Conquer Club

I think everyone knows my position on this so I won't get involved in the discussion except for this opening remark. I could definitely be wrong on this, but my instincts tell me I'm right. My belief is that liberals could not only win on gay marriage but a whole bunch of issues if they didn't do the name calling thing. What I mean when I say that is the use of words like greedy, sexist, bigot, racist, and homophobe. These are the most common names thrown out by the left towards the right or anyone who doesn't support their beliefs.

Each person can vote for 2 options.

bradleybadly wrote:I think everyone knows my position on this so I won't get involved in the discussion except for this opening remark. I could definitely be wrong on this, but my instincts tell me I'm right. My belief is that liberals could not only win on gay marriage but a whole bunch of issues if they didn't do the name calling thing. What I mean when I say that is the use of words like greedy, sexist, bigot, racist, and homophobe. These are the most common names thrown out by the left towards the right or anyone who doesn't support their beliefs.
Each person can vote for 2 options.

I can't vote, because the poll isn't quite clear. Are you saying that, for instance in the first option, those terms ALWAYS APPLY? If so, then the poll is broken. If not, then please explain.

Racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Sexism: attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.

Bigot: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

These aren't all clear cut terms. Bigot is an especially broad term, especially if one focuses on the intolerance aspect. I'd say that while not all uses of the words are proper, most are. There are always knee-jerky types who label those that disagree with them, but for most people a bigot is easily recognizable.

I don't know what option my stance on this fits into, so I didn't vote. However, I believe the current/recent use of these terms is used by liberals against all people who don't agree with their particular agenda (whether those types of people are conservative or not) to marginalize the opponents' arguments.

As I've said in a number of other threads, here's my example - when someone who supports healthcare (for example, a senator) goes on television and points to a white person at an anti-universal health insurance rally with a sign reading "Obama is Osama" and says, "That person is racist" and then goes on to liken everyone who disagrees with universal health insurance racist or bigoted. This happens on a regular basis on many news networks. I happen to think it is a political tactic that can be very effective. It makes people who are not racist and not bigoted think twice about disagreeing with universal health insurance (or any other issue) to avoid being labelled a racist or bigot.

Here's a good article evidencing the problems inherent with political branding from the other side:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 99024.html

Here are some of my favorites:

"Most Americans don't know much yet about the idiosyncratic ideology of the Tea Party crowd, beyond their conviction that President Obama was born in Kenya (and that his birth announcement in the Hawaii newspapers is therefoer part of a plot that dates back to the Kennedy era)."

"Many of the Tea Party types actually hate Republican politicians, unless, like Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater, they are already dead. They hate Democrats, too, of course, and lots of other people, but their invective against Republicans is suffused with special outrage."

Oh, I'm part of the Tea Party crowd. I didn't realize I hated Republicans, thought Obama was born in Kenya, and that I use invective against Republicans infused with special outrage.

thegreekdog wrote:I don't know what option my stance on this fits into, so I didn't vote. However, I believe the current/recent use of these terms is used by liberals against all people who don't agree with their particular agenda (whether those types of people are conservative or not) to marginalize the opponents' arguments.

As I've said in a number of other threads, here's my example - when someone who supports healthcare (for example, a senator) goes on television and points to a white person at an anti-universal health insurance rally with a sign reading "Obama is Osama" and says, "That person is racist" and then goes on to liken everyone who disagrees with universal health insurance racist or bigoted. This happens on a regular basis on many news networks. I happen to think it is a political tactic that can be very effective. It makes people who are not racist and not bigoted think twice about disagreeing with universal health insurance (or any other issue) to avoid being labelled a racist or bigot.

You're right in that it happens far too often, though it has the opposite affect for me. I figure if it's clearly not a bigoted/homophobic/whatever policy yet they've got to resort to that argument, then they clearly don't have any REAL argument, so I should be voting in the opposite way to whatever that group wants.

bradleybadly wrote:I think everyone knows my position on this so I won't get involved in the discussion except for this opening remark. I could definitely be wrong on this, but my instincts tell me I'm right. My belief is that liberals could not only win on gay marriage but a whole bunch of issues if they didn't do the name calling thing. What I mean when I say that is the use of words like greedy, sexist, bigot, racist, and homophobe. These are the most common names thrown out by the left towards the right or anyone who doesn't support their beliefs.

