton.
Let's not forget that to the Left, Air conditioning is sexist, chicken sandwiches are racist, Time is racist and anti-cultural, grades are racist, freedom of speech doesn't extend to offensive thoughts, rape allegations should never be questioned, AIDS was created by the CIA, and Blacks can never be racist.
cuda1179 wrote: I don't argue that FOX doesn't sell itself to the right. I am amused that you think NBC and the others don't sell themselves to the Left.
Why? Because it doesn't pander to the base, actually reports opposing views, and doesn't spin a constant web of nonsense designed to convince me that everything else is a lie? Yeah. No. NBC's greatest crime is the same crime most mainstream television news is guilty of, which is prioritizing drama and treating their programming like some low level reality TV. This is why everyone should be a good citizen and support print media. It's much better I think that's true of most news though. To be fair, have you ever watched the House of Representatives for more than an hour? It's borrrrrrriiinnnngggg.
Have you ever heard Rachel Maddow talk? She's just the Female, leftish version of O'Reilly.
She's definitely similar. The big difference is that when I watch Maddow, I'm not constantly interrupted by some bold face lie thrown up as a fact, and she doesn't shoot herself in the foot with a phrase like "the no spin zone" before she spins everything. Maddow openly states she's biased. Hell. I'd go so far as to say she embraces her own bias as a strength, which is probably tooting her own horn a bit to much.
And that there is the general difference between MSNBC and Fox. Both know exactly what they are, but one has dedicated itself to fabricating its own version of reality and rejecting everything outside that fabrication as a falsehood. That's the difference between news with a ton of bias, and propaganda masquerading as news.
Ouze wrote: Each sides have their pet causes, obviously. It just seems like some of the dumber louder stuff has been coming from the right, though, and with more frequency. I mean, look at the thread we're in! Look at the thread slightly below this about people arguing in presumably good faith that pedophiles are prevented from molesting children if they're not allowed to be in the bathroom! It's just gotten stranger and stranger.
Donald Trump is going to be the GOP nominee for president. To say things have taken a turn seems self evident at this point.
Look up the term "Triggly Puff". After watching that I dare you to say that the loudest and stupidest causes are from conservatives. Demands for Safe Spaces and Trigger warnings, free housing and tuition based on race, Reparations, etc.
The first three links on Google is to right-wing outrage machine pages like Infowars helpfully declaring this "Trigglypuff" the "new bloated face of Feminism". I think you might be proving our point for us. If nothing else, compare Trump to Clinton.
If you investigate the incident involving "triggly Puff" you will see what the outrage is about. Feminists and campus activists shouting down and trying to stop a group of speakers with conservative views having a civil discussion. They actually accused a speaker (that is a gay man) of being a homophobe.
Its an asinine to take the stance that Obama's actions had no bearing to the current election cycle.
Ignore that there were 16 candidates in the GOP primary. Ignore that the party itself, despite desperately wanting anyone but Trump, failed to produce an alternative. Ignore that at their lowest point their best alternative was Ted Cruze, and even then they still couldn't rally around the guy they hate to stop the guy they supposedly hate more.
Yes. Lets ignore all of that, which is infinitely more news worthy, to whine for hours about how Obama has destroyed America and Trump is his fault.
Can't hear you while you move the goal-post. Let's try again:
cuda1179 wrote: I don't argue that FOX doesn't sell itself to the right. I am amused that you think NBC and the others don't sell themselves to the Left.
Why? Because it doesn't pander to the base, actually reports opposing views, and doesn't spin a constant web of nonsense designed to convince me that everything else is a lie? Yeah. No. NBC's greatest crime is the same crime most mainstream television news is guilty of, which is prioritizing drama and treating their programming like some low level reality TV. This is why everyone should be a good citizen and support print media. It's much better I think that's true of most news though. To be fair, have you ever watched the House of Representatives for more than an hour? It's borrrrrrriiinnnngggg.
Have you ever heard Rachel Maddow talk? She's just the Female, leftish version of O'Reilly.
She's definitely similar. The big difference is that when I watch Maddow, I'm not constantly interrupted by some bold face lie thrown up as a fact, and she doesn't shoot herself in the foot with a phrase like "the no spin zone" before she spins everything. Maddow openly states she's biased. Hell. I'd go so far as to say she embraces her own bias as a strength, which is probably tooting her own horn a bit to much.
And that there is the general difference between MSNBC and Fox. Both know exactly what they are, but one has dedicated itself to fabricating its own version of reality and rejecting everything outside that fabrication as a falsehood. That's the difference between news with a ton of bias, and propaganda masquerading as news.
I hate to inform you of this, but in the non-opinion show FOX has been shown to be more rounded than MSNBC. MSNBC gives less equal talking times and the host interrupts the conservative side more. They also allow the liberal side to interrupt more often without shutting them down.
As for Rachel Maddow not lying.....LOL, what are you on? Try watching a discussion on the "wage gap". She flatly refuses to accept about a dozen facts and keeps disseminating the same old lies.
LordofHats wrote: lmao at Yahoo News being "liberal." And the Washington Post? What is this 1975?
So we're just throwing news sources under random banners based on personal preference then?
I've found, in all seriousness, the best metric to be, "What do they call illegal aliens?"
But the Post's editorial board is certainly liberal, sure. Have you read their op-eds?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: And that there is the general difference between MSNBC and Fox. Both know exactly what they are, but one has dedicated itself to fabricating its own version of reality and rejecting everything outside that fabrication as a falsehood. That's the difference between news with a ton of bias, and propaganda masquerading as news.
Do you actually believe this? I'm genuinely curious.
Turn it down about 3 notches, folks. Believe it or not, and contrary to what you might see out of certain polarizing figures on both sides of the hypothetical aisle, it IS possible to have a conversation with people with views that differ from you.
cuda1179 wrote: Let's not forget that to the Left, Air conditioning is sexist, chicken sandwiches are racist, Time is racist and anti-cultural, grades are racist, freedom of speech doesn't extend to offensive thoughts, rape allegations should never be questioned, AIDS was created by the CIA, and Blacks can never be racist.
This is a good example of what NOT to do - statements like these don't leave any room for conversation with people whose views differ from yours. And since this is a discussion forum....
Ouze wrote: Each sides have their pet causes, obviously. It just seems like some of the dumber louder stuff has been coming from the right, though, and with more frequency. I mean, look at the thread we're in! Look at the thread slightly below this about people arguing in presumably good faith that pedophiles are prevented from molesting children if they're not allowed to be in the bathroom! It's just gotten stranger and stranger.
Donald Trump is going to be the GOP nominee for president. To say things have taken a turn seems self evident at this point.
Look up the term "Triggly Puff". After watching that I dare you to say that the loudest and stupidest causes are from conservatives. Demands for Safe Spaces and Trigger warnings, free housing and tuition based on race, Reparations, etc.
The first three links on Google is to right-wing outrage machine pages like Infowars helpfully declaring this "Trigglypuff" the "new bloated face of Feminism". I think you might be proving our point for us. If nothing else, compare Trump to Clinton.
If you investigate the incident involving "triggly Puff" you will see what the outrage is about. Feminists and campus activists shouting down and trying to stop a group of speakers with conservative views having a civil discussion. They actually accused a speaker (that is a gay man) of being a homophobe.
You just ranted about how silly it is to believe that blacks can't be racist, and yet you're now unwilling to entertain the notion that someone who's gay can also be a homophobe or using homophobic concepts.
Regardless, there's still the Trump card. All these examples are relatively minor in comparison to the total insanity that is Donald Trump. The US left is going to have to try a lot harder to out-crazy Trump, and it's hard to get louder than a nominee-apparent. Unless he wins, that is.
cuda1179 wrote: I hate to inform you of this, but in the non-opinion show FOX has been shown to be more rounded than MSNBC. MSNBC gives less equal talking times and the host interrupts the conservative side more. They also allow the liberal side to interrupt more often without shutting them down.
That's looking at a really simplistic view of balance.
As for Rachel Maddow not lying.....LOL, what are you on? Try watching a discussion on the "wage gap". She flatly refuses to accept about a dozen facts and keeps disseminating the same old lies.
I've watched maybe one bit where she talked about the wage gap, and didn't notice anything fallacious. Some over/under statements I think (can't remember any in particular), but nothing that made me roll my eyes in disgust.
You might notice that my respect for television news in general is limited. I don't watch it that much, so I've hardly seen every segment Maddow or O'Reilly have ever produced. the big difference is that I've never taken O'Reilly seriously, because my respect for my own intellect isn't low enough. Maddow on the other hand doesn't send me into an existential crisis about my fellow men (or in her case I suppose it would be wo/men ).
Seaward wrote: But the Post's editorial board is certainly liberal, sure. Have you read their op-eds?
Pretty sure Maddow has one. They also host The Volokh Conspiracy, which is patently Libertarian.
The Washington Post is a grab bag, which is one of the things I like about it. The liberals definitely outnumber the conservatives in my experience, but if you've got an outlook, the Post has someone who shares it and writes regularly.
Do you actually believe this? I'm genuinely curious.
Fox News' slogan is "Fair and Balanced." MSNBC's is "The Place for Politics." Academically, it is a wonderfully fascinating juxtaposition.
Seaward wrote: Is it? Shows you how much I watch network news, I guess, as I stopped watching MSBNC back when they were still claiming to be journalists at least.
You're not missing anything.
Anyway, is your issue with Fox their commentary programs, or do you believe their actual news reporting is biased?
Fox's commentary programs are definitely bad. Their entire television programming is bad. But when I say, go their website, the website is better (though that's a narrow improvement, and I'd say the same for MSNBC honestly). Their online stuff generally includes more information, and makes me roll my eyes less than what I see on television. The bias is still there, but there's a lot less outright stupidity. Literally just went upstairs to get some pizza for dinner, Fox news was on and they were talking about Justin Bieber sitting in a park without shoes on... 24 hour news cycle, all the gak going on in the world, and that's what they're talking about *shutters*
Actually MSNBC has been surprising me lately with their election coverage. They have been a lot more straight with their election night panelists. One guy who wears a sweater vest is particularly good. Yeah they still have a few of their liberal talking heads, like Matthews and Maddow, but they have gone much more news focused in the past four months or so. I wonder if their execs. Decided to mix it up after being pasted by CNN and FOX news for so long?
cuda1179 wrote: If you investigate the incident involving "triggly Puff" you will see what the outrage is about.
Terrific example of not getting the difference. I'll help you out: this woman is an idiot whose cause was picked up by virtually no one and is functionally famous for being an idiot - I'm using the word famous pretty loosely here - , and on the other side of the coin, you have state legislatures working on making sure people pee in the right place, and you have a sitting US Senator demanding Facebook explain how it's trending algorithm works.
whembly wrote: Old and busted: Government should regulate the Internet!
