The New American Politics thread

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You're probably going to be labelled as part of the the regressive left because you left out Islam itself.

Yeah, I did. It was an unfortunate geographical dice roll that had the most primitive medieval Muslims in the world sitting on the world's best oil deposits.

[nik-]

IMO the only restriction on free speech should be the incitement to violence.

Not sure where this puts me on this spectrum.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Buster

No, I never said anything about consequences. Free speech should absolutely not be free of consequences (except for government consequences).

Originally Posted by Buster

There you go again. If you believe that speech should be restricted, you don't believe in free speech.

All other arguments are semantics.

But this is what I'm talking about. I completely agree with you that free speech shouldn't have any consequences from the state, but others would argue that should also include freedom from censorship by private institutions, or that calling someone racist is a form of restricting free speech. There is no universally accepted definition of free speech.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by rubecube

But this is what I'm talking about. I completely agree with you that free speech shouldn't have any consequences from the state, but others would argue that should also include freedom from censorship by private institutions, or that calling someone racist is a form of restricting free speech. There is no universally accepted definition of free speech.

I think that is reasonable.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Well, at the very least, "a free speech issue" means something different than "a first amendment protection issue", or up here, "a Charter section 2b issue". It's broader than that, and speaks more to the prime conditions for encouraging the most vibrant possible marketplace of ideas in society, which itself may entail some restrictions on how people participate in that marketplace.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A thousand true things happen in a day. Which ones do you publicize? Who do you cast in the role of hero/victim and who do you cast in the role of villain/oppressor? Those are choices, and those choices are made to craft a narrative. In the U.S. those narratives have hardened into a binary, existential Us vs Them struggle.

The real world is not binary. But statistics and complex trends are not emotionally appealing. Nobody wants those stories. They're boring and hard to present. They don't sell. And the liberal media is just as guilty as the conservative media of crafting narratives that will sell to their audience.

Who says media needs to be profitable?

I'd argue that the more financially successful the publication, the worse the quality of their journalism.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by nik-

Yeah. I honestly think that the worst two guys for this are Cenk from TYT and Reza Azlan. Those two go to the racist/bigot card so often that you can barely read the face anymore.

can you point me to a better portion of that first video? i watched 25 minutes and it was a pretty boring conversation that kept getting focused on microscopic details. while i would love to spend 3 hours of my life listening to those windbags, i have better things to do!

[nik-]

It's been a long time since I watched it, and I don't want to go through that hell again.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
The people who work in the media are drawn from a narrow slice of American society. Urban, educated, liberal, cosmopolitan, young, tech-savvy. The way many of their fellow-citizens live is as alien to them as how Uruguayans live. For every American who uses twitter there are two who do not even have internet access. Americans increasingly live in mutually-incomprehensible worlds.

I'm not sure what the hell this means? We shouldn't listen to educated people who are well travelled, well read, and experienced in the subjects they are covering? We should instead rely on the less educated, who have never left their farms, nor dealt with someone unlike themselves? Also, I think you should review some of the top journalists in the business today. You might be surprised as to where they grew up and how it contradicts your perception.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Not the way social justice is thought of these days. Similarly, when you say the media is classically liberal based on its ontology, you're equivocating. When he says that MSNBC and TYT have a "liberal bias", he really means a leftist bias. And he's right. I like Rachel Maddow, but there's no doubt she's no more impartial than Sean Hannity. MSNBC has attempted to get a niche market as the 24 hour cable news network for the Left, the answer to Fox. I don't know why you're spending so much time rebutting something so obvious.

Because it is not true. Just because you want to believe something is true does not make it true. You can go to your theology class and embrace creationism all you want, but it doesn't make it true. You may believe as hard as you like, but the reality is different than your belief. Believing that Young Turks is reflective of the mass media is crazy. It isn't journalism and doesn't portray itself as journalism. Using that to portray bias is like using Sharknado as an example of fine cinema.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

LOL what? I'm embracing creationism and praying now? I'm an atheist. Or agnostic, whatever. Anyway, you can argue that 24 hour news networks like Fox and MSNBC aren't journalism and don't portray themselves as such but they sort of do portray themselves that way, and that's how they're consumed by a lot of people. The same goes for TYT.

If you're actually suggesting that the pundits of MSNBC are any less agenda-driven than those on Fox, I have a bridge to sell you.

[PostandIn]

Originally Posted by dobbles

can you point me to a better portion of that first video? i watched 25 minutes and it was a pretty boring conversation that kept getting focused on microscopic details. while i would love to spend 3 hours of my life listening to those windbags, i have better things to do!

