# Liberal indoctrination in universities?



## Superbronx (May 9, 2019)

Just wanted to have a discussion on this topic that I see mentioned occasionally around the internet. My wife does social media, I do not, but I've noticed this topic is touched on from time to time on fb.
I am not currently enrolled in a school of higher learning (College) and it has been several years since I was on campus so things have probably changed over the years.
Just thought it would be interesting to get people's points of view on what life is like in Universities today with regard to this subject. Or even if you just want to weigh in with your opinion. Also if members have proof to present that liberal bias does indeed exist or by the same token, proof that it does not exist, feel free to share.

I myself am concerned that there may actually be some substance to these claims.


----------



## tech3475 (May 9, 2019)

Funnily enough I was recently thinking of an old clip from the TV show ‘That’s Life’ where it was basically the show taking the p*** out of (then) young university students.

Found the clip although I originally saw it on ‘Charlie Brooker’s Screenwipe’:


I do wonder sometimes how much of the ‘things have changed’ discussions I see are down to the Internet and the media (both large and small) as opposed to society actually changing.


----------



## Lucifer666 (May 9, 2019)

I'm 20 and at a pretty big uni. There's no "liberal bias", but academic spaces are, generally speaking, more left-leaning.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (May 9, 2019)

I'm not sure there are truly objective universities in the world. It's somewhat subject-related (hard sciences are less about ideology). Every country has a culture and the culture will impact universities.


----------



## Xzi (May 9, 2019)

It's actually the opposite, it's the students demanding a more liberal atmosphere and (certain) universities are complying.  There are also a number of more traditionally conservative colleges/universities, of course.  Usually on the affluent side.


----------



## Plstic (May 9, 2019)

Yes there is, at least in the music program.


----------



## Superbronx (May 9, 2019)

Plstic said:


> Yes there is, at least in the music program.


Hmmmm, Care to expand on that? What examples have you been exposed to?


----------



## Plstic (May 9, 2019)

Ssuperbronx said:


> Hmmmm, Care to expand on that? What examples have you been exposed to?


Snarky jokes about dead white old men. I.E Beethoven, Stravinsky etc. Very subtle stuff but it is definitely there.


----------



## Xzi (May 9, 2019)

Plstic said:


> Snarky jokes about dead white old men. I.E Beethoven, Stravinsky etc. Very subtle stuff but it is definitely there.


Any "joke" you can make about a classical composer is just plain dorky/dad-like in the first place.  Sounds about as 'politically biased' as a mallard.


----------



## Superbronx (May 9, 2019)

During my reading I discovered these statistics from research done in 2010-11.
Statistics provided by the University of California at Los Angeles Higher Education Research Institute.

They had another chart that gave information on how the numbers had changed since 2008 also but if this is the trend it is definitely unsettling. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Keep in mind these numbers are from 2011. Likely they have changed much in 8 years.


----------



## PityOnU (May 9, 2019)

Ssuperbronx said:


> Keep in mind these numbers are from 2011. Likely they have changed much in 8 years.



Why?

In any case, Universities almost always have been, and probably always will be, more progressive in their tendencies just due to the very nature of their existence (developing new sciences, technology, philosophy, art, etc. and being a large concentration of young people sequestered away from the rest of society). Not sure why anyone would be surprised otherwise.

"Indoctrination" implies that ideas are expected to be accepted without questioning, which again is kind of the opposite of what happens at University.

What you probably should be asking is: Why is there such a rise in extremism and fear-mongering in modern day politics (see: this thread)? What has triggered the surge in "us vs. them" mentalities at both the intra- and international levels?


----------



## Superbronx (May 9, 2019)

This is an excerpt from an article in Boston magazine :
"Students are not the only conservatives on campus hiding their political identity in the closet. Several years ago, Jon Shields and Joshua Dunn interviewed 153 conservative professors for their book, Passing on the Right. In it, the duo say that within the context of college campuses, conservatives are a “stigmatized minority” and cite research suggesting that, in many instances, conservative professors are forced to rely on the same “coping strategies that gays and lesbians have used in the military and other inhospitable work environments.”
 To me, this statement suggests that conservatives must hide the fact that they are are conservative if they don't want trouble. Colleges are supposed to be institutions of higher learning and historically they were places where one could freely express themselves and openly discuss any topic. But if you must hide the fact you are conservative it sounds like there's no room for open discussion and dialog. Sounds as though you must accept their viewpoint and echo it or fake your way through college to earn your degree.


----------



## Xzi (May 9, 2019)

Ssuperbronx said:


> To me, this statement suggests that conservatives must hide the fact that they are are conservative if they don't want trouble.


Oh, god forbid someone disagrees with them, that type of "trouble" would be the end of the world!


----------



## notimp (May 9, 2019)

This is how this works. This is how this is supposed to work.

Universities are the places in society, where people think about existing concepts, how they work, how they could be better, and how to innovate new ones. And they do it without the confines of "I wonder how my boss thinks about it" and without "whats good for the company".

Liberal also means, more into the notion of the importance of the individual, and into big world changing ideas...

If you are going to university, because "you want things to be the same, as before you got there", what are you doing at a university? Getting a diploma? 

I can ensure you though, that those values shift over time, as they get older and get kids and at age 40, people tend to think differently and curse out everything that isnt as it was, when they were younger. 

This statistic, is kind of the way it always was, and always will be. Because, well - dah...

(Just look up a history of student protests, and what they were protesting for.)

That you even have people hiding their "political identity" - also speaks to this being the environment. They ususally shouldnt have to though - there are always fractions, and drinking clubs around that cater to every political orientation. I'd be more worried about that (hiding their political orientation), than about a statistic that says, that more than half of all students have a liberal political orientation. Because - of course they have - on average.

Its like complaining in a bank tellers meeting, that most of them will be conservative.

Its the similar "what came first" issue that you guys have with tha media. Media has a liberal bias. Well of course it has. Any worthwile conservative aspiring student goes either into studying business, law, ... Certainly not journalism. They are not interested in a mediocre life, trying to glance at issues, trying to find sources and proof, while writing about bigger societal issues. Some of them might be interested in "being center stage" at TV outlets, some might be into getting close with the management circle of interesting companies - but those could have gone into more 'conservative' career paths to begin with.


----------



## cherryduck (May 9, 2019)

I'm in the UK where I went to university about 10 years ago, I know some people over here think there's some leftie brainwashing conspiracy but I'll tell you my experience doesn't back that up at all.

Nobody tried to brainwash me or change my political leaning at all. In fact politics barely came up, certainly not from my professors, only ever from students, and mostly people preferred not to get into politics. Many young people aren't interested in politics at all, even if they should be. I spent most of my time at uni either learning or drinking. That said, I did start uni as a right leaning chap and left it leaning more to the left.

How did this happen? Quite simply because I met a diverse range of people from various different backgrounds. My world view was expanded. I couldn't keep hold of my preconceived notions around wealth, race or sexuality, when those notions were shattered every day by the people I met. I started out from a fairly privileged position with very traditional viewpoints, but experience showed me that many of my traditional viewpoints didn't match up with the reality I saw.


----------



## notimp (May 9, 2019)

I'm now presenting you with a direct quote from fefe - a left leaning liberal programmer type, that also runs one of the premier (by viewer numbers) german blogs, and frequently gets attacked by pretty much everyone - because his views also are kind of "out there". But to me - at least titillating.  The quote was published today - I literally just read it.

Also on tech stuff he knows what he is talking about. Most of the time. More often than I do. 



> [l] What Happened After My 13-Year-Old Son joined the Alt-Right. Money Quote: Sam prides himself on questioning conventional wisdom and subjecting claims to intellectual scrutiny. For kids today, that means Googling stuff. One might think these searches would turn up a variety of perspectives, including at least a few compelling counterarguments. One would be wrong. The Google searches flooded his developing brain with endless bias-confirming “proof” to back up whichever specious alt-right standard was being hoisted that week. Each set of results acted like fertilizer sprinkled on weeds: A forest of distortion flourished.


"There is a lot of talk about how Youtube Auto-Play leads people into 'the swamp.' But from my perspective, it is the larger issue that it is not easy at all to get out of it in principal. The article at least shows, that parents themselves dont have much to offer apart from "all that isnt true!!1!!". They are themselves all but caught in a postmodern 'Swamp', where it wasnt beneficial or interesting for them to look at the arguments of the other side. When their son then comes along with "the wage-gap is a lie" and "feminists keep divorced dads from seeing their kids", then the only thing that follows are emotions like, outrage, indignation, distress, not arguments. Ok, in the case of Wage-Gap, thats actually a 'lie', the way it is commonly presented [background: Meaning, that you dont factor in workhours for the more outrageous statistical presentations. Also the blogger kind of has a bit of an ongoing quarrel with the outer fringes of feminist groups, with the two of course butting heads on the internets, read this with that context]. And that after divorces mothers get the right to care for children more frequently, factually also cant be denied.

And so we are currently finding ourselves in a world where two residents of different swamps, accuse each other of living in the wrong swamp to begin with."
src: http://blog.fefe.de/?ts=a22d6c09

This is why forums like this one actually are something I really like - because I get to come in contact with some of the more 'out there' opinions of the other side.

And I can ponder about more outrageous stuff here as well, that I've still not fully conceptualized, but that has me miffed.

As long as people understand, that no one opinion will present them with the whole image - and that listening to other political sides is something thats sometimes actually worthwile you already are many steps ahead of the curve, of most people just seeing politics as sort of a club you belong to.

It shouldnt be that. That, btw is also why I'm more worried, that people are now apparently starting to hide their political orientation, while engaging with others on campus, because of felt or imagined repercussions. If thats the case, we've lost freedom of thought/expression, with is essential for those institutions (universities) to function properly.


----------



## emigre (May 10, 2019)

Ssuperbronx said:


> Just wanted to have a discussion on this topic that I see mentioned occasionally around the internet. My wife does social media, I do not, but I've noticed this topic is touched on from time to time on fb.
> I am not currently enrolled in a school of higher learning (College) and it has been several years since I was on campus so things have probably changed over the years.
> Just thought it would be interesting to get people's points of view on what life is like in Universities today with regard to this subject. Or even if you just want to weigh in with your opinion. Also if members have proof to present that liberal bias does indeed exist or by the same token, proof that it does not exist, feel free to share.
> 
> I myself am concerned that there may actually be some substance to these claims.



There's no indoctrination. There's typically always been a liberal bias for those in academia and has been for many years and in a lot of ways, it's the nature of the beast. To describe it as indoctrination is an insult to academics as most are very open about their particular viewpoints and to students as some sort of mindless robots. I recall one being very critical of the British Empire. As universities seem to 'progressive' insitutions, I don't think it's a surprise to see Conservative views to be a minority. For reference, I left University seven years ago.

 It's a complaint also found in teaching where Conservatives like to berate teachers for having left-wing biases, they don't seem to realise these type of sectors attract people with liberal left wing perspectives in the world.  I recall some of my former teachers (and my own sister who's a teacher) and many of them had views which generally was on the left and got into teaching because wanted to make a positive difference, some even got entrenched during the Thatcher government. This is not to say Right-wing=bad, left-wing=good as a rule, but from my anecdotal experience, this is what happens and I imagine quite a few people would share similar to me. 

So yeah, no indoctrination just pretty open biases.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 10, 2019)

There's a truth that right leaning people do their best to deny :

Many right wing ideas are retarded.


I'm not saying participants of the ideology are all idiots, but discussions always strand on "because it is", "it's just like that" or "is only logical". Therefore, I always envision leftists as being the students who become first filled with doubt, but in the end, end up in wisdom because the knowledge that remains is solid enough.
Meanwhile, rightist sit at bars and hold discussions over beers based on perception rather than study. They learn that talking loud and talk down others can pass for winning arguments (heck... You can even become president that way), but end up bitter because science favors actual knowledge rather than rhetoric.

Result : sure, schools are dominated by the left. Not because they're 'indoctrinating', but because the right loves to stigmatise the left to mask their own lack of progress.


... And I get the feeling that some will think I'm attacking them personally. I don't. As I'm writing, I'm thinking of those ideas like xenophobism, denial of the evolution theory and similar dumb ideas. If that fits you... Good for you. But please : don't get personal, okay? (I don't like being proven right in this way)


----------



## notimp (May 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> because science favors actual knowledge rather than rhetoric


Weeeell... 

Not as clear cut as you'd like to.  Sponsorships, study grants, professors that want to proof their theories, to advance careers... What science has going for it, is that it has a toolset to refute and dissect such attempts. So in the end the better model/theory should aways prevail, ... But:


Just as an example.  Social studies, of course.  But there is bogus math out there as well, just for the sake of using math, because its a prerequisite to get published somewhere... Thats just me saying, that there are always people gaming any system.


----------



## Xzi (May 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> There's a truth that right leaning people do their best to deny :
> 
> Many right wing ideas are retarded.


It's harsh, but you're spot on.  At least in the US, the only things the modern right-wing has going for it are anti-intellectualism and contrarianism.  They long ago gave up pretending that they have any ideas of their own.  Whenever you hear Trump speak about "his ideas," it's always, "whatever Obama did, but BETTER!"  ...And it ultimately turns out much worse.

But I digress.  People attend universities to learn and absorb information, not block it out and belittle others for possessing knowledge.  Thus it's not surprising that the majority of college students trend in the direction of liberal.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (May 11, 2019)

Also, (at least) the American right-wing is quite deceptive. On the one hand, Trump claims he wants more immigration than ever before, on the other hand he constantly offends all kinds of immigrant populations, and let's be honest, the "great again" has a racial component. Furthermore, he introduced a quasi Muslim ban but lets the worst terrorism supporting state of the hook (Saudi Arabia). He either needs to be honest or a therapist.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 11, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> There's a truth that right leaning people do their best to deny :
> 
> Many right wing ideas are retarded.
> 
> ...



@notimp gave you an example of entire scientific disciplines where successful peer review hinges on political ideology. I don’t know how it can become clearer than accepting a feminist adaptation of „Mein Kampf“

Lots of what you said is true, the kicker is it’s just as true if you replace right with left.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 11, 2019)

Ssuperbronx said:


> Just wanted to have a discussion on this topic that I see mentioned occasionally around the internet. My wife does social media, I do not, but I've noticed this topic is touched on from time to time on fb.
> I am not currently enrolled in a school of higher learning (College) and it has been several years since I was on campus so things have probably changed over the years.
> Just thought it would be interesting to get people's points of view on what life is like in Universities today with regard to this subject. Or even if you just want to weigh in with your opinion. Also if members have proof to present that liberal bias does indeed exist or by the same token, proof that it does not exist, feel free to share.
> 
> I myself am concerned that there may actually be some substance to these claims.



Liberal indoctrination in universities is at the point where they get a large percentage of the student base to buy into liberalism while at the same time getting them to believe that it was their own unique idea.When you are conservative,people tend to call you "uneducated" or "brainwashed".From my perspective you can't be brainwashed if you go against the opinion that they teach in the public university system.


----------



## notimp (May 11, 2019)

There is no truly objective truth.  (Says perceptional psychology. )

So whenever you read an argument, and maybe make it your own, you always take a part of its sociology with you (the social field around it) that is also why in part political views tend to change over a lifetime.

So getting in contact with certain fields or scenes, is not yet brainwashing. Not even getting situated in certain social scenes (Bill Clinton finding a girlfriend that kind of made his political career, Hillary Rodham meeting a certain professor that formed her political view, and understanding of the world, ...  Just using the most triggering examples possible for the right, could have used the most triggering for the left (Chicago School, .. ) instead, doesnt matter), and taking over their collective opinions, is actually fine. Its pretty normal and expected. If through all of this (life  ) you dont loose your critical/analytical approach to getting to know issues, all the better. But in casual social conversations with your friends, you probably wont keep up your critical analytical stance all the time. Still expected and normal.

Whats not normal, is - if all of a sudden you are shouting "look her up", storming a pizzeria with a gun, or are talking about the Clinton foundation world conspiracy sponsoring all your foes, because they are devil worshippers. 

Maybe you see the slight difference here. 

Absorption, and assimilation into cultural thought is normal. Also - we only talked about liberal ideals here, not republican vs. democratic, left vs. right. There is a liberal right as well you know? 

Thats why I mentioned, that later in life political orientation might shift as well, because people get in contact with other ideals, and will get more stability focused, and so on and so forth..

Universities are hopefully most of the time promoting for students to think for themselves. And if they are not (because you are studying law, f.e.  ), they are not. But as a result of it, a more liberal mindset - kind of comes with that. But people take it on very willingly. Just tell somone, that the world is open to them, they are the best of the best, they can do whatever they set their mind to - and if they believe it, you'll get a liberal person out of that. 

And thats kind of the thinking, that we want at universities. Mostly.


Now. Lets talk about right wing national conservative ideals. 

Those get born out of - "defending what you have".

In europe we've an OECD study floating around currently, that shows, that in the past 20 years, lower and middle income classes have lost effective wage income (percentages), but they are subjectively happier than before. Thats real brainwashing. 

(Or whats needed to save the earth. One or the other..  )

The reason suggested by the study, btw is that we gage our place in the world by comparing our standing with the relative standing of others around. And since the immigration crisis brought us a new set of people that are perceived as 'even lower class' by rightwing nationalists (right wing politics tell them that they are)  - they are happy as can be, getting cheated out of their money. 

Which is kind of why those rightwing movements are financed by billionaires (as well...  More so than democratic movements, usually. Because that approach, just works so well..  ).

In the end, people in general are kind of dumb, and get convinced by words, what can I say.  Democracies can work without having to resort to "old style" propaganda, because PR and marketing work just as well with a "softer" kind of influence approach.

Just be aware, of when you are chanting two syllable word slogans in masses again. Because chances are, that you are brainwashed at that point. If its not a concert of >your favourite band< of course..


----------



## Taleweaver (May 11, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Lots of what you said is true, the kicker is it’s just as true if you replace right with left.


If that were true, things like climate change would've been accepted as a reality back in the nineties of even eighties,with the vocal minority overshouting the undecided majority of scientists.

I'll grant that left has a monopoly on soft sciences (social studies, gender stuff and so on). But I honestly think this is more due to disinterest in proper study from others.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 11, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> If that were true, things like climate change would've been accepted as a reality back in the nineties of even eighties,with the vocal minority overshouting the undecided majority of scientists.
> 
> I'll grant that left has a monopoly on soft sciences (social studies, gender stuff and so on). But I honestly think this is more due to disinterest in proper study from others.



Correct me if I‘m wrong but I would assume climate change denial of conservatives is pretty much a US thing. I can’t really remember that position having had any traction in Europe or Germany (Germany has for the most part always been overwhelmingly conservative).

I‘ve also been fortunate enough to have attended debates regarding GMO food between scientists and Green Party politicians to have witnessed left wing denial of science first hand.

The studies you admit the left has a strangehold on will deny the effect of genetics in many aspects for their „everything is a social construct“ shtick to have any resemblance of cohesion.

I‘m not arguing that either side is better or worse but painting things as black and white as you are is just telling half the story. There’s plenty of science denial to go around on both sides.


----------



## cracker (May 12, 2019)

There's a thing called the Overton Window. It is basically the skewed view of the political climate at the time that can make extreme things appear normal and normal things appear extreme. In the US, what is considered "Conservative" has pulled the Window to the right. An example of this would be the horrible state of healthcare for most in the country. Having to go bankrupt or being denied treatment is unheard of in the rest of 1st (and even some 3rd) world nations and not considered "Liberal" or "Far Left" at all.

Then you need to take into account that there is a trend with students attending most higher ed institutions being more thoughtful of the bigger picture in the world. 

Putting these two together results in what seems to be further left-thinking students - where they would probably be considered "middle of the road" at most by Scandinavian standards.


----------



## Tortitamal (May 12, 2019)

I think the higher your education, the less likely you are to be a conservative. This might explain why Colleges and the likes are mostly liberals.


----------



## zomborg (May 13, 2019)

Ssuperbronx said:


> Just wanted to have a discussion on this topic that I see mentioned occasionally around the internet. My wife does social media, I do not, but I've noticed this topic is touched on from time to time on fb.
> I am not currently enrolled in a school of higher learning (College) and it has been several years since I was on campus so things have probably changed over the years.
> Just thought it would be interesting to get people's points of view on what life is like in Universities today with regard to this subject. Or even if you just want to weigh in with your opinion. Also if members have proof to present that liberal bias does indeed exist or by the same token, proof that it does not exist, feel free to share.
> 
> I myself am concerned that there may actually be some substance to these claims.


I think I may have found an article with information very similar to what OP posted. At least the first paragraph:
"*Students are not the only conservatives on campus* hiding their political identity in the closet. Several years ago, *Jon Shields* and Joshua Dunn interviewed 153 conservative professors for their book, _Passing on the Right_. In it, the duo say that within the context of college campuses, conservatives are a “stigmatized minority” and cite research suggesting that, in many instances, conservative professors are forced to rely on the same “coping strategies that gays and lesbians have used in the military and other inhospitable work environments.”

* Why didn't you go ahead and post more of it to support your beliefs bronx? Thats what were here for. A discussion.*
*After that first paragraph, the article I found also says*:

*"Shields*, an associate professor at Claremont McKenna College, in California, is quick to emphasize that the experience of a closeted conservative professor and a closeted gay person are not equivalent. Still, most of the research on closeted behavior in the workplace focuses on the gay and lesbian experience, Shields explains, and he discovered that many of the conservative professors who spoke with him used that same language. *Of the more than 150 professors he interviewed, a third admitted that they kept their conservatism a secret or passed themselves off as liberals until they were granted tenure*. “They have an identity that is stigmatized in the community they are working in,” Shields says, “so they conceal those identities from those around them. Sometimes that requires outright lying.”

"Climbing the career ladder in academia toward tenure is a years-long undertaking that typically demands that a professor publish scholarly research. This can be a perilous undertaking for young conservative academics who may find themselves being vetted by a left-leaning tenure board. Consider the case of *James Miller*, an economist at Smith College who arrived on campus in 1996. In hopes of attaining tenure, he taught several classes each semester, cranked out academic articles in reputable journals, and authored a book on game theory. Along the way, he also wrote a few op-eds, including one for _National Review_ in which he asserted that the dominance of liberals in academia skews scholarship to the point that aspiring professors are forced to pursue research pleasing to the liberal gatekeepers, who grant or deny tenure with the ruthlessness of Caesar at the Roman Forum. “*Practically the only way for a women’s-studies professor to get a lifetime college appointment,” he wrote, “is for her to contribute to the literature on why America is racist, sexist, and homophobic*.”