New hotness: I can't believe government is investigating an Internet company!
There is a huge difference between the government regulating the infrastructure of the internet and the government regulating the content of the internet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Old and busted: Corporations don't have rights! New hotness: How dare the Senate question Facebook's 1st Amendment rights!?
I really don't see what your point is. This has nothing to do with questions of corporate rights, facebook indisputably hasn't done anything illegal and attempts to "question" facebook in any legal sense are on the "mind control in the chemtrails" level of credibility.
whembly wrote: Old and busted: Corporations don't have rights! New hotness: How dare the Senate question Facebook's 1st Amendment rights!?
I really don't see what your point is. This has nothing to do with questions of corporate rights, facebook indisputably hasn't done anything illegal and attempts to "question" facebook in any legal sense are on the "mind control in the chemtrails" level of credibility.
Oh?
So, you're in favor of Citizen United's right to make a critical movie about Hillary Clinton?
whembly wrote: Old and busted: Government should regulate the Internet!
New hotness: I can't believe government is investigating an Internet company!
There is a huge difference between the government regulating the infrastructure of the internet and the government regulating the content of the internet.
I'd consider the algorithm Facebook uses to ID trends an "infrastructure" aspect of Facebook's business.
whembly wrote: So, you're in favor of Citizen United's right to make a critical movie about Hillary Clinton?
What does that have to do with anything? The facebook "issue" has nothing to do with election or campaign finance laws.
I'd consider the algorithm Facebook uses to ID trends an "infrastructure" aspect of Facebook's business.
Only if you want to misuse the term "infrastructure". Calls for government regulation of the internet refer to the infrastructure of the internet itself. IOW, the physical cables, servers, etc, which are used to carry internet traffic. That is an entirely separate issue from government regulation of the content of the internet. Facebook is content, not infrastructure.
whembly wrote: So, you're in favor of Citizen United's right to make a critical movie about Hillary Clinton?
What does that have to do with anything? The facebook "issue" has nothing to do with election or campaign finance laws.
That Citizen's United case wasn't about the election or campaign finance laws. It was about whether a private entity has a 1st Amendment right.
I'd consider the algorithm Facebook uses to ID trends an "infrastructure" aspect of Facebook's business.
Only if you want to misuse the term "infrastructure". Calls for government regulation of the internet refer to the infrastructure of the internet itself. IOW, the physical cables, servers, etc, which are used to carry internet traffic. That is an entirely separate issue from government regulation of the content of the internet. Facebook is content, not infrastructure.
If you're talking about the FCC's Net Neutrality... you're right.
However, I was talking about regulation in general.
To me, the very threat by that Senator of investigating Facebook’s editorial decisions (or whatever the feth it is) gotta be hailed as harassment. It's beyond stupid.
However, the schadenfreude is beyond unmistakable, as some of the folks spinning in FB's defense are all of the sudden laissez-faire libertarians.
whembly wrote: That Citizen's United case wasn't about the election or campaign finance laws. It was about whether a private entity has a 1st Amendment right.
No, it had everything to do with election and campaign finance laws. The issue was not a private entity publishing an anti-Hillary video, it was the use of "independent" organizations to get around campaign finance laws.
However, I was talking about regulation in general.
And that regulation is nonexistent. The "old and busted" issue of government regulation is net neutrality.
However, the schadenfreude is beyond unmistakable, as some of the folks spinning in FB's defense are all of the sudden laissez-faire libertarians.
Nothing about this is sudden. I suppose someone out there must have been calling for government regulation of internet content, but they're a tiny and irrelevant minority. I really don't understand why you seem to think that defending facebook in this involves some kind of contradiction with earlier positions.
whembly wrote: That Citizen's United case wasn't about the election or campaign finance laws. It was about whether a private entity has a 1st Amendment right.
No, it had everything to do with election and campaign finance laws. The issue was not a private entity publishing an anti-Hillary video, it was the use of "independent" organizations to get around campaign finance laws.
However, I was talking about regulation in general.
And that regulation is nonexistent. The "old and busted" issue of government regulation is net neutrality.
However, the schadenfreude is beyond unmistakable, as some of the folks spinning in FB's defense are all of the sudden laissez-faire libertarians.
Nothing about this is sudden. I suppose someone out there must have been calling for government regulation of internet content, but they're a tiny and irrelevant minority. I really don't understand why you seem to think that defending facebook in this involves some kind of contradiction with earlier positions.
You're missing the bigger picture. We have movements that want to use the power of the state to crush dissent. Just look at N.C. bathroom gak... Federal Government has no grounds to get involved.
We're living in the age where you will be made to care, and are expected to fall in line.
Yes, exactly like I said. This was about the rights (or lack thereof) of organizations in the context of election and campaign finance laws. This has absolutely nothing to do with the facebook issue, and your attempt to say "look at how you've changed your mind" is simply absurd. It is not inconsistent to have different opinions on two cases that have, at most, very superficial similarities.
You're missing the bigger picture. We have movements that want to use the power of the state to crush dissent. Just look at N.C. bathroom gak... Federal Government has no grounds to get involved.
We're living in the age where you will be made to care, and are expected to fall in line.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. None of that has anything to do with government regulation of internet content.
What? That all you got for that youtube vid? Seriously, check it out, it's hysterical. (not political at all, just looking for an excuse to post it).
Funny, but that doesn't change that no one argued Obama is perfect.
Had Romney won in '12, do you think Trump would be enjoying his successes now?
Except he didn't win.
Its an asinine to take the stance that Obama's actions had no bearing to the current election cycle.
In 2008, Obama ran against Dubya to great success. Right?
Let's remember that Trumpo isn't running against Obama, he's running against Cruz, Kasich, Bush et al. Given that Trumpo is the most left-wing of all the Republican candidates, how is his success a condemnation of Obama's left-wing presidency?
Janthkin wrote: Turn it down about 3 notches, folks. Believe it or not, and contrary to what you might see out of certain polarizing figures on both sides of the hypothetical aisle, it IS possible to have a conversation with people with views that differ from you.
cuda1179 wrote: Let's not forget that to the Left, Air conditioning is sexist, chicken sandwiches are racist, Time is racist and anti-cultural, grades are racist, freedom of speech doesn't extend to offensive thoughts, rape allegations should never be questioned, AIDS was created by the CIA, and Blacks can never be racist.
This is a good example of what NOT to do - statements like these don't leave any room for conversation with people whose views differ from yours. And since this is a discussion forum....
You are taking my statement completely out of context. AlmightyWalrus claimed that the "triggly Puff" incident being criticized by conservatives simply proves how wacko conservatives are. I was just pointing out that criticizing left-leaning philosophies that are bat-crap crazy isn't exactly "radical".
You made a claim that the "Left" is a monobloc in which every single member believes all the things about air conditioning and stuff.
That so obviously isn't true that it qualifies completely as a right-wing rant that works to shut off conversation and debate, which illustrates Janthkin's point precisely.
If you want to be in a discussion forum, you need to discuss things like a mature person.
You made a claim that the "Left" is a monobloc in which every single member believes all the things about air conditioning and stuff.
That so obviously isn't true that it qualifies completely as a right-wing rant that works to shut off conversation and debate, which illustrates Janthkin's point precisely.
If you want to be in a discussion forum, you need to discuss things like a mature person.
I'm sorry you can't read between the lines. Let me redefine that for you. I didn't mean to call out EVERYONE on the left, just a highly visible, ever growing, ever more prominent and vocal group of the Left that has been dominating online news coverage, internet news sites, and college campuses and other areas vital for education and information.
At times like this the silent majority isn't the issue and isn't relevant. The exception being their silence, and at times passive acceptance and support of this kind of behavior.
The stuff you posted represents the fringe of the left. This is the people that don't write laws or policy. The stuff that we complain about in the Republican party are mainline views. No way are these comparable. The gak you posted is like complaining that Republicans want young earth creationism taught in public schools to the exclusions of any other theory.
The thing is on a forum you can't expect people to read between the lines, they read the lines you write unless it suits them to read between them, so you need to be careful about the lines you put down.
I never heard of Jiggly Puff until someone said I should Google it. I found a web site consisting of Angry White Dude doing a video rant against some fat woman since he characterises her as SJW gone mad, etc.
If people don't actively attack people like Jiggly Puff, perhaps it's because they don't see it as something that actually needs to be worried about and attacked in the way that Angry White Dude does. Maybe Jiggly Puff actually represents to people like me a minute, irrelevant portion of the political spectrum that is of practically zero interest and significance.
Janthkin wrote: Turn it down about 3 notches, folks. Believe it or not, and contrary to what you might see out of certain polarizing figures on both sides of the hypothetical aisle, it IS possible to have a conversation with people with views that differ from you.
cuda1179 wrote: Let's not forget that to the Left, Air conditioning is sexist, chicken sandwiches are racist, Time is racist and anti-cultural, grades are racist, freedom of speech doesn't extend to offensive thoughts, rape allegations should never be questioned, AIDS was created by the CIA, and Blacks can never be racist.
This is a good example of what NOT to do - statements like these don't leave any room for conversation with people whose views differ from yours. And since this is a discussion forum....
You are taking my statement completely out of context. AlmightyWalrus claimed that the "triggly Puff" incident being criticized by conservatives simply proves how wacko conservatives are. I was just pointing out that criticizing left-leaning philosophies that are bat-crap crazy isn't exactly "radical".
As a pretty liberal guy and a millennial (AKA The Antichrist), I have no clue what you are talking about.
I have never heard any of these things talked about by anybody I know or listen to. So I gotta ask, what are you talking about exactly?
Kilkrazy wrote: Let's remember that Trumpo isn't running against Obama, he's running against Cruz, Kasich, Bush et al. Given that Trumpo is the most left-wing of all the Republican candidates, how is his success a condemnation of Obama's left-wing presidency?
Goddamn, guys. I can't keep up with this. Is Trump the most left-wing Republican or is he Hitler incarnate? Y'all need to pick a lane and stay in it.
Kilkrazy wrote: Let's remember that Trumpo isn't running against Obama, he's running against Cruz, Kasich, Bush et al. Given that Trumpo is the most left-wing of all the Republican candidates, how is his success a condemnation of Obama's left-wing presidency?
Goddamn, guys. I can't keep up with this. Is Trump the most left-wing Republican or is he Hitler incarnate? Y'all need to pick a lane and stay in it.
Let it go and view it as entertainment for yourself.
I'm hoping he picks Bernie as VP Enough craziness already came out that it won't surprise me
skyth wrote: The stuff you posted represents the fringe of the left. This is the people that don't write laws or policy. The stuff that we complain about in the Republican party are mainline views. No way are these comparable. The gak you posted is like complaining that Republicans want young earth creationism taught in public schools to the exclusions of any other theory.
And right there IS the hole in your theory. These people may be fringe elements of the Left, but they do hold sway in policy. These groups have all ready been successful in implementing racist, sexist, anti free speech, anti-Christian, double standard policies across public schools and dozens of prominent colleges. This includes Harvard of all places. These people have ruined the livelihoods and careers of many educators and other students.
While this has simply been local school and college policy as of now there is a legitimate push to make this public policy in some cities. Prominent officials have voiced support. So yes, I'd say that things like this ARE comparable to demanding only teaching creationism in school.
skyth wrote: The stuff you posted represents the fringe of the left. This is the people that don't write laws or policy. The stuff that we complain about in the Republican party are mainline views. No way are these comparable. The gak you posted is like complaining that Republicans want young earth creationism taught in public schools to the exclusions of any other theory.
And right there IS the hole in your theory. These people may be fringe elements of the Left, but they do hold sway in policy. These groups have all ready been successful in implementing racist, sexist, anti free speech, anti-Christian, double standard policies across public schools and dozens of prominent colleges. This includes Harvard of all places. These people have ruined the livelihoods and careers of many educators and other students.
While this has simply been local school and college policy as of now there is a legitimate push to make this public policy in some cities. Prominent officials have voiced support. So yes, I'd say that things like this ARE comparable to demanding only teaching creationism in school.
Kilkrazy wrote: Let's remember that Trumpo isn't running against Obama, he's running against Cruz, Kasich, Bush et al. Given that Trumpo is the most left-wing of all the Republican candidates, how is his success a condemnation of Obama's left-wing presidency?
Goddamn, guys. I can't keep up with this. Is Trump the most left-wing Republican or is he Hitler incarnate? Y'all need to pick a lane and stay in it.
And even if we took all you just claimed is true, the Republicans still have Trump, Palin and a long line of prominent representatives of the party behaving like nobheads. Todd "legitimate rape" Akin anyone?
Janthkin wrote: Turn it down about 3 notches, folks. Believe it or not, and contrary to what you might see out of certain polarizing figures on both sides of the hypothetical aisle, it IS possible to have a conversation with people with views that differ from you.
cuda1179 wrote: Let's not forget that to the Left, Air conditioning is sexist, chicken sandwiches are racist, Time is racist and anti-cultural, grades are racist, freedom of speech doesn't extend to offensive thoughts, rape allegations should never be questioned, AIDS was created by the CIA, and Blacks can never be racist.
This is a good example of what NOT to do - statements like these don't leave any room for conversation with people whose views differ from yours. And since this is a discussion forum....
You are taking my statement completely out of context. AlmightyWalrus claimed that the "triggly Puff" incident being criticized by conservatives simply proves how wacko conservatives are. I was just pointing out that criticizing left-leaning philosophies that are bat-crap crazy isn't exactly "radical".
As a pretty liberal guy and a millennial (AKA The Antichrist), I have no clue what you are talking about.
I have never heard any of these things talked about by anybody I know or listen to. So I gotta ask, what are you talking about exactly?
You've seriously never heard about any of that? Sexist air conditioning has been a feminist talking point for years. It even got talked about on a segment on both CNN and MSNBC during prime viewing hours.
Racist Chicken Sandwiches are part of the reason that the chancellor of the University of Missouri was forced to step down (it's cultural appropriation)
Time based attendance and grades are racist towards Blacks and Hispanic culture, as claimed by a rather large body of people including members of the NAACP.
Blacks can NEVER be racist, according to Black Lives Matter and most Black celebrities. They now "own" the definition of "racist". There is even a major movie about it called "Dear White People" (No, not a comedy).
First off, the junk Cuda is complaining about is akin to claiming theWestboro Baptist church is representative of mainstream conservatism.
I seriously doubt anyone is implementing anti-Christian policies. Getting rid of things that give Christians special priveledges sure...I can see that and don't have a problem with. Basically, a bunch of BS made up claims.
What I seen come from conservative schools (like BYU) is expelling students because they were raped.
skyth wrote: First off, the junk Cuda is complaining about is akin to claiming theWestboro Baptist church is representative of mainstream conservatism.
I seriously doubt anyone is implementing anti-Christian policies. Getting rid of things that give Christians special priveledges sure...I can see that and don't have a problem with. Basically, a bunch of BS made up claims.
What I seen come from conservative schools (like BYU) is expelling students because they were raped.
Thank you. There's a lot of crazy coming from the fringe lefties, but trust me, they're hated by the lefties just as much as right wings hate the over the top conservatives.
I'd hardly call BLM, safe spaces, trigger warnings, etc. a representative of mainstream lefties.
Janthkin wrote: Turn it down about 3 notches, folks. Believe it or not, and contrary to what you might see out of certain polarizing figures on both sides of the hypothetical aisle, it IS possible to have a conversation with people with views that differ from you.
cuda1179 wrote: Let's not forget that to the Left, Air conditioning is sexist, chicken sandwiches are racist, Time is racist and anti-cultural, grades are racist, freedom of speech doesn't extend to offensive thoughts, rape allegations should never be questioned, AIDS was created by the CIA, and Blacks can never be racist.
This is a good example of what NOT to do - statements like these don't leave any room for conversation with people whose views differ from yours. And since this is a discussion forum....
You are taking my statement completely out of context. AlmightyWalrus claimed that the "triggly Puff" incident being criticized by conservatives simply proves how wacko conservatives are. I was just pointing out that criticizing left-leaning philosophies that are bat-crap crazy isn't exactly "radical".
As a pretty liberal guy and a millennial (AKA The Antichrist), I have no clue what you are talking about.
I have never heard any of these things talked about by anybody I know or listen to. So I gotta ask, what are you talking about exactly?
You've seriously never heard about any of that? Sexist air conditioning has been a feminist talking point for years. It even got talked about on a segment on both CNN and MSNBC during prime viewing hours.
Racist Chicken Sandwiches are part of the reason that the chancellor of the University of Missouri was forced to step down (it's cultural appropriation)
Time based attendance and grades are racist towards Blacks and Hispanic culture, as claimed by a rather large body of people including members of the NAACP.
Blacks can NEVER be racist, according to Black Lives Matter and most Black celebrities. They now "own" the definition of "racist". There is even a major movie about it called "Dear White People" (No, not a comedy).
I've never heard of any of that.
Perhaps you could provide some links to the official statements given by the PR departments of Missouri University, the NAACP and the Black Lives Matter.
skyth wrote: The stuff you posted represents the fringe of the left. This is the people that don't write laws or policy. The stuff that we complain about in the Republican party are mainline views. No way are these comparable. The gak you posted is like complaining that Republicans want young earth creationism taught in public schools to the exclusions of any other theory.
And right there IS the hole in your theory. These people may be fringe elements of the Left, but they do hold sway in policy. These groups have all ready been successful in implementing racist, sexist, anti free speech, anti-Christian, double standard policies across public schools and dozens of prominent colleges. This includes Harvard of all places. These people have ruined the livelihoods and careers of many educators and other students.
While this has simply been local school and college policy as of now there is a legitimate push to make this public policy in some cities. Prominent officials have voiced support. So yes, I'd say that things like this ARE comparable to demanding only teaching creationism in school.
Can I get some sources on this?
May I ask where you live? If you live anywhere in the United States I have a very hard time believing that you haven't seen any of this in mainstream news over the last 9 months.
After being pressured Harvard just released its new policy that penalizes students that belong to single-gender only groups, such as Fraternities and Finals groups (remember the movie The Skulls???). Of course, they made their policy gender neutral, so it also applied to Sororities and Female only study groups as well. That didn't sit well with the female body, who are now demanding that the female-only groups be exempted.
Janthkin wrote: Turn it down about 3 notches, folks. Believe it or not, and contrary to what you might see out of certain polarizing figures on both sides of the hypothetical aisle, it IS possible to have a conversation with people with views that differ from you.
cuda1179 wrote: Let's not forget that to the Left, Air conditioning is sexist, chicken sandwiches are racist, Time is racist and anti-cultural, grades are racist, freedom of speech doesn't extend to offensive thoughts, rape allegations should never be questioned, AIDS was created by the CIA, and Blacks can never be racist.
This is a good example of what NOT to do - statements like these don't leave any room for conversation with people whose views differ from yours. And since this is a discussion forum....
You are taking my statement completely out of context. AlmightyWalrus claimed that the "triggly Puff" incident being criticized by conservatives simply proves how wacko conservatives are. I was just pointing out that criticizing left-leaning philosophies that are bat-crap crazy isn't exactly "radical".
As a pretty liberal guy and a millennial (AKA The Antichrist), I have no clue what you are talking about.
I have never heard any of these things talked about by anybody I know or listen to. So I gotta ask, what are you talking about exactly?
You've seriously never heard about any of that? Sexist air conditioning has been a feminist talking point for years. It even got talked about on a segment on both CNN and MSNBC during prime viewing hours.
Racist Chicken Sandwiches are part of the reason that the chancellor of the University of Missouri was forced to step down (it's cultural appropriation)
Time based attendance and grades are racist towards Blacks and Hispanic culture, as claimed by a rather large body of people including members of the NAACP.
Blacks can NEVER be racist, according to Black Lives Matter and most Black celebrities. They now "own" the definition of "racist". There is even a major movie about it called "Dear White People" (No, not a comedy).
I've never heard of any of that.
Perhaps you could provide some links to the official statements given by the PR departments of Missouri University, the NAACP and the Black Lives Matter.
skyth wrote: I'm amused that a conservative is complaining when a private company makes decisions about what happens on its property...
I'm equally amused that a liberal thinks a private company should have that right (even if they do receive some public funding). Also, the Harvard Policy punishes students with club memberships OFF school property. Belong to an all-men's gym in your home town? That's grounds for punishment.
The third report given is a Howerd Stern show website republication of a news report by a journalist's blog reporting on a conference. It doesn't include any of the actual conference transcripts or provide links where they could be found.
Really this is only hearsay of unsubstantiated hearsay by one person of another person's academic opnion.
This is very short of proof of the NAACP claiming that grades are racist.
The third report given is a Howerd Stern show website republication of a news report by a journalist's blog reporting on a conference. It doesn't include any of the actual conference transcripts or provide links where they could be found.
Really this is only hearsay of unsubstantiated hearsay by one person of another person's academic opnion.
This is very short of proof of the NAACP claiming that grades are racist.