You just need to listen to 11:32. When Harris says 'Let's get into the details, we're not getting anywhere here' you understand what Uygur has become - a fraud and a ratings huckster. I believe this was (at least up to this point) the most watched interview TYT had ever done. It was also because of the 'Sam Harris issue', starting with the events discussed in the video, that Dave Rubin left TYT. Uygur has become everything he used to rail against. His situation kind of reminds of Dennis Miller's infatuation with George W Bush early in W's first term that essentially has dead-ended his career.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

LOL what? I'm embracing creationism and praying now? I'm an atheist. Or agnostic, whatever. Anyway, you can argue that 24 hour news networks like Fox and MSNBC aren't journalism and don't portray themselves as such but they sort of do portray themselves that way, and that's how they're consumed by a lot of people. The same goes for TYT.

If you're actually suggesting that the pundits of MSNBC are any less agenda-driven than those on Fox, I have a bridge to sell you.

I don't think he's saying YOU. You know, the royal we or whatever.

He's drawing an analogy towards irrational belief in organized religion possessed by some and your, in his mind, irrational belief that major media presentation in America is liberally biased. I think he knows you're an atheist and therefore is choosing to draw a parallel to organized religion to inflict maximum hypocrite points.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by PostandIn

You just need to listen to 11:32. When Harris says 'Let's get into the details, we're not getting anywhere here' you understand what Uygur has become - a fraud and a ratings huckster. I believe this was (at least up to this point) the most watched interview TYT had ever done. It was also because of the 'Sam Harris issue', starting with the events discussed in the video, that Dave Rubin left TYT. Uygur has become everything he used to rail against. His situation kind of reminds of Dennis Miller's infatuation with George W Bush early in W's first term that essentially has dead-ended his career.

I have come to the conclusion that the reason Cenk and CNN parted ways must've been at least partially due to unreasonableness or flagrant insubordination based on what I've seen of his youtube channel which in my opinion is simply unwatchable.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

LOL what? I'm embracing creationism and praying now? I'm an atheist. Or agnostic, whatever. Anyway, you can argue that 24 hour news networks like Fox and MSNBC aren't journalism and don't portray themselves as such but they sort of do portray themselves that way, and that's how they're consumed by a lot of people. The same goes for TYT.

If you're actually suggesting that the pundits of MSNBC are any less agenda-driven than those on Fox, I have a bridge to sell you.

I wasn't portraying you as believing in that tripe, just using it as an example of belief betraying facts.

MSNBC does not portray itself as news. It does not. They refer to their programming as in-depth analysis and commentary. Fox, on the other hand, does portray itself as a news network and operates in that fashion, even though they inject commentary into most of their stories. Also, Roger Ailes has long been involved in Republican politics while Phil Griffin is the opposite, being almost anti-political and more of a populist than anything. This is the guy that has changed the programming on MSNBC to be more Liberal or more Conservative to appease ratings. MSNBC and Fox News are not even remotely the same and perfect examples of creating a false equivalency to portray balance in a point of view.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I have come to the conclusion that the reason Cenk and CNN parted ways must've been at least partially due to unreasonableness or flagrant insubordination based on what I've seen of his youtube channel which in my opinion is simply unwatchable.

I think this is why I have no frame of reference when it comes to TYT. I've only watched one or two episodes and just refuse to even acknowledge it at this point because of how terrible they were.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I mean, I don't have cable, but when I did, I had both MSNBC and Fox, and they looked like pretty similar networks to me when you pulled them up on the screen. That's great that MSNBC doesn't call itself news, but I suspect that most people consume its content the same way they consume what's shown on Fox.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

That party is a POS.

They should hire Stephen Harper and Jason Kenny on how to run a 21st century Conservative Party.

Bring in a northerner to sort out that nest of snakes? How'd that work out for Ned Stark?

[Senator Clay Davis]

MSNBC was much better when they had "To Catch a Predator" reruns. Lockup is not bad but holy crap they need some new episodes.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by PostandIn

You just need to listen to 11:32. When Harris says 'Let's get into the details, we're not getting anywhere here' you understand what Uygur has become - a fraud and a ratings huckster. I believe this was (at least up to this point) the most watched interview TYT had ever done. It was also because of the 'Sam Harris issue', starting with the events discussed in the video, that Dave Rubin left TYT. Uygur has become everything he used to rail against. His situation kind of reminds of Dennis Miller's infatuation with George W Bush early in W's first term that essentially has dead-ended his career.

I will be honest, as those videos started I had to Google both TYT and Sam Harris as I wasn't particularly familiar with either. So I don't have any bias either way. So as I watched that conversation, I felt 100% that it was Harris that was doing a vast majority of the talking and dragging the conversation down to a crawl, and I also felt that while he was given leeway to talk for long stretched of time, that when the interviewer would try and counter point that Harris would only wait a matter of seconds before interrupting.

From what I saw, it didn't seem like the interviewer was trying to be a fraud or ratings huckster?

[Cube Inmate]

Those Young Turks need to go home and clean up the mess in their own country before they start coming over here and telling us how to live our lives! GTIFMB!

Green Text Is For Mouth Breathers