"Turn in your neighbors" - The newest right-wing blog scareFollow

Again. It's subjective. I could just as easily say that the Left has bought into "Anything on Fox or AM radio is CONSERVATIVE MEDIA and not to be trusted".

Shall we compare the relative rates at which conservatives eschew the mainstream media to the relative rates at which liberals eschew Fox News and AM talk radio? Who is more guilty of this? I'll again suggest that folks look at their own biases when insisting on pointing out others.


I'll also point out that I don't dismiss other people's opinions by attacking some assumed source. I discuss the position/opinion itself. Given that you are one of the worse offenders in the "you're wrong because you're just repeating something you heard on Fox News" category, you really don't have a leg to stand on here.

You could but you'd be comparing the labeling of two sources versus the labeling of hundreds of sources that aren't those two. But whatever makes you feel better

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Oh... my... God.... that was funny. Need I remind you of "Those counts taken from newspapers and collected by Fivethirtyeight.com are LIBERAL MEDIA!!!! We should use THESE numbers collected by the Freepers!"

Oh... and followed by "I didn't bother to look into where the numbers I said were the right ones came from. But... ummm... they didn't come from that SCARY LIBERAL website so obviously I should present them as evidence instead."

Good Lord, you're such a pathetic tool but at least you're an amusing pathetic tool.

Healthcare reform resulting in a better overall situation for society? Opinion as all hell.

Particular instance of healthcare reform not resulting in your retarded babies, grandmother's, and genetically inferior friends' deaths; the assertion that the NHS has not led to the ruination of Britannia; the denial that people who already cannot afford coverage will lose coverage (seriously, what the fuck?)? Fact as all hell.

Irrelevant. You're missing the forest for the trees.

It does not matter what the topic is. The idea that the White House would operate a web site in which it seeks out opinions in opposition to the administration's agenda and attempts to "officially" debunk them is a bad idea. This is not about health care. It's about the idea that a partisan government web site should become the arbiter of "truth" and "fact".

Asserting that you hate education isn't the same as calling you uneducated, nor wrong; it is, however, an ironic commentary of your assertion that you are educated as well as astute and of good judgment given what you believe of education in general. Non-sequiter? Try scathing indictment of hypocrisy. You are more than welcome to prove this with logical inference instead of paranoid intuition. I will admit defeat in three seconds if you do and vacate this thread entirely, regardless of the relevance of any other points I might be making simultaneously, but to be honest, I wouldn't bother trying, because it's not implied.



That you have a blatantly obvious phobia of formal education when it doesn't suit you. I can't begin to count the times you've attributed liberal ideology, often towards me, but even towards other posters who don't engage with you as vehemently as I do, to brainwashing and unquestioning obedience to public education.



Another phrase I can't begin to count the times of usage.

It does not matter what the topic is. The idea that the White House would operate wiretaps in which it seeks out opinions in opposition to the administration's agenda and attempts to "unofficially" silence them is a bad idea. This is not about terrorism. It's about the idea that a partisan government program should become the arbiter of "right" and "wrong."

I don't think I've ever had an analogy that easy before.

Which isn't what I said.

I said that you were equating a disagreement with things you agree with as a lack of, or disagreement with, education. Put another way: You assume I "hate education" because I disagree with positions you agree with (and you presumably associate those positions with education, or you wouldn't make the reverse association you have made).

Get it? It's your assumption operating here. I was just pointing it out for you. But thanks for confirming it yet again...







So. If one is a bad idea, isn't the other? Am I to assume you therefore agree with me that the Obama administration should not be doing this?


I'll also point out that at no point was the NSA wiretapping used to create propaganda or in any way influence public opinion. But other than that, your analogy is spot on!

Right. Nice hedge.

Wait... the numbers "might" be wrong but they still support my claim, not like the numbers Jophiel used!

Keep at it.

Yup.

Yet, yours DO support your argument so we can afford to hedge on them and give the illusion of not being blindly partisan while still insisting that they're good enough for what we want to prove.

Way to prove mine

Yeah, it was funny how you started out using those numbers, saw that you were losing the debate on the size of the tea parties versus the immigration rallies and then suddenly changed to some other source (instead of using some "liberal" source as "authoritarian" with its silly links and cites), told us how the "media reports" were probably far too low and these NEW numbers from this website would do a much better job of supporting your argument that the events were pretty much the same.

Man, you never stop giving, do ya?

Edited, Aug 17th 2009 8:57pm by Jophiel

I didn't attack education. I questioned the validity of the field of sociology as it is often applied. Um... I'm not alone in that. It's a field often laughed at as a joke even by professionals in other related fields (history, psychology, anthropology, etc). It's been described to me by more than one professor of those related fields as "a field dedicated to restating the obvious in a way designed to support pre-existing conclusions while providing no real advancement in knowledge". Well, something like that...

Yes. I have very very little respect for sociologists. This does not mean I don't respect education.