Each person can vote for 2 options.

Frankly, those look more like something conservatives might claim liberals are saying about conservatives, not things liberals really say of conservatives in general. (individuals, certainly, but as a whole, no).

thegreekdog wrote:I don't know what option my stance on this fits into, so I didn't vote. However, I believe the current/recent use of these terms is used by liberals against all people who don't agree with their particular agenda (whether those types of people are conservative or not) to marginalize the opponents' arguments.

Labeling is the age old standby of people who cannot find anything real to discuss. That is true regardless of their political "stripe". It has nothing to do with being Liberal or Conservative.

thegreekdog wrote:As I've said in a number of other threads, here's my example - when someone who supports healthcare (for example, a senator) goes on television and points to a white person at an anti-universal health insurance rally with a sign reading "Obama is Osama" and says, "That person is racist" and then goes on to liken everyone who disagrees with universal health insurance racist or bigoted. This happens on a regular basis on many news networks. I happen to think it is a political tactic that can be very effective. It makes people who are not racist and not bigoted think twice about disagreeing with universal health insurance (or any other issue) to avoid being labelled a racist or bigot.

This is why I listen almost exclusively to NPR, BBC, etc. I watch the others just enough to have a rough idea of what they are covering/saying, but almost never get anything real.

Woodruff wrote:
You're right in that it happens far too often, though it has the opposite affect for me. I figure if it's clearly not a bigoted/homophobic/whatever policy yet they've got to resort to that argument, then they clearly don't have any REAL argument, so I should be voting in the opposite way to whatever that group wants.

Then you are letting others dictate your actions.

Why not ignore the idiots and actually listen to those who DO have something real to say? Whether you go along with something because of "idiocy" or go against something because of it, you are still giving your power to idiots.

That said, it is pretty tempting to feel that way...

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
You're right in that it happens far too often, though it has the opposite affect for me. I figure if it's clearly not a bigoted/homophobic/whatever policy yet they've got to resort to that argument, then they clearly don't have any REAL argument, so I should be voting in the opposite way to whatever that group wants.

Then you are letting others dictate your actions.

Why not ignore the idiots and actually listen to those who DO have something real to say? Whether you go along with something because of "idiocy" or go against something because of it, you are still giving your power to idiots.

That said, it is pretty tempting to feel that way...

But when the same people who wrote the legislation that they're trying to pass are the ones who resort to the name calling, it just proves that they can't stand on the merits of their own proposals and viewpoints.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
You're right in that it happens far too often, though it has the opposite affect for me. I figure if it's clearly not a bigoted/homophobic/whatever policy yet they've got to resort to that argument, then they clearly don't have any REAL argument, so I should be voting in the opposite way to whatever that group wants.

Then you are letting others dictate your actions.

Why not ignore the idiots and actually listen to those who DO have something real to say? Whether you go along with something because of "idiocy" or go against something because of it, you are still giving your power to idiots.

No argument. Notice I didn't say that I WOULD vote that way, only that it led me to believe I should be. My point is that those who resort to those sort of arguments DO "turn me away" from their "side of the debate" EVEN IF THAT SIDE MAY BE THE ONE I'D SELECT. For instance, SultanofSurreal here on the site...he absolutely makes me initially take whatever side he's arguing AGAINST simply because of his methodology...if someone as socially incapable as he is in favor of it, it must suck...even though I eventually tend to be in agreement with him once I look over the issue carefully. Essentially, the idiots very much DO make it more difficult for me to come to their side.

This difference between the conservative labelling (for example, labelling war protestors as unpatriotic) versus liberal labelling (for example, labelling anti-universal health insurance people) is that when conservatives label people there is a general and consistent outcry amongst the major media outlets. When liberals label people there is at best silence and at worst (and in many cases) complete agreement (per MSNBC and CNN coverages).

thegreekdog wrote:This difference between the conservative labelling (for example, labelling war protestors as unpatriotic) versus liberal labelling (for example, labelling anti-universal health insurance people) is that when conservatives label people there is a general and consistent outcry amongst the major media outlets. When liberals label people there is at best silence and at worst (and in many cases) complete agreement (per MSNBC and CNN coverages).