I never said it was NAACP policy, just that member of the NAACP have that as an opinion. Not just some random member though, someone relatively notable. I remember it was a FOX news interview. I can't find the video at the moment.
skyth wrote: The stuff you posted represents the fringe of the left. This is the people that don't write laws or policy. The stuff that we complain about in the Republican party are mainline views. No way are these comparable. The gak you posted is like complaining that Republicans want young earth creationism taught in public schools to the exclusions of any other theory.
And right there IS the hole in your theory. These people may be fringe elements of the Left, but they do hold sway in policy. These groups have all ready been successful in implementing racist, sexist, anti free speech, anti-Christian, double standard policies across public schools and dozens of prominent colleges. This includes Harvard of all places. These people have ruined the livelihoods and careers of many educators and other students.
While this has simply been local school and college policy as of now there is a legitimate push to make this public policy in some cities. Prominent officials have voiced support. So yes, I'd say that things like this ARE comparable to demanding only teaching creationism in school.
Can I get some sources on this?
May I ask where you live? If you live anywhere in the United States I have a very hard time believing that you haven't seen any of this in mainstream news over the last 9 months.
After being pressured Harvard just released its new policy that penalizes students that belong to single-gender only groups, such as Fraternities and Finals groups (remember the movie The Skulls???). Of course, they made their policy gender neutral, so it also applied to Sororities and Female only study groups as well. That didn't sit well with the female body, who are now demanding that the female-only groups be exempted.
I will do you one better. I will show you how to tell where a person lives on a forum. You see my post, in the upper left hand you can see a flag. Mine is a US flag, which means I live in the US. Cool, right?
Also, what was that first video you posted? It did nothing but make a few jokes about it, throw some blankets, then suddenly it was showing me buildings collapsing and asking me to support some 9/11 Truther thing. What?
The second and third video have to do with an MTV thing. Which is hilarious because it is an MTV thing.....
Not sure what is going on in the last one, why did you link me to a forum?
skyth wrote: I seriously doubt anyone is implementing anti-Christian policies. Getting rid of things that give Christians special priveledges sure...I can see that and don't have a problem with.
See, but don't you realize that anything that removes that special privileged position IS anti-Christian??? I mean, Christians are being actively persecuted in this country! It's ugly out there man, they only represent around 70% of the national population and hold even higher proportions of public office. Including the fact that, under such great duress, they have been elected President of the United States a mere 44 times!... in a row!
The third report given is a Howerd Stern show website republication of a news report by a journalist's blog reporting on a conference. It doesn't include any of the actual conference transcripts or provide links where they could be found.
Really this is only hearsay of unsubstantiated hearsay by one person of another person's academic opnion.
This is very short of proof of the NAACP claiming that grades are racist.
I never said it was NAACP policy, just that member of the NAACP have that as an opinion. Not just some random member though, someone relatively notable. I remember it was a FOX news interview. I can't find the video at the moment.
Not all members of an organisation neccessarily have the same opinion on every topic. If not adopted as an official policy or believe, things said by one or more members can't be taken as spoken for the whole.
Janthkin wrote: Turn it down about 3 notches, folks. Believe it or not, and contrary to what you might see out of certain polarizing figures on both sides of the hypothetical aisle, it IS possible to have a conversation with people with views that differ from you.
cuda1179 wrote: Let's not forget that to the Left, Air conditioning is sexist, chicken sandwiches are racist, Time is racist and anti-cultural, grades are racist, freedom of speech doesn't extend to offensive thoughts, rape allegations should never be questioned, AIDS was created by the CIA, and Blacks can never be racist.
This is a good example of what NOT to do - statements like these don't leave any room for conversation with people whose views differ from yours. And since this is a discussion forum....
You are taking my statement completely out of context. AlmightyWalrus claimed that the "triggly Puff" incident being criticized by conservatives simply proves how wacko conservatives are. I was just pointing out that criticizing left-leaning philosophies that are bat-crap crazy isn't exactly "radical".
As a pretty liberal guy and a millennial (AKA The Antichrist), I have no clue what you are talking about.
I have never heard any of these things talked about by anybody I know or listen to. So I gotta ask, what are you talking about exactly?
You've seriously never heard about any of that? Sexist air conditioning has been a feminist talking point for years. It even got talked about on a segment on both CNN and MSNBC during prime viewing hours.
Racist Chicken Sandwiches are part of the reason that the chancellor of the University of Missouri was forced to step down (it's cultural appropriation)
Time based attendance and grades are racist towards Blacks and Hispanic culture, as claimed by a rather large body of people including members of the NAACP.
Blacks can NEVER be racist, according to Black Lives Matter and most Black celebrities. They now "own" the definition of "racist". There is even a major movie about it called "Dear White People" (No, not a comedy).
I've never heard of any of that.
Perhaps you could provide some links to the official statements given by the PR departments of Missouri University, the NAACP and the Black Lives Matter.
skyth wrote: I'm amused that a conservative is complaining when a private company makes decisions about what happens on its property...
I'm equally amused that a liberal thinks a private company should have that right (even if they do receive some public funding). Also, the Harvard Policy punishes students with club memberships OFF school property. Belong to an all-men's gym in your home town? That's grounds for punishment.
Those are all TERRIBLE sources and you should feel ashamed. I know of the "movements" you speak of and sure, while some of them are nuts, it's a fringe minority. A) Most lefties don't feel that way, it's a small vocal minority, much like the Westboro Baptist Church. B) The only reason that gak makes news is because it's controversial and ups ratings. Yeah, a couple university have passed safe spaces, ousted University presidents, etc., but those are all super small minorities.
But hey, the right-wing never did anything wrong, right?
I go to facebook to see pictures of my niece and nephew, find out which high school cheerleader became a fatty, and remind myself why I don't hang out with my racist cousins.
If I want the news, I pull up CNN/BBC/FoxNews on my computer, or more often than not, just come to the OT area of DakkaDakka.
You fethers always tell me what I should care about, even if I don't.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think that's a bit harsh. Not everyone is aware of the distinctions between primary and secondary sources.
That's partly what this whole thread is about -- Facebook as a tertiary news source.
It should be pretty obvious though what is primary and what is secondary. MTV is about as valid as Facebook for news. Biased as they may be, MTV/Facebook are not hard hitting journalism the way Fox/MSNBC/BBC/CNN are.
kronk wrote: I go to facebook to see pictures of my niece and nephew, find out which high school cheerleader became a fatty, and remind myself why I don't hang out with my racist cousins.
If I want the news, I pull up CNN/BBC/FoxNews on my computer, or more often than not, just come to the OT area of DakkaDakka.
You fethers always tell me what I should care about, even if I don't.
QFT
The "Left" is not any more of a monolithic organization than the "Right". Those guys on the "other side"? They're just like us, with different priorities.
Kilkrazy wrote: Let's remember that Trumpo isn't running against Obama, he's running against Cruz, Kasich, Bush et al. Given that Trumpo is the most left-wing of all the Republican candidates, how is his success a condemnation of Obama's left-wing presidency?
Goddamn, guys. I can't keep up with this. Is Trump the most left-wing Republican or is he Hitler incarnate? Y'all need to pick a lane and stay in it.
Having been involved in some news stories the sad fact is that journalists get great exercise jumping to conclusions. You have to take anything you read with a huge helping of salt. Some reporters don't even have a clue what happened and just make things up. One of the incidents in the military I was involved in made it to CNN. It was reported as "a training exercise." We had a good laugh at that one.
Monkey Tamer wrote: Having been involved in some news stories the sad fact is that journalists get great exercise jumping to conclusions. You have to take anything you read with a huge helping of salt. Some reporters don't even have a clue what happened and just make things up. One of the incidents in the military I was involved in made it to CNN. It was reported as "a training exercise." We had a good laugh at that one.
Exactly.
It's not just about "agendas", but ratings and sensationalism. In the West, the so-called "news" is just as much about Circus Maximus style entertainment and getting a jump on the competition. They're in it for the money, after all. Not for some vague, outdated notion of "journalistic integrity".
Monkey Tamer wrote: Having been involved in some news stories the sad fact is that journalists get great exercise jumping to conclusions. You have to take anything you read with a huge helping of salt. Some reporters don't even have a clue what happened and just make things up. One of the incidents in the military I was involved in made it to CNN. It was reported as "a training exercise." We had a good laugh at that one.
Monkey Tamer wrote: Having been involved in some news stories the sad fact is that journalists get great exercise jumping to conclusions. You have to take anything you read with a huge helping of salt. Some reporters don't even have a clue what happened and just make things up. One of the incidents in the military I was involved in made it to CNN. It was reported as "a training exercise." We had a good laugh at that one.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And even if we took all you just claimed is true, the Republicans still have Trump, Palin and a long line of prominent representatives of the party behaving like nobheads. Todd "legitimate rape" Akin anyone?
How is he any different from Bernie "cervical cancer is caused by lack of orgasms" Sanders?
Kilkrazy wrote: Let's remember that Trumpo isn't running against Obama, he's running against Cruz, Kasich, Bush et al. Given that Trumpo is the most left-wing of all the Republican candidates, how is his success a condemnation of Obama's left-wing presidency?
Goddamn, guys. I can't keep up with this. Is Trump the most left-wing Republican or is he Hitler incarnate? Y'all need to pick a lane and stay in it.
He's not Hitler. He's Mussolini;
Dude I said that already. Except Mussolini had better hair.
skyth wrote: The stuff you posted represents the fringe of the left. This is the people that don't write laws or policy. The stuff that we complain about in the Republican party are mainline views. No way are these comparable. The gak you posted is like complaining that Republicans want young earth creationism taught in public schools to the exclusions of any other theory.
May I ask where you live? If you live anywhere in the United States I have a very hard time believing that you haven't seen any of this in mainstream news over the last 9 months.
After being pressured Harvard just released its new policy that penalizes students that belong to single-gender only groups, such as Fraternities and Finals groups (remember the movie The Skulls???). Of course, they made their policy gender neutral, so it also applied to Sororities and Female only study groups as well. That didn't sit well with the female body, who are now demanding that the female-only groups be exempted.
I will do you one better. I will show you how to tell where a person lives on a forum. You see my post, in the upper left hand you can see a flag. Mine is a US flag, which means I live in the US. Cool, right?
Also, what was that first video you posted? It did nothing but make a few jokes about it, throw some blankets, then suddenly it was showing me buildings collapsing and asking me to support some 9/11 Truther thing. What?
The second and third video have to do with an MTV thing. Which is hilarious because it is an MTV thing.....
Not sure what is going on in the last one, why did you link me to a forum?