 When Miller came up for tenure the following year, he was denied by two votes. In letters explaining why board members voted for or against Miller, one of the professors wrote that she voted against him because Miller had publicly criticized the economics of tenure policies in his book. Another professor wrote that she found the views expressed in Miller’s _National Review_ op-ed to be disturbing. “They didn’t say I was wrong,” Miller says, still sounding defensive more than a decade later. “They said I shouldn’t have said that.”

 Looks to me like these So-Called enlightened left leaning leaders in Colleges aren't teaching them how to think (as they should be), but instead are teaching them What to think.


----------



## cracker (May 13, 2019)

This whole thread is useless if the terms are not defined. What constitutes "conservative" and "liberal"? Fiscally? Socially? Both in conjunction?


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 13, 2019)

cracker said:


> This whole thread is useless if the terms are not defined. What constitutes "conservative" and "liberal"? Fiscally? Socially? Both in conjunction?



Google "difference between conservatives vs liberals" .


----------



## zomborg (May 13, 2019)

cracker said:


> This whole thread is useless if the terms are not defined. What constitutes "conservative" and "liberal"? Fiscally? Socially? Both in conjunction?


Well for starters,  Conservatives and progressives (Liberals) have different views about individuals and communities.

Conservatives ask: “What can I do for myself, my family, my community, and my fellow citizens?”

Progressives ask: “What is unfair?” “What am I owed?” “What has offended me today?” “What must my country do for me?”

The traditional American ethic of achievement gives way to the progressive ethic of aggrievement.

As opposed to a variety of individuals making up one American community, progressives seek to place individuals in a variety of competing communities. The first creates unity. The second, identity politics.


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Conservatives ask: “What can I do for myself, my family, my community, and my fellow citizens?”
> 
> Progressives ask: “What is unfair?” “What am I owed?” “What has offended me today?” “What must my country do for me?”


More accurately, liberals believe that 'a rising tide raises all ships,' conservatives believe in 'fuck you I got mine.'  Or put another way, liberals believe in distribution of resources to benefit the many, conservatives believe in distribution of resources to benefit those few already in power.


----------



## zomborg (May 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> More accurately, liberals believe that 'a rising tide raises all ships,' conservatives believe in 'fuck you I got mine.'  Or put another way, liberals believe in distribution of resources to benefit the many, conservatives believe in distribution of resources to benefit those few already in power.


No 2.: Conservatives and progressives have different views about diversity and choice.

For progressives, different ethnicities and gender identities are welcomed but a variety of opinions and ideas are not.

Just look at two areas of public life dominated by the left. On college campuses free speech is under attack. If you’re a conservative working at a social media company or using one of their platforms to share your views, you may find your job eliminated or your account deleted.

And when it comes to choice, progressives love the word, but they don’t want it to apply to our decisions on education, health care, and even how and where we live out our religious faith.

Conservatives take a different approach.

Parents, not the zip code they live in, should choose the school that is best for their child.

We all need health care, but we don’t all need the same kind or same amount. And while people should be free to live as they choose, no one should be forced to endorse or celebrate those choices if it violates their religious beliefs.

Conservatives say people should have choices. Progressives say one political solution fits all.


----------



## CORE (May 13, 2019)

Liberals like to think and make decisions for Everyone and those who disagree are Bigots , Hateful , Racists Because Liberals believe they are Morally right. When really they throw all Morals out the Window in favor of do what you want.

Conservatives Have Moral standards intact and are generally more Family Orientated but can be Greedy for Money.

Which is why a Balance is necessary I am in Between.


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2019)

zomborg said:


> For progressives, different ethnicities and gender identities are welcomed but a variety of opinions and ideas are not.


Progressives are not that complicated.  They don't tolerate intolerance, and they don't tolerate sexual contact without consent.  I don't know why modern conservatives are so triggered by the very idea of common decency.



zomborg said:


> Just look at two areas of public life dominated by the left. On college campuses free speech is under attack. If you’re a conservative working at a social media company or using one of their platforms to share your views, you may find your job eliminated or your account deleted.


Gee whiz, since this wasn't happening before, do you think it's maybe worth considering that mainstream conservative viewpoints have become more bigoted and extremist over time?

Nah, it's the children who are wrong.  /s



zomborg said:


> Conservatives say people should have choices. Progressives say one political solution fits all.


Conservatives are literally making a nationwide push against a woman's right to choose right now, this is such a load of bullshit rofl.



CORE said:


> Liberals like to think and make decisions for Everyone and those who disagree are Bigots , Hateful , Racists Because Liberals believe they are Morally right.


Completely ignoring what liberals believe in for a moment, conservatives elected a man who fully embodies every last one of the seven deadly sins.  Conservatives ceded the moral high ground, liberals didn't have to take it by force.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 13, 2019)

right wingers are like lambs to the slaughter now that i think of it I'm leftist think on this....Trump's "Tax cuts" did you see the effects personally, I sure didn't on the other hand didn't Obama give each american like an extra non taxable 2k to stimulate spending? granted bush did too iirc but Obama took note,what I'm saying is Republicans DON'T have your interest at heart only the 1% they do they rather P&S all over the middle class


----------



## CORE (May 13, 2019)

@Xzi

Obamination What about Bin Laden oh we cast him off to sea so we did not offend Musilims!

Yeah such a great guy F*** USA my Eastern Brethren Comes First OH YES WE CAN!!!

Candace Owens would make a fine President , What do you mean she wont , what is that she is a Right Winger , That Does not matter she is Black and she is a Woman and she has Moral Values and generally seems to care for her Country and people.

Who is the Racist , Sexist Now!!! You like to spin these petty narratives to suit your agenda.


----------



## GreatCrippler (May 13, 2019)

I do love click-bait titles. "Indoctrination" has such a fun gut-wrenching connotation that just makes you think immediately "How dare they?!" Young people, and teachers are typically very liberal. Thus colleges tend to have liberal leaning philosophies. Shocker... Modern ideals of conservatives vs liberals are painful. Regardless of philosophy you can be lumped in to one of two categories.

Conservatives: You are required to be racist, sexist, and preferably white. No, you can't just be a Capitalist any longer. It doesn't work, make sure to join the NRA.

Liberals: You are required to be offended by everything, and out to change the world. Identify as something new every day, or you're being insensitive, and for the love of god be Vegan for a month every year. 

And that's it. You can be one or the other "Us vs Them."


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 13, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Also, (at least) the American right-wing is quite deceptive. On the one hand, Trump claims he wants more immigration than ever before, on the other hand he constantly offends all kinds of immigrant populations, and let's be honest, the "great again" has a racial component. Furthermore, he introduced a quasi Muslim ban but lets the worst terrorism supporting state of the hook (Saudi Arabia). He either needs to be honest or a therapist.



Make America Great Again does not have racist connotations.Trump is not a racist as he has Jewish grandchildren and allowed his daughter to marry a Jew.Jews are the number one enemy of people with racist/nazi ideologies.The problem with spreading rhetoric,is that lies get perpetuated by the liberal media and ignorant people spread them.


----------



## zomborg (May 13, 2019)

No. 3: Conservatives and progressives have a different view of “We the People.”

Whether it’s the Second Amendment, immigration, or putting limits on abortion, if we the people don’t pass laws progressives approve, they turn to judges, executive orders, and government bureaucrats behind closed doors to overturn the will of voters.

Whatever one may think about the wisdom of hiking the minimum wage, banning plastic straws, or removing controversial historical monuments, conservatives believe voters closest to the issues should be the ones making such decisions for their communities—not lawmakers in Washington or a panel of judges fives states away.

To sum it up, conservatives believe in individual rights, not special rights. Conservatives believe in allowing Texas to be Texas and Vermont to be Vermont. And conservatives believe we the people can vote with our feet about where we want to live and what laws we want to live under.


----------



## cracker (May 13, 2019)

GreatCrippler said:


> I do love click-bait titles. "Indoctrination" has such a fun gut-wrenching connotation that just makes you think immediately "How dare they?!" Young people, and teachers are typically very liberal. Thus colleges tend to have liberal leaning philosophies. Shocker... Modern ideals of conservatives vs liberals are painful. Regardless of philosophy you can be lumped in to one of two categories.
> 
> Conservatives: You are required to be racist, sexist, and preferably white. No, you can't just be a Capitalist any longer. It doesn't work, make sure to join the NRA.
> 
> ...



 Exactly what I was getting at. It's like clumping everyone that believes in a god together. It lacks so much insight into the particular aspects of what each individual believes and tries to fit everyone into a binary (or very narrow) political stance.


----------



## GreatCrippler (May 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Make America Great Again does not have racist connotations.Trump is not a racist as he has Jewish grandchildren and allowed his daughter to marry a Jew.Jews are the number one enemy of people with racist/nazi ideologies.The problem with spreading rhetoric,is that lies get perpetuated by the liberal media and ignorant people spread them.



Two separate points here.

M.A.G.A.: This has serious racist connotations. Not by design, but by evolution of perception. This was a simple campaign slogan. The problem is in who has adopted it, not the phrase itself. Redneck racists wear MAGA hats, and tell people to go back where they came from. It's just a simple phrase, but the connotation has definitely become negative, and racist. Certainly not universally, but it is a common perception of the phrase.


Trump being racist: My personal opinion is that the only color the man specifically cares about is green. I don't know him, or his heart. He may be a racist, he may not be at all. Barring him coming out in a white hood, or dropping N-Bombs it's speculation.


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Make America Great Again does not have racist connotations.Trump is not a racist as he has Jewish grandchildren and allowed his daughter to marry a Jew.Jews are the number one enemy of people with racist/nazi ideologies.The problem with spreading rhetoric,is that lies get perpetuated by the liberal media and ignorant people spread them.


He said racist, not anti-Semitic.  It's quite clear to everyone that Trump is in full support of Netanyahu's Israel.  Not that that's necessarily a good thing.

Trump's also the one that started the entire bullshit birther campaign, and opened his campaign for president by talking for like half an hour about how terrible Mexican people are.  He's not exactly been subtle about how much he dislikes brown people.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 13, 2019)

if we replaced all the stuff EL Number 45 has said about minorities and he replaced it with "white people" the very same people that give him a free pass would be having mental breakdowns in anger.

Also yes colleges tend to be more liberal but that is partially by design. Constantly trying to being exposed to new ideas and challenging old ones as opposed to encouraging long held beliefs is supposed to be the point of college.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 13, 2019)

GreatCrippler said:


> Two separate points here.
> 
> M.A.G.A.: This has serious racist connotations. Not by design, but by evolution of perception. This was a simple campaign slogan. The problem is in who has adopted it, not the phrase itself. Redneck racists wear MAGA hats, and tell people to go back where they came from. It's just a simple phrase, but the connotation has definitely become negative, and racist. Certainly not universally, but it is a common perception of the phrase.
> 
> ...



So in other words the media made up that MAGA is racist,and ignorant people passed on the message so that a large percentage of the populace believes that the MAGA slogan is racist.You can't just chose the meaning to a slogan that you did not create,the creator of the slogan gets to chose what their words meant.CNN does not get to decide what Donald Trumps words mean.



Xzi said:


> He said racist, not anti-Semitic.  It's quite clear to everyone that Trump is in full support of Netanyahu's Israel.  Not that that's necessarily a good thing.



Jews are not white.If you are anti-Semitic you are a racist.White supremacist hate Jews more than any other race of people,that is a fact and anyone that has actually researched the subject can attest to that.Saying Trump is racist is nothing more than a lie that ignorant people repeat.When said ignorant people are asked to cite examples of Trump being a racist, they can never actually produce an example.America needs to become a truly fair nation where everyone has equal opportunity.Liberals treating minorities like little kids is not conductive to that ideology.Instead of identity politics,everyone should embrace being an American first and foremost instead of identifying by their race.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WD_GASTER2 said:


> if we replaced all the stuff EL Number 45 has said about minorities and he replaced it with "white people" the very same people that give him a free pass would be having mental breakdowns in anger.
> 
> Also yes colleges tend to be more liberal but that is partially by design. Constantly trying to being exposed to new ideas and challenging old ones as opposed to encouraging long held beliefs is supposed to be the point of college.


Except that these aren't long held beliefs.Being a moral degenerate and justifying it has existed ever since the sky is blue.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 13, 2019)

Did you just call all liberals "Moral Degenerates"?
damn dude i didnt know you knew me "A Liberal" so intimately.

for the sake of discussion, what does it take to be a "Moral Degenerate"? it sounds subjective.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 13, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Did you just call all liberals "Moral Degenerates"?
> damn dude i didnt know you knew me "A Liberal" so intimately.
> 
> for the sake of discussion, what does it take to be a "Moral Degenerate"? it sounds subjective.



Reread what I wrote.I never said all liberals were moral degenerates.


----------



## Skelletonike (May 13, 2019)

Last year this BS movement was created at the university I frequent "He for She". An entirely BS movement that was loud and annoying and even though most people weren't in it's favour, they managed to get their complaints heard by the administration. 
Because of that total BS movement, my English class, which was the most advanced level in the university, and should be teaching useful stuff, became entirely pointless, focusing on bloody pronouns, how to avoid using he or she. The cherry on top was that we had to watch feminist movies and read feminist books and make our presentations based on that crap.

Luckily the teacher was a good old fashioned Brit and had no problems with my trashing the books and films. Well, that kinda made me the black sheep of the class though... 

I still don't understand how the best university in my country can allow such BS movements to screw up the curriculum.


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Jews are not white.If you are anti-Semitic you are a racist.White supremacist hate Jews more than any other race of people,that is a fact and anyone that has actually researched the subject can attest to that.Saying Trump is racist is nothing more than a lie that ignorant people repeat.When said ignorant people are asked to cite examples of Trump being a racist, they can never actually produce an example.


You're fucking kidding me, right?  No examples?  Trump literally has an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the many examples of his racism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

Not to mention I just gave you two very specific examples: his birther campaign against Obama (which he never admitted he was wrong about), and his announcement speech as a candidate for president.  There's no way to justify this shit without being massively hypocritical.



Maluma said:


> America needs to become a truly fair nation where everyone has equal opportunity.


Never gonna happen as long as we continue to elect racist old fogeys with 1950s mentalities.  Same reason we can't get anything squared away properly in the tech sector.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You're fucking kidding me, right?  No examples?  Trump literally has an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the many examples of his racism:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
> 
> Not to mention I just gave you two very specific examples: his birther campaign against Obama (which he never admitted he was wrong about), and his announcement speech as a candidate for president.  There's no way to justify this shit without being massively hypocritical.



The Wikipedia link is a perfect example of rhetoric,all it proves is that the founder of wikipedia is liberal(which they are,feel free to research).You can't just post a link from a blatantly biased source and spout it off as evidence that Trump is racist.

Let's use common sense and reasoning here.Would a racist person let their daughter reproduce with a Jewish man and even have fond feelings for said man to the point where he serves in the administration?Would a racist man let his son marry a partially Jewish woman?Would a racist man let his other daughter(Tiffany Trump) date a Middle Eastern Brown man from Nigeria?Any man with common sense can answer these questions correctly.

Xzi,are you of White European descent?


----------



## Ev1l0rd (May 13, 2019)

Firstly, the term "indoctrination" carries the fact that the question you are asking is gonna be a loaded one.

If I say yes, you get the ability to say "look! the left is all about indoctrination!", if I say no, you get the ability to say "look! there is an inherent bias but it's not discrimination because I say so". It's an uneven playing field.

The only way for me to properly acknowledge this? Outright deny the question it's merits on which it's asked.

Here's the thing. Universities and specifically research and education published is, in and of itself, not automatically "liberal" or right wing or anything specific. It's purely data gathering and drawing conclusions from them and then publishing those in magazines for review for your peers and if it's peer reviewed, it's accepted (fun random fact: this entire process in and of itself is very exploitative due to the way these magazines work).

_That said_, when you examine... well, literally any part of science, education or anything, it tends to be left leaning, simply because a lot of right wing arguments or anything aren't grounded in science, but are mostly based on a model[1] created in the 18th century in the wake of the French Revolution (which is where conservatism has it's roots) of how humanity acts and Christian religion.

The issue is that religion has no grounding in universities when it comes to any serious research, and the model proposed by conservatism[1] is considered flawed by modern day standards and in a number of cases these days has actively run against things promoted by research.

So... it's not that Universities are "indoctrinating liberal thinking", it's more that as we progress as a society and continue research into subjects, that we start to see the flaws that conservatism holds and how it has little grounding in what we understand about humanity today[2].

As to why conservative thinking still persists (because if it's becoming increasinlgy ungrounded, a logical man would say that it should lose favor)? The thing is that... scientists and people with educations to this degree typically don't enter politics and if they do, they have a bad habit of refusing to speak in absolutes[3]. Combine that with the fact that in politics, those with the loudest voice get the most voters as opposed to those with meritorious arguments (and conservatives tend to be able to inflate this voice with money), and conservatism as an idea still exists and sadly will still be perpetuated[4].

Sorry for kinda going off on a tangent here, but I really wanted to try my best to cover as much of the argument here as I can.

[1]: This is a long argument but the short version is that conservatism is an attempt to maintain the classic "nobleman and servant" structure that was rampant before the 18th century, by sorting people with social status based on their income in classes. Coincidentally, the two original thinkers of conservatism and nearly all thinkers that helped define the ideas afterwards into what we know as conservatism today were either nobility or really in the upper class.
[2]: Something which is often denied or put into muddied waters by conservatives who see this as a threat to their understanding of the world works or (in the case of those who benefit the most from conservatism) see this as a threat to their social position. Usually, these arguments tend to be flawed (ie. incorrectly drawing correlation with causation) or outright refusing to acknowledge a basic understanding of the idea proposed (ie. The Green New Deal, which maliciously was taken out of context and added upon by conservatives to slander it, while the actual plan was nearly nothing like the original idea). A large number of right wing think tanks rely on these two tricks.
[3]: This is changing, but is still the reason a lot of pseudoscience tries to wedge its way in.
[4]: As to why it'll persist in the next generation: YouTube and a number of anti-science content creators on said platform being the main reason. Core example being Sargon of Akkad, someone whose appeal/target age range is edgy teenagers and regularly spouts anti-science and outright inane view points. (Although he's currently under flak as well for suggesting that he'd rape an MP).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Maluma said:


> The Wikipedia link is a perfect example of rhetoric,all it proves is that the founder of wikipedia is liberal(which they are,feel free to research).You can't just post a link from a blatantly biased source and spout it off as evidence that Trump is racist.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Wikipedia aims to have an as neutral possible POV, something which I'm both in favor and critical of. The being in favor part of it comes from the fact that it manages to properly show all sides of any argument. The not being in favor part is that it cares zero on someone's academic degrees in any subject, which causes academics to be forced to argue with JohnnyWithABigDick who totally believes that the moon landing was staged in Hollywood and that the earth is flat.



> Let's use common sense and reasoning here.Would a racist person let their daughter reproduce with a Jewish man and even have fond feelings for said man to the point where he serves in the administration?Would a racist man let his son marry a partially Jewish woman?Would a racist man let his other daughter(Tiffany Trump) date a Middle Eastern Brown man from Nigeria?Any man with common sense can answer these questions correctly.
> 
> Xzi,are you of White European descent?


Oh boi. Let's pick this one apart.

First you need to understand that racists (or homophobes or transphobes or pick really your category of hateful thought) often see there to be two categories of whatever minority they despise. The "bad" ones and the "good" ones. The "good" ones are those who they see an anecdotal relationship with, either by introduction through friends and family or in some other form, and the "bad" ones who are literally everyone else. The racism part comes from the rethoric they use when talking about the "bad" ones.

Secondly, humans aren't entirely logical beings. We have a word for that. It's called hypocrisy. Curiously, a lot of racists tend to be highly hypocritical.


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> The Wikipedia link is a perfect example of rhetoric,all it proves is that the founder of wikipedia is liberal(which they are,feel free to research).You can't just post a link from a blatantly biased source and spout it off as evidence that Trump is racist.


There are 223 sources in that Wikipedia article, it's largely irrelevant how you believe Wikipedia itself leans politically.



Maluma said:


> Let's use common sense and reasoning here.Would a racist person let their daughter reproduce with a Jewish man and even have fond feelings for said man to the point where he serves in the administration?Would a racist man let his son marry a partially Jewish woman?Would a racist man let his other daughter(Tiffany Trump) date a Middle Eastern Brown man from Nigeria?Any man with common sense can answer these questions correctly.


Again, nobody said he's anti-Semitic or a Nazi, despite the fact that he does have some fascist tendencies.  He's racist toward anyone of a darker skin tone.  Jews are "white enough" for him.  And Trump is oblivious to the fact that Tiffany even exists.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 13, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Firstly, the term "indoctrination" carries the fact that the question you are asking is gonna be a loaded one.
> 
> If I say yes, you get the ability to say "look! the left is all about indoctrination!", if I say no, you get the ability to say "look! there is an inherent bias but it's not discrimination because I say so". It's an uneven playing field.
> 
> ...



You picked nothing apart,you just completely ignored that I stated that the Wikipedia owners are strong liberals.The second part of your argument is preposterous,people pick good and bad people regardless of race.I understand perfectly well,you fail to understand that race has absolutely nothing to do with people deciding that certain people are good and certain people are bad.Race isn't even a factor in making this distinction.Racism is all about believing that one race is superior to another.People that are racist believe in racial purity and would NEVER want to have mixed grandchildren as it goes COMPLETELY against the ideology.How is this for picking your argument apart?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> There are 223 sources in that Wikipedia article, it's largely irrelevant how you believe Wikipedia itself leans politically.
> 
> 
> Again, nobody said he's anti-Semitic or a Nazi, despite the fact that he does have some fascist tendencies.  He's racist toward anyone of a darker skin tone.  Jews are "white enough" for him.  And Trump is oblivious to the fact that Tiffany even exists.



