- Reaction score
- 1,434
- Points
- 1,160
Journeyman, you are not the only one to suffer the curse of: TheHead!!
Deconstructing "Progressive " thought
- Thread starter a_majoor
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,743
- Points
- 1,090
Regardless of one's political persuasion, you have to admit that ending the studies of all three members of the same family has a certain suspicious quality behind it. Particularly as they all seem to be high achievers who have enriched their departments and the university. Worth watching this one unfold.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
IF you were to actually, you know, read the article, the first paragraphs are:
And some more character witnessing:
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2011/Q1/view665.html#Robinson
Like I said at the beginning, IF there is independent confirmation, this is a horrible story and a horrible example of people drunk on their own sense of entitlement and power abusing power over a difference in political opinion.
And some more character witnessing:
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2011/Q1/view665.html#Robinson
Like I said at the beginning, IF there is independent confirmation, this is a horrible story and a horrible example of people drunk on their own sense of entitlement and power abusing power over a difference in political opinion.
Or it was just an upset-failure of a politican that is mad he lost to a dirty liberal-socialist.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/82bcd5a0f534447fb8e82bbb4897df19/OR--Candidate-OSU/#
It's no suprise the conservative blog-sphere is reporting this as true. Who needs facts when you have speculation and hearsay. I'm suprised Glenn Beck or Bill O hasn't been jumping all over this story yet.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/82bcd5a0f534447fb8e82bbb4897df19/OR--Candidate-OSU/#
It's no suprise the conservative blog-sphere is reporting this as true. Who needs facts when you have speculation and hearsay. I'm suprised Glenn Beck or Bill O hasn't been jumping all over this story yet.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
If you want a real laugh, see if you can find a link to the video of Rachel Maddow attempting to interview Art Robinson on 7 Oct 2010. It's ridiculous. As I recall he basically asserted a belief about half way through the interview that the delay caused by the TelePresence video link was some sort of conspiracy. He appeared completely out of his depth as a candidate.
His campaign actually was a prime example of how horrifying campaign finance rules are. His campaign was funded by virtually anonymous donors from outside the state (primarily, as I recall, a New York hedge fund manager), and saturated media with vague ads simply designed to get his name into people's heads. He was obviously flustered by Maddow's questioning on this.
His campaign actually was a prime example of how horrifying campaign finance rules are. His campaign was funded by virtually anonymous donors from outside the state (primarily, as I recall, a New York hedge fund manager), and saturated media with vague ads simply designed to get his name into people's heads. He was obviously flustered by Maddow's questioning on this.
TheHead said:
Really? I don't see this as an attack on Thucydides himself. He's a well respected member of this board that contributes a lot to other threads. I agree with him on a lot of other issues. If you want a 15 page thread attacking progressives at least post factual evidence doing it though. I have no problem with people deconstructing "progressive" thought but at least do it with some articles or essays that arn't based on hearsay and assumption. I think that's a pretty fair requirment in any debate and on this website.
If there was proof of all three of his children were expelled or were up for expulsion than yes it would be fishy but so far I've seen none other than his word.
If there was proof of all three of his children were expelled or were up for expulsion than yes it would be fishy but so far I've seen none other than his word.
- Reaction score
- 6,154
- Points
- 1,160
TheHead said:
Which brings us back full circle as to why his article isn't factual and has no place here, but we're supposed to take your's, from the university, at face value and as factual?
You can't have it both ways.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
That Mr (Dr?) Robinson is a fringe loon is fairly well known, and his message is the problem in large part - specifically of interest in the matter of the campaign was the fact that the market was saturated with all sorts of vague policy claims, which when questioned, Robinson didn't seem to know too much about.
The story of his sons is very, very strange indeed. But it's also being reported from very dodgy sources, and thus I frankly take very little interest in it. If some sort of decent reporting confirmed the story then perhaps it would merit discussing.
Frankly, I've noticed this to be a fairly alarming trend in terms of "conservative" thought and dissemination. A source (usually a blog or media outlet of dubious credibility like World Net Daily or the laughable Canada Free Press) will make a claim, generally an outrageous one either entirely fabricated or egregiously exaggerating facts (ie ginning up something minor or taking it out of context). Note - there are "left/liberal" outlets that engage in this sort of crap too - however, they appear from the left to be far, far less common than the kind of distortions pumped out by right wing outlets. In any case, what happens is that the ridiculous story spreads like wildfire though the "brain trust", but the retraction/debunking seems to travel less slowly, so when one attempts to engage someone in any sort of intellectual discussion of an issue, most of the time is wasted on just defining terms of reference and screening out the nonsense/noise that feeds in. This doesn't seem to be accidental, either, but a bona fide effort to distort the debate through messaging.