This is an old argument, but the only reason you have this perception is because what you are calling "liberal" is really more "middle of the road". Truly liberal discussion does not even make the major media sources. Even on most of NPR stays away from truly liberal stuff, though they do try to include some truly liberal programs like Democracy now, alternative radio, and (for the homosexual/transgender view) Purple Rabbit, etc. The most ardent conservatives, by contrast, are included. The media do exclude some of the most extreme far right -- the KKK types and such (though they cover even them on occasion), but most people don't even know the liberal equivalents or lump all liberals into those groups (if you are an environmentalist, you are an Earth First!er, etc.)

bump

bradleybadly wrote:I think everyone knows my position on this so I won't get involved in the discussion except for this opening remark. I could definitely be wrong on this, but my instincts tell me I'm right. My belief is that liberals could not only win on gay marriage but a whole bunch of issues if they didn't do the name calling thing. What I mean when I say that is the use of words like greedy, sexist, bigot, racist, and homophobe. These are the most common names thrown out by the left towards the right or anyone who doesn't support their beliefs.

Each person can vote for 2 options.

This is one of the reasons I cannot stand those who are widely considered to lead and inspire either the right or left.

Bunch of schoolkids is what they are.
The best part for me, having come from a mostly Conservative family and gone to a truly Liberal school, is that I cannot tell who is more close-minded about things or who is quicker to throw insults or dismiss another who does not agree.

bradleybadly wrote:bump

So I guess this means you weren't planning to fix the options so that they were meaningful or relevant.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:This difference between the conservative labelling (for example, labelling war protestors as unpatriotic) versus liberal labelling (for example, labelling anti-universal health insurance people) is that when conservatives label people there is a general and consistent outcry amongst the major media outlets. When liberals label people there is at best silence and at worst (and in many cases) complete agreement (per MSNBC and CNN coverages).

This is an old argument, but the only reason you have this perception is because what you are calling "liberal" is really more "middle of the road". Truly liberal discussion does not even make the major media sources. Even on most of NPR stays away from truly liberal stuff, though they do try to include some truly liberal programs like Democracy now, alternative radio, and (for the homosexual/transgender view) Purple Rabbit, etc. The most ardent conservatives, by contrast, are included. The media do exclude some of the most extreme far right -- the KKK types and such (though they cover even them on occasion), but most people don't even know the liberal equivalents or lump all liberals into those groups (if you are an environmentalist, you are an Earth First!er, etc.)

It's only middle of the road because (1) you agree with it or (2) the media agrees with it and thus presents it as middle of the road.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:This difference between the conservative labelling (for example, labelling war protestors as unpatriotic) versus liberal labelling (for example, labelling anti-universal health insurance people) is that when conservatives label people there is a general and consistent outcry amongst the major media outlets. When liberals label people there is at best silence and at worst (and in many cases) complete agreement (per MSNBC and CNN coverages).

This is an old argument, but the only reason you have this perception is because what you are calling "liberal" is really more "middle of the road". Truly liberal discussion does not even make the major media sources. Even on most of NPR stays away from truly liberal stuff, though they do try to include some truly liberal programs like Democracy now, alternative radio, and (for the homosexual/transgender view) Purple Rabbit, etc. The most ardent conservatives, by contrast, are included. The media do exclude some of the most extreme far right -- the KKK types and such (though they cover even them on occasion), but most people don't even know the liberal equivalents or lump all liberals into those groups (if you are an environmentalist, you are an Earth First!er, etc.)

It's only middle of the road because (1) you agree with it or (2) the media agrees with it and thus presents it as middle of the road.

No. Its middle of the road because the extreme left means things like complete communism, (at the very fringe, its the violent overthrow to achieve it), insisting that "all life it equal" (that harming an animal is equal to harming a human), ignoring of political borders except for "practical" stuff or to ensure contingent cultures (I always see hypocrisy and inconsistancy there), etc.