That little flag icon isn't an exact science. For all I know you moved to the US two days ago. You could be an active duty Marine that was deprived of news for a while. Heck, I've lived in the same house for 9 years and for a while my flag was Canadian.
Jihadin wrote: More of a chisel chin to. People thinking we're going to a Dictatorship or Facism??
I am thinking exactly that, but not even good Class A bond villain level fascism, but more Benny Hill stupid fascism. Peter Sellers couldn't make this gak up.
I'm going to go ahead an throw ALL journalist under the bus here.
Studies have shown that of all the people that are able to get into college, the people that have the lowest IQ's, the people shown to be the least aware of current events, the people that do the worst on standardized tests, and those that had the lowest SAT/ACT scores are:
1. Teachers
2. Journalism Majors.
While there are a handful of outliers here, this is astounding. The undeclared students are better. The drunk Frat Boy majoring in business is better.
Then it hit me, some of the dumbest people out there are in charge of educating and informing the youth of tomorrow.
Monkey Tamer wrote: Having been involved in some news stories the sad fact is that journalists get great exercise jumping to conclusions. You have to take anything you read with a huge helping of salt. Some reporters don't even have a clue what happened and just make things up. One of the incidents in the military I was involved in made it to CNN. It was reported as "a training exercise." We had a good laugh at that one.
My second deployment, we had an incident within the unit that the BDE commander demanded the PAO for the unit tell garrison, and by extension the local/national news that the incident was a "training accident".... It most definitely was not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: I'm going to go ahead an throw ALL journalist under the bus here.
Studies have shown that of all the people that are able to get into college, the people that have the lowest IQ's, the people shown to be the least aware of current events, the people that do the worst on standardized tests, and those that had the lowest SAT/ACT scores are:
1. Teachers
2. Journalism Majors.
While there are a handful of outliers here, this is astounding. The undeclared students are better. The drunk Frat Boy majoring in business is better.
Then it hit me, some of the dumbest people out there are in charge of educating and informing the youth of tomorrow.
I'm gonna have to call BS on that one as well... If you've seen what some states require of it's educators there's no fething way that they are essentially the bottom of the barrel college applicants.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And even if we took all you just claimed is true, the Republicans still have Trump, Palin and a long line of prominent representatives of the party behaving like nobheads. Todd "legitimate rape" Akin anyone?
How is he any different from Bernie "cervical cancer is caused by lack of orgasms" Sanders?
Sanders isn't blaming someone for something that was out of their control? You can do better than that.
He hasn't produced a source for any of the claims he has made in this thread, and when somebody else finds a source it says the opposite of what he claimed it said.
The boilerplate about its news operations provided to customers by the company suggests that much of its news gathering is determined by machines: “The topics you see are based on a number of factors including engagement, timeliness, Pages you’ve liked and your location,” says a page devoted to the question “How does Facebook determine what topics are trending?”
But the documents show that the company relies heavily on the intervention of a small editorial team to determine what makes its “trending module” headlines – the list of news topics that shows up on the side of the browser window on Facebook’s desktop version. The company backed away from a pure-algorithm approach in 2014 after criticism that it had not included enough coverage of unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, in users’ feeds.
The guidelines show human intervention – and therefore editorial decisions – at almost every stage of Facebook’s trending news operation, a team that at one time was as few as 12 people:
The boilerplate about its news operations provided to customers by the company suggests that much of its news gathering is determined by machines: “The topics you see are based on a number of factors including engagement, timeliness, Pages you’ve liked and your location,” says a page devoted to the question “How does Facebook determine what topics are trending?”
But the documents show that the company relies heavily on the intervention of a small editorial team to determine what makes its “trending module” headlines – the list of news topics that shows up on the side of the browser window on Facebook’s desktop version. The company backed away from a pure-algorithm approach in 2014 after criticism that it had not included enough coverage of unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, in users’ feeds.
The guidelines show human intervention – and therefore editorial decisions – at almost every stage of Facebook’s trending news operation, a team that at one time was as few as 12 people:
So basically... the complaint was that there wasn't enough coverage of a particular event .. so they fix the problem, and people are still not happy??
The boilerplate about its news operations provided to customers by the company suggests that much of its news gathering is determined by machines: “The topics you see are based on a number of factors including engagement, timeliness, Pages you’ve liked and your location,” says a page devoted to the question “How does Facebook determine what topics are trending?”
But the documents show that the company relies heavily on the intervention of a small editorial team to determine what makes its “trending module” headlines – the list of news topics that shows up on the side of the browser window on Facebook’s desktop version. The company backed away from a pure-algorithm approach in 2014 after criticism that it had not included enough coverage of unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, in users’ feeds.
The guidelines show human intervention – and therefore editorial decisions – at almost every stage of Facebook’s trending news operation, a team that at one time was as few as 12 people:
So basically... the complaint was that there wasn't enough coverage of a particular event .. so they fix the problem, and people are still not happy??
color me shocked.
There is a difference between responding to complaints that civil unrest in a city is not being adequately covered, and the alleged suppression of views from one side of the political spectrum.
cuda1179 wrote: I'm going to go ahead an throw ALL journalist under the bus here.
Studies have shown that of all the people that are able to get into college, the people that have the lowest IQ's, the people shown to be the least aware of current events, the people that do the worst on standardized tests, and those that had the lowest SAT/ACT scores are:
1. Teachers
2. Journalism Majors.
While there are a handful of outliers here, this is astounding. The undeclared students are better. The drunk Frat Boy majoring in business is better.
Then it hit me, some of the dumbest people out there are in charge of educating and informing the youth of tomorrow.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And even if we took all you just claimed is true, the Republicans still have Trump, Palin and a long line of prominent representatives of the party behaving like nobheads. Todd "legitimate rape" Akin anyone?
How is he any different from Bernie "cervical cancer is caused by lack of orgasms" Sanders?
Sanders isn't blaming someone for something that was out of their control? You can do better than that.
They're both insane quack 'science,' and part of a pattern.
Monkey Tamer wrote: Having been involved in some news stories the sad fact is that journalists get great exercise jumping to conclusions. You have to take anything you read with a huge helping of salt. Some reporters don't even have a clue what happened and just make things up. One of the incidents in the military I was involved in made it to CNN. It was reported as "a training exercise." We had a good laugh at that one.
My second deployment, we had an incident within the unit that the BDE commander demanded the PAO for the unit tell garrison, and by extension the local/national news that the incident was a "training accident".... It most definitely was not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: I'm going to go ahead an throw ALL journalist under the bus here.
Studies have shown that of all the people that are able to get into college, the people that have the lowest IQ's, the people shown to be the least aware of current events, the people that do the worst on standardized tests, and those that had the lowest SAT/ACT scores are:
1. Teachers
2. Journalism Majors.
While there are a handful of outliers here, this is astounding. The undeclared students are better. The drunk Frat Boy majoring in business is better.
Then it hit me, some of the dumbest people out there are in charge of educating and informing the youth of tomorrow.
I'm gonna have to call BS on that one as well... If you've seen what some states require of it's educators there's no fething way that they are essentially the bottom of the barrel college applicants.
I will admit I am partially wrong. While I was looking for the two studies I remember reading about a few years ago I came across some newer studies. Apparently Teacher have risen up the ranks a tad, but still pretty low.
I will admit I am partially wrong. While I was looking for the two studies I remember reading about a few years ago I came across some newer studies. Apparently Teacher have risen up the ranks a tad, but still pretty low.
That second link is a ridiculously hard to use website....
But, I will say that you were correct on being partially wrong ... I was gonna take offense because I'm in school to become a teacher, but the state requirements for the level of teaching I'm aiming for (maybe I'm a masochist) requires that I have a subject matter Bachelors' with basically a masters in ed. But where you are wrong is on the type of degree... those in education are pretty unanimously going to be elementary level educators... ya know, teaching kids the absolute basics like not peeing themselves at recess, that it isn't ok to put boogers on other people's paper and the like.
I do have to wonder, with these studies, are they done at the time of acceptance into school, or after graduating? Because I can see Elementary educators getting "dumber" because of being surrounded by all those snot buckets for years on end. To use a southern expression: bless their hearts
@cuda: Your beef seemed to have been with college educators, nearly none of which have education degrees. You do not need an education degree to teach in college. As a Prof. myself, I know of only a handful of other educators on campus who actually have teaching degrees (mostly in the Edu. Degree program itself). Everybody has degrees in the subjects they actually teach.
He hasn't produced a source for any of the claims he has made in this thread, and when somebody else finds a source it says the opposite of what he claimed it said.
I've produced articles backing what I claim. You simply either gloss over them or missed them. I've provided more evidence than you have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: @cuda: Your beef seemed to have been with college educators, nearly none of which have education degrees. You do not need an education degree to teach in college. As a Prof. myself, I know of only a handful of other educators on campus who actually have teaching degrees (mostly in the Edu. Degree program itself). Everybody has degrees in the subjects they actually teach.
My beef with education goes all the way from kindergarten to college. From both my own personal experiences (both as a student and father) and from general news I can tell that the educational system is slightly Left-biased, and continues to bend ever so slightly more to the left. This is coming from a guy that lives in Rural Midwest Iowa. This is basically conservative nirvana (not that that is really my thing) and still I see the bias working its way in.
He hasn't produced a source for any of the claims he has made in this thread, and when somebody else finds a source it says the opposite of what he claimed it said.
I've produced articles backing what I claim. You simply either gloss over them or missed them.
You have yet to produce a source for your claim regarding a study on ideological leanings of news sources. Somebody else provided a source for your claim, and it turned out your claim was incorrect.
When I made my post you had yet to produce a source for your claim regarding college majors and IQs.
I usually only ask for sources when people make claims about stuff that studies/surveys/research/etc supposedly shows, so that's what I focus on.
I've provided more evidence than you have.
Good, because unlike you I haven't made any weird and sweeping claims regarding stuff that random studies found.
cuda1179 wrote: I've produced articles backing what I claim. You simply either gloss over them or missed them. I've provided more evidence than you have.
No, you've provided articles for part of what you claimed. Discarding the garbage clickbait website your second article comes from (for obvious reasons) we're left with the first, which demonstrates that education majors do worse on standardized tests. You haven't done anything to support the claim that they have the lowest IQs* or the least awareness of current events. And even your own source acknowledges its own limits, such as variation between schools being more significant than variation between different majors at the same school.
*Not that this would mean much, since IQ is a deeply flawed measurement of intelligence and really only useful for people who want to brag about how high their score is.