The story of his sons is very, very strange indeed. But it's also being reported from very dodgy sources, and thus I frankly take very little interest in it. If some sort of decent reporting confirmed the story then perhaps it would merit discussing.
Frankly, I've noticed this to be a fairly alarming trend in terms of "conservative" thought and dissemination. A source (usually a blog or media outlet of dubious credibility like World Net Daily or the laughable Canada Free Press) will make a claim, generally an outrageous one either entirely fabricated or egregiously exaggerating facts (ie ginning up something minor or taking it out of context). Note - there are "left/liberal" outlets that engage in this sort of crap too - however, they appear from the left to be far, far less common than the kind of distortions pumped out by right wing outlets. In any case, what happens is that the ridiculous story spreads like wildfire though the "brain trust", but the retraction/debunking seems to travel less slowly, so when one attempts to engage someone in any sort of intellectual discussion of an issue, most of the time is wasted on just defining terms of reference and screening out the nonsense/noise that feeds in. This doesn't seem to be accidental, either, but a bona fide effort to distort the debate through messaging.
- Reaction score
- 1,434
- Points
- 1,160
Redeye:
Does anyone else see the humor in this?
Does anyone else see the humor in this?
- Reaction score
- 2,871
- Points
- 940
Rifleman62 said:
I assure you, there's nothing funny about conspiracy theories....Oh, who am I kidding? ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Rifleman62 said:
Nope. It's not funny. The way issues are framed by media outlets has a huge impact on how any sort of discourse forms. And when you don't have a well informed public - or worse - a public being fed propaganda - then you do not really have a functioning democracy. Churchill said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." It's true, and the noise in the media (I'm looking at you, Fox) is making that disturbingly apt.
- Reaction score
- 1,434
- Points
- 1,160
Redeye, do you even subscribe to FOX?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Rifleman62 said:
Yes - since it's part of my XM radio package and my cable package to get actual news channels I have no choice. Occasionally I'll flip over just to see their spin on things, or to listen to Glenn Beck in the hopes I'll hear his final, hilarious meltdown when his vast progressive-Marxist-Islamist-Caliphate theory collapses. I also enjoy Bill O'Reilly's inability to interview anyone without interrupting them, and his relentless claims that he has a "no spin zone". That was priceless last night when he described the renewed anti-Muslim HUAC Redux of Peter King as hearing into "Jihad In America". That's pretty pure spin. Mainly I get a laugh out of just how ridiculous some of things he says are.
I also enjoy Neil Cavuto's insight into the magical world he lives in where economic history and reality mean nothing.
Of course, there's also Media Matters For America, which aptly captures some of Fox's most egregious and silly moments, and Politifact and Factcheck where you can get insight on the claims across the spectrum. MMFA is very much a "left" (in the American sense) slanted organization, but they also present Fox hosts, Limbaugh, and other right wing media figures in their own words along with the reality of what they're going on about. Limbaugh particularly amuses me, for his hypocrisy, his ego, and his ridiculous ability to spin things.
- Reaction score
- 1,434
- Points
- 1,160
Well, I guess you pay the extra freight to get:
INFORMATION PAK:
Channel 149: Book TV
Channel 150: Bold (CBC)
Channel 151: i Channel
Channel 152: Fox News Channel
Channel 153: Discovery (ID)
Channel 154: BBC World
Channel 155: MSNBC
Channel 156: CNBC
Of course you subscribe. Of course you occasionally flip over. Of course, being an extraterrestrial you fully grasp the FOX News messaging.
There, I have wasted my allocated posts replying.
Rifleman62:
INFORMATION PAK:
Channel 149: Book TV
Channel 150: Bold (CBC)
Channel 151: i Channel
Channel 152: Fox News Channel
Channel 153: Discovery (ID)
Channel 154: BBC World
Channel 155: MSNBC
Channel 156: CNBC
Of course you subscribe. Of course you occasionally flip over. Of course, being an extraterrestrial you fully grasp the FOX News messaging.
There, I have wasted my allocated posts replying.
Rifleman62:
- Reaction score
- 6,010
- Points
- 1,260
You know, what we have here is our own, Army.ca, version of the American "culture wars."
Thucydides et al have never met a liberal*-Democrat they couldn't hate and Redeye and his confrères thoroughly detest religious right, the Bush Republicans and all their fellow travelers.