It's not what I believe.It is a fact that the founders of Wikipedia are liberals,you stating that it is my opinion is completely disingenuous of your part and downright dishonest.Have you actually researched people with racist beliefs or are you just going to parrot what you heard in a lecture or saw on CNN?You also never answered my question when I asked if you were of European descent.


https://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (May 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> It's not what I believe.It is a fact that the founders of Wikipedia are liberals,you stating that it is my opinion is completely disingenuous of your part and downright dishonest.Have you actually researched people with racist beliefs or are you just going to parrot what you heard in a lecture or saw on CNN?You also never answered my question when I asked if you were of European descent.
> 
> 
> https://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia.


And linking a site called "Conservapedia" is an unbiased source?

It's creator is a Young Earth Creationist and promotes right-wing extremist ideas and pseudosciene.

The perceived "liberal bias" the site was founded on was because Wikipedia uses C.E (Common Era) as opposed to A.D. (Anno Domini). The site actively promotes creationism, is anti-sex education and supports anti-vaxx beliefs.



Maluma said:


> You picked nothing apart,you just completely ignored that I stated that the Wikipedia owners are strong liberals.


I showed the part of their policy that is used to make sure that they don't let a bias involve their judgement of content. Specifically, Wikipedias policy is to _outright refuse taking a stance at all on any kind of subject_, preferring to attribute statements to people rather than specifying them as fact.

And for a quick record, I quickly read through the references (aka sources list) of this article. I'm... mainly seeing accurate sources here.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 13, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> And linking a site called "Conservapedia" is an unbiased source?
> 
> It's creator is a Young Earth Creationist and promotes right-wing extremist ideas and pseudosciene.
> 
> ...



There is liberal bias in wikipedia.I posted that link to show you that wikipedia has a liberal bias but you don't really need that link at all.You just need common sense which unfortunately is something that too many people lack these days.If you seriously believe that wikipedia isn't biased just because the owners stated that was the case,then I really can't say anything to convince you otherwise.If you really believe that there are humans that are unbiased,then I wish you the best in your life.Bottom line is that wikipedia is owned by strong liberals,I can't force you to accept this fact regardless of what I tell you.I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to get you to accept that wikipedia has leftist bias.If you tell me the sky is red,I can't force you to believe the sky is blue.When all is said and done,you can't tell someone something that they don't want to hear.


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> It's not what I believe.


No, that's 100% what you believe.  Anybody can edit Wikipedia, all they require is decent sourcing.



Maluma said:


> Have you actually researched people with racist beliefs


No research is required to recognize racism, especially when it's as blatant as Trump's examples.



Maluma said:


> There is liberal bias in wikipedia.I posted that link to show you that wikipedia has a liberal bias but you don't really need that link at all.


Logically, if a conservative site is calling another site liberal, the latter site is more likely to be centrist.



Maluma said:


> You also never answered my question when I asked if you were of European descent.


My family's ancestors came from all over, but yes, mostly Europe.  And yes, I'm white.  Not that it's relevant.


----------



## omgcat (May 13, 2019)

unless both sides are really able to tackle accepting other worldviews, there won't be any logical discussion in this thread. As someone going to university in the bay area, you might assume that my college has a huge liberal bias, but honestly it comes right down to the professors and students. i have had professors from both sides of the political spectrum, from my hard core conservative US history professor (presidential greatness from 1800-1990 hist 200), to the hard core libertarian CS professor (computer architecture CS321, OOP CS331, discreet math for CS 341) to the hard core liberal (humans and sex bio 333, ceramics 1 ART100, operating systems CS441, Systems programming CS351, compiler design CS 310). almost all of the people i run into asking the question of whether universities are indoctrinating people into the left-wing haven't been to university themselves or are solely consuming one political side of information. one of the best classes i have taken so far in university was Ancient and medieval philosophy, my teacher was a mystic with a fantastic view of how to teach philosophy and religion. i wrote my paper specifically on Plato's allegory of the cave and how the media, our family, and tech search algorithms are sealing ourselves in a cave of misinformation, and once you are there, it can be painful to try and get out. i fear that far too many people on this forum have sealed themselves in a cave of ignorance and are struggling to get out.



go look around on duckduckgo or any search engine that doesn't track your clicks and alters your search results based on previous searches and selections. google, yahoo, bing, ect, all track what you click and give you more of what you click(things that agree with your world view) and less of what you don't click(anything that goes against it). this is why most anti-vax and conspiracy theory users feel so certain about their position and information, because it envelops them without them knowing it. they get upset when presented opposing viewpoints.


----------



## CORE (May 13, 2019)

I like how this thread has become another Orange Man Bad Thread.

However Oranges have good properties including Vitamin C.

C. For Conservative 

F***sake you would find fault if he had a fear of Spiders STOP TRUMPS HATEFUL ARACHNOPHOBIA TOWARDS VENOMOUS SPIDERS. 

Wikipedia is full of it Trump racist for questioning Obamas Birth Certificate
No it not about his Race or Skin Colour it his Citizenship.

Dont forget to Add he eats @ McDonald's and cant hold a bottle of water properly. 

Liberal Liars as usual Twist Narratives and spin Hypocrisy they look in the mirror and pretend it a Conservative looking back at them.

GodBless You All You Are So Lost.


----------



## Superbronx (May 13, 2019)

zomborg said:


> I think I may have found an article with information very similar to what OP posted. At least the first paragraph:
> "*Students are not the only conservatives on campus* hiding their political identity in the closet. Several years ago, *Jon Shields* and Joshua Dunn interviewed 153 conservative professors for their book, _Passing on the Right_. In it, the duo say that within the context of college campuses, conservatives are a “stigmatized minority” and cite research suggesting that, in many instances, conservative professors are forced to rely on the same “coping strategies that gays and lesbians have used in the military and other inhospitable work environments.”
> 
> * Why didn't you go ahead and post more of it to support your beliefs bronx? Thats what were here for. A discussion.*
> *After that first paragraph, the article I found also says*:


Hey, yes sorry, I've been away for a while. I meant to post more of the article I found in Boston magazine. It pretty much reads word for word what you posted. Even after you posted it, I'm not so sure anybody actually took the time to read and comprehend it.
Now, after seeing all of the liberal side of things here in this thread, I've only noticed 2 or 3 members weighing in for the conservative side. Here's looking at you Maluma, zomborg and Core. 

One of the areas I think may be the source of the problems in today's world, especially in America, is that those who profess to be liberal or progressive are not. Let's take a look:


What is Liberalism? Modern American Liberalism is not the same as classical (Jeffersonian) liberalism. In fact it is almost the exact opposite. Modern American liberalism is:

The (mistaken) belief that the restriction of Individual Liberty and private property rights can improve society through government efforts to design and manage economic and social structures.
The (mistaken) belief that a mob of men can better manage society than core values that protect the individual and his property and enforcement of laws that ensure equal protection of citizens while limiting government and allowing individuals to protect themselves.
The (mistaken) belief that social safety nets imposed on the populace are more compassionate than allowing the individual freedom to fail (or succeed) from one’s life decisions. 

The (mistaken) belief that involuntary re-distribution of wealth is moral.

Classical (Jeffersonian) Liberalism (Which is modern conservatism) is a belief in the superiority of the American core values:

Individual Liberty
The right to self protection
The protection of private property rights
Equal protection under the law 

Limited government (Self reliance)


----------



## CORE (May 13, 2019)

Liberalism is like the Common Cold. 
I guess I am a Germophobe now. 

I Love Trumps Hate

I Support Brexit

I Agree with some Liberal Ideals the main problem they always mix lies with Truth.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (May 13, 2019)

Trump is more pro Israel than any president before him. Israel vs Palestine is basically white Jews against brown Jews - racially speaking (not in terms of religion). (in other words: Euro-Jews vs Arab-Jews)
In Venezuela he supports the lighter skin people as well and is willing let people starve to death or not get medicine (through sanctions) as long as he gets his way.

Trump is certainly not a purist but would call him racist (based on his actions, not as a particular slur; I think many people are racist including white-haters).

Hope I didn't offend anyone. Not my intention.


----------



## zomborg (May 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> He said racist, not anti-Semitic.


From Wikipedia which you are so fond of quoting. The very first sentence under Antisemitism :

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews. A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite. *Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism. *


----------



## Superbronx (May 13, 2019)

Ssuperbronx said:


> Hey, yes sorry, I've been away for a while. I meant to post more of the article I found in Boston magazine. It pretty much reads word for word what you posted. Even after you posted it, I'm not so sure anybody actually took the time to read and comprehend it.
> Now, after seeing all of the liberal side of things here in this thread, I've only noticed 2 or 3 members weighing in for the conservative side. Here's looking at you Maluma, zomborg and Core.
> 
> One of the areas I think may be the source of the problems in today's world, especially in America, is that those who profess to be liberal or progressive are not. Let's take a look:
> ...


With these working definitions we begin to describe why liberalism fails so often: 

* Political correctness achieves the opposite of its intent-*

What is the intent of political correctness? Possibly to achieve less animosity and promote greater harmony among different cultural and racial groups by limiting the publicly acceptable speech in diverse company through collective shaming and disparagement of undesirable thoughts and verbiage in public. The intent being to remove thought and speech offensive to certain groups.


 The results of political correctness are that it interrupts positive as well as negative cultural structures. Political correctness creates an atmosphere of fear that pits cultural groups against each other in polarity rather than in cooperation. People are afraid to say the wrong thing because political correctness dictates an air of cultural entitlement to historically submissive cultures and a sense of guilt to historically dominant cultures thus dividing further the intended blend of cultures in a dynamic of fueling the offensiveness of words that could fade with apathy without the politically correct labeling of the speech; giving power and longevity to the negative impact of words that would otherwise remain a remnant of the cultural lexicon.


 Political correctness creates an atmosphere of intolerance of other cultures by leaving no flexibility for cross-cultural transition through natural healing and natural interaction, preventing offensive speech that could grow into tolerable speech over time and cultural abstraction and transition of typical cultural vagary.

*Redistribution of wealth fails to achieve economic equality and prosperity-*

The concept of wealth redistribution by central government planners has been attempted many times and always results in the reverse of its intention. The dynamics of economic interaction cause people to respond positively to income enhancement, but the productivity of those in society with a propensity to succeed economically is proportional to their ability to keep what they earn. 

When the productive are punished for their audacity to generate income (through its forced removal by nebulous entities who claim that their earnings are better spent by supporting the unproductive), not only does this cause discontent, but it decreases the desire to produce by reducing the reward. The recipients of those redistributed dollars become complacent and assume its repetition to the point of eventual dependency. Just as removal of earned dollars causes the productive to reduce output when the futility of added production becomes evident; so does the distribution of the un-earned dollars cause the recipient to trend complacent and apathetic toward the need to exert productive behavior while the assurance of new dollars continues.


Now those are only 2 in a rather lengthy list of examples I could give but that's enough food for thought at this juncture.


----------



## Whole lotta love (May 13, 2019)

if anything universities are too conservative, at least here in the states.

for example, only orthodox and heterodox economics are taught in the states seriously in the vast majority of economics departments, whereas marxist economics are only given a tertiary glance. The red scare has had a serious chilling effect on the academy.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 13, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Trump is more pro Israel than any president before him. Israel vs Palestine is basically white Jews against brown Jews - racially speaking (not in terms of religion). (in other words: Euro-Jews vs Arab-Jews)
> In Venezuela he supports the lighter skin people as well and is willing let people starve to death or not get medicine (through sanctions) as long as he gets his way.
> 
> Trump is certainly not a purist but would call him racist (based on his actions, not as a particular slur; I think many people are racist including white-haters).
> ...



It's not Brown Jews vs White Jews.Israel vs Palestine is Jews vs Muslims.Palestine is an Islamic country.I'm not sure why liberals make things up just for the sake of trying to prove a point.People in this thread are still in denial over the fact that the Wikipedia owners are liberals even after mountains of evidence on the internet that say otherwise.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Whole lotta love said:


> if anything universities are too conservative, at least here in the states.
> 
> for example, only orthodox and heterodox economics are taught in the states seriously in the vast majority of economics departments, whereas marxist economics are only given a tertiary glance. The red scare has had a serious chilling effect on the academy.



Universities in America are not conservative at all.Now people in this thread are just lying for the sake of lying.


----------



## zomborg (May 13, 2019)

There has been so much talk in this thread on whether Wikipedia is under liberal control (biased).
Let's think for ourselves a moment. Thought I'd give you a few facts to clear up any confusion.
Brace yourselves, it's a lengthy read. People are going to become concerned that I'm the conservative alter ego of Notimp. Lol.
*
Finding examples of Wikipedia’s bias is not difficult. One need only compare the entries of figures who do the same thing but from opposite sides of the political spectrum.*

 Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. *That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad*. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” *That’s 4.5%* of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?

There was a similar disparity between the Wikipedia pages of Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann for anyone who would like to research it and there are many other examples.
*
 Perhaps more interesting than the bias itself on Wikipedia are the two factors which enabled it, the first present in the project’s founding DNA, and the second in a policy implemented in 2009*.

Wikipedia was originally launched in 2001 as an off-shoot from Nupedia, a similar effort to construct a free online encyclopedia, although in this case written by experts instead of random, anonymous contributors. Developed by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, Wikipedia was an idea whose time had come on an information-driven net whose consumers couldn’t wait for the slow workings of expertise or the cost of proprietary content: a free encyclopedia written by anonymous users supposedly striving for an “unbiased” perspective.
*
There was not a single ideological vision driving Wikipedia’s founders and core contributors as they launched the project*. Jimmy Wales, who would become the face of the project and its “benevolent dictator,” according to Andrew Lih’s The Wikipedia Revolution, is a libertarian and Ayn Randian Objectivist. Also important in shaping Wikipedia was the so-called “hacker ethos,” the culture that has developed amongst computer programmers over the last 40 years and been shaped by the Left, the counterculture, popular culture, and anarchist thought.

*What binds together these ideologies is a utopian ideal that human beings are more prone to altruism rather than self-interest*. In Wikipedia Revolution Wales is quoted as saying, “Generally we find most people out there on the internet are good… It’s one of the wonderful humanitarian discoveries in Wikipeda, that most people only want to help us and build this free nonprofit, charitable resource.” Ward Cunningham was the programmer who created the wiki concept and software. According to Lih, he believed in the Wiki because “People are generally good.”
*
A core idea Wikipedia embraced.. was to assume good faith when interacting with others. The guideline promoted optimistic production rather than pessimistic nay-saying, and reads, “Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it; avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong evidence.

But as it worked out, Wikipedia in practice has strayed from these utopian ideas because of the ease with which political and social bias trumps altruism*.

*After almost a decade of rapid growth and free-wheeling experimentation the situation at the site by the Summer of 2009 was chaos. Political operatives would sabotage one another in electoral contests by vandalizing pages. More malicious misinformation filtered in freely, with living historical figures accused of involvement in conspiratorial plots*.

Ira Matetsky, known by his Wikipedia handle as newyorkbrad, is a lawyer and veteran Wikipedian, both an administrator on the site and part of the Arbitration Committee, the council of editors who sort out disputes between editors. In a series of articles at the libertarian group blog The Volokh Conspiracy, Matetsky discussed some of these incidents and described the power of Wikipedia to affect people’s lives:

In the intervening years, though, it’s become more and more clear that malicious or simply thoughtless content added to Wikipedia BLP’s (“Biographies of Living Persons”) can be very damaging. A series of serious and widely reported incidents have brought the problem to public attention. Among these: the [[Siegenthaler incident]], in which an article was vandalized to accuse a completely innocent person of suspected complicity in an assassination, and no one caught the problem for four months; the incident in 2007 in which a Turkish academic was detained for several hours by immigration officials in Canada, reportedly based on an inaccurate allegation in his Wikipedia article that he was a terrorist; the lawsuit brought by a prominent golfer against the person who added defamatory content to his article; the blatant attack page created against a well-known California attorney, allegedly as part of a negative public relations campaign launched on behalf of one of the companies he was suing.

* There was no “solution” to these derelictions if Wikipedia were to retain its basic identity as a “democratic” encyclopedia. There was only a trade-off which in “solving” this problem of defamation created a treatment worse than the disease: the birth of a “more equal” class of 20,000 volunteer editors who had greater level of authority to alter and control entries. Their responsibility is to act as guards for all articles about living people, reviewing suggested edits before they go live. The decision was made by the Wikimedia Foundation, the California nonprofit that operates the site, not only to prevent libelous vandalism but also to reduce the threat of lawsuits. Wales and Wikimedia chairman Michael Snow both voiced their support for the new policy, with “benevolent dictator” Wales noting soberly that the great informational power they had created was a “serious responsibility.”*
*
This sentiment is a cousin to Google’s corporate motto “Don’t be evil,” also a manifestation of the utopian hacker ethos. Of course, as with Google’s occasional failures to live up to its values, Wikipedia’s altruism in theory enables malice in practice.*

*Wikipedia*, continually guided by the ideal of universal human goodness, *entrusted greater power* to its most devoted,* loyal user base*. By definition, more authority was granted to individuals with the significant free time to devote to a volunteer, utopian endeavor to shape the world’s information into a unified “consensus.” *By and large such individuals are more likely to be leftists than the general population.* Wikipedia’s own demographic statistics demonstrate this further: Only 13 percent are women. The average age for a contributor is 26.8 and most do not have a girlfriend, wife, or children. So, alone and apparently without a meaningful, fulfilling career, the devoted Wikipedian instead finds excitement in devoting his time to filling Ann Coulter’s entry with 35.6 percent criticism.

The most significant, blatant examples of bias will be found in these living person entries. To see the difference one need only compare Beck’s entry with its 23% rate of criticism to the more antiseptic entry for Beck’s TV show which has far less.

Incidentally, Fontova’s own Wikipedia entry is 826 words, 432 of which are criticism, an unusually high 52 percent. Unsurprisingly, the primary author and watchdog of Fontova’s entry is Redthoreau.

Our political culture today revolves around debate of contested ideological symbols. For better or worse, arguments about the merits of Coulter and Moore, Beck and Olbermann are actually proxy battles in the culture war between the Right and Left. Unfortunately, Wikipedia, because of its decision to create an elite group of “information specialists,” has picked its side in this war and is now fighting on the front lines.

*For these analyses I’m not counting table of contents, bibliographies, or references in the word count – just the introduction and bodies of the entries written by Wikipedians.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (May 13, 2019)

@zomborg - Just gonna give a couple of quick bullet points here:

Word count is a poor measurement. Not every politician, columnist or other notable person has an equal body of work and an equal body of public statements and is not equally covered with their articles by other media (see: no primary sources). If someone has a bigger section dedicated to "Controversy" than another person, then... a possible case is that a larger number of articles were written about their controversy and their controversy ran deeper than the other person. It doesn't say anything about how controversial a person might be.

The policy you are referring to is described in WP:BLP. WP:BLP specifically states that if there are poorly sourced allegations (and Wikipedia has a whole slew of policies about what a good and a bad source) that are not written from a neutral POV, the allegation can be removed without discussion, especially if it's libelous. There is no such thing as a "more equal class of 20.000 volunteers who manage all Biography of Living Person articles. Instead, WP:BLP states that administrators are allowed to protect (and semi-protect)[1] pages.
Administrators on Wikipedia are in fact, expressly forbidden from passing any judgement on the content of the articles the site hosts. Their sole purpose is resolving conflicts between users (and given the way WP operates, this usually means that those who can remain calm the longest end up being the ones that the administrator sides with rather than necessarily the _correct_ end to side with).

Vandalism is common on Wikipedia and while bots catch egregious vandalism, tiny factual vandalism (ie. skewing numbers around) can be slipped in by malicious actors and can sometimes be kept for egregious periods and in some cases end up being kept as the fixing of the error is seen as vandalism instead.
Wikipedia has _zero_ information specialism. This is in fact one of my biggest criticisms of the site. If JohnnyWithABigDick believes that Marx was a lizard space alien who ate out of trash cans, then the person with a historians degree will have to argue with JohnnyWithABigDick that this isn't the case. Someone's academic degree or 30 year research in a subject doesn't matter on Wikipedia, which is... irritating to say the least, given how there's much fewer people with an historical degree than there are JohnnyWithABigDicks on Wikipedia.
[1]: Protect: Make it so that Administrators are the only ones that can edit. Semi-protect: Make it so that any auto-confirmed (has an account for 30 days+ and 10 other edits iirc) user can edit. To my knoweldge, unless it's with particularly egregious articles that are constantly subjected to vandalism, semi-protection is preferred in these cases.


----------



## SG854 (May 13, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Correct me if I‘m wrong but I would assume climate change denial of conservatives is pretty much a US thing. I can’t really remember that position having had any traction in Europe or Germany (Germany has for the most part always been overwhelmingly conservative).
> 
> I‘ve also been fortunate enough to have attended debates regarding GMO food between scientists and Green Party politicians to have witnessed left wing denial of science first hand.
> 
> ...


“The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt” explains Conservative and Liberal thinking.


They did research and found Conservatives were better able to predict how Liberals will vote compared to how Liberals predicted Conservatives. Which means liberals more likely don’t understand the Conservative perspective, they imagine them in a certain way and likely misrepresent arguments.


Care, Fairness, Liberty, Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity.

Liberals see the first 3, while conservatives see the whole spectrum. Liberals don’t see the last three because they write off as where racist beliefs and discrimination is created.


The left wants to more equalize things with welfare programs and put regulation on corporate greed they feel the market won’t correct, like toxic waste dump. They right feels too much of this will undermine and destroy the ecology of the family, social cohesion and assimilation, erode classroom authority, and ruin innovation within a restricted market. Too much of he conservative way will lead to things like white nationalism. Conservatives think that a little sacrifice of the individual for better group cohesion is needed to get things done.


It’s not that conservative are dumb or ignorant, like they are too nationalist. Their beliefs lines up with Human nature and is common in history around the world. The U.S. is actually unique and not common. We value the independent person more. Most of the world isn’t like this on Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity. Like compared to a few countries or even Asian cultures, they have a huge value for authority and the group. Asian languages has built in different politeness levels depending on social status to address people, more then what the U.S has. And Asian families has better family cohesion compared to other racial groups in the U.S.