My beef with education goes all the way from kindergarten to college. From both my own personal experiences (both as a student and father) and from general news I can tell that the educational system is slightly Left-biased, and continues to bend ever so slightly more to the left. This is coming from a guy that lives in Rural Midwest Iowa. This is basically conservative nirvana (not that that is really my thing) and still I see the bias working its way in.
Alternatively, US conservativism has gone so far off the deep end that everything seems left-leaning in comparison, and it continues to do so with no end in sight.
In the second article, every profession listed is still well above the average American IQ. It also makes the very accurate point that for all of those fields, raw IQ isn't the most important factor on whether or not someone would be good at their job.
You don't have to be a Mensa member to be an effective elementary school teacher.
@cuda: I teach at a univ. in SD. Possibly a bit like the school you went to, and I would guess the faculty is likely a good deal more liberal than the surrounding population, I have to wonder the root of it all. Numerous studies have determined that the more education one has, the more liberal they tend to be. Now that could be dismissed as indoctrination, or it could be a matter of like minded people self segregating to similar interests. Or it could be the idea that as one becomes more educated, one begins to question the wisdom of the pervaililing mindset as they ask more questions and look for more answers. That final possibility is the basic idea behind liberalism. Yes, it has been attempted to be corrupted and coopted by various special interest groups who don't really want to learn or listen in the past and present, but that doesn't change what it is and will be at its heart. That is the very idea of a liberal arts college and why those bad folks had you read and write things beyond how to run a lathe or CAD or Matlab.
Alternatively, US conservativism has gone so far off the deep end that everything seems left-leaning in comparison, and it continues to do so with no end in sight.
So, you're stating that education standards haven't shifted to a more leftist ideology in the last 20 years?
Elementary school teachers probably don't need to be geniuses, I'll give you that. At least schools aren't like some police departments that place maximum IQ caps on potential cadets. There were a couple articles last year about men being denied jobs for being too smart. The target IQ's for cadets was 85 to 110. Personally I'd prefer the guys trusted with guns to protect us to be too smart as apposed to being just above functionally slowed.
You don't have to be a Mensa member to be an effective elementary school teacher.
Also, the likes of Einstein and Turing would be absolutely gak elementary teachers
But how fun would it have been to be a student in Einsteins middle school physics class? I wouldn't have understood a word he said, but man, it would have been entertaining and perhaps a bit enlightening.
Alternatively, US conservativism has gone so far off the deep end that everything seems left-leaning in comparison, and it continues to do so with no end in sight.
So, you're stating that education standards haven't shifted to a more leftist ideology in the last 20 years?
Elementary school teachers probably don't need to be geniuses, I'll give you that. At least schools aren't like some police departments that place maximum IQ caps on potential cadets. There were a couple articles last year about men being denied jobs for being too smart. The target IQ's for cadets was 85 to 110. Personally I'd prefer the guys trusted with guns to protect us to be too smart as apposed to being just above functionally slowed.
It hasn't shifted more in the past twenty years than the past forty-fifty. In the 1950s colleges started going away from rote tautolilogical methodology and more towards application based learning (in other words from a conservative framework of simply memorizing the past to a more liberal viewpoint of applying the past to new considerations). Considering Moore's law seems to still be in effect, I'd say we didn't screw up too much by that shift.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @cuda: I teach at a univ. in SD. Possibly a bit like the school you went to, and I would guess the faculty is likely a good deal more liberal than the surrounding population, I have to wonder the root of it all. Numerous studies have determined that the more education one has, the more liberal they tend to be. Now that could be dismissed as indoctrination, or it could be a matter of like minded people self segregating to similar interests. Or it could be the idea that as one becomes more educated, one begins to question the wisdom of the pervaililing mindset as they ask more questions and look for more answers. That final possibility is the basic idea behind liberalism. Yes, it has been attempted to be corrupted and coopted by various special interest groups who don't really want to learn or listen in the past and present, but that doesn't change what it is and will be at its heart. That is the very idea of a liberal arts college and why those bad folks had you read and write things beyond how to run a lathe or CAD or Matlab.
I find that in today's word there are True Liberals, and Modern Liberal. The True Liberals, like the ones you described, are pretty much okay in my book. It's the Modern Liberals that get face time, and they are the ones that shape policy.
There are also problems with the "more education, More liberal" philosophy. Other studies have shown it to be more of a curve, with liberals dominating the extreme high and low education levels. Still others point out that previous studies only count traditional education as "education". College degrees count, while technical schools do not. Also, according to info from the Corinthian college lawsuit, people from more liberal populations are ever so slightly more likely to have diplomas from online diploma mills. In other words they the do have a degree (worthless as it may be), but I doubt they actually have any additional knowledge.
Then we have to remember that correlation does not equal causation. One could just as easily come to the conclusion that those with higher college degrees have less "real world" experience, and that has kept them from developing conservative ideals.
I think one of the largest gripes I have is the "war on boys" in education. In the early 1990's there started a movement to make education, particularly early childhood education, more female centric in order to motivate women into the workforce. The problem is, that at that time men and women were about equal in educational achievement.
Language and verbal skills are now more emphasized, while there is less focus on math and science. Open book tests are more common, while timed tests less so. Group work is more common. All these things play to women's strengths to help them, despite all ready being on a level playing field. Now it's imbalanced to favor female students.
Also, in teacher studies it is shown that male students receive lower grades for equal work than female students. The worst offending teachers are early education (kindergarten through 5th grades) teachers that are female, while the least offending are male high school teachers. It disheartens me that young boys get his with disappointment early in life and have it built into them by the time higher learning is needed.
I keep hearing about this "real world" you speak of, and can't quite comprehend I guess. Does it mean taxes? Cause I pay those. Does it mean doctor bills? I pay those too. Parking fines? Pay em.standing in line at the DMV? Yup. Stubbing my toe? Done that too. Gluing my fingers to my models while trying to get them to set? Yes, ouch. What is this mysterious "real world" that people evidently don't think other people have an experience with? I didn't start out as a college professor. For ten years I stocked milk in the dairy aisle in Sunshine in Yankton. For five I slung beers at a townie. What is the real world I am missing out on?
Gordon Shumway wrote: I keep hearing about this "real world" you speak of, and can't quite comprehend I guess. Does it mean taxes? Cause I pay those. Does it mean doctor bills? I pay those too. Parking fines? Pay em.standing in line at the DMV? Yup. Stubbing my toe? Done that too. Gluing my fingers to my models while trying to get them to set? Yes, ouch. What is this mysterious "real world" that people evidently don't think other people have an experience with? I didn't start out as a college professor. For ten years I stocked milk in the dairy aisle in Sunshine in Yankton. For five I slung beers at a townie. What is the real world I am missing out on?
I didn't call you out specifically. I'm sorry if I sounded that way. I'm just saying that there are many "professional students" out there. If you are spending time in class you obviously have less time to do other things. This can include working, exploring, building, etc. Perhaps those that have more self reliance simply shun an education that would serve no purpose in their life roles. Roles that they chose that put emphasis on values that come into conflict with often left-leaning values. An industrial trade school for example would more than likely have a "conservative" feel to its political atmosphere.
cuda1179 wrote: Language and verbal skills are now more emphasized, while there is less focus on math and science. Open book tests are more common, while timed tests less so. Group work is more common. All these things play to women's strengths to help them, despite all ready being on a level playing field. Now it's imbalanced to favor female students.
Are you serious? All of your claims here are wrong, to the point that I have to wonder if you know anything about education.
Language and verbal skills are not "female" things, and math and science are not "male" things. And, as much as I like math and science as an engineer, there's a pretty compelling argument that language and verbal skills should be emphasized more. Those are skills that everyone can expect to use, while math and science beyond a certain point will only be used by people continuing on into those fields later in life.
Open-book tests benefit everyone, regardless of gender. In the real world you usually have your "book" available and can look something up if you forget a minor detail. This puts the emphasis on knowing how to solve a problem, not successful memorization of specific facts or equations.
Group work similarly benefits everyone, regardless of gender. In the real world you will have to work in groups, and if you can't then you're going to struggle to get a job above minimum-wage toilet scrubber.
Also, in teacher studies it is shown that male students receive lower grades for equal work than female students.
Could you provide some evidence to support this claim?
Gordon Shumway wrote: @cuda: I teach at a univ. in SD. Possibly a bit like the school you went to, and I would guess the faculty is likely a good deal more liberal than the surrounding population, I have to wonder the root of it all. Numerous studies have determined that the more education one has, the more liberal they tend to be. Now that could be dismissed as indoctrination, or it could be a matter of like minded people self segregating to similar interests. Or it could be the idea that as one becomes more educated, one begins to question the wisdom of the pervaililing mindset as they ask more questions and look for more answers. That final possibility is the basic idea behind liberalism. Yes, it has been attempted to be corrupted and coopted by various special interest groups who don't really want to learn or listen in the past and present, but that doesn't change what it is and will be at its heart. That is the very idea of a liberal arts college and why those bad folks had you read and write things beyond how to run a lathe or CAD or Matlab.
I find that in today's word there are True Liberals, and Modern Liberal. The True Liberals, like the ones you described, are pretty much okay in my book. It's the Modern Liberals that get face time, and they are the ones that shape policy.
There are also problems with the "more education, More liberal" philosophy. Other studies have shown it to be more of a curve, with liberals dominating the extreme high and low education levels. Still others point out that previous studies only count traditional education as "education". College degrees count, while technical schools do not. Also, according to info from the Corinthian college lawsuit, people from more liberal populations are ever so slightly more likely to have diplomas from online diploma mills. In other words they the do have a degree (worthless as it may be), but I doubt they actually have any additional knowledge.
Then we have to remember that correlation does not equal causation. One could just as easily come to the conclusion that those with higher college degrees have less "real world" experience, and that has kept them from developing conservative ideals.
I think one of the largest gripes I have is the "war on boys" in education. In the early 1990's there started a movement to make education, particularly early childhood education, more female centric in order to motivate women into the workforce. The problem is, that at that time men and women were about equal in educational achievement.
Language and verbal skills are now more emphasized, while there is less focus on math and science. Open book tests are more common, while timed tests less so. Group work is more common. All these things play to women's strengths to help them, despite all ready being on a level playing field. Now it's imbalanced to favor female students.
Also, in teacher studies it is shown that male students receive lower grades for equal work than female students. The worst offending teachers are early education (kindergarten through 5th grades) teachers that are female, while the least offending are male high school teachers. It disheartens me that young boys get his with disappointment early in life and have it built into them by the time higher learning is needed.
To say verbal skills are inherently female students purview and math and science is male is sort of living in the past.. To my knowledge, no such inherent predilection exists, it's cultural. My students (I teach literature and film) basically break down the same grade wise. (I say basically because I have not qualified it, but I haven't been able to tell a difference). In my family I'm the english prof and my wife (soon to be) is the boilogy prof. You may not like the cultural shift, and that's fine, my mom thinks it's weird too, but really the cultural norms belong where they grew up, way back in the past.
