When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
1) on the whole, the fringe liberal propaganda is less virulent and misinformed than the fringe conservative propaganda; or
2) both sides are equally ignorant and misinformed (the Perez Axiom), and these rumblings of "Conservative Censorship" are utter bullshit.
A little from column A, and a little from column B?
I think that to some extent, ultra-right propeganda sounds more fringey because the ultra-left are better at picking names for things and using various forms of media to normalize them.
Democratic socialism, for instance, sounds really nice and tends to be espoused by people who have most or all of their teeth. Compare this to the "let's kill all of the colored children" movement which the current President campaigned on, and it just doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
1) on the whole, the fringe liberal propaganda is less virulent and misinformed than the fringe conservative propaganda; or
2) both sides are equally ignorant and misinformed (the Perez Axiom), and these rumblings of "Conservative Censorship" are utter bullshit.
...
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
A little from column A, and a little from column B?
...
Heck, why not consider the third option (well, more like a specific subset of #2) . . . Russian trolling is not equal across the spectrum.
Democratic socialism is a whole lot nicer name than let's starve our children until we break down and eat all the zoo animals. I guess it's also nicer than saying let's kidnap other people's children and feed them to our starving family.
I was surprised when we had a presidential candidate openly drive a xenophobic/ white nationalist agenda. I’m equally surprised that we now have politicians openly driving a socialist agenda, and even describing themselves as “socialist”. The Civil Rights movement started in the 60’s, but Soviet Union fell apart like 10 minutes ago.
I wonder if anyone has ever done a study in which they take a broad sampling of people who fit some agreed-upon definition* of an extreme nut-job, and then analyze their political leanings to see if there's a strong statistical bias.
* = It'd be hard to be totally objective here, but I'd include anyone who:
Denies near-universally-accepted truths (We landed on the moon, the earth is roughly spherical, CO2 causes climate change, the holocaust happened, etc)
Strongly believes in things which are either conclusively disproved or, if not technically disprovable, have never been credibly observed. (Anti-vaxers, homeopathy, alien abduction, bigfoot, reliable Volkswagens, ghosts, parapsychology, etc.)
Claims that secret cabals are broadly responsible for the operation of the US government, or that of any other first-world nation.
Formulates extremely complex theories to justify their suspicions, when simpler explanations, which happen to be correct, do not. (eg: 9/11 was an inside job, the CIA killed JFK, etc.)
Blames specific "other" groups for all of their (or the nation's, or the world's) problems. (Jews / Muslims / Negroes / Mexicans / white men / the patriarchy / etc.)
Originally Posted by Schroedinger
The most surprising thing of all to me is that anyone ever gave a nitwit like Alex Jones an audience to begin with. But the truth is, the market has specialized to meet every customer's needs. Whatever your particular weird, hidden kink is, there is a variety of **** available to accommodate you. I look at news and media as not being that different from ****.
There's that, but as a media insider I can also tell you that people just plain enjoy controversy.
I mean, take Jerry Springer / Maury Povich / Steve Wilkos. These shows draw pretty good numbers, and yet I'd posit that the majority of viewers don't actually agree / sympathize with the transsexual **** hooker who got her brother's fiancee pregnant the night before their wedding. Rather, people like to watch crazy **** happen. It's the same phenomenon which drove Howard Stern's career. And while I'm sure that there is some percentage of the audience who consider Alex Jones to be some kind of prophet (these would be the ones who actually call the show and get themselves on the air), I'd wager that a much larger number are listening just to see what crazy **** he'll come up with next.
And, while I've never worked with Jones, I have worked with Jerry Springer, Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Dees, Bob & Tom, Rick & Bubba, Bubba the Love Sponge, and a bunch of more local / regional radio & TV personalities who fall into the same category. A few of them (Rush and BTLS come to mind) actually are the people you see and hear via the box with sound coming out of it. The majority, however, have a carefully-cultivated persona which they turn on when they enter the studio, and then revert back to being a normal human being afterwards. From what I've seen of Jones, I'd bet you a dollar he falls into the latter category.
I disagree with the assertion that the president promoted a xenophobic/white nationalist agenda. Enforcement of existing laws to protect the citizenry is a legitimate responsibility of the executive branch. Our southern border towns are overrun with dangerous foreigners to the detriment of the rights and security of our own citizens.
The legislative branch sets the laws, for good or bad. Selective enforcement of law for the betterment of political allies is wrong no matter whether it is Obama or whoever.
Good thing there are far less children being detained separately from their parents now than there were during the Obama administration. Yellow journalism would have us believing it was a brand new crisis.
Either you are one of them or a Racist. It's insanity and there are a lot of stupid people out there that were brainwashed for most of their education.
I disagree with the assertion that the president promoted a xenophobic/white nationalist agenda.
Welcome to 2018. If you are not 100% anti-white-male, you are a member of the KKK. Social pressure has collapsed the political spectrum to a binary level.
Welcome to 2018. If you are not 100% anti-white-male, you are a member of the KKK. Social pressure has collapsed the political spectrum to a binary level.
It sounds like you are all agreeing that we are seeing a less radical version of George Orwell's prophetic book 1984 but are debating back and forth on what aspects are deviating from the book.
My take on the big picture is that it parallels the Roman practice of putting on free entertainment for the masses where undesirables (animals, criminals, Jews, non-Romans, etc.) are tossed in a pit to battle to the death.
This has the long term result of minimizing the humanity and denying the equality of anybody tossed into the pit.
We seem to practice the same technique in modern times via the media dog and pony show.
I wonder if anyone has ever done a study in which they take a broad sampling of people who fit some agreed-upon definition* of an extreme nut-job, and then analyze their political leanings to see if there's a strong statistical bias.
* = It'd be hard to be totally objective here, but I'd include anyone who:
Denies near-universally-accepted truths (We landed on the moon, the earth is roughly spherical, CO2 causes climate change, the holocaust happened, etc)
Strongly believes in things which are either conclusively disproved or, if not technically disprovable, have never been credibly observed. (Anti-vaxers, homeopathy, alien abduction, bigfoot, reliable Volkswagens, ghosts, parapsychology, etc.)
Claims that secret cabals are broadly responsible for the operation of the US government, or that of any other first-world nation.
Formulates extremely complex theories to justify their suspicions, when simpler explanations, which happen to be correct, do not. (eg: 9/11 was an inside job, the CIA killed JFK, etc.)
Blames specific "other" groups for all of their (or the nation's, or the world's) problems. (Jews / Muslims / Negroes / Mexicans / white men / the patriarchy / etc.)
There's that, but as a media insider I can also tell you that people just plain enjoy controversy.
I mean, take Jerry Springer / Maury Povich / Steve Wilkos. These shows draw pretty good numbers, and yet I'd posit that the majority of viewers don't actually agree / sympathize with the transsexual **** hooker who got her brother's fiancee pregnant the night before their wedding. Rather, people like to watch crazy **** happen. It's the same phenomenon which drove Howard Stern's career. And while I'm sure that there is some percentage of the audience who consider Alex Jones to be some kind of prophet (these would be the ones who actually call the show and get themselves on the air), I'd wager that a much larger number are listening just to see what crazy **** he'll come up with next.
And, while I've never worked with Jones, I have worked with Jerry Springer, Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Dees, Bob & Tom, Rick & Bubba, Bubba the Love Sponge, and a bunch of more local / regional radio & TV personalities who fall into the same category. A few of them (Rush and BTLS come to mind) actually are the people you see and hear via the box with sound coming out of it. The majority, however, have a carefully-cultivated persona which they turn on when they enter the studio, and then revert back to being a normal human being afterwards. From what I've seen of Jones, I'd bet you a dollar he falls into the latter category.
Agreed.
But regarding Jones, he admitted as much in court years ago.
Just an observation: I am presently in Peru and there are a lot of people that have run here from Venezuela. There is a major crisis of those refugees who have decided not to work because "They work me hard and want me to work 8~10 hours" They will jump on a minibus, refuse to pay for their rides and beat the hell out of the toll collector because "We are refugees"
It seems that when socialism first took hold in Venezuela, the work day was short, the pay was sufficient to live and many joined the ranks of the complacent. When it all collapsed and they needed to flee, they expected to have the same quality of life that socialism gave them in the beginning in their home country, before they ran out of other peoples money.
08-10-2018, 02:47 PM
0
