Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Pretty obscure stuff

 Peregrine wrote:

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)

 Peregrine wrote:

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

Grasping at straws are we?

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.

SemperMortis wrote:

 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.

Just look at ESPN

Oldmike wrote:
Just look at ESPN

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.

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.

Which is proof that the US media is very far from closed to the conservative voice.

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.

Its a pretty good reason one should self boycott Facebook when it comes to where one receives their news, liberal and conservative alike.

 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.

Care to link to the study?

 d-usa wrote:
Care to link to the study?

Are you doubting that a actual poll listed The Daily Show as a news outlet?

SemperMortis wrote:

 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.

SemperMortis wrote:

 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.

Also, isn't stuff like Google news just an aggregate? How does that count as an outlet?

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Care to link to the study?

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.

Here is the study I believe he is referring to: http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/

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.