The Far right means on the one hand fascism (and the violent achievement of that) or theocracy, on the other complete capitolism (businesses can do whatever they want, no limits at all), islo

If you look at the media, you DO see coverage of even the far right. The absolute violent aspect are not, but the ideas that churchs (mostly certain Christian churches) ought to be able to dictate state rules is almost "mainline" now. The idea that any constraints on business is not fully accepted (most people do agree that basic safety and such need to be dictated, but that comment is usually followed up with "but our government has already gone way too far..."), but is still mentioned far more than the idea of absolute communism.

I could go on, but I definitely do not adhere to the far left. I am just slightly left of center economically/socially , am a bit more left when it comes to tolerance of lifestyles and so forth (actually think we more or less agree there).

In fact, I was always considered fairly conservative up until about 10 years ago. Then, while my values and beliefs did not really change (a bit on the homosexuality issue, but not otherwise), I suddenly became a "raving liberal".

As for regular media coverage ... I have hardly watched the national news in 5 years. When I do, it is mostly to see pictures of fires and that type of thing. When I try to listen for real news, I am almost always dissappointed.

Player... I indicated two groups of "protestors."

The first - anti-war protestors. Liberal fringe? Of course not. Identifies with liberals? Of course. The media attention towards this group is positive.

The second - anti-universal health insurance. Conservative fringe? No way. Identifies with conservatives? Yes. The media attention towards this group is completely negative.

It's a very simple concept to understand. I'm not talking about Earth Firsters or the KKK. I'm talking about normal Americans who believe in one thing (peace in Iraq) or the other (no universal health insurance). You're arguing something completely different. Either you're not picking up what I'm throwing down or you're completely ignoring it because I'm right (and thus you have nothing to argue about).

thegreekdog wrote:Player... I indicated two groups of "protestors."

The first - anti-war protestors. Liberal fringe? Of course not. Identifies with liberals? Of course. The media attention towards this group is positive.

The second - anti-universal health insurance. Conservative fringe? No way. Identifies with conservatives? Yes. The media attention towards this group is completely negative.

It's a very simple concept to understand. I'm not talking about Earth Firsters or the KKK. I'm talking about normal Americans who believe in one thing (peace in Iraq) or the other (no universal health insurance). You're arguing something completely different. Either you're not picking up what I'm throwing down or you're completely ignoring it because I'm right (and thus you have nothing to argue about).

Actually, I disagree with your definitions.

Ironically, that you declare the "anti-war protestors" are liberal, but not of the fringe actually proves my point. Because a lot of anti-war protestors and dissenters are very much from the FAR left fringe. You just don't hear about them... at all, unless you work hard to do so.

By contrast, many of those presented in the media as against universal health coverage are very much from the FAR right.-- those who assert that Obama is a communist, a terrorist, etc. You actually do hear of those views in the regular media. You just don't hear the far left.

I don't like to argue for the far left, because they mostly are a bunch of idiots. It is NOT my belief system. However, the far left includes everyone from the extrem so-called "peace love" types who think we all should have just walked over and given Saddam a hug and all would have been nice to those who think we ought to do without paychecks and simply get what we need, to (as I did mention)those who think that human beings have no right to kill or harm any other living thing... etc. In the furthest extreme, they advocate violence (ends justify the means -- true hypocrisy if there ever was). i.e. lunatics. Just like those who say Obama is a Muslim terrorist are lunatics.

But, see, those far left groups are not even entering into your thinking... just the far right. And you are close enough to some of those beliefs that you no longer even see them as "far" right. To you, it is just what should be. (that is, you are not an idiot and absolutely do not believe in the violence, etc, but you believe firmly in the free market, are against anymore government control of just about everything, etc.).

Conservativism has been introduced so gradually that, like the frog in heated water, folks no longer even recognize it as such. Regardless of what you think is wrong or correct, the failure to recognize this change is what I find pretty darned scary. Becuase it really says that people have completely shut themselves off from whole segments of thought, do not even allow their thinking to assess or properly challenge whole groups of ideas.

I don't listen to Alternative radio because I agree with it. In many, many cases I do not. I listen because I want to keep my mind challenged, continue to assess what I believe and think. I want to consider those thoughts with which I disagree, because else I cannot be sure I really do disagree.

And, often times I find mixed in with the nonsense some points that are worth considering.