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2019)

zomborg said:


> From Wikipedia which you are so fond of quoting. The very first sentence under Antisemitism :
> 
> Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews. A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite. Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism.


That's great, it's still disingenuous to ignore the original intent.  Racism is a broad term, and anti-Semitic is far more specific.  For the third time: Trump hates brown people, Jewish people are more than white enough by his standards.  And his lack of disdain for Jewish people does nothing to excuse his obvious disdain for brown people.  The only way being pro-Jewish would prevent him from being racist is if Jewish people were the only race on Earth.  Crystal?


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That's great, it's still disingenuous to ignore the original intent.  Racism is a broad term, and anti-Semitic is far more specific.  For the third time: Trump hates brown people, Jewish people are more than white enough by his standards.  And his lack of disdain for Jewish people does nothing to excuse his obvious disdain for brown people.  The only way being pro-Jewish would prevent him from being racist is if Jewish people were the only race on Earth.  Crystal?



Racist dislike Jews more than Brown people.No White Supremacist would ever even consider a Jewish person white to begin with.Hitler hated the Jews more than any other race.I just think it's silly how people do all these mental gymnastics to try to paint Trump as a racist.


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Racist dislike Jews more than Brown people.


There is not one specific type of racist.  You're grasping at straws, and ignoring mountains of evidence to suit your bias.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> There is not one specific type of racist.  You're grasping at straws, and ignoring mountains of evidence to suit your bias.


I'm not grasping at straws.It's not a difficult concept to understand in the least.There are websites dedicated to racist and I really think you should read them so you actually get an understanding of what a racist person actually believes.There is one particular website that has forums filled with pages of content. 

I've never met a racist in my entire life or on the internet that likes Jews but dislikes Brown people.His daughter is dating a man from Nigeria,you just want to believe Trump is racist at all cost.What's really racist is liberals that look down on minorities and treat them like they need "reparations" or "affirmative action" to compete with white people.I can assure you as a minority,that we can take care of ourselves.Minorities can use their brains and fend for themselves,we don't need a White person to give us handouts to be able to compete.I am not sure white liberals are obsessed with policing what everyone says or thinks.The only conclusion I can come to accept is that some white liberals have an unmitigated sense of self righteousness.


----------



## Xzi (May 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> I'm not grasping at straws.It's not a difficult concept to understand in the least.


Apparently it is, since you believe there's some sort of 'racist's guidebook to the galaxy' which makes anti-Semitism a requirement.  You can hate just one race.  You can hate every race other than your own.  Racism has never been about coming to logical conclusions, yet you're trying to apply some ridiculous mental gymnastics to it.



Maluma said:


> I've never met a racist in my entire life or on the internet that likes Jews but dislikes Brown people.


Bullshit.  There's always someone within earshot willing to blame black people or Muslims for all their problems.

As for Trump himself: his disposition toward different races is made clear in how he talks about Bernie Sanders vs how he talks about Barack Obama.  He's not anti-Semitic, he's racist.



Maluma said:


> I can assure you as a minority,that we can take care of ourselves.Minorities can use their brains and fend for themselves,we don't need a White person to give us handouts to be able to compete.


Nobody said you did.  It's not about babying you.  It's about wanting someone dignified, and someone whose views on race relations aren't so embarrassingly outdated, in the oval office.  Our international reputation is in the garbage now thanks to agent orange.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (May 14, 2019)

Maluma said:


> It's not Brown Jews vs White Jews.Israel vs Palestine is Jews vs Muslims.Palestine is an Islamic country.I'm not sure why liberals make things up just for the sake of trying to prove a point.


We simply have different definition of racism. If sb hates you (I assume you are white?) for being white, isn't that racism? According to your definition, it isn't. Many people actually would agree because whites are supposedly powerful and therefore can not be discriminated against (which is not true as proven by millions of poor white people).
Let's just agree to disagree.


----------



## Xzi (May 14, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> We simply have different definition of racism. If sb hates you (I assume you are white?) for being white, isn't that racism? According to your definition, it isn't. Many people actually would agree because whites are supposedly powerful and therefore can not be discriminated against (which is not true as proven by millions of poor white people).
> Let's just agree to disagree.


That's dumb.  Yes, racism toward whites is a thing.  Moreover, there are still DINOs within the Democratic party which have been publicly racist in the past.  Joe Biden gave a passionate speech in favor of segregation.  Add in his history of being a creep on live TV, and I hardly consider him to be any better than Trump.  Like I said, our leaders are too damn old.  Bernie Sanders is the one person in politics from that generation who was consistently on the right side of history.  Excluding him, we just need to boot out all the fogeys from DC and start electing representatives that are actually...representative of us.  People who weren't born a half century before the invention of the internet.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (May 14, 2019)

I think Sanders could have won. Not sure he still can. He would be 82 by the end of the next term.


----------



## GreatCrippler (May 14, 2019)

Maluma said:


> So in other words the media made up that MAGA is racist,and ignorant people passed on the message so that a large percentage of the populace believes that the MAGA slogan is racist.You can't just chose the meaning to a slogan that you did not create,the creator of the slogan gets to chose what their words meant.CNN does not get to decide what Donald Trumps words mean.



You're making a huge leap here. Racists adopt a phrase, and perception becomes that the phrase has negative racial implications. That is a simple truth. It has nothing to do with leftist media, or anyone "Deciding what Donald Trumps words mean." There is nothing inherently racist about the phrase. There is also nothing inherently racist about wearing a sheet over your head, or getting a swastika tattoo. The fact is still that these acts have negative racial connotations because of how they have been used by people with hateful intentions. You don't have to personally agree that the phrase is racist. You can think of yourself as a full blown patriot who really wants to rebuild his great America. You're also just putting your head in the sand if you can't understand why people would think "M.A.G.A." is both negative, and racially motivated.


----------



## zomborg (May 14, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> @zomborg - Just gonna give a couple of quick bullet points here:
> 
> Word count is a poor measurement. Not every politician, columnist or other notable person has an equal body of work and an equal body of public statements and is not equally covered with their articles by other media (see: no primary sources). If someone has a bigger section dedicated to "Controversy" than another person, then... a possible case is that a larger number of articles were written about their controversy and their controversy ran deeper than the other person. It doesn't say anything about how controversial a person might be.
> 
> ...


You make some solid points and I completely understand your point of view. Maybe there really is no equal class of 20,000 volunteers but I'm also skeptical that Wikipedia has no bias. In today's world it is almost impossible to find anyone who is completely neutral on any subject. Everybody has a specific opinion on most topics and would find it extremely difficult to not let that opinion seep through in their editing. For instance, at one time, news reporters were supposed to be fair and unbiased in their reporting. They were just supposed to give you the facts and let you form your own opinion but now it is almost impossible to find reporters who practice that. Also on the internet and social media, people with liberal views outnumber conservatives, which is evident here in our own community.
So anyone would be hard pressed to convince me that it's not the same at Wikipedia.


----------



## Whole lotta love (May 14, 2019)

Maluma said:


> It's not Brown Jews vs White Jews.Israel vs Palestine is Jews vs Muslims.Palestine is an Islamic country.I'm not sure why liberals make things up just for the sake of trying to prove a point.People in this thread are still in denial over the fact that the Wikipedia owners are liberals even after mountains of evidence on the internet that say otherwise.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Pretty much all universities in Europe reach Marxist economics alongside orthodox and heterodox economics, yet American universities are afraid to teach it.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 14, 2019)

There's no use in talking politics on libtemp.People just don't li


Whole lotta love said:


> Pretty much all universities in Europe reach Marxist economics alongside orthodox and heterodox economics, yet American universities are afraid to teach it.



So because Europe is extremely liberal that means that American universities are conservatives?Look at the mess Europe has become in certain countries.In Europe the gender roles are completely reversed,the men are submissive while the women are dominant.Is this really something you want to see happen in America?


----------



## zomborg (May 14, 2019)

Maluma said:


> There's no use in talking politics on libtemp.People just don't li
> 
> 
> So because Europe is extremely liberal that means that American universities are conservatives?Look at the mess Europe has become in certain countries.In Europe the gender roles are completely reversed,the men are submissive while the women are dominant.Is this really something you want to see happen in America?


Definitely not in favor of Marxist economics.


----------



## CORE (May 14, 2019)

It probably the Russians I could have sworn they burnt my Toast the other day as well as rigging my Game I was playing SMB 3 and I jumped bumped my head and fell into Lava.


----------



## zomborg (May 14, 2019)

CORE said:


> It probably the Russians I could have sworn they burnt my Toast the other day as well as rigging my Game I was playing SMB 3 and I jumped bumped my head and fell into Lava.


Lol that's the second time you've made me laugh so hard I almost fell outta my chair!
I think the Russians have also been sending some type of brain altering waves through America because what other explanation could it be that caused liberal derangement syndrome!?


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2019)

Maluma said:


> So because Europe is extremely liberal that means that American universities are conservatives?Look at the mess Europe has become in certain countries.In Europe the gender roles are completely reversed,the men are submissive while the women are dominant.Is this really something you want to see happen in America?


You realize this type of statement absolutely _reeks_ of insecurity, right?  Besides, I'm not sure how electing a blubberous cuckold as commander in chief was supposed to remedy anything in that regard.  He immediately ceded all his power to Netanyahu, Putin, and the Saudi royals.  It doesn't get much more submissive than that.


----------



## zomborg (May 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You realize this type of statement absolutely _reeks_ of insecurity, right?  Besides, I'm not sure how electing a blubberous cuckold as commander in chief was supposed to remedy anything in that regard.  He immediately ceded all his power to Netanyahu, Putin, and the Saudi royals.  It doesn't get much more submissive than that.


Unless you count the fact that it was even worse under the former president. He was a nation of Islam puppet. I'd rather have a president under the control of Netanyahu.


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Unless you count the fact that it was even worse under the former president. He was a nation of Islam puppet. I'd rather have a president under the control of Netanyahu.


Obama didn't violate the emoluments clause, thus he wasn't easily manipulated or bought like Trump has shown himself to be.  This stuff was put in the constitution for a reason.


----------



## CORE (May 15, 2019)

@Xzi The Left Love Cucks so what is the problem?

Obama is bought and payed for F***sake they still on TV and just wont F***Off!


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2019)

CORE said:


> @Xzi The Left Love Cucks so what is the problem?


Apparently not, since its the right-wing that elected one.  It's a projection thing.  The 'P' in GOP.


----------



## CORE (May 15, 2019)

@Xzi Please explain how letting Terrorists , Rapists , Drug Cartels and Foreign Oversea Threats Run Rampant is not Cuckolding Suicidal For That Matter.

LGBTQ FOR THAT MATTER?

How the hell do you support them yet have Obama Debatable , Ilan Omar , Rashida Tlaib who clearly have it in for Jews and obviously are against LGBTQ if they still hate the Jews it runs Deep you do know what Musilim Islam thinks of such Infidels in their eyes.


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2019)

CORE said:


> @Xzi Please explain how letting Terrorists , Rapists , Drug Cartels and Foreign Oversea Threats Run Rampant is not Cuckolding Suicidal For That Matter.


I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.  I do know that Mexico is currently trying to get all drugs decriminalized to stop cartels from operating altogether, but I also know that our short-sighted idiot of a president won't agree to that.


----------



## zomborg (May 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Obama didn't violate the emoluments clause, thus he wasn't easily manipulated or bought like Trump has shown himself to be.  This stuff was put in the constitution for a reason.


The only time the left cares about what the constitution says is when it suits them. obumma hated the constitution and everything it represents. He disregarded it whenever he wanted. He was the most treasonous president we've ever had and I'm thankful he's gone.


----------



## CORE (May 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.



Exactly!!! LMAO come on Laugh if you dont you will Cry  I dont mean that in a nasty Liberal Tears Way.


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2019)

zomborg said:


> The only time the left cares about what the constitution says is when it suits them.


Orly?







Seems the other way around.


----------



## CORE (May 15, 2019)

89 Smear Campaigns!


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2019)

CORE said:


> 89 Smear Campaigns!


If it were as simple as running a smear campaign to get an indictment, numbers against the Democrats would be a lot higher.  But sure, dismiss blatant criminality.  Conservatives have always put party before country, after all.  I can't very well expect that to change now.


----------



## zomborg (May 15, 2019)

By the way I'm not against O piece of shit because he's black. I'm against o piece of shit because he hated America and wanted to destroy it. Ben Carson would've made a great president. 

*Here are 1,375 well sourced examples of Barack Obama’s lies, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc.*


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Ben Carson would've made a great president.


Rofl, that dude that falls asleep in the middle of his sentences?  Nah, he knows jack shit about legislation or governance.  He would've been a dumpster fire to equal Trump.


----------



## CORE (May 15, 2019)

I find it ironic that all the LGBTQ and Race Wars Ramped up 2012 when that piece of S*** got in as well as those other two Witches I mentioned now in Seats of Influence Sleeper Cells  come to mind.


----------



## chaoskagami (May 15, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Unless you count the fact that it was even worse under the former president. He was a nation of Islam puppet. I'd rather have a president under the control of Netanyahu.



Ahahaha, what? Let me guess, you subscribe to the bullshit "Obama isn't even a US citizen" nonsense.

Obama was raised in a secular household (that is, one unexposed to religion) and claims to be Protestant in beliefs. Considering how he used the military during his terms, I find it highly unlikely he was a puppet of some "nation of Islam" of which I have no idea what you even mean. Iran? ISIS? Dunno. Never heard of this "nation of Islam". Is it tasty? Expert analysts also agree, and I won't bother sourcing since you could simply google it. But you won't, because it'll contradict your narrative.

Also, both of the Bushes certainly had America's best interests in mind with what they did. I cannot say the same about the orange asshat. He almost certainly sees America as a cash cow for him to profit off of, at our expense.



CORE said:


> @Xzi The Left Love Cucks so what is the problem?
> 
> Obama is bought and payed for F***sake they still on TV and just wont F***Off!



You're making less and less sense by the second, LITHOSPHERE. Calm your tits.



CORE said:


> @Xzi Please explain how letting Terrorists , Rapists , Drug Cartels and Foreign Oversea Threats Run Rampant is not Cuckolding Suicidal For That Matter.
> 
> LGBTQ FOR THAT MATTER?
> 
> How the hell do you support them yet have Obama Debatable , Ilan Omar , Rashida Tlaib who clearly have it in for Jews and obviously are against LGBTQ if they still hate the Jews it runs Deep you do know what Musilim Islam thinks of such Infidels in their eyes.



Last I checked, cuckolding is a specific act in which a husband watches his wife fuck someone other than him. I really don't understand how this is cuckolding in any sense, unless you'd care to explain. Seems a fairly inappropriate term to describe anything here.

Threats (e.g. anyone related to drug cartels or with a criminal record) have always been denied at the border. Period. Trump has had no effect on shutting out actual threats, only legitimate migration attempts.

I'll just use my usual argument for LGBTQ here since why not, it's not like you'd listen anyways: Yuri is justice, and there's enough humans on this earth that we don't have to worry about reproduction at all, unlike chimpanzees which certainly do. More than a billion of us in every corner of the earth is enough.

By the way, how bought out of ten do you think the orange is? I'm leaning towards 11/10, personally.

Go back to /pol/, unless you'd like to engage in meaningful discussion instead of regurgitating nonsense.



Xzi said:


> Apparently not, since its the right-wing that elected one.  It's a projection thing.  The 'P' in GOP.



I almost hate to mention this, but he didn't win the popular vote. He's only in there due to electorate votes. I almost hate to say this as a friendly. Also, GOP actually stands for "Grand Old Party" which is to say, a gathering of a bunch of old fucks.



Xzi said:


> Rofl, that dude that falls asleep in the middle of his sentences?  Nah, he knows jack shit about legislation or governance.  He would've been a dumpster fire to equal Trump.



I'll be honest; all of the GOP candidates sucked this round. Hillary also sucked. But she was still a better choice than an orange who potentially has syphillis.


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2019)

CORE said:


> I find it ironic that all the LGBTQ and Race Wars Ramped up 2012 when that piece of S*** got in as well as those other two Witches I mentioned now in Seats of Influence Sleeper Cells  come to mind.


Yes, no gay people existed before Obama got elected.  You've figured it all out.


----------



## CORE (May 15, 2019)

@chaoskagami I am aware of what it means Son! How you think you where Born!

For that matter @Xzi was the one that brought it up not me!

As for not making sense that is because your Sources of information have you Brainwashed!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

@Xzi No Actually he pushed the agenda to weaken America and sew hatred and Race Wars amongst you idiot and I have Gay and Lesbian Friends.


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2019)

CORE said:


> No Actually he pushed the agenda to weaken America and sew hatred and Race Wars amongst you idiot and I have Gay and Lesbian Friends.


Obama walked on eggshells his entire presidency and barely mentioned race once.  Trump opened his campaign for president with a speech about how all Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists.  You're fucking seriously trying to convince me that the former was more divisive?


----------



## chaoskagami (May 15, 2019)

CORE said:


> @chaoskagami I am aware of what it means Son! How you think you where Born!
> 
> For that matter @Xzi was the one that brought it up not me!



Perhaps you should try using the term correctly then, _son_.

And no, he was not. YOU were. Nice try, though.



> As for not making sense that is because your Sources of information have you Brainwashed!



I carefully cross-compare multiple sources of news and fact check what I'm reading while carefully considering why they're reporting they way they are (my mother has a degree in journalism, and I've never blindly accepted anything), so I find this to be unlikely.

It's far more likely that you're one card short of a whole deck.



> No Actually he pushed the agenda to weaken America and sew hatred and Race Wars amongst you idiot and I have Gay and Lesbian Friends.



I bet your LGBTQ friends love you because you're such a nice person who's so accepting of them.

See, I can only put up with so much horseshit before even I resort to ad hominem. @Xzi, I'm making my exit. Sorry for leaving you on your own.


----------



## CORE (May 15, 2019)

@Xzi Obviously now why dont you have a nice cold glass of Orange.







Perhaps some Trumpicana making America Great Again One Glass At A Time.


----------



## zomborg (May 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Rofl, that dude that falls asleep in the middle of his sentences?  Nah, he knows jack shit about legislation or governance.  He would've been a dumpster fire to equal Trump.


Only thing is o shit head didn't know about legislation and governance either. Difference is Carson doesn't have an anti American agenda. 
Furthermore, the reason o idiot had no indictments or convictions is because he had enough powerful behind the scenes people protecting him while he raped America and everyone was afraid to come against him because they would end up dead. There were a few people who tried to be a whistle blower but ended up dead. 
The reason Trump has had criminal conspiracies, indictments and convictions during his presidency is because it has been a well coordinated attack from the beginning. The stupid democrats didn't want him in there but he surprised them and won. But they couldn't be gracious losers and concede. They have been head hunting from day one. Since they can't find anything to nail him to the wall, they manufacture bullshit and even that don't work. 
No other president in history has ever been attacked as much as Trump. You can be sure that if you undertake an archeological excavation to find fault, you will find it. And if that doesn't work then you go into your lab and warehouse and manufacture some. 
Liberal Derangement Syndrome


----------



## chaoskagami (May 15, 2019)

zomborg said:


> No other president in history has ever been attacked as much as Trump



Who is Richard Nixon? Oh wait, I thought we were playing Jeopardy for a minute.



CORE said:


> Stupid image macros



Go back to /pol/. GBAtemp isn't the place for this shit.


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Only thing is o shit head didn't know about legislation and governance either.


Obama served in the Senate and had a solid voting record.



zomborg said:


> Difference is Carson doesn't have an anti American agenda.


Actually, he serves as Secretary of HUD in the Trump administration, and all he's done is make cuts and make people miserable.  I'd call that pretty 'anti-American,' unless the America you're referring to is corporate America.


----------



## CORE (May 15, 2019)

@chaoskagami

Yes He did he refered to Trump as Benjamin Netanyahu Bitch.

And yeah my friends Are they are People that dont fit into any kind of labeling like the Liberal Cucks like to be told!

I will Post what I want Scrote! 

Or are you offended by Orange Now your being a Fruitist being hateful against Fruit what next.


----------



## chaoskagami (May 15, 2019)

CORE said:


> Yes He did he refered to Trump as Benjamin Netanyahu Bitch.



Uh, no? That was zomborg. Also known as your yes-man in this discussion.

And to be frank, Trump's so past his expiration date that he should be tossed in a dumpster where he rightly belongs.


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2019)

CORE said:


> Yes He did he refered to Trump as Benjamin Netanyahu Bitch.


When I called Trump a cuck, I meant that in a quite literal sense.  Because his wife never sleeps in the same state as him, she's also likely sleeping around.  And who could blame her, he's verified to have cheated on her multiple times.

All I intended about Netanyahu is that Trump is subservient to him financially or in some other manner, though in a hyperbolic sense, I suppose 'Nethanyahu's bitch' does work.


----------



## chaoskagami (May 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> When I called Trump a cuck, I meant that in a quite literal sense.  Because his wife never sleeps in the same state as him, she's also likely sleeping around.  And who could blame her, he's verified to have cheated on her multiple times.
> 
> All I intended about Netanyahu is that Trump is subservient to him financially or in some other manner, though in a hyperbolic sense, I suppose 'Nethanyahu's bitch' does work.



Aside from that, I'm pretty sure the Orange has some creepy incestual tendencies given how he behaves around and talks about his daughter. Ew.


----------



## CORE (May 15, 2019)

Just like Obama and the Left are subservient to Terrorists And yes I knew what you meant and your just jealous because your not her Cucky but I tend to agree why a nice looking woman should be with an old man is beyond me but he is not President for that.

But clearly had a Son who has also suffered abuse which is ridiculous a F***ing child getting insults hurled at him. He has nothing to do with Trumps Presidency.

And never mind Oh Boo Hoo another Conservative being attacked A Conservative is still a F***ing Person just like you and the tables can easily be flipped and see how you would like it better yet your life may one day be in a Conservatives hands and the same goes for Conservatives we are people!


----------



## chaoskagami (May 15, 2019)

CORE said:


> Just like Obama and the Left are subservient to Terrorists And yes I knew what you meant and your just jealous because your not her Cucky but I tend to agree why a nice looking woman should be with an old man is beyond me but he is not President for that.



Are you actually a Markov chain generator trained on political arguments? Because I'm starting to think you may be.