There are also problems with the "more education, More liberal" philosophy. Other studies have shown it to be more of a curve, with liberals dominating the extreme high and low education levels.
Group work is more common.
2 things.... one... liberals most definitely do not "dominate" the extreme low end of education levels. As examples, I would ask you to look at the states of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Kentucky. Mississippi is ranked 49th or 50th every single year in education, and yet, it is one of the reddest states in the union. Louisiana is oftentimes down near Ms, yet is also one of the reddest states there are, as well as being one of the top recipients of welfare program funds. Kentucky happens to have only a moderately bad education system, while also having the county that is known for having the highest rate of welfare receivership of any individual county in the entire country..... Now, I point out this one county (the name of which escapes me right now), because it has a few interesting things going on with it.... 1) it is around 95% white in population. 2) of that white population, the rate of welfare recipients is near total. 3) that dirt poor population has a strong correlation between poor education and it's economic status (as well as a few gakky business practices in the 1960s and 1970s that left the county high and dry afterwards)
If you had said "liberals with low education levels among urban population groups" then I'd have believed you, because there is strong evidence to show that urban poor tend to vote democrat, while rural poor very strongly vote republican.
2.... The reason group work is more common isn't actually anything to do with trying to screw over boys, or elevate girls... It's because that is more accurately reflected in real world job environments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Do liberal schools teach people how to provide sources?
It's probably the worst thing about the indoctrination I'm receiving
d-usa wrote: Do liberal schools teach people how to provide sources?
Are you going to actually add anything to this discussion? One of my sources, Myself. I grew up in an era with PSA's urging the teaching in a more female friendly way. Ask other 30-40 year olds and they will tell you the same thing. My sister-in-law is a teacher and has been instructed in this.
d-usa wrote: Do liberal schools teach people how to provide sources?
Are you going to actually add anything to this discussion? One of my sources, Myself. I grew up in an era with PSA's urging the teaching in a more female friendly way. Ask other 30-40 year olds and they will tell you the same thing. My sister-in-law is a teacher and has been instructed in this.
It makes sense that someone would study boils but I didn't know they had their own field of study with teachers and everything.
Good thing it's summer and I'm off the clock. But thanks for providing constructive feedback
If you can't enjoy a silly and obvious typo a vacation may be just the thing that is needed. Also where did you get the idea that only constructive feedback would be on OT? Are we not more than that? ARE WE NOT MEN?
Spoiler:
We might be Devo, but figuring that out is off topic for this thread.
I'm 30 now... and the PSAs that I grew up included that super scary, empty office chair voiceover dude demanding that you brush your teeth.... it was fething ridiculous. So no... I've not seen these mythical PSAs urging people to teach specifically to girls and feth the boys, they had their chance
The only real difference in education that I recall, is that by the time my brother was in elementary school, certain teachers of his were quick to try and tell my parents that he had ADHD... because "he drums on the desk from the moment he sits down, to the moment school is over".... which is kinda the opposite of ADD or ADHD, because he was completely focused on drumming, and they failed to realize that with drummers, there's no "off" switch
If you can't enjoy a silly and obvious typo a vacation may be just the thing that is needed. Also where did you get the idea that only constructive feedback would be on OT? Are we not more than that? ARE WE NOT MEN?
Yep... not enough victim blaming in your response.
It makes sense that someone would study boils but I didn't know they had their own field of study with teachers and everything.
Good thing it's summer and I'm off the clock. But thanks for providing constructive feedback
If you can't enjoy a silly and obvious typo a vacation may be just the thing that is needed. Also where did you get the idea that only constructive feedback would be on OT? Are we not more than that? ARE WE NOT MEN?
Spoiler:
We might be Devo, but figuring that out is off topic for this thread.
cuda1179 wrote: Language and verbal skills are now more emphasized, while there is less focus on math and science. Open book tests are more common, while timed tests less so. Group work is more common. All these things play to women's strengths to help them, despite all ready being on a level playing field. Now it's imbalanced to favor female students.
Are you serious? All of your claims here are wrong, to the point that I have to wonder if you know anything about education.
Language and verbal skills are not "female" things, and math and science are not "male" things. And, as much as I like math and science as an engineer, there's a pretty compelling argument that language and verbal skills should be emphasized more. Those are skills that everyone can expect to use, while math and science beyond a certain point will only be used by people continuing on into those fields later in life.
Open-book tests benefit everyone, regardless of gender. In the real world you usually have your "book" available and can look something up if you forget a minor detail. This puts the emphasis on knowing how to solve a problem, not successful memorization of specific facts or equations.
Group work similarly benefits everyone, regardless of gender. In the real world you will have to work in groups, and if you can't then you're going to struggle to get a job above minimum-wage toilet scrubber.
Also, in teacher studies it is shown that male students receive lower grades for equal work than female students.
Could you provide some evidence to support this claim?
In the Real World the "open book" isn't exactly always available. Knowing basic facts is sometimes instrumental in both learning and discovery. If learning these things weren't important you could make 90% of a high school education "just google it".
That's something at least. But the actual evidence cited (as opposed to conservative interpretation of it) doesn't really support your point about "liberal bias". Your own sources state that the teacher/student gender difference effect works both ways: boys score worse with female teachers, girls score worse with male teachers. The reason boys do worse overall seems to be due to the fact that more lower-level teachers are women than men, not some kind of inherent bias in the system. And then there's the question of how you measure the "real" scores. For example, one of your sources mentions comparing standardized test scores to class grades, an approach that depends on the (seriously mistaken) assumption that standardized tests are an accurate evaluation of a student's success in a class.
In the Real World the "open book" isn't exactly always available. Knowing basic facts is sometimes instrumental in both learning and discovery.
Except "basic facts" isn't what I'm talking about. If you don't know basic facts you're going to fail an open-book test. You're going to sit there flipping desperately through the book trying to find even a hint of something that you can maybe turn into partial credit on a question you can't answer. What open-book tests do is avoid the problem where a student knows how to solve a problem but can't remember if a particular equation is x^2 or x^3, or if a historical date was 1730 or 1740.
And aside from this you still haven't done anything to justify your claim that open-book tests are about bias in favor of women.
cuda1179 wrote: Actually, I did. It was included in one of the videos I linked to.
Can you explain this in your own words instead of saying "just watch this video"? I've been generous enough to explain my position in text form instead of just pointing you at some youtube videos, so maybe you could do the same?
cuda1179 wrote: Actually, I did. It was included in one of the videos I linked to.
Can you explain this in your own words instead of saying "just watch this video"? I've been generous enough to explain my position in text form instead of just pointing you at some youtube videos, so maybe you could do the same?
Am I the only one that knows how google works? Yes, studies have shown that closed book tests and time limits slightly favor boys. Open book tests and no time limits slightly favor girls. It basically boils down to boys do better with constrained environments (use what you have the best you can), while girls are better overall planners using unlimited resources and can then better arrange their answers.
neither philosophy is really better than the other. Sometimes a good solution now is better than a perfect solution later. Sometimes it's not.
cuda1179 wrote: Am I the only one that knows how google works? Yes, studies have shown that closed book tests and time limits slightly favor boys. Open book tests and no time limits slightly favor girls. It basically boils down to boys do better with constrained environments (use what you have the best you can), while girls are better overall planners using unlimited resources and can then better arrange their answers.
neither philosophy is really better than the other. Sometimes a good solution now is better than a perfect solution later. Sometimes it's not.
Do you understand the difference between "girls happen to be better at {thing which is desirable for other reasons}" and "{thing} is favored because girls are better at it"? The two are not interchangeable.
PS: I am a man and I do much better on open-book tests, and I think closed-book tests are often completely inappropriate.
Am I the only one that knows how google works?
It is not my job to research and write your argument for you.
By the time you get to the actual study and ignore the articles telling you "this is what the study says", you get the actual conclusion of the paper:
Overall, results shed new light on the nature of gender interactions in the classroom. Students’
responses to teachers’ characteristics are an important determinant of their effort, all the more
that students’ actions need not be consistent with teachers’ actions and perceptions. Importantly,
the two effects we find go in the same direction: they both increase the gender gap in student
investment; Indeed, with a male teacher, the gap between boys’ and girls’ effort increases because
girls invest more; with a female teacher, the gap increases because boys invest less.
The growing gender gap in education has become a concern for policy makers (Weaver-Hightower
2003). Further research may help explain what shapes students’ perceptions, whether and how misperceptions
can be corrected, and how much these perceptions affect student effort and investment
in other contexts.
It's not that teachers act differently, it's because students think teachers act differently and therefore they adjust their behavior to match their expectations.
This paper does not show any kind of bias, it does show that grades are driven by test results as well as classroom behavior. And that different genders have different classroom behaviors.
No link to the actual study, just a "my opinion, based on her opinion, based on a study she read" article. It does appear to reference the same study that shows that classroom behavior influences grades, and not teacher bias.
Nice article about how previous thoughts that girls were suffering don't appear to be true, and how boys express themselves differently, and how family dynamics have different impact on boys when it comes to school performance, and how societal expectations of behaviors in boys impact their participation in school. But after a long read, it still doesn't say what you think it says.
Thoughts for the future:
1) Never, ever, believe any person that tells you what a study says. Always review the actual study instead of the interpretation of the study.
2) Learn the difference between Primary and Secondary Sources.
3) Learn that YouTube videos are garbage as sources.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: If learning these things weren't important you could make 90% of a high school education "just google it".
Maybe I just had some weird education, but none of it included "make random claims, then demand that other people Google them to see if they are correct or not when called out on them".
It's not that teachers act differently, it's because students think teachers act differently and therefore they adjust their behavior to match their expectations.
[There is a certain amount of irony here.
Maybe I just had some weird education, but none of it included "make random claims, then demand that other people Google them to see if they are correct or not when called out on them".
The study DIDN'T say that teacher didn't act differently. It stated that students expected it, which may very well be accurate.
Trying to link to the exact research studies I read months ago, while I'm at work with limited internet access and with an apparent time constraint (complaints that I don't respond after less than 90 minutes passed) is a bit much for the OT forum of Dakka. The fact is that these studies do exist, regardless of my ability to find them at the moment. Heck, I was ask for citation for things that have been widely know to the public. Such citations really aren't necessary to most. This isn't my job or some kind of legal defense. My comments aren't "random" either, as they were direct replies to others' posts.