No. You're most likely mistaking my unwillingness to simply assume that because someone has a degree that they must be right. My position on this derives from personally knowing and interacting with a larger number of people involved in higher level academia. Some of those people, heck, many of those people, are brilliant and incredibly knowledgeable within their subjects. But this by no means precludes them from making mistakes and errors just as often as anyone else.

I don't assume someone is right because of their level of education. That's not the same thing as hating education. That's a connection you made all on your own.



Missing the point again. How do you do this so often? I did not say that no factors mattered. Just that it wasn't constrained to the issue of health care:




Do you see how the one thing that *does* matter is if the government is trying to tell people what is "true"? I explained this pretty clearly, yet you still failed to grasp it. Amazing...



It was your analogy Pensive. Not mine. Why mention it, claim it's a valid analogy, and now insist that you don't think it is, but that I do? Um... I said it was a bad analogy, and explained exactly *why* it was. Once again, my position is consistent. Your analogy did not contain a condition in which the government was attempting to define "truth" for the citizens.


You're making assumptions about what I care about, while ignoring my very clear statements. How about you read what I write instead of making such assumptions? You do this constantly and it's frankly pretty darn annoying. You've managed to misstate and thus miss-argue every single point I've made. It's not like I haven't been clear...

 
     ^ 
   / | \ 
     | 

This is your brain not getting it.


What part of that statement was unclear? What part of me clearly stating that this issue isn't about health care, but about the government defining "truth" did you not get? Thus, the *only* relevant analogy would include another case of the government doing something similar. Instead, you pulled out an analogy which just happens to include a "bad thing" you blame the Bush administration for doing.


Which is amusing on a number of levels. On the one hand, it implies an argument that what the Obama administration is doing is ok, because the Bush administration did things you didn't like. Which is childish and idiotic, but whatever. Um... But then you seem to want to rise above that by insisting that it's not *you* who see this as a valid analogy, but somehow *I* hold to a set of moral determinants which make this valid. You seem to think that by doing this, you can simultaneously criticize me for what Bush did, absolve Obama for doing what he's doing, and place the blame for said inconsistently on my own shoulders instead of yours.


I'm sorry man. But that's all your pathology going on there. And it's pretty darn twisted. All I said is that it's a bad idea for for the government to set itself up as the arbiter of what is "truth" and "fact". It's freaking amazing the twisted mental process you're going through to respond to that.


Why not just look at the statement itself and decide if it's valid? Why continuously meander though this bizarre set of illogical leaps in order to avoid discussing the single issue in front of us? Wow. Just wow...

Edited, Aug 17th 2009 8:31pm by gbaji

Pensive's aggression and emotion aren't the platform of his arguments, they're inflections.

I guess I'm weird. I don't see anything wrong with creating a website to fight rumors and lies. If they are wrong, I'm sure the Republican party would create a similar one to re-prove them. When I see such a site going up fully supporting the evidence behind death panels and proving that it was actually an Obama cover-up, and that poor little Trig Palin's oversized head is on the chopping block, then I'd lend more credence to the idea that the Obama administration has their heads up their collective asses. Until then, well, I find it odd that "free speech" is seen as impeded when a website exists showing how f*cking retarded (no offense to Trig) these rumors are. You can say whatever you want; but expect to be asked to back it up.

I dunno, I see things on a level with which I am more familiar. The rumors about healthcare reform are given by people like Varrus or ThiefX, and sometimes Gbaji (who just gets them from conservative blogs, which seem to get them from conservative demagogues, which puts them a half-step higher than the faux-grassroots rumors). When these posters say something completely ridiculous, we call them on it. They change the subject (Varrus) or pretend not to hear (Thief), or try to back it up and then say "Well, I ACTUALLY said maybe and exaggerated" when proven wrong (Gbaji). And we all go on our merry way. I sort of feel this is the same idea for the Obama administration. The difference being here that millions of lives could be affected, and some of the conservative posters are backed up by insurance company or Republican party money, and some of the liberal posters are backed by the US government or Democratic money.

The Government has a tough time fighting against these shadowy rumors, so making a central website, where concerned citizens can send in anything they hear so the government can respond directly, seems like a great idea. And, so it seems to me, as soon as those opposing healthcare reform realized that "Hey, this actually might be really effective!" they freaked out and had to slander the effort in whatever way possible; here, by calling it an infringement of their rights, Orwellian, Newspeak, Big Brother, etc.

Again that's just how I see it. I can see arguments against healthcare reform; I just don't think they hold a candle to the things for it. But some people do, and are willing to do whatever it takes to derail any prospect of reform. In Varrus's case I completely understand, as he works in insurance. If I did the same kind of job I might think differently as well.

There is nothing in the entire world more neutral than correcting false information. Stating facts and actually elucidating objectives and implications, to the best of your intention and foreknowledge, is about as unbiased as you can possibly be. Letting misinformation spread is not just harmful to the country, but a tacit endorsement of doomsaying. It's irresponsible not to correct it.