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2019)

chaoskagami said:


> Aside from that, I'm pretty sure the Orange has some creepy incestual tendencies given how he behaves around and talks about his daughter. Ew.


True, but that's mostly just tabloid-level gossip (other than that one photo).  Still, Epstein was a close friend of Trump's, and I'm 100% certain we haven't seen all the facts come to light in that case yet.  We may never.


----------



## chaoskagami (May 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> True, but that's mostly just tabloid-level gossip (other than that one photo).  Still, Epstein was a close friend of Trump's, and I'm 100% certain we haven't seen all the facts come to light in that case yet.  We may never.



It's plain as day at least that their relationship is at very least abnormal considering how parental bonds usually are. But yeah, probably not ever going to get any actual evidence on that one. Everything on that front is speculation.


----------



## CORE (May 15, 2019)

chaoskagami said:


> Are you actually a Markov chain generator trained on political arguments? Because I'm starting to think you may be.



I Just Love Trumps Hate And how easy it is to stir you idiots into a Frenzy.

GodBless You Both we will continue this discussion again.

@Xzi


----------



## chaoskagami (May 15, 2019)

CORE said:


> I Just Love Trumps Hate And how easy it is to stir you idiots into a Frenzy.
> 
> GodBless You Both we will continue this discussion again.
> 
> @Xzi



With how annoyed you are, it seems I have also succeeded. Good day, sir. I'm sure you're b u r n i n g   i n   h e l l. _tips hat_


----------



## SG854 (May 15, 2019)

I had a Feminist teacher at my college and we would do Feminist activities in class, that was the most about politics I was in. But people didn’t really talk about politics at all besides that.


----------



## zomborg (May 15, 2019)

chaoskagami said:


> Ahahaha, what? Let me guess, you subscribe to the bullshit "Obama isn't even a US citizen" nonsense.
> 
> Obama was raised in a secular household (that is, one unexposed to religion) and claims to be Protestant in beliefs. Considering how he used the military during his terms, I find it highly unlikely he was a puppet of some "nation of Islam" of which I have no idea what you even mean. Iran? ISIS? Dunno. Never heard of this "nation of Islam". Is it tasty? Expert analysts also agree, and I won't bother sourcing since you could simply google it. But you won't, because it'll contradict your narrative.
> 
> ...


Lol welcome to the discussion chaoskagami. I see Xzi was a bit overwhelmed and needed assistance. Which is funny considering on the internet and any forum just like here, it's usually conservatives who are getting ganged up on.

Anyhow, forgive me as I listed the wrong group pulling Onutjobs strings. I actually meant the muslim brotherhood. Examples forthcoming :
*
The documented influence held by the Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama administration* – influence that was so great that we handed over a loyal ally, Egypt, into its control for a time.

The key player in Obama's administration is the Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett. Her role in the Obama administration has been likened to the mysterious Rasputin in the era of the Russian czars:

Her influence is shown by an account in Richard Miniter's book "Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him."

It relates that at the urging of Jarrett, Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011, Navy SEAL mission. Seems she was concerned about the possible political harm to Obama if the mission failed.



Then there is Huma Abedin, wife of disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner and top aide to former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. She is expected to assume the Jarrett role in a Hillary Clinton White House. Her affiliations and loyalties are also suspect:

Her father is said to be close with the Saudi government's Muslim World League, and her mother is said to be a member of the Muslim Sisterhood. World Trade Center bombing prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review: "The ties of Ms. Abedin's father, mother and brother to the Muslim Brotherhood are both specific and substantiated."

The Muslim Brotherhood took power in Egypt with the Obama administration's approval after it had all but abandoned the government of Hosni Mubarak, a long-time ally and friend. It was while Abedin was advising Hillary that State dropped its long-standing policy of having no dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood.

In early 2015, Jarrett brokered a meeting between Obama and 14 Muslim leaders, some with disturbingly close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood:

[T]he White House confirmed that Azhar Azeez, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), was one of the Muslim leaders that met with President Obama. ISNA was founded in 1981 by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial[.] ...

Azeez's bio also reveals him as a founding member the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Dallas/Fort Worth Chapter. CAIR has also allegedly funneled money to Palestinian terror groups and was also started by members of the Muslim Brotherhood[.] ...

Hoda Elshishtawy of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) was also in attendance at the Muslim leaders' meeting with President Obama.

MPAC, just like CAIR and ISNA, was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood[.] ...

Mohamed Majid, who serves as Imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), was also in attendance at the White House meeting with the President, and senior advisors Ben Rhodes and Valerie Jarrett.

In 2002, ADAMS was raided as part of a U.S. government initiative called "Operation Green Quest," where federal agents suspected the group of supporting terrorist organizations. Government documents said that the ADAMS Center was "suspected of providing support to terrorists, money laundering, and tax evasion."

If you have ever wondered just why President Obama could never bring himself to condemn or even say "radical Islamic terrorism," Valerie Jarrett is one of the reasons. One of the very first things he did as president was to give a speech to students in Cairo in 2009 in which he apologized for America's role as the world bully, particularly in the Islamic world, and for our support of our only true ally in the Middle East. His snubbing of both Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was not subtle, and his push to make Iran a nuclear power, in opposition to the will of Congress and the American people, showed just where his, and Jarrett's, hearts were.

Christians were being murdered around the world, and little was done by the Obama-Jarrett administration to help them or even acknowledge the fact or that Islamic jihadists have marked them for genocide. President Obama's silence on this ongoing slaughter speaks volumes about his and Jarrett's true loyalties:

From the Christian-influenced Yazidis in Iraq to the Christian schoolgirls targeted by Boko Haram in Nigeria, Christians worldwide have had their churches bombed and burned and themselves murdered, all because of what they believe and who they are.

Yet, with few exceptions, Obama refuses to acknowledge or even mention this fact.

On Sunday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest, who had also expressed the administration's condemnation of the "random" attacks in Paris, issued a statement condemning the IS's murder of 21 Egyptian "citizens." No mention of their being Coptic Christians.

Ft. Hood was "workplace violence." Benghazi was a spontaneous response to an inflammatory video. Paris was just a case of people being in the wrong place at the wrong time. When world leaders marched in Paris to protest the latest Islamic atrocity, Barack Hussein Obama was conspicuous by his absence.

In Obama's world, Islam is a religion of tolerance; not so much Christians, maligned as "bitter clingers." He took a shot at Christians when he said at an Easter Prayer Breakfast that "I have to say that, sometimes when I listen to other less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned." Not so concerned was he by the mass beheading of Coptic Christians on a Libyan beach by the Islamic State.

The coziness among Obama, Jarrett, Abedin, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other radical Islamic terrorist groups is a historical fact and should not be obscured by a bigoted tweet.


----------



## Captain_N (May 15, 2019)

I work at a state collage here in south florida and i can say with certainty that its way more liberal then conservative. Its in the presentations the higher ups give. I just troll my liberal coworkers. I have gotten so god at it they dont even realize they got trolled. They are so bad some of them took the day off when trump won. lol. Its fun to troll them.


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2019)

zomborg said:


> I see Xzi was a bit overwhelmed and needed assistance.


I've said all I needed to say here, and the thread has been derailed enough already.  Not that the thread's subject makes for very stimulating discussion either, of course.


----------



## CORE (May 15, 2019)

I am sorry if some of you Liberals are Allergic to Trumpade or Trumpicana I forgot Orangeman bad and Memes are offensive and I do like the way you act stupid when Radicalized Musilim Terrorists and Obamas Islam Connections are pointed out you then turn to pety insults and act stupid but you naturally are because you are Brainwashed.

A Cuckold is pretty much a Wimp that is my point who lets Terrorists into a Country when they practically Tell you they are going to rape and kill your women and families and breed to the point of overpopulate you! I also mentioned the fact that they hate Gay People.

They Behead Stone to Death and throw them off cliffs!

LGBTQ and ISLAM DONT MIX WHAT IS NOT TO UNDERSTAND.

@Xzi Yes you helped derail it when you started talking about Orange it good for you why cant you understand that mate come on.

And if others dont like Emoticons and Pictures that is ok I know your full of Hate that is why you like to paint others in your light because you are Cold and Dark inside and cant stand others that shine but just remember Your Beautiful No Matter What They Say  MAGA!


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2019)

CORE said:


> And if others dont like Emoticons and Pictures that is ok I know your full of Hate


> Posts rant about how much he hates Muslims and LGBTQ people

> "that is ok I know your full of Hate"

rofl


----------



## zomborg (May 15, 2019)

Captain_N said:


> I work at a state collage here in south florida and i can say with certainty that its way more liberal then conservative. Its in the presentations the higher ups give. I just troll my liberal coworkers. I have gotten so god at it they dont even realize they got trolled. They are so bad some of them took the day off when trump won. lol. Its fun to troll them.


Lol yes I enjoy a bit of that myself. Never hurts to give them a taste of their own medicine.


----------



## Superbronx (May 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I've said all I needed to say here, and the thread has been derailed enough already.  Not that the thread's subject makes for very stimulating discussion either, of course.


Said the 2343 views of this thread and the 123 replies. Not to mention the seven people currently viewing it. 
But seriously guys, please leave the poor liberals alone. Don't gang up on them because gosh darnit it's just not fair. Lol 
 Snowflakes tend to melt under extreme heat.


----------



## zomborg (May 15, 2019)

Ssuperbronx said:


> Said the 2343 views of this thread and the 123 replies. Not to mention the seven people currently viewing it.
> But seriously guys, please leave the poor liberals alone. Don't gang up on them because gosh darnit it's just not fair. Lol
> Snowflakes tend to melt under extreme heat.


Lol yes very true. They need their safe spaces with teddy bears and coloring books. 
Seriously though. I posted a link to 1375 examples of ocrybabies Lies and corruption and no one even tried to refute it. Probably didn't even click on the link.
You know what you know what you know.


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2019)

Ssuperbronx said:


> Said the 2343 views of this thread and the 123 replies. Not to mention the seven people currently viewing it.
> But seriously guys, please leave the poor liberals alone. Don't gang up on them because gosh darnit it's just not fair. Lol
> Snowflakes tend to melt under extreme heat.


Stop going full retard.  I've addressed every conservative "argument" here levied in response to my comments, though it's incredibly generous to call them that.  Point me to one I haven't and I'll gladly address it.  Beyond that, I will not be goaded into a mudslinging contest.  Let this pointless dumpster fire fizzle out.


----------



## zomborg (May 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Stop going full retard.  I've addressed every conservative "argument" here levied in response to my comments, though it's incredibly generous to call them that.  Point me to one I haven't and I'll gladly address it.  Beyond that, I will not be goaded into a mudslinging contest.  Let this pointless dumpster fire fizzle out.



How about this one from my previous post? Or do you need me to read it to you? 

*Here are 1,375 well sourced examples of Barack Obama’s lies, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc*


----------



## Captain_N (May 15, 2019)

zomborg said:


> How about this one from my previous post? Or do you need me to read it to you?
> 
> *Here are 1,375 well sourced examples of Barack Obama’s lies, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc*



No one ever wants to admit Mr Obama's lies. Obama care was/is one of the biggest. The media most of all. He can do no wrong in their eyes.


----------



## zomborg (May 15, 2019)

Captain_N said:


> No one ever wants to admit Mr Obama's lies. Obama care was/is one of the biggest. The media most of all. He can do no wrong in their eyes.


Yes sir I agree. I'm just thankful we made it out of his administration alive. He's a criminal who needs to be arrested. If he truly got what he deserves.


----------



## CORE (May 15, 2019)

@Ssuperbronx I offered some refreshing Orange Truth to try and keep them Cool but they refused to Accept it.

@Xzi LGBTQ People themselves I dont Hate I Dislike the Deceitful Hateful Organization which likes to attack Heterosexuals and Christians or Conservatives Libertarians But if a member of Islam Attacks LGBTQ They Shut Up And as I mentioned LGBTQ Are People they dont need to be Categorized like some F***ing Product like you SnowFlakes. Even that guy Milo for being Conservative and like my Friends who you dont seem to care about theyre opinion either as I previously mentioned.

I do tend to be Intolerent towards the Ignorant like yourself but I still think your an ok Dude even underneath the Hate that your quick to pounce on others here that I have seen on other Threads.
Blame the Bloody Russians and Mueller Rice for being so damn Creamy.

You did not Address Obama and his Treason to America Bin Laden , Islamic Ties , BenGhazi. And those other Two Witches. I Remember 9/11 Son Shine and dont forget it I am a 90s Kid in case your wondering.


----------



## SG854 (May 15, 2019)

People just can’t charge in and say I’m right because everybody thinks they are right.



You are not going to get to anyone by saying teddy bears, snowflakes and safe spaces, and especially when Xzi is still here, he didn’t run away. He doesn’t fit that description so far for you to accuse him of that. You guys are being blinded by preconceived notions that your not seeing the individual and the reality of the situation. Not all liberals are snowflakes.


It’s all just tribal mentality at this point and I know because no body is considered that the other side might have good points. It’s all just fight for my side to win. It’s shouldn’t be about winning, because you are not going to convince anyone that way. It should be about getting to the truth, consider both concerns and figuring out the best way to handle something. There are both positives and negatives to the liberal and conservative perspective. We need social justice for minority’s groups, but we don’t need social justice warriors that take it too far. It’s a balancing act.


----------



## CORE (May 15, 2019)

Not All Conservatives are Racists , Fascists , Bigots , Hateful and the Right can say they are Right because they are RightWingers.

In a serious note No One is Right because we are all being played!


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2019)

zomborg said:


> How about this one from my previous post? Or do you need me to read it to you?
> 
> *Here are 1,375 well sourced examples of Barack Obama’s lies, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc*


I never claimed that Obama was perfect or lived up to all his campaign promises.  He was certainly more centrist, and more beholden to corporate America than I would've cared for.  But he didn't demote the US to a Banana Republic as Trump is attempting to do, and he certainly wasn't a worse president than GWB by any measure.  We lost way too many of our freedoms after 9/11, and it was a Republican president that took them away.  The country has been fundamentally different since then.


----------



## Superbronx (May 15, 2019)

CORE said:


> @Ssuperbronx I offered some refreshing Orange Truth to try and keep them Cool but they refused to Accept it.


Lol can I have a extra tall glass please? 


Xzi said:


> Stop going full retard.  I've addressed every conservative "argument" here levied in response to my comments, though it's incredibly generous to call them that.  Point me to one I haven't and I'll gladly address it.  Beyond that, I will not be goaded into a mudslinging contest.  Let this pointless dumpster fire fizzle out.


No harm no foul. You stand tall for what you believe. That's admirable. 
Thank you everyone for contributing to this my first official thread.(my thread in Introductions doesn't count) Although it seemed to stray off topic and indeed became a conservative vs liberal thread, all in all not bad for a first thread attempt.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (May 15, 2019)

Maluma said:


> So because Europe is extremely liberal that means that American universities are conservatives?Look at the mess Europe has become in certain countries.In Europe the gender roles are completely reversed,the men are submissive while the women are dominant.Is this really something you want to see happen in America?


You obviously have never been to Europe.

Stop drinking the conspiracy kool-aid, this is a batshit insane statement.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 15, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> You obviously have never been to Europe.
> 
> Stop drinking the conspiracy kool-aid, this is a batshit insane statement.



How do you know I have never been to Europe?It's funny how you bury your head in the sand when you don't want to acknowledge a problem.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (May 15, 2019)

Maluma said:


> How do you know I have never been to Europe?It's funny how you bury your head in the sand when you don't want to acknowledge a problem.


Because I live in Europe?????

It's nowhere near the "dystopia" you're making it out to be and to suggest it is in the way you are suggesting it is means you are being fed news from biased, cherry picked sources.

And Americans wonder why Europeans make fun of them.

Everything about the post you made suggests that your entire knowledge of Europe (and specifically it's social climate) comes from whatever the fuck FOX News* is telling you and not of an actual understanding what shit is like over here.

*Swap them out for whatever other conservative fearmongering news program or site you follow.
--

The "dystopia" you're (and your conservative buddies) try to apply to it is something I regarded as the mere thought process of someone trying to be ironic up until now, but seeing it brought up completely genuine?

To put it mildly: I think that y'all should visit a psychiatrist and check if there ain't something in your brain making you all collectively crazy.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 15, 2019)

The amount of times you have to correct people about misconceptions in Europe on here is pretty ridiculous


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 15, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Because I live in Europe?????
> 
> It's nowhere near the "dystopia" you're making it out to be and to suggest it is in the way you are suggesting it is means you are being fed news from biased, cherry picked sources.
> 
> ...



I have talked to many Europeans online and it is clear as day that there is truth to what I have said.I spoke to a Swede on WoW and he told me what is happening to his country is absolutely despicable. I am also not American so there you go making assumptions about something you don't know.Europeans make fun of Americans because they don't know any better,it's pretty ridiculous to make fun of Americans considering that most Americans are of European descent and no European country could ever manage to deal with the amount of different cultures that America integrates.

I feel blessed that I had the opportunity to come to this wonderful country and I can tell that you clearly have zero life experience living in the third world to really understand much about how real life works.Real life is cruel and it isn't this magical fairy tale that you were told about in your privileged university in the Netherlands.Let me know when Netherlands successfully incorporates every culture in the world into one country.

Europeans love to virtue signal but when it actually comes to getting some skin in the game,it is all ATNA(All Talk No Action).You guys preach diversity and all these dreams,but the reality of the situation is that you guys make it almost impossible for outsiders to integrate since you are so closed off from outsiders.I have read countless amounts of reddit post on how it's almost impossible to make friends in Scandinavia as an immigrant.Look at this temp thread where all the Swedes say they would let an immigrant stay with them,but when the moment of truth comes they don't want any part of it.

https://gbatemp.net/threads/people-...el-good-about-themselves.536104/#post-8602901

You preach diversity,yet you live in a country that is 90% European and you wouldn't last a single day in the third world.These are things you don't understand because you have never lived them.I'm not of European descent,I am talking from a source of experience.I'm not just a wealthy European preaching Kumbaya to show the world how good of a person I am.I will invite you personally to spend one year of your life living in a third world country so you can actually understand why your political ideology is not feasible in the least.It's a dream and a fairytale. Socialism is only an option in European cultures with a homogeneous population,you have no idea what it is like to live among people that are culturally programmed to cheat the system whenever they can.Your country would fall apart in less than a decade if it had the diversity America has.


----------



## Clydefrosch (May 15, 2019)

congrats, you talked to european nationalists and racists. you can find similar racists and nationalists like them all over the globe in any nation btw. they're talking the same shit everywhere.
just kidding, not believing you ever talked to europeans knowingly or about any of this.
other than right now, when they tell you you're full of shit.

I'd agree with migrants being an issue if they caused just a fraction of the issues good old americans cause in their own country, or if they caused just a fractions of the issues my own countrymen and women cause in mine.
but they don't. it's the oldest scapegoat bullshit in history to blame your own problems on whatever outsider is around, and it's never solved any problem whatsoever.
of course there aare issues involving migrants.
and there are things that are only an issue because outsiders exist at all.
obviously, when a thing exists in a place, it can be an issue or be the cause for issues.
but it's not that migrants are the cause of issues. it's that migrants are humans and humans cause issues.

also, your perception of the third world is ridiculous and likely based on bad tv and videogames and other bs you read on reddit? yes, life is hard in an nigerian slum. yes, lack of options and perspective is a breeding ground for hostility and crime. and there is a lot of government corruption preventing any real solutions to be pu to action. but that's the case everywhere in the world where things don't look so hot at every time. like it is for the us every other decade.
and it's also not even close to be like that everywhere in the third world. there is diversity too. if you believe you can even so much as vaguely sum up any country in less than a million words, you're just cherrypicking like an idiot.

90% european? what does that even mean? europe is culturally and ethically diverse just by being europe. different countries, different histories, different beliefs, at times different ideals and visions for the future.

tl;dr: you understand that people on reddit and 4chan threads lie, right? a reddit thread about migrants telling horror stories about scandinavia? where did you find that? on /r/thedonald or /r/conservative?

I'm sure you also believe in those facebook posts about vegans creeping up behind you in stores to lecture you and unvaxxed 4 year olds eloquently owning their doctors about the dangers of vaccines, right?


Also, universities aren't mostly liberal because people are being indoctrinated there. They are because there's little rational reason to think otherwise if you care about the future at all.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (May 15, 2019)

@Maluma - This is a false equivalency. I didn't say shit about a third world country.

Yes obviously America is better than any third world country. It's the literal baseline (yeah sorry Americans not the peak, _far_ from not the peak) at which I consider a country to be first world. That's also completely irrelevant to what I said.

I said that the picture you're being given of Europe by these sources of yours is completely and utterly insane and is not grounded in reality which indicates you've never been there yourself or have had meaningful interactions with people from there (or talked to extremist idiots).

"my political ideology" -> Oh? What would my political ideology be then. Do tell. I don't think I ever stated my political stance in public.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 15, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> congrats, you talked to european nationalists and racists. you can find similar racists and nationalists like them all over the globe in any nation btw. they're talking the same shit everywhere.
> just kidding, not believing you ever talked to europeans knowingly or about any of this.
> other than right now, when they tell you you're full of shit.
> 
> ...



I lived in the third world unlike you,but clearly you are too busy hiding in Germany from the comfort of your home.Maybe if you were an adult and had some perspective on the world you would understand certain things about how the world functions.You didn't even bother reading the post so why bother commenting?Who are you to tell me that I haven't spoken to Europeans?You know nothing about me.Once you grow up and become a man you will be able to understand the world better,until then it would be best that you either stop talking about things you don't understand or at least give yourself the opportunity to live in the third world so you can form an opinion.Hiding in Germany is clearly not doing you any good as far as understanding how the world works outside of your bubble of comfort.Don't comment on my posts if you are not going to bother to read them.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 15, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> another thing I'm unwilling to believe you whatsoever.
> because if you had that kind of experience under your belt, you'd know how insane your arguments are.
> you would know that the common perception of any third world country does barely overlap with the reality.
> you would know who is to blame for a country going belly up. it's certainly never the average citizen.
> ...



It doesn't matter if you believe it or not.It is a fact that I am from a third world country,the problem here is that people chose to ignore facts when they are inconvenient to their arguments.You are being very rude by affirming you know things about me that you have no clue about.I'm not going to engage with you any further if you aren't going to show at least a base line level of respect.


----------



## CORE (May 15, 2019)

@Clydefrosch You should Respect everyone
and that goes for their Opinions or way of Life too. You dont need a reason.

LIBERALS AND IN THIS CASE UN EUROPE DOES NOT SPEAK FOR EVERYONE!

You have the nerve to call anyone a Dictator when your very foundation is built on a dictatorship.

You can keep your brainwashing to yourselves. 

You can only Censor Peoples Voice for so long.


----------



## Clydefrosch (May 15, 2019)

CORE said:


> @Clydefrosch You should Respect everyone
> and that goes for their Opinions or way of Life too. You dont need a reason.
> 
> LIBERALS AND IN THIS CASE UN EUROPE DOES NOT SPEAK FOR EVERYONE!
> ...



brainwashing? now that's a concept lunatics love to get behind. it's very revealing.

lunatics don't get respect. they get pity at best and even that is undeserved.

I'm sure you haven't heard, but the dictator time is over 70 years in the past.
But that time did give us quite the eye to make out dictators and those that wish with all their might they could be one.


----------



## osaka35 (May 15, 2019)

As a rule of thumb, the more educated and understanding you are, the more liberal you appear. You also tend to be less religious, but that's neither here nor there. Tends to be why universities are a bit more liberal. You learn about how the world works there, and you see the results of different ideologies and policies. You may still be a fiscal conservative, which is a completely different matter nowadays, but  most of the rest of the current conservative ideals don't hold water when you actually understand a bit more about they affect the world.




CORE said:


> @Clydefrosch You should Respect everyone
> and that goes for their Opinions or way of Life too. You dont need a reason.


You automatically respect a person's ability to choose for themselves. You automatically respect a person's autonomy. You automatically respect a person's ability to have an opinion. This is given.

You do not automatically respect a person's opinions. You do not automatically respect a person's actions. You do not automatically respect a person's assertions. This is earned.

these are very different things and shouldn't be lumped together.


----------



## SG854 (May 15, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> As a rule of thumb, the more educated and understanding you are, the more liberal you appear. You also tend to be less religious, but that's neither here nor there. Tends to be why universities are a bit more liberal. You learn about how the world works there, and you see the results of different ideologies and policies. You may still be a fiscal conservative, which is a completely different matter nowadays, but  most of the rest of the current conservative ideals don't hold water when you actually understand a bit more about they affect the world.


I wouldn’t say that is true. Usually the arguments I hear are, who cares if Universities are overwhelmingly Democrats. Democrats are smart, Republicans are idiots. Academics are smart so therefore since most are Democrats, that’s because High Education=Democrat and they have the best answers to our countries problems. Democrats support science, Republicans don’t. That’s the reality.

If this was true and using the same logic that Universities lean more Democrat because that’s where educated people lean, then when it comes to Businesses, Economics and Finance, more lean Republican because they have the best answers when dealing with money distribution, businesses and minimum wage.




Republicans are 24% more likely then Dems to be a business owner. Most small business owners vote Republican (this isn’t your big manipulative corporation, just your average guy wanting to run a family business). Republicans are more likely to be Presidents, Vice Presidents and finance executives. And more likely to be in real estate, financial services and whole sale trade. And Nobel prizes have been won by a Republican Economists. So using the same logical reasoning more people vote Republican in these areas are because republicans are smarter then Dems at how the economy works.

Im sure hearing that statement people will outrage saying they are the reason why the country is in shambles, we are worse off because of it. Ok so then why don’t Dems step up, and save our country, and outnumber Republicans by becoming business owners and work in financial services. Supposedly more of the country votes Dem so it should be easy finding people right?





Dems are higher in openness they are better at trying and coming up with new ideas, but they are not as good as unifying those ideas and having order, they are essentially all over the place. That’s where Republicans come in at maintaining order, discipline and tradition, which helps put those things into a sellable product. It’s why creators more likely to be Dem and business owners more likely to be Republican. They are work in unison to compliment each other. Imagine using the logic of more Dems means smarter with male and female, saying more men in certain jobs is because men are smarter. I’m sure people would also want a female perspective because they bring diversity of ideas that males don’t, and both compliment each other.


----------



## osaka35 (May 15, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I wouldn’t say that is true. Usually the arguments I hear are, who cares if Universities are overwhelmingly Democrats. Democrats are smart, Republicans are idiots. Academics are smart so therefore since most are Democrats, that’s because High Education=Democrat and they have the best answers to our countries problems. Democrats support science, Republicans don’t. That’s the reality.
> 
> If this was true and using the same logic that Universities lean more Democrat because that’s where educated people lean, then when it comes to Businesses, Economics and Finance, more lean Republican because they have the best answers when dealing with money distribution and minimum wage.
> 
> ...


 i did say fiscally conservative is different than those "conservatives" in power . those in power give lip service to actual fiscal conservative ideals, then do the frikin' opposite. all while blaming liberals, poisoning the well for both conservatives and liberals.  it's suppose to be liberals are for protecting people in the best way possible, and conservatives make sure it's done the best fiscal way possible. would explain a bit of what you're speaking towards. our leaders speak as if they act this way, but do not act this way, with rare exception.

so when people are against conservatives, it's generally those ideals that have nothing to do with fiscal responsibility, or the anti-fiscal-but-passed-off-as-fiscal positions of those in power. conservatives should be just as pissed as liberals.


----------



## chaoskagami (May 15, 2019)

CORE said:


> @Clydefrosch You should Respect everyone
> and that goes for their Opinions or way of Life too. You dont need a reason.





CORE said:


> Just what I expect from a Lunatic lmao more rhetoric I bet your foaming at the mouth.



Hm, I smell burnt toast. Or hypocrisy.

To be honest, aside from inserting snark at how positively idiotic some of this drivel is, I have nothing else to contribute to this topic.

It's become yet another instance of crazy pro-Trump supporters presenting biased and unacceptable non-sources, circular arguments, appeals to authority and other such invalid arguments in an actual discussion, along with completely ignoring any evidence to the contrary. And the rational people attempt to point out flaws in arguments, only to be met with ad hominem.


----------



## CORE (May 15, 2019)

You all have it in for Trump and his Russian ties yet your pushing Communism such hypocrisy.

@chaoskagami I already mentioned in earlier post about my burnt Toast and have already blamed the Russians.


----------



## SG854 (May 15, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> i did say fiscally conservative is different than those "conservatives" in power . those in power give lip service to actual fiscal conservative ideals, then do the frikin' opposite. all while blaming liberals, poisoning the well for both conservatives and liberals.  it's suppose to be liberals are for protecting people in the best way possible, and conservatives make sure it's done the best fiscal way possible. would explain a bit of what you're speaking towards. our leaders speak as if they act this way, but do not act this way, with rare exception.
> 
> so when people are against conservatives, it's generally those ideals that have nothing to do with fiscal responsibility, or the anti-fiscal-but-passed-off-as-fiscal positions of those in power. conservatives should be just as pissed as liberals.


Corporate Dems are also in the same camp as corporate Republicans. And there are Republicans that criticizes corporate interests. They are against heavy welfare and should be even against corporate welfare to stay consistent.


Liberals do have people on their side that is crazy. It isn’t a monopoly of crazies. While conservatives more likely to deny global warming, Dems more likely to deny the safety of Nuclear Energy since Nuclear is our best solution right now, and environmentalist over exaggerate it’s dangers. Same topic but both dangerous perspectives, and not just from Republicans only.


----------



## osaka35 (May 15, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Corporate Dems are also in the same camp as corporate Republicans. And there are Republicans that criticizes corporate interests. They are against heavy welfare and should be even against corporate welfare to stay consistent.
> 
> 
> Liberals do have people on their side that is crazy. It isn’t a monopoly of crazies. While conservatives more likely to deny global warming, Dems more likely to deny the safety of Nuclear Energy since Nuclear is our best solution right now, and environmentalist over exaggerate it’s dangers. Same topic but both dangerous perspectives, and not just from Republicans only.


I'm right there with you. Democrats are rarely as liberal as they say they are and are just as easily corrupt. Heck, Obama was a centrist as far as the rest of the world is concerned. 

It drives me crazy when they are anti-nuclear. Old nuclear, sure, whatever, but not the new stuff! it's totally the best option.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (May 15, 2019)

CORE said:


> You all have it in for Trump and his Russian ties yet your pushing Communism such hypocrisy.


I see nobody here pushing for communism.

Or is this American communism? (Aka anything more left than center)


----------



## chaoskagami (May 15, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> I'm right there with you. Democrats are rarely as liberal as they say they are and are just as easily corrupt. Heck, Obama was a centrist as far as the rest of the world is concerned.
> 
> It drives me crazy when they are anti-nuclear. Old nuclear, sure, whatever, but not the new stuff! it's totally the best option.



This is true and also not. The fact is, most modern reactors are perfectly safe outside of the plant and emit only water vapor from cooling systems into the atmosphere.

The problem here is threefold. First, there are still a lot of old reactors that are operational which really should be shut down and rebuilt safer.

Second, regardless of external safety, working inside a reactor plant is always going to be a hazardous job with severe medical risks.

Third, more often than not they don't use material until it is completely inert but dispose of the material (e.g. dump in waste sites) past a threshold where efficiency of energy production drops (I believe it was 95% or so.) This is not environmentally friendly whatsoever and needs to stop.

And yes, I also agree there are crazies on both sides. The right-wing is just significantly more vocal and far more detached from reality. But as far as politicians go, they're playing a game of chess. The democrats appeal only because they tell us what we want to hear; I suspect most are just as corrupt as the GOP members and also view us as nothing more than cattle to profit off of.

Perhaps that's also why they won't impeach Trump. That would end the "game" so to speak.


----------



## osaka35 (May 15, 2019)

chaoskagami said:


> This is true and also not. The fact is, most modern reactors are perfectly safe outside of the plant and emit only water vapor from cooling systems into the atmosphere.
> 
> The problem here is threefold. First, there are still a lot of old reactors that are operational which really should be shut down and rebuilt safer.
> 
> ...


aye, the environmental aspect needs to be addressed. things like thorium reactors help address the environmental, but require more shielding and the like. I think there are solutions, just have to say it like that.


----------



## CORE (May 15, 2019)

@Ev1l0rd Yeah that is why Antifa and Mob Rule is rampant including Political Correctness.


Mass Conservative Censorship. 
MAGA That is hateful.

Burning your own Flags That is so American.


----------



## chaoskagami (May 15, 2019)

CORE said:


> @Ev1l0rd Yeah that is why Antifa and Mob Rule is rampant including Political Correctness.
> 
> 
> Mass Conservative Censorship.
> ...



Nationalism is a useless relic of the past. The internet has interconnected the entire world, so pointlessly limiting your view of the world to one bubble is harmful to the human race's development. That is, if you're talking about burning flags metaphorically. If not, since burning a flag harms nobody (aside from if you do it in a public place where it would be a health hazard) frankly I fail to see the problem with such an act. It's a piece of fabric, and unless you're activelyy imbuing some meaning in burning a piece of fabric, who cares?

I agree that censorship is actively harmful, since as long as what we're talking about is purely fictional we're getting into thought crime with any governmental or self-censorship. Which is again, harmful to creative freedom and freedom of expression. But you fools also are advocating censorship when you say that anyone who doesn't believe in Trump-ism should be jailed for treason or whatever. That's eliminating freedom of expression.

That said, evidentally you don't understand what anti-fascism is since you don't even understand what fascism is. And fascism is bad. Period. End of debate. You'd think more people living in a democratic republic would understand that fascism is counter to the very principles the government was founded on, but I'm reminded every day how half of the human race is too stupid to think for themselves. And we're not under "mob rule" whatever the fuck that means. We're currently a banana republic or an olligarchy, take your pick.


----------



## CORE (May 15, 2019)

@chaoskagami Well your set in your ways just like the others from your Collective I prefer to keep my own Individuality and Freedom to speak for myself.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (May 15, 2019)

CORE said:


> @chaoskagami Well your set in your ways just like the others from your Collective I prefer to keep my own Individuality and Freedom to speak for myself.


Do you understand what fascism (or authoritarianism, which is a more concrete term) is?

Individuality and freedom hold no place in those ideologies. At all.


----------



## notimp (May 15, 2019)

Ok, I'll do the counterpart here.

Nations are a form of policy enactment (the thing is in europe they vary - very much in size, so 'whats a nation'), where people are comfortable with, that they are still doing what is in their interest - because they are still close enough - so that a well placed month long strike will be able to topple governments.

Larger forms of political unions have a mutlitude of unsolved problems, that people arent very much into solving in general.

Direct democratic legitimization. None.
Media counterbalance. None (nobody watches european broadcasts - if they are not silly shows).
Transparency. Close to none (where it counts - even the americans tend to be better here).
Right on initiative on legislation. Not with parliaments.
Regional concentration of power. ("We'll then ship our best minds there.")
Higher actual detachment from the populous.
Higher risk of corruption ('environmental factors').

Basically - "fuck the United States of Europe" is a very popular stance to take, and actually a valid one - if you arent just retelling myths of friendship and connectedness. (Or are talking about limited political issues that can only be solved large scale.)

Read this: http://www.voxeu.org/sites/default/files/file/DP9040.pdf
Its a little bit older, but its points are still valid.

Especially looking at the US, their political system is pretty much a circus, where you decide between red and blue. I wouldnt want for the european system to become that. And it stands to be argued, that - if you build larger political bodies - the topics that people can be confronted with ("trusted with") might get more shallow.


----------



## chaoskagami (May 15, 2019)

CORE said:


> @chaoskagami Well your set in your ways just like the others from your Collective I prefer to keep my own Individuality and Freedom to speak for myself.



Except you have zero reading comprehension and failed to realize that I actually "agreed" about censorship being bad.

You're also assuming wrongly that I'm part of some "Collective" whatever that means. I'm registered unaffiliated. I will never register with any political affiliation, period, because that limits who I can vote for, and I vote for the best candidate regardless of party. The two party system is fucked.



Ev1l0rd said:


> Do you understand what fascism (or authoritarianism, which is a more concrete term) is?
> 
> Individuality and freedom hold no place in those ideologies. At all.



The answer to that is an obvious "no." He doesn't.



notimp said:


> Ok, I'll do the counterpart here.
> 
> Nations are a form of policy enacting (the thing is in europe they vary - very much in size), where people are comfortable with, that they are still doing what is in their interest - because they are still close enough - so that a well placed month long strike will be able to topple governments.
> 
> ...



I'm of the opinion that there is no fully functional ideal governmental system, simply because humans are a largely unmanageable and destructive species. The ones who should have the most say (industry specialists, scientists, medical professionals) are the worst at policy-making, but the policy-makers (politicians) are so detached from the current state of things that they have no place making any policies. And aside from this, public opinion is an extremely important metric in how things need to be done. Times change, and people not in charge are the best indicator of this.

The fastest way to fix the USA would be to set term limits on everything. Probably. Okay, I'm not really confident on that one, actually.


----------



## notimp (May 15, 2019)

Also if you replace it in theory, nationalism on the ground level is always set to be replaced by "regionalism" which just sucks.

As in - if you really do that, you'll have people enacting on their regional priorities in no time, bumping heads with their neighbors in weeks. Being more proud of their trade volume than anything else.. In short, there isnt even a sense of altruistic collective purpose within that myth.

Thats something only a liberal winky dink straight out of college can come up with - that only thinks of them jetting around the world and living in Brussels for the rest of the year - when he just not quite utters, that - the rest of the lowlives, should maybe stick to "deciding on local issues".

So think again. Or start to argue. 

I think that you are pretty much someone that repeats political opinions they've heard from someone, without having though them through.

You are quick to resort to political correctness to block out everything that you dont want to hear, and use emotionally loaded impact language, to damn your opponents, and then win on character denouncing alone. Thats both naive, and ruthless.

Now start paying attention to my points.  I promise a fair debate. 

Internet strikes we cant do. Those are illegal already (DDOS).


----------



## chaoskagami (May 15, 2019)

notimp said:


> Also if you replace it in theory, nationalism is always set to be replaced by "regionalism" which just suck.
> 
> As in - if you really do that, you'll have people enacting on their regional priorities in no time, bumping heads with their neighbors in weeks. Being more proud of their trade volume than anything else.. In short, there isnt even a sense of collective purpose within that myth.
> 
> ...



True globalism is what is needed. People need to stop thinking they're any better than their neighbors and try to understand how they work and how the people think rather than fear or look down on them - but that's more a problem with human nature than politics, I think.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 15, 2019)

chaoskagami said:


> Nationalism is a useless relic of the past. The internet has interconnected the entire world, so pointlessly limiting your view of the world to one bubble is harmful to the human race's development. That is, if you're talking about burning flags metaphorically. If not, since burning a flag harms nobody (aside from if you do it in a public place where it would be a health hazard) frankly I fail to see the problem with such an act. It's a piece of fabric, and unless you're activelyy imbuing some meaning in burning a piece of fabric, who cares?



Let me preface this by saying I’m not defending anyone here.

Nationality is for most people also part of their identity. To value one‘s national culture has nothing to do with limiting their view to a bubble, that’s just asinine. There’s flags that that convey identity without the baggage of geography, I wonder how the burning of those would be perceived.

With regards to anti-fascism you’re really misleading. Most people, me included, don’t have a problem with opposing fascism were even applauding opposition with democratic means but you’re deliberately ignoring or misrepresenting that „Anti-Fascistic Action“ as an, admittedly very loose, organization stands for much more than opposing fascism like vigilante violence, violence against law enforcement, destruction of property and so on.

People living in a democratic republic are rightfully disgusted by normalization of extremism such as yours.


----------



## CORE (May 15, 2019)

Individual Sovereign Nations working together not a Hive Mind!

You Claim to be Anti Fascist yet you want to be ruled by a Global Government.

A little to no Government is better when shit goes wrong you know who to blame.

Global Government Model NWO unelected  Fat Cats much like the SJWs working in the Shadows.

Global Dictatorship We Know Best.

F***OFF!  That is a declaration of War!

Same goes for censoring people it will go so far before direct action will be taken. 

That is the plan total destabilisation so the Elites can buy everything up like before over and over again. 
We are being played!


----------



## SG854 (May 15, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> I'm right there with you. Democrats are rarely as liberal as they say they are and are just as easily corrupt. Heck, Obama was a centrist as far as the rest of the world is concerned.
> 
> It drives me crazy when they are anti-nuclear. Old nuclear, sure, whatever, but not the new stuff! it's totally the best option.





chaoskagami said:


> This is true and also not. The fact is, most modern reactors are perfectly safe outside of the plant and emit only water vapor from cooling systems into the atmosphere.
> 
> The problem here is threefold. First, there are still a lot of old reactors that are operational which really should be shut down and rebuilt safer.
> 
> ...


It depends on level of degree. There is dangers to working with Nuclear energy, just like there is dangers to everything. Working in oil rigs especially on offshore rigs is one of the most dangerous professions. But compared to our other options, Nuclear is the best one we have for reducing carbon emissions. Battery tech isn’t enough, wind and solar isn’t enough and will contribute hugely to carbon emissions just to create them. Nuclear in comparison is the better option.


Politically the left wing politicians as far as I’m concerned are right wing. They say things people want to hear, say they’ll tax the rich but allow loop holes to exist. I would say in my opinion the left is more unhinged then the right. And I hear more news of them more often the people on the right. The differences is the right doesn’t do things as often but when they do it’s a big event like them ramming a car to bunch of people. The left it’s a bunch of little things done more often that add up. Grievance studies which the scientific field doesn’t take seriously, to our media content, to attacking people and them constantly trying to get people banned.


Politically and Socially the racist white supremacists have no social or political support. We are not going to create racist segregation policies any time soon. But the left wing does have political support when it comes to social issues, which makes them more threatening and able to push for their unscientific things.


----------



## notimp (May 16, 2019)

chaoskagami said:


> True globalism is what is needed. People need to stop thinking they're any better than their neighbors and try to understand how they work and how the people think rather than fear or look down on them - but that's more a problem with human nature than politics, I think.


Thank you for your response.  Its just everytime that i read something like that, I think religion.. 

In regards to get people off of idealizing nationalism, its usefull to show them how it was invented. But then - if the alternative doesnt sound necessarily better..

I mean I listen to those people, all arguments they generally bring is that they like easy traveling, using their smartphones in other countries, checking in without hazzle, paying in Euros, and making that their lifestyle. And the only thing I then ever think of is - heck in your job you could do that anyways (get google fi - and you have worldwide calling, get a business credit card, and a preapproved traveler system for traveling - problem solved), and for the rest of the population, there is nothing.

Also. All that globalism has turned out to do so far is bring nations closer together in terms of their economic status. It has alleviated world hunger. (Microcredits havent worked to raise entrepreneurship though.). It hasnt brought relative prosperity, but rather wage declines (lower and lower middle classes in europe (OECD) and increasing wealth gaps). It has all but spread around an actually US centered (in terms of asset bubble) financial crisis.

And now the only narratives that seem to fly on the left are stay abstinent more (economically - because green) and again - more stuff without alternatives, because - globalization.

In their mind, we'll go straight from "we have to tighten our belt a little to save the old economic system" (financial crisis) to "we have to tighten our belt a little to create the new economic system" (something, something, for something climate change), and the only commonality I see through all of that is having people abstain from economic development just because they can be made to do so.

So the "are you entirely out of touch" question in regard to people on that wavelength has crossed by mind, I have to say.  And if the only thing that comes back - if I talk to them is something that registers as "religion like", that doesnt ease my worries. 

I'm not saying, that they are necessarily wrong - I'm just saying, that their actual arguments could be better. Now. Stuff like global warming can be tackled at summits, and when it comes to "fairer" taxation on certain classes or asset groups, I'll never believe, that those will become a thing. Politics has become too tame to tackle any structural economic issues.

(And the field where they 'might do' (somthing something, about something climate change), again - doesnt argue about this politicly or economically, but more so from another doctrine that includes "saving the world". So I'm at an automatic distance again.)


----------



## CORE (May 16, 2019)

Nationalism is a Culture a Country a Persons Identity that everyone is being forced to give up and abandon in the guise of being for the greater good and benefit of everyone which is a damn lie. 

It is being forced upon people in the form of being hateful or racist if you disagree with something in a very devisive manner. 

White man cant wear black panther outfit because they not black. 
You cant eat Mexican food because your not Mexican and that is offensive. 
The list goes on and this crap is political correction off the rails deliberate to destroy culture and force everyone into the Authoritarian Global New World Order Government. Including giving up your currency for our made up currency Euro this is why league of Nations, UN Nato was really established to get everything and everyone under one roof Control Obey and Conform or your hateful racist. 

A tactic Hitler used during his campaign of slaughter of Jews as well as others which includes demilitarisation ie.  Take away Guns so you cant fight back no means to fight back a Tyrannical Government. 

That said Army Police Military dont have to follow orders f***sake they can think for themselves but that would be hateful. 

Hateful and a Threat to the NWO plan so that is why we have Cival War almost Globally because it. 

Globalism done right is with National Sovereignty intact Communities coming together willingly and cooperating freely not being forced under anothers control BREXIT! 

Globalism as it is , is a mere political arm or one of the filthy tentacles of the Elites plan for World Domination. 

So no the Left is not for the Little Guy,  not for Family that a dirty word they are for the Collective Community Communism Socialist Hive Mind Government is god. 

I serve only One God and he is not among any Authoritarian Government or Religion either for that matter. 

The Left are practically Aethiest yet show some of the wildest Cult like behaviour I have seen with this Mob Rule mentality or crying like spoilt children when Trump got in or other nonsense that does not go they're way. 

Until people think for themselves outside the box and want to willingly help others without personal gain or political control there will never be peace. 

God Bless you all Brothers and Sisters but I will not Surrender myself or my family.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 16, 2019)

chaoskagami said:


> This is true and also not. The fact is, most modern reactors are perfectly safe outside of the plant and emit only water vapor from cooling systems into the atmosphere.
> 
> The problem here is threefold. First, there are still a lot of old reactors that are operational which really should be shut down and rebuilt safer.
> 
> ...



Not really sure what you are getting at.Trump was a registered democrat in 2000 and he is hardly considered a hardcore conservative yet on here people make it seem like he is an extremist.I would personally prefer someone further on the right like Mike Pence,I just find it comical that democrats hate Trump when he was a registered democrat not too long ago.He's not really the poster boy for right wing politics in the least.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (May 16, 2019)

@CORE - What kind of drugs are you on.

You clearly have zero understanding of what any specific political ideology is or means and don't seem to have an accurate course of history.



Maluma said:


> Not really sure what you are getting at.Trump was a registered democrat in 2000 and he is hardly considered a hardcore conservative yet on here people make it seem like he is an extremist.I would personally prefer someone further on the right like Mike Pence,I just find it comical that democrats hate Trump when he was a registered democrat not too long ago.He's not really the poster boy for right wing politics in the least.


Trump is notorious for flip-flopping his views on whatever gets him a following and makes him look good to the public[1]. Right now, Trump is _most certainly_ a hardcore conservative. In 10 years, I wouldn't even be suprised if he flips right back to being a democrat again.

Unfortunately, the hardcore conservatism he displays has made the _base_ of the Republican party (which at best was quite tolerant of racists) steer even further to the right, meaning that being against white nationalism is considered a controversial view these days politically speaking.

Which is... really concerning in and of itself.

[1]: See /r/trumpcritcizestrump. The man can't say anything without contradicting what he believed 2-5 years ago.


----------



## CORE (May 16, 2019)

@Ev1l0rd Now there you go again just proven my point Left Liberalism or not at all. 

I already told you son No Surrender!


----------



## Ev1l0rd (May 16, 2019)

CORE said:


> @Ev1l0rd Now there you go again just proven my point Left Liberalism or not at all.
> 
> I already told you son No Surrender!


Again, I inquire to the drugs you're on.

I never said anything about liberalism in my post.


----------



## CORE (May 16, 2019)

I made my point clear the Left is being used to push the Globalist NWO Agenda. 

Common sense no drugs required. 
I know enough about Politics and Economics and all other S***. 

It is about total control and subservient of the people for the Globalist Elite. 

Now enjoy the rest of this thread I have wasted enough time on this nonsense. 

I bid you good day


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2019)

It really depends on the university and the professors, but on the whole I would say that yes, universities are left-leaning, especially when it comes to humanities. It does colour their judgement and the way the professors teach - being on the left is considered enlightened and progressive, being on the right is considered close-minded and regressive. Many universities cave to the dumbest of requests of their student body, others have actually been infiltrated by people obsessed with PC culture. Would I call it indoctrination? Perhaps, only if you're too weak to resist it, I suppose. As far as I'm concerned, you should be doing whatever it takes to get the degree and the grades you need. From what I've observed, universities do try to accommodate the demands of right-wing students by inviting right-wing speakers, however it's also clear to me that being right-wing, particularly on campus, is demonised and the  "threat" of allowing a different ideology to be discussed is grossly exaggerated.


----------



## kevin corms (May 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's actually the opposite, it's the students demanding a more liberal atmosphere and (certain) universities are complying.  There are also a number of more traditionally conservative colleges/universities, of course.  Usually on the affluent side.


what planet are you on? Most kids are just going because thats what they think they need to do for a job.


----------



## notimp (May 16, 2019)

CORE said:


> the Left is being used to push the Globalist NWO Agenda.


Remove the NWO reference (because thats just a normal term in foreign politics), and you might have a discussion there.

Now - the left always has dreamed of a bigger world wide unification project, that would then lead to more social justice - because - more planning capability.

Now, if only they wouldnt strife for it by making everyone follow religious doctrine (1.5°C Climate something, something - and everybody suffer on earth now, after a period of suffering, so we can build the heavens on earth for the next generations ) we might have something here. Or not. Because no one is really arguing bigger political ideas right now. Because  we are in post democracy (Colin Crouch).

Everyone is just rediscovering the ultra nationalist, or extreme green parties agenda (because those are familiar tropes, that people already can identify...). Welcome back to the fourties and seventies revival.

Also - as you might have read out of this - I'm not at all pro another period of economic suffering for my generation. 15+ years (for lower and low middle classes) were enough.

Whats hard for europe is, that they didnt produce any structural investments in education or research projects in my generation at all. They just fluffed industries, that are now projecting -20% demand progressions for the forseeable future. Or that are announcing total automation by 2030, fuck do we know - what you need people for then... Maybe as virtual reality consumers, great industries to go in now.

And somehow, this makes me cynical.


----------



## CORE (May 16, 2019)

Here is a perfect example of Liberals vs Conservatives.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (May 16, 2019)

notimp said:


> Remove the NWO reference (because thats just a normal term in foreign politics), and you might have a discussion there.
> 
> Now - the left always has dreamed of a bigger world wide unification project, that would then lead to more social justice - because - more planning capability.
> 
> ...



My qualm with progressives is that they teach principles that they don't follow.California universities are filled with rich Californians that live in predominantly white enclaves yet they preach diversity when they themselves don't live in diverse areas.I can't respect people that tell YOU to do something,when they themselves do the complete opposite.It screams of utter hypocrisy.Rich liberals say to bring in all the illegals,just don't bring them into their neighborhoods.It's a ridiculous ideology to have if you ask me.


----------



## zomborg (May 16, 2019)

Ahhhh, I see what you did there! Nice try guys 
Suddenly Xzi's post has been edited without the tag to remove where he said:*"let this dumpster fire fizzle out" and of course he makes no more appearance but suddenly out of thin air, several big names join the discussion. Lol good one


----------



## CORE (May 16, 2019)

Those Russians are at it again meddling with this thread.


----------



## SG854 (May 16, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It really depends on the university and the professors, but on the whole I would say that yes, universities are left-leaning, especially when it comes to humanities. It does colour their judgement and the way the professors teach - being on the left is considered enlightened and progressive, being on the right is considered close-minded and regressive. Many universities cave to the dumbest of requests of their student body, others have actually been infiltrated by people obsessed with PC culture. Would I call it indoctrination? Perhaps, only if you're too weak to resist it, I suppose. As far as I'm concerned, you should be doing whatever it takes to get the degree and the grades you need. From what I've observed, universities do try to accommodate the demands of right-wing students by inviting right-wing speakers, however it's also clear to me that being right-wing, particularly on campus, is demonised and the  "threat" of allowing a different ideology to be discussed is grossly exaggerated.


Having overwhelming liberal people in college probably isn’t a good idea. There are many things in the world we don’t know about that isn’t as clear cut as earth is not flat.

Fiscal policy, foreign policy, some parts of domestic policy, if affirmative action (maybe) is a good idea, or if the death penalty a good idea, or other issues like these.

There are types of issues that are not as black and white, here is scientific evidence to show you what’s better. You can’t provide scientific evidence to say death penalty is bad or not bad, or at least not to the same extent as evidence  for evolution. This is where conservatives and liberal personalities come in to bring different perspectives. And both can have good arguments for issues we don’t have research and facts for. For people to say more liberals in college because liberals are smarter sounds like arrogance and then overstating how much they know about the world.


----------



## osaka35 (May 16, 2019)

Maluma said:


> My qualm with progressives is that they teach principles that they don't follow.California universities are filled with rich Californians that live in predominantly white enclaves yet they preach diversity when they themselves don't live in diverse areas.I can't respect people that tell YOU to do something,when they themselves do the complete opposite.It screams of utter hypocrisy.Rich liberals say to bring in all the illegals,just don't bring them into their neighborhoods.It's a ridiculous ideology to have if you ask me.


I mean, you're not wrong. Though I would suggest they're saying the right things, but are aholes for not following through. I'm guessing you aren't suggesting most liberals are rich white kids lol. Your argument seems more against those who just say they're progressive while not actually being progressive.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Having overwhelming liberal people in college probably isn’t a good idea. There are many things in the world we don’t know about that isn’t as clear cut as earth is not flat.
> 
> Fiscal policy, foreign policy, some parts of domestic policy, if affirmative action (maybe) is a good idea, or if the death penalty a good idea, or other issues like these.
> 
> There are types of issues that are not as black and white, here is scientific evidence to show you what’s better. You can’t provide scientific evidence to say death penalty is bad or not bad, or at least not to the same extent as evidence  for evolution. This is where conservatives and liberal personalities come in to bring different perspectives. And both can have good arguments for issues we don’t have research and facts for. For people to say more liberals in college because liberals are smarter sounds like arrogance and then overstating how much they know about the world.


Social sciences are definitely an area where the left and the right should be debating the pros and cons of policy at all times, which is how things used to work. I do find issue with your post in the sense that you "can't provide scientific evidence" for the efficacy of the death penalty, or in any other fringe issue - you absolutely can. You can look at recidivism rates, for instance - how many prisoners who served 25 years end up in the prison system again? The death penalty gives you a recidivism rate of 0% - the convict is executed. On the flip side, you have to look at how many innocents die in the process, only to be found not guilty upon further investigation. What is the cost of life imprisonment versus the death penalty? There are certainly figures that can be discussed besides the moral argument, which is the whole reason why having diverse opinions among the students and the staff is important in the first place. If these issues could not be supported by figures, all social sciences could be conflated to philosophy, which is obviously not the case.


----------



## notimp (May 16, 2019)

Maluma said:


> My qualm with progressives is that they teach principles that they don't follow.California universities are filled with rich Californians that live in predominantly white enclaves yet they preach diversity when they themselves don't live in diverse areas.I can't respect people that tell YOU to do something,when they themselves do the complete opposite.It screams of utter hypocrisy.Rich liberals say to bring in all the illegals,just don't bring them into their neighborhoods.It's a ridiculous ideology to have if you ask me.


The only thing that I might want to add there is, that for social groups to wait for issues to be solved by other social groups, is kind of something that might not work. 

Whats oddly funny in that regard is, that SJWs discovered minority groups that are so small - that they by themselves would have a hard time striving for societal recognition - and started to play amplifiers for them. To look good.

Benefits both of them I guess. And in the end no one can complain, if the other side didnt follow through. 

My point being - kind of dont depend on other social groups to change things for your own, if you can do something about it yourselves.

Empowerment message.


----------



## JaapDaniels (May 16, 2019)

Maluma said:


> There's no use in talking politics on libtemp.People just don't li
> 
> 
> So because Europe is extremely liberal that means that American universities are conservatives?Look at the mess Europe has become in certain countries.In Europe the gender roles are completely reversed,the men are submissive while the women are dominant.Is this really something you want to see happen in America?


i see you never visited europe?


----------



## osaka35 (May 16, 2019)

Having a diverse opinions is important, but it's not a diversity thing if someone is only contributing bad information into the pool. Folks have got to be open to correcting their bad information, or else they just hide behind "but my opinion!". If it's a you vs them thing, then you've already lost. It's got to be a "what're the problems, what're the goals, how do we measure success, and what are our options for getting there together" or we're boned. "Informed diversity" is far more important than "all voices are equal, regardless of the how factual they are".



Foxi4 said:


> Social sciences are definitely an area where the left and the right should be debating the pros and cons of policy at all times, which is how things used to work. I do find issue with your post in the sense that you "can't provide scientific evidence" for the efficacy of the death penalty, or in any other fringe issue - you absolutely can. You can look at recidivism rates, for instance - how many prisoners who served 25 years end up in the prison system again? The death penalty gives you a recidivism rate of 0% - the convict is executed. On the flip side, you have to look at how many innocents die in the process, only to be found not guilty upon further investigation. What is the cost of life imprisonment versus the death penalty? There are certainly figures that can be discussed besides the moral argument, which is the whole reason why having diverse opinions among the students and the staff is important in the first place. If these issues could not be supported by figures, all social sciences could be conflated to philosophy, which is obviously not the case.


When it comes to the legal system, beyond just wanting to inflict harm, we measure the usefulness of the punishment in how effective it is as a deterrent to similar actions/changing of behaviour. Recidivism is one of the tools used to measure this effectiveness, it's not the measurement itself. Obviously you can't use recidivism as proof of usefulness if you aren't using it to measure for usefulness. We want to measure usefulness and cost, as well as morally investigate new methods that may prove more useful and less costly.


----------



## notimp (May 16, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> Having a diverse opinions is important, but it's not a diversity thing if someone is only contributing bad information into the pool. Folks have got to be open to correcting their bad information, or else they just hide behind "but my opinion!". "Informed diversity" is far more important than "all voices are equal, regardless of the how factual they are".


^
This.

And yes, I see the irony in that i entirely agree.


----------



## SG854 (May 16, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Social sciences are definitely an area where the left and the right should be debating the pros and cons of policy at all times, which is how things used to work. I do find issue with your post in the sense that you "can't provide scientific evidence" for the efficacy of the death penalty, or in any other fringe issue - you absolutely can. You can look at recidivism rates, for instance - how many prisoners who served 25 years end up in the prison system again? The death penalty gives you a recidivism rate of 0% - the convict is executed. On the flip side, you have to look at how many innocents die in the process, only to be found not guilty upon further investigation. What is the cost of life imprisonment versus the death penalty? There are certainly figures that can be discussed besides the moral argument, which is the whole reason why having diverse opinions among the students and the staff is important in the first place. If these issues could not be supported by figures, all social sciences could be conflated to philosophy, which is obviously not the case.


I’ll agree with you on that one.


I was more saying evidence not to the same extent. Like is earth flat or not, this is a clear cut yes or no answer. The death penalty while you can provide evidence, it isn’t as clear cut with the points you listed. And diversity of thought is needed.



It’s like debating what basketball player is better. You’ll never get a definitive answer. Because not only is score points involved, there’s rebounds, assists, blocks, steals and so on. It’s not just who scores the most points, and while there is obvious bad and good players (like in VG there’s ET Atari vs Legend of Zelda OOT, ET being obviously bad in comparison) among good players/good games you won’t get the same response on who/which is better. It’s never a settled issue. I find topics like the death penalty in that same boat. Is it worth it for this, or is it worthy it sacrificing innocent to stop criminals. Morality plays a huge role in this and isn’t entirely fact based. There some that think any death penalty is bad no matter how bad the person is. Religion is also involved too. It’s not like the Earth where we have evidence for and it’s a matter of denial or not.


----------



## Superbronx (May 16, 2019)

Just thinking, in this forum, as well as all across the internet and all across the world, the debate rages between conservative and liberal. Who is right, who is wrong? Although the conservatives think they know what drives the liberal and vice versa and I'm sure much of our preconception about the other group has merit, also both sides are proceeding on many misconceptions. 


 Consider the main sources for most of us around the world. Mainstream media and social media. 
Here in America, even though most people implicitly believe what the major news outlets tell them, the mainstream media always paint the conservative in a negative light. Not just that a conservative is a country, uneducated buffoon but in recent years they have added that some are extreme radicals. 

What does this tell us about the mainstream media? An intelligent eye can deduce that they are left leaning and we can infer then that they are biased. Except maybe fox news but I have issue with them which I will not persue at this time. 

Then there's social media where untold numbers of people get their information. My wife, God bless her soul, is among them. I do not partake in social media. If social media is a main source of news and information for most, then again you will see the conservative painted in a negative light because just like on the average internet forum the liberal voice greatly outweighs and outnumbers the conservative. 



I am a conservative and I was not forced to join this community, I came of my own free will. So there is no one to blame but myself if I am outnumbered. But if I may, if you would allow me, I would like to explain to you a small portion of my background and what it truly means to me to be a conservative. 

I was born and raised in a small southern town out in the country. We were not a wealthy family, I guess we were closer to poor but we considered ourselves to be middle class. Both my dad and my mom worked very hard to make sure we had it better than they did growing up. Dad worked so hard at his manual labor job that it took a heavy toll on his body. He's had many surgeries after his retirement but he still lives with daily back pain. My parents were not perfect, they had their faults but we all do. 

In the small house and small town I grew up in, I and my siblings were raised with love and care. We were taught to help each other. We were taught to help our family members when they needed us and really even when they didn't. We were taught to help our friends. We were taught to help our neighbors. We were even taught to help a stranger in need. We were taught to love one another. We were taught to be kind to each other. 

Really our whole community were like family to us. It was common to give a friendly smile and wave to the random person we met on the street. My dad, many times after a hard day's work, before dinner or sometimes after bedtime would answer the call to help a neighbor in need. Even though he was tired and needed to rise early for work. 

So that's a little of my background. 

What is my definition of a conservative? He loves his neighbor. He values his freedom. He has no thoughts of malice towards others. He isn't planning violence at all unless his family or freedom or country is threatened. He only resorts to violence if those things are placed in jeopardy.


----------



## notimp (May 16, 2019)

Ssuperbronx said:


> What does this tell us about the mainstream media? An intelligent eye can deduce that they are left leaning and we can infer then that they are biased.


Out of interest, what makes an eye intelligent? 

Ok, media has a liberal bias. Correct. Liberal is the stark opposite of conservative. Somewhat right.

Which means that media has a leftwing bias. Somewhat wrong.
Which means that conservative views are underrepresented in mainstream media. Wrong.

(I'm not touching social media.)

Ok - there is a liberal right. It even is important. Please read up on it.

There is conservative media. Outside Fox news, because - if you want to go down to the argument level, you have to read newspapers anyhow (sorry), or listen to non pundit ("person centered") radio programming.

"Real" journalism tries to take the person of the journalist out of the reporting. Is it still biased? Good journalism tries actively not to be, but sure. Thats why you resort to either read journalism of both sides to get a somewhat varied picture - or you resort to certain thinktanks and ngo's for context. But the same idea of "look at both sides" applies.

What does journalism do to try get a balanced story? Well, in the olden days - balance out your reporting, by getting a voice from both sides of an issue - and if you are reporting on something just breaking, get at least two independent sources for a story. Also - dont mix commentary and reporting.

What happend in the field though, is that they lost adverising, because ad buyers found that facebook could offer them much more disected and grouped braindead consumers, and they went there. Together with a shift, of people finding, that they liked to read idiotic clickbait that made them have feels, much more readily than anything else, together with the industry being driven by "whoever is first on a story - gets all the clicks" together with social media marketing is soooo much more efficient to get stories to propagate...

This = Crisis of journalism.

So if you kindly would stop bashing anything that isnt your brand of radio shock jock that tells you your "believe imprint for the day" - and in which you believe because he's so personable, and plays just the country tunes you like (I'm overdrawing the image here). And accept one simple truth.

That the world hasnt got the "one" trusted news anker that tells you how the world works anymore - is entirely your fault. He wont be back. (Because from some more fringe perspectives, he may have never existed. And lets face it, you are not stopping to use facebook, or instagram for 'news' consumption) And its now on you as a news consumer - to finally get media literate.

Of course in this thread alone at least three people like to shout "conspiracy" and "the russians are coming" and this is something that you have to deal with.

Have fun. And none of this is the medias fault. Facebook, consumers - certainly. Do you give them the money to do at least two days of factchecking on every "twitter story" the blog you are reading instead breaks? No - then live with the consequences.

The media landscape hasnt been so blatently pandering to ideologies in ages, and its entirely the consumers fault - because its that shit, that you all click on and share.

Facebook gave us the metrics now everyone is producing that.

Heck, Americas most popular talkshow host cant talk to people, and made his career out of doing idiotic trump impressions for the better part of two years instead. You all clap. Your problem.

Oh yes, and please educate yourself on the fact, that there is a liberal right - even in the us. The tea party, you all like so much, isnt it though.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> When it comes to the legal system, beyond just wanting to inflict harm, we measure the usefulness of the punishment in how effective it is as a deterrent to similar actions/changing of behaviour. Recidivism is one of the tools used to measure this effectiveness, it's not the measurement itself. Obviously you can't use recidivism as proof of usefulness if you aren't using it to measure for usefulness. We want to measure usefulness and cost, as well as morally investigate new methods that may prove more useful and less costly.


Your mileage may vary depending on where you're from, but that's not exactly true. The entire point of incarceration is reform - if long-term imprisonment does not lead to a person reforming then the system has failed. Recidivism is the primary tool in measuring whether or not the system is working. There are other measurements, but this isn't a thread specifically about this. In certain states, like Sweden, the total cost of imprisonment is basically considered immaterial as there is a general consensus that prisoners deserve to have all their needs satisfied and that's the only way to reform them. I don't necessarily agree with that train if thought as I don't think everyone deserves a second chance, but it seems to be working there.