For example, I first heard of the huge numbers of deaths in Gaza on Alternative radio. Later, those numbers began to appear in more "regular" media. I also find interesting some ideas presented by various speakers.

Again, you're completely avoiding the point. I'm not talking about fringe people. You think the conservatives at the Tea Party protests are fringe people because that's what you've been led to believe. We'll see in the next major election how much of a "fringe" those people actually are. And you're exhibiting exactly the bias I thought would occur when I saw CNN's and MSNBC's coverage of the Tea Party protests. But I'll play with your recent post.

PLAYER57832 wrote: Because a lot of anti-war protestors and dissenters are very much from the FAR left fringe. You just don't hear about them... at all, unless you work hard to do so.

By contrast, many of those presented in the media as against universal health coverage are very much from the FAR right.-- those who assert that Obama is a communist, a terrorist, etc. You actually do hear of those views in the regular media. You just don't hear the far left.

THIS! THIS! This is exactly my point! You don't hear about anti-war protestors and dissenters from the "fringe left" instead you hear from reasonable protestors. Back in 2004 you heard from anti-war protestors generally, and they were reasonable people and were reported on as such. But there were also the hard left people that are the liberal equivalent of the "Obama is Osama" people on the right. BUT YOU DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE!!! By contrast, nowadays, you hear from anti-universal health insurance people, BUT YOU DON'T HEAR THE REASONABLE ONES!!! You only hear about the lunatics who think "Obama is Osama." Do you understand now? This is exactly my point! So frustrating...

On the "far right" thing. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to be frustrated with the government owning large swathes of the economy (from banks to car makers). I don't think it's unreasonable for me to be frustrated with continuous and virtually unlimited spending (on both sides of the aisle). There are a lot of people frustrated with these things. Would you label them conservatives? Would you label them fringe conservatives? Do you think these people are held in esteem by major media outlets or are they, instead, labelled as fringe groups or tools of the Republican Party?

Only some tea-party folks are extreme. The thing is you DO see the whole gamet and most of those who are not fringe conservatives are presented as normal, everyday folks who sit in the middle.. NOT reasonable folks with quite extreme views.

Liberals, by contrast are not even covered.

How is the media being biased toward liberalism when they cover the entire gamut (except for perhas the absolute extreme) of the right and only the moderal liberal views? Further, too many folks think what's really middle of the road liberalism is actually radical.

If you went back 20 years ago, much of what is now being put forward as "standard" and even in some cases, a bit left is what USED TO be called the right. The scale has shifted that much!

The exception is in homosexuality and some women's issues. In those conservatives have moved to what used to be considered the, perhaps not far left, but definitely heavily left.

thegreekdog wrote:On the "far right" thing. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to be frustrated with the government owning large swathes of the economy (from banks to car makers). I don't think it's unreasonable for me to be frustrated with continuous and virtually unlimited spending (on both sides of the aisle). There are a lot of people frustrated with these things. Would you label them conservatives? Would you label them fringe conservatives? Do you think these people are held in esteem by major media outlets or are they, instead, labelled as fringe groups or tools of the Republican Party?

Can the far right be reasonable and justified? Perhaps. But the problem is not when you ask "are these things reasonable?" The problem is when you label yourself "middle of the road" when you are not. (on some issues, in some ways).

Take homosexuality, because I think we basically agree there. Neither one of us is particularly "pro" homosexual, per se. However, we don't see reason to pillar them, either. That is a liberal view. Just a few years ago, it would have been classified as an extreme liberal view. Now, even many otherwise conservative people think that way. Even many people who absolutely oppose homosexuality on a personal/religious level still support legalization of homosexuality. Approval of homosexual unions is more controversial, but simply allowing homosexuals to live in peace is pretty much not.

I've never claimed to be middle of the road. In fact, I think I'm pretty radical in most instances (free immigration, few government restrictions on the economy, legalized drugs, etc.). However, based on what I hear from sources other than the big media outlets, most people in the US are not happy about the current state of the government, specifically vis-a-vis the bailout and universal health insurance. Therefore, in that respect I would label myself middle of the road.

Woodruff wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:bump

So I guess this means you weren't planning to fix the options so that they were meaningful or relevant.

No, I'm not changing the options so that liberals can define what is meaningful or relevant, and get the results they want.