If your best defense against "the study didn't say that teachers acted differently" is "it didn't say that they didn't either", then there really isn't much point to keeping the discussion going.
d-usa wrote: "make random claims, then demand that other people Google them to see if they are correct or not when called out on them".
If anything, it shows that he has a bright future here in the Dakka OT... he'll fit right in!
cuda1179 wrote: The fact is that these studies do exist, regardless of my ability to find them at the moment.
Heck, I was ask for citation for things that have been widely know to the public.
Such as?
My comments aren't "random" either, as they were direct replies to others' posts.
It's kind of interesting that you don't have time to provide any proof to the ridiculous claims you makes, but you have plenty of time to respond to every person explaining how you're wrong.
So, if teacher didn't treat students differently, where did the expectation come from?
The study I can't find at the moment actually confirmed this. They had teachers (male and female) grade papers. Some papers had male names, some had female names, others were nameless. The catch was that certain papers had three duplicates, identical in every way except the name on the top.
The study found that teacher had a favorable bias towards their own gender. This bias was slightly greater in women. The bias was also slightly greater in lower grades. Since a majority of teachers are female, especially in lower grades) boys are often shortchanged from the start and struggle to regain self confidence.
Heck, I was ask for citation for things that have been widely know to the public.
Such as?
.
I was told I needed a citation when I mentioned college protestors demanding resignations and safe spaces. This is WELL known. The "racist chicken sandwich" also made major headlines about a month ago.
cuda1179 wrote: So, if teacher didn't treat students differently, where did the expectation come from?
The study I can't find at the moment actually confirmed this. They had teachers (male and female) grade papers. Some papers had male names, some had female names, others were nameless. The catch was that certain papers had three duplicates, identical in every way except the name on the top.
The study found that teacher had a favorable bias towards their own gender. This bias was slightly greater in women. The bias was also slightly greater in lower grades. Since a majority of teachers are female, especially in lower grades) boys are often shortchanged from the start and struggle to regain self confidence.
Yes, those are the studies we're talking about. However, let's go back to your initial claim:
Also, in teacher studies it is shown that male students receive lower grades for equal work than female students.
Your claim was that male students get lower grades for equal work, the study actually showed that students with opposite-gender teachers get lower grades. A female student with a male teacher suffered from the same grade bias. This suggests that we need to work on unbiased grading methods but it isn't at all the same as proving a bias against male students specifically.
If you are asked for a source, but don't have time to provide it, then the better answer is "I don't have time to locate it right now, I'll try to find it later" rather than "can't you google".
cuda1179 wrote: So, if teacher didn't treat students differently, where did the expectation come from?
The study I can't find at the moment actually confirmed this. They had teachers (male and female) grade papers. Some papers had male names, some had female names, others were nameless. The catch was that certain papers had three duplicates, identical in every way except the name on the top.
The study found that teacher had a favorable bias towards their own gender. This bias was slightly greater in women. The bias was also slightly greater in lower grades. Since a majority of teachers are female, especially in lower grades) boys are often shortchanged from the start and struggle to regain self confidence.
Yes, those are the studies we're talking about. However, let's go back to your initial claim:
Also, in teacher studies it is shown that male students receive lower grades for equal work than female students.
Your claim was that male students get lower grades for equal work, the study actually showed that students with opposite-gender teachers get lower grades. A female student with a male teacher suffered from the same grade bias. This suggests that we need to work on unbiased grading methods but it isn't at all the same as proving a bias against male students specifically.
You might want to reread what I typed. Yes, both boys and girls are down-graded by an opposite sex teacher. However, as I pointed out the problem is that female teachers showed more bias. Combine this with the fact that most teachers are female and the likelihood of boys being downgraded is significantly greater. It's not an equal bias at all. Kind of one of those "Desperate Impact" things that we keep hearing about from the White House.
cuda1179 wrote: You might want to reread what I typed. Yes, both boys and girls are down-graded by an opposite sex teacher. However, as I pointed out the problem is that female teachers showed more bias. Combine this with the fact that most teachers are female and the likelihood of boys being downgraded is significantly greater. It's not an equal bias at all. Kind of one of those "Desperate Impact" things that we keep hearing about from the White House.
Yes, but "there are more female teachers than male teachers" is much less interesting then "liberal bias is oppressing boys", isn't it?
cuda1179 wrote: You might want to reread what I typed. Yes, both boys and girls are down-graded by an opposite sex teacher. However, as I pointed out the problem is that female teachers showed more bias. Combine this with the fact that most teachers are female and the likelihood of boys being downgraded is significantly greater. It's not an equal bias at all. Kind of one of those "Desperate Impact" things that we keep hearing about from the White House.
Yes, but "there are more female teachers than male teachers" is much less interesting then "liberal bias is oppressing boys", isn't it?
I see once again you glossed over the "female teachers have greater bias" part again. Also, you have to admit that Desperate Impact against boys exists. Liberal bias also exists, it's just in addition to the teacher bias issue.
We are complately off topic but have strayed into an interesting tangent. The BBC has a report today on the fact that women now outnummber men in British universities, and some ideas about why this is happening.
One of them is that the Nursing profession is woman dominated, and since it was turned from a diploma subject to a degree subject, automatically a large number of women were added to the university population. Another is that women gain a higher differential benefit in salary from having a degree than men do, so it's a rational response to future financial expectations. Another factor is that working class white men are far less likely to go to university than working class asian men, which argues it is not an effect of maleness but an effect of cultural attitudes.
The issue isn't in any way understood, and I bring it up here to make the point that this kind of social situation is often extremely complicated and doesn't lend itself to any easy analysis of cause, effect and solutions.
I would also add that the assumption that universities need to contain equal numbers of men and women itself is open to question.
cuda1179 wrote: I see once again you glossed over the "female teachers have greater bias" part again.
Because it has nothing to do with my point. Teachers of both genders were biased, even if not to the exact same degree, and the primary factor in the overall grade difference was simply that female teachers are more common than male teachers. This likely reflects a "people of all genders are unconsciously biased" issue, not a deliberate attempt by the school system to favor female students over male students. If you changed the gender ratio without changing anything else about the schools you'd likely see the exact opposite result, an overall bias in favor of male students.
Also, you have to admit that Desperate Impact against boys exists.
And this is why "verbal and language skills" are important things to teach.
Liberal bias also exists, it's just in addition to the teacher bias issue.
Like your weird theories about how open-book tests are meant to bias the system in favor of women?
cuda1179 wrote: I see once again you glossed over the "female teachers have greater bias" part again.
Liberal bias also exists, it's just in addition to the teacher bias issue.
Like your weird theories about how open-book tests are meant to bias the system in favor of women?
You mean other than studies and test show that women DO benefit from open book tests? The Department of Education stated as much and was part of their decision to put emphasis on promoting education for girls in STEM fields. (no, I don't have the quotation for that at the moment).
I'm really not trying to claim that there is some dark agenda against boys. I'm just saying that sometimes the best laid plans have some really crappy consequences. Over emphasis on promoting girls has left boys in a bit of an educational void and they are being neglected in areas of their special needs even when girls are being catered to.
I'll say flat out that complaining about open book tests not being like the real world is utter BS.
I do taxes. Half of doing taxes is knowing that a rule exists and knowing where to find the specifics of the rule rather than memorizing all the rules. Same with any other intellectual pursuit.
In the real world, you don't need to memorize how to get places when the ability to read a map gives you better navigational skills.
cuda1179 wrote: You mean other than studies and test show that women DO benefit from open book tests? The Department of Education stated as much and was part of their decision to put emphasis on promoting education for girls in STEM fields. (no, I don't have the quotation for that at the moment).
"Women benefit from open book tests" is not the same thing as "open-book tests are meant to favor women over men". As I have already pointed out there are good reasons for having open-book tests that have nothing to do with favoring one gender over the other. And even if open-book tests benefit women they don't hurt men. If you can get a good grade on a closed-book test then you can get at least the same grade on an open-book test. Men are not losing anything here.
Also, leveling the playing field is not a bad thing. Boys already get special privileges. They are more likely to be hired for a higher salary than women. They are more likely to be promoted. The 'real world' is more friendly to males than females.
skyth wrote: I'll say flat out that complaining about open book tests not being like the real world is utter BS.
I do taxes. Half of doing taxes is knowing that a rule exists and knowing where to find the specifics of the rule rather than memorizing all the rules. Same with any other intellectual pursuit.
In the real world, you don't need to memorize how to get places when the ability to read a map gives you better navigational skills.
I'd love for a lawyer to stand up in court and say "objection your Honor. I know that line of questioning is illegal...... I just can't remember the right being violated or the legal precedence in case law. Give me a few minutes to look it up". I'd love for an EMT to whip out their IPhone and say "Siri, how do I apply a tourniquet? " How about a psychiatrist having to constantly pull out the cheat sheets to remind him what to ask a patient?
I'll admit there are many times when an open-book life is the way to go, but don't act like closed book is not needed.
cuda1179 wrote: You mean other than studies and test show that women DO benefit from open book tests? The Department of Education stated as much and was part of their decision to put emphasis on promoting education for girls in STEM fields. (no, I don't have the quotation for that at the moment).
"Women benefit from open book tests" is not the same thing as "open-book tests are meant to favor women over men". As I have already pointed out there are good reasons for having open-book tests that have nothing to do with favoring one gender over the other. And even if open-book tests benefit women they don't hurt men. If you can get a good grade on a closed-book test then you can get at least the same grade on an open-book test. Men are not losing anything here.
No, just no. Let's say at your job your company has a financial windfall. upper management declares 200% raises for EVERYONE!!!, except you Peregrine, you can stay at your base pay. We aren't hurting you, we're just helping everyone else.
There is a difference between basic knowledge and in-depth knowledge. Like I said, half of it is knowing that there is something out there. That leaves the other half that you know.
Just like attorneys do research on cases before going into court. They don't need to memorize everything. Doctors do research on techniques and diseases before going into an operation.
Also, answering questions about things you look up and explaining them HELPS you memorize and learn them.
Being able to find information and use/understand that information is an important skill.
skyth wrote: Also, leveling the playing field is not a bad thing. Boys already get special privileges. They are more likely to be hired for a higher salary than women. They are more likely to be promoted. The 'real world' is more friendly to males than females.
Actually, you are wrong. Until age 32 women are more likely to be paid a higher salary than a man for the same job. According to the Department of labor, for the same job women will out earn men by 6%. Also, women are slightly more likely than men to be hired in health care fields, and in areas concerning STEM women are TWICE as likely as their male counterparts to get hired.
everyone loves Facebook
in public and his employer said "nope, I don't think we want to be associated with this"? That went well beyond merely being a conservative.
The party of personal responsibility everyone! 