----------



## Superbronx (May 16, 2019)

notimp said:


> Out of interest, what makes an eye intelligent?
> 
> Ok, media has a liberal bias. Correct. Liberal is the stark opposite of conservative. Somewhat right.
> 
> ...


Yes real journalism would try actively not to be biased but there are no real journalists remaining. If they are, they are so rare as to be non existent. At least I have not uncovered any. 

As to my assertion that media is left leaning, I would like to add that once not so long ago, every American procured daily news in one of 3 major ways. Television, Newspaper and radio. And even further back telegram and word of mouth. In those days when we only had 3 major news resources, people sat down in front of their TV in the evening and took what the reporter said at face value for fair, balanced and unbiased reporting. 
 Fast forward to today and a large percentage of our population still watches or reads it and still takes it at face value because they were raised in a time when the evening local and world news anchor man was the ultimate word in local, national and world news. 

But no matter whose fault it is that they no longer practice good, fair honest journalism, many people still implicitly believe them. Do I think the conservative view is under represented? If you take every modern news source as a whole (podcasts, social media, papers, TV, radio, internet live stream, etc.) then no they are not. However if you only include the major news networks in America which is still the main source for a large percentage of our population, then yes conservative views are majorly under represented. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC and MSNBC are all left leaning. The only one that could be considered right leaning is fox and as I stated, I have issues with them. Bad thing is a significant portion of our population do not seek alternate news sources. They do not look for non pundit radio programming, podcasts, internet streaming nor any other type because they are not even aware of the necessity. 
They still think everything they watch on CNN is fact. 


So where do you think people get the idea that conservatives are radical, right wing nuts? As I stated earlier it's because of their news sources. 

Have you actually ever spent time with conservatives to see if they are truly the way they are portrayed? Or do you only proceed on 3rd party information?


----------



## notimp (May 16, 2019)

If you seek alternate news sources, make it (quality) newspapers first. Meaning those with headlines that arent there to first and foremost sell them.

Simply because they are still more likely to come from a "journalistic integrity" tradition.

If you resort to social media in general you are lost already. Not because they arent neutral (they arent, they form bubbles), but because, the metric they are going by is "attention". So the more outrageous, the better. Thats the stuff that ends up in your feeds, thats the stuff, that has everyone talking, because its dumb, emotional, baity - and written in a way, that everyone can voice an opinion about it.

Newspapers and radio programming also are a little bit cheaper to produce than national TV (if you are not talking about the big 3), so there is still variation there.

Its on the way out though - becaue people arent leaving their screens anymore, and  newspaper distribution on digital - is a joke compared to "look its free (ad financed), I get it from facebook - everybody does it".

Apple at one point,this or last year, offered print media conglomerates a new buy in into - their newsstand app, at I believe about 40% revenue share. Which at this point is higher than they demand it from any other form of media. People interpreted that as "they do it, because they can" (so "unpopular", so out of touch in terms of presentation, that they dont fear successful free market competition in the app space. Again, thats interpretation.)

edit: One more thing (please double check) the last thing I heard about how facebook handles the 'fake news crisis' (please dont even...) is that they only push (US) news stories now after one of the big I believe 8 or 10 newspaper networks in the US have picked them up. Which gave them a push but has reduced variety of opinion.

Also topical for this thread.


----------



## Clydefrosch (May 16, 2019)

journalists have never been neutral.
just saying.

the difference between todays journalist and past journalists is, that they weren't all under pressure to sell papers every single day at every single time. also there used to be more people filling one paper, now fewer people have to fill that same space. and there used to be pieces that were in the works for weeks too. now no matter how huge the incident may be, you need to have something out within minutes. so you throw 3 sentences on a website and keep expanding from there.

but that doesn't change that they were always biased one way or another. because no one is not biased. no one can be neutral. no text has ever been written neutrally. it's literally impossible.

things might feel more biased today, but I kinda feel like that's more of a readers problem. todays papers are filled with opinion-pieces, very clearly so, but a lot of the readers don't get what that means. they take opinion pieces as facts, as reporting. when those are obviously the most biased parts of any paper.

the only difference between news consumption today and back then also is the amount.
you have unlimited news now. and instead of just watching the news on the channel that agreed with your bias from the getgo once a day, you now can do that 24/7.
instead of having your bias reinforced once a day with time inbetween, you can get that reinforcement all day and most do. and not just on a superficial level, in general terms.
someone agreeing with your quasi-individual, specific worldview is only one google search away.

the repetition is what does it.
that's why fox news doesn't just have one analyst criticizing like the green new deal plan, they have 30 randos doing it all day long, all week long.
and they keep repeating the same buzzwords while they do it. it doesn't matter that they're literally making up stuff, because they know you won't be looking through the actual text. they tell you it demands ending cow farts and outlawing cars and you buy it.

and you also believe that it's entirely fair that they keep on slinging literal objective lies as absolute facts, because you feel that the other side is lying even more all the time.
which, and call me a libtard if you want, isn't the reality.
and you wouldn't know it, because from what i gather, all you know about the liberal, left-leaning media, is whatever you read (let's not kid ourselves, whatever you heard) about it in the right-leaning media.


also, you don't want neutrality anyways. and you don't want to support whomever shows both sides of an argument.
you know which side of the media keeps shooting their own feet by actively employing writers that lean the other way in an attempt to combat the other sides endless and unfounded whining about them not being neutral enough? it's not the right.


----------



## Superbronx (May 16, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> journalists have never been neutral.
> just saying.
> 
> the difference between todays journalist and past journalists is, that they weren't all under pressure to sell papers every single day at every single time. also there used to be more people filling one paper, now fewer people have to fill that same space. and there used to be pieces that were in the works for weeks too. now no matter how huge the incident may be, you need to have something out within minutes. so you throw 3 sentences on a website and keep expanding from there.
> ...


If I may offer a rebuttal on choosing the source that most aligned with your bias. Back in the day, as I recall from watching the only 3 news sources we had. It's not really like you had an alternative to suit your bias because the big 3, ABC, NBC and CBS all reported the news exactly the same. (CNN wasn't around yet.)In the same dull boring manner. All 3 pretty much had identical top stories and you could actually get confused as to which network you were watching if you just happened to walk in the room with the report already halfway over. 

You are correct about the 24/7,the repetition and the buzzwords. It's a never ending game to them.
As opposed to the old days, today it's blatant, in your face bias, whereas back then no one at least not average citizens were aware of it and there were no other sources out there to refute what the big 3 reported. 

Also in many households today unfortunately it's not much different. They still trust mainstream media and therefore do not seek to refute. 

By the way, if you research you will find that the owners of mainstream media are not conservative.


----------



## Xzi (May 17, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> what planet are you on? Most kids are just going because thats what they think they need to do for a job.


Yeah...and?  You can't have any sort of political leanings in the process of getting training/education for a job?  What I said is not incorrect, younger people have always been more left-leaning than the older populace.


----------



## SG854 (May 17, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yeah...and?  You can't have any sort of political leanings in the process of getting training/education for a job?  What I said is not incorrect, younger people have always been more left-leaning than the older populace.


It looks like that’s changing. 59% of elderly disapprove of Trump. While Trump is winning over the College Educated, Millennials, Minorities (Blacks 27%, Hispanics 45%), and the Western Region.

Zogby Pool has him at 51% approval higher then the what Obama had at the same point in time.


Now every poll will give you different numbers depending on how they collect data. Conservatives will use the Zogby poll to prop him up, while Dems will use the MCNBC poll to show him doing a bad job. So it’s better to look at the aggregates of all the polls combined taken from different sources and news outlets.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

And while his aggregate isn’t at 51% Trumps approval is the highest it’s ever been in relation to himself. And his aggregate approval has been going up. More and more people are approving his job performance. The Muller Report gave him a boost and the Economy gave him a boost.


This isn’t to discuss whether or not Economy is going to tank later on as it’s the doomsday message Dems say. This is about what people see at the moment and so far people are starting to approve of Trump more and more.


----------



## Xzi (May 17, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It looks like that’s changing. 59% of elderly disapprove of Trump. While Trump is winning over College Educated, Millennials, Minorities (Blacks 27%, Hispanics 45%), and the Western Region.


The 2018 midterm election showed that Trump is losing support near-universally, among all age groups.  It's the tariffs that are really killing his support in the Midwest more than anything.  Young people flocked to Bernie Sanders in 2016, and much the same seems to be happening now.


----------



## notimp (May 17, 2019)

Ssuperbronx said:


> By the way, if you research you will find that the owners of mainstream media are not conservative.


But they are, I dont know what might have happened in the US there, but the owners of much of the newspapers in my part of the world are conservatives, the owners of many if not most weekly political newspapers are as well. So to infer, that there is no conservative media out there ("we dont get to read breitbart on outside of breitbart?"), to me is just insane.
(And thats a bias that usually trickles down through corporate culture - so there is something to it there.)

I mean, the newspaper business has sucked as a business venture for years, so most owners tried to diversify as much as possible - and papers were dying left and right, and they are consolidated, and they now are under insane pressures. (I mean do you realize what it means, to have to file a story in half an hour instead of one or two days?). Maybe most conservative media owners simply exited the business? I dont know, you tell me. Its not an issue, where I am from.

Now, if you are insane enough to actually look for something like breitbart in conventional news, I'd say that you are a freaking victim. And if you dont trust media anymore, because a channel makes fun of your president, you are stil a dumb backwards, fool without an ability to differentiate, so tell me - which one is it.

There is still Bloomberg, the Economist is still out there, the Wall street journal certainly isnt left leaning. NBC afaik at least historically was center right.

Do some research for fracks sake - maybe start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Conservative_bias

And if you are still complaining, that you dont hear breitbart stories on TV, the problem is you.

Now that said - if most of newsmedia is reporting on trending topics, and "whats popular with people" you can scratch that - because, thats low effort readings stuff off a newsfeed. Thats not even reporting, thats childplay - but then, the entire landscape has shiftet that way, because of time pressures (whose first on a story gets all the click money) - and thats the consumers fault.

Most newspapers never took you for the idiotic fools, that you actually are. You will be surprised to find out the 10 shocking reasons.


----------



## tatripp (May 17, 2019)

First off, I am conservative. There is clear liberal bias at universities (especially public). I attended a state school in California and studied English. Most teachers, while super liberal, were at least very open to discussion. I almost never felt that I had to hide my opinions to get a good grade in class. I actually didn't mind their extreme liberal bias as long as they allowed counter opinions and taught their subject. I only had one teacher in undergrad who would not let me voice my opinion (even though I wasn't being obnoxious). I actually think university made me a better conservative. None of my liberal peers really had to think through any of it. My beliefs were constantly challenged, and I had to actually use reason to come to my conclusions.
My teaching credential was another story. That was complete indoctrination. One teacher was even teaching how we should be relativists (truth is relative) and everyone in class drank the KoolAid except for one other guy. I had to bite my tongue in each of those classes.

I also want to say that some majors are going to differ in their liberal bias. Math and science are going to be less political than the humanities. Gender and cultural studies are probably going to be indoctrination mills.


----------



## Superbronx (May 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> But they are, I dont know what might have happened in the US there, but the owners of much of the newspapers in my part of the world are conservatives, the owners of many if not most weekly political newspapers are as well. So to infer, that there is no conservative media out there ("we dont get to read breitbart on outside of breitbart?"), to me is just insane.
> (And thats a bias that usually trickles down through corporate culture - so there is something to it there.)
> 
> I mean, the newspaper business has sucked as a business venture for years, so most owners tried to diversify as much as possible - and papers were dying left and right, and they are consolidated, and they now are under insane pressures. (I mean do you realize what it means, to have to file a story in half an hour instead of one or two days?). Maybe most conservative media owners simply exited the business? I dont know, you tell me. Its not an issue, where I am from.
> ...


I was primarily referring to television news networks in the states. Some of them in the past were closer to center but not today. Again, I believe if one were to research he would see that those who own those particular media outlets are left leaning. It has been some time since I investigated. I think 5 years or more.
 Also I wasn't aware that some papers are conservative owned in the UK and possibly the states but with all of the more easily accessible, lazy man options for news today, how many people actually pick up a paper anymore? Unless they go the digital subscription route. Most people are so lazy and have the attention span of a child suffering from attention deficit disorder, they can barely keep their eyes on their facebook feed long enough to read that drivel.

Thank you for the advice, I shall indeed do some research into news papers but I am skeptical to say the least.


----------



## notimp (May 17, 2019)

And all I tried to do over the past couple of postings is to pretty much tell people, that if they want to get their news from TV, that there is something inherently stupid to that. Less stupid than getting news from facebook, but still.

To give you some perspective.

Where I am from we have one national TV news network thats financed by the public, and wowed to be impartial. In essence though, political pressures through steering committees have always been there (not in a dictatorship - kind of way, but still), and all other news stations are privately owned, and basically followed the "people are stupid" model established by german private TV media in the early 1980s.

Some of them try to play in the news market, but always from a "lets make this ultra simple and stupid for you" angle.

So what should I say? We still have "the news", which coincidentally is attacked by the right wing (who's now in office), all the time for any piece of investigative questioning they do. Because the Trump model of telling people that media is the source of all evil, was so fucking successful all over the world, that any right wing party has picked it up all of a sudden.

Which hasnt changed the style of their reporting very much. But all right wingers says it has - and are now much more "fork and pickaxes -mob" about it, that when they still believed, that they shouldnt voice their moronic anti humanist sentiments in public.

And on top of that, I still learned by heart, that any real reporting - only comes from news papers, and maybe one out of 20 radio channels - thats also publicly financed - while 90% of people around me are never consuming that. At least not for anything that isnt their gossip headlines.

Do you hear me complain, that its so hard to get balanced reporting nowadays?

I know its hard to turn off the TV, but...

I mean, start watching the BBC (same publically financed model as in my country (served as the blueprint for many TV stations across europe)) if you must. At least that way you'll get a foreign angle, and also wont miss the most important developments, if you are from the US.

Its not hard.

BTW: Even John Oliver did a snippet in his weekly show, way back when they picked up on newspapers dying, that they - the show - get all their reporting from newspapers. Because - of course they do. Everyone else is presenting those stories second hand, usually - because its harder to carry around an entire production crew (today one person mainly - great podcast quality), care about shot, presentation, framing, sound, word pieces, live inserts, interview partners, AND do research (today one person mainly). So maybe stop complaining, that you dont have the right TV stations to watch anymore.

Because, in mass - we understand, that if you have a choice you still much rather prefer autoplay on youtube. Again - this is an issue that was caused by consumers - and that no one else is going to fix for them - because the economics arent there.

The Guardian (english left leaning newspaper), got into the positive revenue zone recently. Which was almost a miracle - because they - like everyone booked losses for years. And they did it with a deeper focus on opinion piece pandering to an audience that wants that. They became less of a quality paper. Now as long as it finances their actual in field reporting - by all means they should do it - but your complaining is entirely misplaced - no one told you you should hang out at breitbart, infowars, idiotic facebook groups, podcasts that promised you the "edgy angle" - or share f*cking fake news with your friends. At the same time you shared mirals of the US president made out of sausage - you all just did. Now you dont like your TV stations anymore. Well, cry me a river.

Then read some more of Trumps tweets, because someone certainly does. (If you want to get your news directly from the administration in office, you are kind of stupid as well. At least while at the same time complaining, that journalism isnt questioning gouvenrments enough these days.)

TV always goes, with whats out there, and somewhat easy to transport visually. I dont know why this should lead to much more of a liberal bias than in the past. In my country it didnt (in the US it might have) - but we certainly have our rightwingers complain, that it did. Because they simply copy what works, which is teaparty rhetorics leading into Trump.

Maybe also, because society shifted more to the right, and they didnt.

Questions?


----------



## Superbronx (May 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> Trump model of telling people that media is the source of all evil, was so fucking successful all over the world, that any right wing party has picked it up all of a sudden.


Lol you made laugh so hard I almost choked!

Yes I agree with you, if you are only going to sit and watch television news you deserve to be deceived but I also think that people need someone to wake them from their stupor. Tell them to get their nose out of their TV. 
Your point about newspapers sounds very reasonable and a valid option. So anyhow, thank you, many things to consider from your posts in this thread. 

Question : Anyone ever told you how long winded you are? Lol 
What does the average temp member do? Sit at their PC all day doing nothing but reading the forums, deciding what interests them and replying plus constantly reading articles and fact checking? Oh my, there's never enough time in my day for such pursuits.


----------



## notimp (May 17, 2019)

Not even 'deserve to be deceived' but simply - they take whats out there, usually without any additional research, condense it down to a 20 second voice clip with images (if you are not CNN), and have a TV anchor in a suit read it for you. (Older people love their blue eyes.) Then have correspondance networks, that position a journalist in front of the Eiffel tower, then read a news agency report. The quality of that is what it is. Seldomly its more than that.

What it served as in the past though is to be "the news", as in everything you needed for your watercooler moments. If we are talking about news business internals, and about how news gets produced, thats stuff, that maybe 90% of people arent interested in at all. All most people cared for, was to get what happend in the day in a 5-15 minute segment, when siting on the couch. Much of the details they instantly forgot (because news as a format doesnt provide a timeline context - and its hard to be on top of everything).

Now one thing happened, and that is higher visibility of fringe news networks. (No gatekeeper ("this is the news") anymore - people share what they like). Filterbubbles (in the extreme).

So people have those Watercooler moments, and all of a sudden realize, that the other person tells them something that sounds entirely different, than what they heard.

Something happened, something is strange - something is not they way its supposed to... (People who are most into sharing fake news stories, according to the factchecking networks? Older folks. (Without the - wait, something on the internet isn't true? Background.)) that worries people.

Then here comes the a little bit out there right (which at that point is politically rising, but dont have their people in news outlets yet), and starts to tell most of their folks, that the fake mainstream media only is telling lies. And guess what. Confirmation bias. This is what I've read in the stuff I like to read anyhow... Real conflict with whats presented in mainstream media. I am right, because of 4/5 stars I bought it, so it must be great.

And a rallying call to change something, and identify "your people":

Thats it pretty much.

By some stroke of luck, you caught out the mainstream media actually defending themselves, while using the word fake news (we are not fake news), which psychologically doesnt work (you dont hear the dont, and instead hear the fake news again).

And everytime they became self reflective ("maybe we were too much on the administrations line on this one...") you hit them even more - while they were loosing money - and you guys discovered alternative media for the first time. Because it came in your facebook feeds. (And facebook was taking much of the ad revenues.)

Now if you'd understood that it always was there, and so where entities like infowars (just not nearly as big), different story.

But literally, the media environment (income structure) was crumbling, while the public was bashing and hitting it - for little to no reason. (They didn't shift as fast to the right as the rest of society in europe, and probably the US thats correct.)

As a result you now have more concentrations, more mogul owned enterprises, more clickbait, less real journalism.

Hm.. Well.

Sorry?


----------



## chaoskagami (May 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> Thank you for your response.  Its just everytime that i read something like that, I think religion..



Good news for you: That's not what I was intending.

In the 1600s or so the church served a purpose; educating the common folk, providing medicine, teaching morals etc. But we now have hospitals, educational facilities, and I'd like to think most people know right from wrong. The point is, religion is a historical relic and political tool. Nothing more. With all the scandals occurring in organized religion, I'm actually convinced it's more harmful to the human race than helpful at this point.




> I'm not saying, that they are necessarily wrong - I'm just saying, that their actual arguments could be better. Now. Stuff like global warming can be tackled at summits, and when it comes to "fairer" taxation on certain classes or asset groups, I'll never believe, that those will become a thing. Politics has become too tame to tackle any structural economic issues.
> 
> (And the field where they 'might do' (somthing something, about something climate change), again - doesnt argue about this politicly or economically, but more so from another doctrine that includes "saving the world". So I'm at an automatic distance again.)



There should be more equal taxation, but that's neither here nor there. The USA would have to stop being an oligarchy first.

The truth is, the problem isn't the wealth gap. The problem is that these people at the top have effectively removed their money from circulation. If they would spend it, the problem of the wealth gap would be alleviated. It's not that 1% has 99% of the wealth that's the issue. It's that 99% of the wealth is fixed and removed from the circulation.

As for climate change, it's a fact that we need to make changes such as switching to non-carbon-emission energy sources. If we don't, we're going to render the Earth unlivable in a couple hundred years. Generations after us do in fact matter. It is not however, a "save the world" type of bullshit. It's a need for gradual improvement of how we do things so the human race doesn't have to make environment-controlled domes to live in.

Also, thank you for being pleasant to discuss with. I'm sick of ad hominem.

Regarding your later posts, Television news is the absolute worst place to get anything (aside from facebook.) Most of those newscasters don't even have any form of journalism degree, and sometimes even the person providing the script to them doesn't have one and is simply writing what the higher ups want them to.



Clydefrosch said:


> the difference between todays journalist and past journalists is, that they weren't all under pressure to sell papers every single day at every single time. also there used to be more people filling one paper, now fewer people have to fill that same space. and there used to be pieces that were in the works for weeks too. now no matter how huge the incident may be, you need to have something out within minutes. so you throw 3 sentences on a website and keep expanding from there.
> 
> but that doesn't change that they were always biased one way or another. because no one is not biased. no one can be neutral. no text has ever been written neutrally. it's literally impossible.



As someone whose mother was an "old" journalist, I'd like to point out this is wholly correct. A lot of modern "journalism" is really just regurgitating what the higher ups tell you to, and iterating off available information on the internet. Not chasing stories and investigating on your own.



osaka35 said:


> Having a diverse opinions is important, but it's not a diversity thing if someone is only contributing bad information into the pool. Folks have got to be open to correcting their bad information, or else they just hide behind "but my opinion!". If it's a you vs them thing, then you've already lost. It's got to be a "what're the problems, what're the goals, how do we measure success, and what are our options for getting there together" or we're boned. "Informed diversity" is far more important than "all voices are equal, regardless of the how factual they are".



This. More people than ever on both sides are stuck in an echo chamber where any opinion that isn't theirs is wrong. What they fail to realize is that opinions are only valid so long as the basis for them is sound. False information is something to be corrected, not spread.


----------