What fascinates me is the degree to which TV and, worse, TV personalities, colour our discourse. It goes back, I think, more than 35 years when PBS, of all people, pioneered the move from talking heads to shouting heads in an effort to "sex up" the news analysis genre. CNN, Fox, CNBC et al, having to fill 24 hours with something, magnified the 'shouting heads' phenomenon, making the host's and panelists' opinions, not the news, the main point of the programme. Now we can us Fox News as shorthand for the American right and Katie Couric vs. Sarah Palin as proof positive that the mainstream media, including e.g. the Globe and Mail, which consistently endorses Stephen Harper, has a built in liberal* left-wing bias. It indicates, I fear that most of us have become accustomed to a diet of predigested opinions and are, now, loath to consider chewing on some facts all by ourselves.
----------
* The one thing I hate with a deep and abiding passion is the flock of lazy, semi-literate Americans, led by William F Buckley Jr, who committed linguistic vandalism on the words "liberal" and "conservative." One despairs for anyone with an inadequate education - including so many historically illiterate bloody Americans with PhDs from Harvard and Yale. Buckley used to refer to himself as a libertarian and/or a conservative; I agree one can be one or the other but one cannot, if one has a single shred of intellectual consistency, use the words almost interchangeably - as Buckley normally did.
Thucydides et al have never met a liberal*-Democrat they couldn't hate and Redeye and his confrères thoroughly detest religious right, the Bush Republicans and all their fellow travelers.
What fascinates me is the degree to which TV and, worse, TV personalities, colour our discourse. It goes back, I think, more than 35 years when PBS, of all people, pioneered the move from talking heads to shouting heads in an effort to "sex up" the news analysis genre. CNN, Fox, CNBC et al, having to fill 24 hours with something, magnified the 'shouting heads' phenomenon, making the host's and panelists' opinions, not the news, the main point of the programme. Now we can us Fox News as shorthand for the American right and Katie Couric vs. Sarah Palin as proof positive that the mainstream media, including e.g. the Globe and Mail, which consistently endorses Stephen Harper, has a built in liberal* left-wing bias. It indicates, I fear that most of us have become accustomed to a diet of predigested opinions and are, now, loath to consider chewing on some facts all by ourselves.
----------
* The one thing I hate with a deep and abiding passion is the flock of lazy, semi-literate Americans, led by William F Buckley Jr, who committed linguistic vandalism on the words "liberal" and "conservative." One despairs for anyone with an inadequate education - including so many historically illiterate bloody Americans with PhDs from Harvard and Yale. Buckley used to refer to himself as a libertarian and/or a conservative; I agree one can be one or the other but one cannot, if one has a single shred of intellectual consistency, use the words almost interchangeably - as Buckley normally did.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Mr Campbell, you're partially right. I absolutely detest the religious right in particular and have no end of venom for them. There are, however, some "Bush republicans" and conservatives in general who I find insightful even when I disagree with them, because they can present a good, solid argument that is worth discussing. I enjoy reading David Frum's commentary and his site, for example. He's a moderate Republican, and presents his opinions well.
We share the same concern about how the media shapes public discourse, including the pervasive idea that somehow all media has a strong liberal bias and therefore a shouting head opinion network somehow is a necessary counterbalance. It was telling to me that Parliament directed CRTC to study revisions to rules about presenting false or misleading news in Canada while a number of Tory connected people were trying to launch a network that surely would need that sort of leeway to be what they hoped to be.
This is, at the end of the day, the problem... it's not that we have different opinions, it's that few people take the time to think for themselves and to try to critically analyze what they here. There are people who will read the BS posted on a site like WND or listen to the nonsense spewed by the likes of a Glenn Beck and assume it's correct, factual information. This makes us unable to have the kind of rational discussions necessary to a functioning democracy.
We share the same concern about how the media shapes public discourse, including the pervasive idea that somehow all media has a strong liberal bias and therefore a shouting head opinion network somehow is a necessary counterbalance. It was telling to me that Parliament directed CRTC to study revisions to rules about presenting false or misleading news in Canada while a number of Tory connected people were trying to launch a network that surely would need that sort of leeway to be what they hoped to be.
This is, at the end of the day, the problem... it's not that we have different opinions, it's that few people take the time to think for themselves and to try to critically analyze what they here. There are people who will read the BS posted on a site like WND or listen to the nonsense spewed by the likes of a Glenn Beck and assume it's correct, factual information. This makes us unable to have the kind of rational discussions necessary to a functioning democracy.
E.R. Campbell said:
