Free Press/Fake Press

[David.]

I'd say that is a good thing.

[/QUOTE]
Why?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Why?

Because i think the bounds of reasonable debate are larger tuan the comparatively narrow gap between 90's-era moderate Republicans and Democrats.

 

[David.]

Idk. I'm of the opinion that aligning consistently with one party more consistently on every issue seems less natural than being in the middle.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Can you think of any legislation that would give a fair and balanced view and restrict propagation we see now or do you feel the free market of information will sort itself out?

Yes. Ban all government money that goes to anyone involved with a media company, including contracts that go to parent companies that own media outlets. (Ex. GE, with billions in defense contracts, owns NBC, Time Warner, with billions in their own government contracts, owns CNN, Disney, which actually contracted to make WWII propaganda for the U.S. government, owns ABC.) If the government isn't putting money in their pockets and they are forced to compete in the market on quality of journalism, you will have more accurate information out there. In other words, a free market would sort itself out, so let's have one.

 

[David.]

Yes. Ban all government money that goes to anyone involved with a media company, including contracts that go to parent companies that own media outlets. (Ex. GE, with billions in defense contracts, owns NBC, Time Warner, with billions in their own government contracts, owns CNN, Disney, which actually contracted to make WWII propaganda for the U.S. government, owns ABC.) If the government isn't putting money in their pockets and they are forced to compete in the market on quality of journalism, you will have more accurate information out there. In other words, a free market would sort itself out, so let's have one.

Will never happen, and there's ways around doing it blatantly

 

[gourimoko]

Idk. I'm of the opinion that aligning consistently with one party more consistently on every issue seems less natural than being in the middle.

Be mindful of drawing false equivalence...

At certain points in history, certain political parties just get it right and others don't. Sure there are things that both parties fuck up, but, as I've always said, certain ideological positions can be demonstrably and provably wrong. Climate change stands out; education stands out; funding for science stands out.

I've always said that I would have a rational debate with anyone that wants to regarding the veracity of the Republican platform compared to that of the Democrats. But in this day and age of post-truth rhetoric trumping reason and rationality, it becomes an exercise in futility.

Nonetheless, I'd argue that you should be weary if your first instinct is to split the baby down the middle assuming that's the most likely solution to be true. It usually isn't.

 

[David.]

Be mindful of drawing false equivalence...

At certain points in history, certain political parties just get it right and others don't. Sure there are things that both parties fuck up, but, I would have a rational debate with anyone that wants to regarding the veracity of the Republican platform compared to that of the Democrats.

Why do you think voters are becoming more and more aligned with one ideology over the other?

I think I still have the tab open somewhere.. but that trend has developed over the last 20 years pretty smoothly. It doesn't look like it has to do with any particular president.

I'm not debating either is better in this post, I'm more interested in the polarization and the variables

 

[gourimoko]

Why do you think voters are becoming more and more aligned with one ideology over the other?

Voters, historically, are becoming more liberal.

This has to do with a few factors but the largest three are:

1) A decrease in the normative class' share of the overall population and an increase in minority share;
2) The reduction of relevance to evangelicalism as a motivating political factor;
3) A new baby boom in the form of millennials who are, by and large, associated with liberal ideologies;
4) The normalization of certain values that form an ideological bedrock so to speak that pushes/keeps particular voters within the liberal ideological camp; i.e., LGBT rights, minority rights, feminist causes.

I think I still have the tab open somewhere.. but that trend has developed over the last 20 years pretty smoothly. It doesn't look like it has to do with any particular president.

I'm not sure why we would attempt to correlate who is President with voter ideology? Liberals voted for Reagan twice.

 

[gourimoko]

I'm not debating either is better in this post, I'm more interested in the polarization and the variables

People are becoming more polarized because the places where they derive their information are becoming more polarized, parties are choosing polarization, obstructionism, and intransigence over cooperation and governance.

The variables in play are complex and it to keep it concise it would depend on what aspect of the electorate you're looking at.

 

[David.]

Voters, historically, are becoming more liberal.

This has to do with a few factors but the largest three are:

1) A decrease in the normative class' share of the overall population and an increase in minority share;
2) The reduction of relevance to evangelicalism as a motivating political factor;
3) A new baby boom in the form of millennials who are, by and large, associated with liberal ideologies;
4) The normalization of certain values that form an ideological bedrock so to speak that pushes/keeps particular voters within the liberal ideological camp; i.e., LGBT rights, minority rights, feminist causes.



I'm not sure why we would attempt to correlate who is President with voter ideology? Liberals voted for Reagan twice.

I'm not sure why we would attempt to correlate who is President with voter ideology? Liberals voted for Reagan twice.

You are responding to a response to this:

"At certain points in history, certain political parties just get it right and others don't. Sure there are things that both parties fuck up, but, I would have a rational debate with anyone that wants to regarding the veracity of the Republican platform compared to that of the Democrats."



The overreach of socially progressive movements have absolutely turned some moderates away.

I'd argue the same for false equivalence regarding WHY there are more liberal voters. I'm pretty sure we both know each others positions as to why.

Rather than opening that can of worms, there is a lot of info here vv


Interested in what you think. Shows (amongst other things) the proportion of consistently liberal and constantly rep switches over the last 20, but polarization is growing in both directions.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-1-growing-ideological-consistency/

 

[gourimoko]

The overreach of socially progressive movements have absolutely turned some moderates away.

While there is surely true to a very limited extent, there's almost no evidence of this being the case to a significant degree. Believe me, I've heard this before, but, anyone turned away by progressivism wasn't a liberal to begin with... Essentially, there are always neoreactionaries, this isn't a new phenomena; yet, invariably, reactionary movements always consider themselves new phenomena.

I'd argue the same for false equivalence regarding WHY there are more liberal voters. I'm pretty sure we both know each others positions as to why.

I have no idea what you mean by this?

I actually try not to assume I know what you or anyone else thinks; doing so can short-circuit dialogue and discourse with false and almost assuredly incomplete (thus inaccurate) information.

Rather than opening that can of worms, there is a lot of info here vv

What can of worms? I'm really not sure I know what you mean?

Interested in what you think. Shows (amongst other things) the proportion of consistently liberal and constantly rep switches over the last 20, but polarization is growing in both directions.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-1-growing-ideological-consistency/

I think this coincides with my previous post, and I generally agree with the conclusions here. I would also point out that this kind of study doesn't really explain the "why" rather than the "how" of the issue. I think the why might be just as important, particularly given the problems we're facing with access to valid information and political discussion.

 

[David.]

While there is surely true to a very limited extent, there's almost no evidence of this being the case to a significant degree. Believe me, I've heard this before, but, anyone turned away by progressivism wasn't a liberal to begin with... Essentially, there are always neoreactionaries, this isn't a new phenomena; yet, invariably, reactionary movements always consider themselves new phenomena.



I have no idea what you mean by this?

I actually try not to assume I know what you or anyone else thinks; doing so can short-circuit dialogue and discourse with false and almost assuredly incomplete (thus inaccurate) information.



What can of worms? I'm really not sure I know what you mean?



I think this coincides with my previous post, and I generally agree with the conclusions here. I would also point out that this kind of study doesn't really explain the "why" rather than the "how" of the issue. I think the why might be just as important, particularly given the problems we're facing with access to valid information and political discussion.

I alluded to why I thought young people were identifying as liberals a little further upthread. There's been more mainstream media from the daily show, mtv, all media outlets outside of fox news, celebrities, teen Vogue, universities, etc. Influencing the impressionable at a higher rate than the right possibly could given their resources. It's likely why trump is pulling brietbart up by the bootstraps.

I generally do think, that the left is more idealist and the right is more realist, in certain aspects. Who wouldn't get behind the idea that "everyone should be treated equal"? I'm for that idea too.. but one party is addressing it in a way that seems to be somewhat aesthetic, the other more pragmatic. I feel the left uses it in an inflammatory way, to garner votes from the young.

We both know about Lyndon Johnson and who he thought he'd have voting for 200 years by putting something into place. I'm aware of the possibility that he had the right pitch to sell to the right people in that situation, but it makes me wonder, and I'm not one that is going to trust our government on their statements or intentions.

As far as the significance of the over each of progressive movements turning people , do you have a study?

I actually think "progressive" in the traditional sense has been abandoned by what is considered progressive at this moment.

It's the anti anti circle jerk.. progressive movements like battling sexism can actually become unfairly sexist. Then they are the problem.

Traditionally, I am a progressive. I'm pushed away by what's developed. There are tweets about wishing for a white genocide for Christmas. There's a teacher calling voting for a candidate they don't agree with an act of terrorism, and asking any child who supported someone they did to stand up and identify themselves.

That's fucking nuts bro.

Extreme examples? Sure. I'm confident that in the spectrum of things, they are representative of who has power and what their beliefs are.

My ACCOUNTING professor gave an outraged, misinformed lecture on the wage gap. Last place you should expect to hear that, no?

To assume I was never a liberal in the first place is what you said you wouldn't do a post prior, you don't assume because it cuts conversation short. I'm a moderate, and was pushed away primarily because people want my race dead, or I can't see mainstream media blaming me for being a white male for a litany of issues. How can I get behind that ideology?

It's extreme, it's racist, is sexist, and it's not the kind of progressive movement I'm going to get behind. No, I don't ever want to vote for a party if that many "progressives" will have the power of media, government, and the sense of "being right" in their corner.

I'm an independent. Haven't finished fully going over each ideologys position on each issue w ENOUGH information, but I'll tell you right now, nuts to bolts, I'd be shocked as hell if I went down the line and put a check mark in every box for one party or the other.

^^I think this is the way you form your opinions. Knowledge and life experience. Being a lib looks great on paper. Millenials are subject to going off what looks good on paper rather than having a significant amount of life experience and knowledge about all the issues, their context, and how everything works.

The fact thatmore and more people are doing just that is a problem.

I agree with "why" being as important as "how" in those studies.. if I was to guess, it would be the media and how we communicate politics with each other that drive everyone further apart.

 

[gourimoko]

I alluded to why I thought young people were identifying as liberals a little further upthread. There's been more mainstream media from the daily show, mtv, all media outlets outside of fox news, celebrities, teen Vogue, universities, etc. Influencing the impressionable at a higher rate than the right possibly could given their resources. It's likely why trump is pulling brietbart up by the bootstraps.

Well, I would point out a few things here:

First, it seems you're calling media outlets "mainstream" that, I don't think are. I would never call The Daily Show the "Mainstream Media." The Daily Show practically invented the modern form of alternative news media.

Regarding Teen Vogue, or MTV, I'm not sure about either, dunno really what's on either; but wouldn't call them the MSM either.

Celebrities are people, they're voters... they aren't outlets, they use outlets.

Universities are not media outlets; they're places for learning. Universities trend strongly liberal, and have for hundreds of years because they are places of education, thought, rationality, and reason. This is to say, again doing away with false equivalence for just a moment, that the more educated a person is, the more liberal they are likely to be. Intellectuals, scholars, and learned people are generally those found within liberal circles; even if those liberal circles are ideologically radicalized. I'm not saying what is right or wrong here, just, pointing out what has historically been the case.

This gets us to Fox News... Fox News is the opposite of what you'll find at a university. Fox News is truly an echochamber of propaganda, ignorance, and enforced stupidity. But the Fox News model is not original; Clear Channel started this decades ago, buying up conservative talk radio stations/shows and filling the AM airwaves with right wing propaganda.

So when you frame it in the manner that you have, I would only point out that you're only describing one small facet of a much larger reality. There are tens of millions of people who watch Fox; and another set of tens of millions of people who listen to right wing talk radio; and another set of tens of millions of people who read shit like Brietbart.

Is it equivalent to going to a university? No. Why? Because there is a difference between propaganda and reason, between a lie and the truth; between being told what to think and how to think.

Moreover, Dave, there is no vast left-wing conspiracy that is trying to win over the hearts and minds of impressionable youths in order to bring about some glorious communist uprising..

In less facetious terms, you're describing the manifestation of liberalism in the exact places liberalism tends to manifest; within the arts, media, entertainment, academia, and the sciences. This shouldn't be unexpected. It's like being surprised finding Bedouins near an oasis.

I generally do think, that the left is more idealist and the right is more realist, in certain aspects.

I'm glad you offered this; and I've heard it from folks getting into politics many times. But I could not disagree more.

Who wouldn't get behind the idea that "everyone should be treated equal"? I'm for that idea too.. but one party is addressing it in a way that seems to be somewhat aesthetic, the other more pragmatic. I feel the left uses it in an inflammatory way, to garner votes from the young.

Egalitarianism is more than just an idea, it's quite literally the basis for a free society.

Furthermore, I'm not sure what you mean when you say conservatives are more "pragmatic" when it comes to equal rights issues; that seems counterfactual, to say the least. Conservatives (I'm not referring to Republicans/Democrats), have historically simply been outright opposed to equal rights measures in this country for well over two centuries. So to call this pragmatism, when it often means outright opposition ultimately leading to discrimination, I find, quite hard to understand.

In addition, nothing should be "inflammatory" about equal rights; and why wouldn't you point to such differentiation in an effort to garner votes?? Isn't that what campaigning is supposed to be about? To identify the differences between your party and theirs?

We both know about Lyndon Johnson and who he thought he'd have voting for 200 years by putting something into place. I'm aware of the possibility that he had the right pitch to sell to the right people in that situation, but it makes me wonder, and I'm not one that is going to trust our government on their statements or intentions.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The Great Society and Lyndon Johnson moved forward the Civil Rights Act and that cost the Democrats the South for the past 50 years. Furthermore, it is not as though Dixiecrats and right-wing Goldwater Republicans during this era did themselves any favors with African-Americans... To argue that the Civil Rights Act was just an attempt to get votes is ... an incorrect assessment of history.

As far as the significance of the over each of progressive movements turning people , do you have a study?

A study? On what specifically? The effect of progressivism causing neoreactionary opinions to form? I don't think any such study has been done.. But that's kind of the point I just made -- there is literally no evidence of this reactionary anti-progressive movement outside of the realm of people who are either now, or have historically been, anti-progressive..

I can point to several examples of what I mean by this if you like?

I actually think "progressive" in the traditional sense has been abandoned by what is considered progressive at this moment.

In what way?

To be clear; progressivism in the modern context refers to an egalitarian worldview that supports the continual social progress of civilization through rational thought, education, justice, equality, freedom and opportunity. Progressives have, for the past century in this country, embraced environmentalism as well.

So.. while there have been some stark changes between early 20th century progressivism and that which we see today; the general concepts are not in any way dissimilar.

It's the anti anti circle jerk.. progressive movements like battling sexism can actually become unfairly sexist. Then they are the problem.

Is this really a thing though? Sexist anti-sexist movements? I mean, we've seen the memes of some radical feminist, but do you not recognize that these kinds of folks have existed since the universal suffrage movement?

Just as anti-racist movements can have racists.

Or anti-corruption movements can have corrupt people...

The existence of bad people does not sour an entire movement; nor does the pointing out that bad people exist in the world mean that we cannot rationally take on ethical arguments pertaining to issues of equality and social justice on various topics like race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Traditionally, I am a progressive. I'm pushed away by what's developed.

How are you a progressive, Dave?

I've never known you to ever say anything that would remotely sound progressive?

We've had many conversations about things kinds of topics, and you've never once struck me as either a liberal or a progressive in the slightest; in fact, did you not say you've only recently gotten into politics?

There are tweets about wishing for a white genocide for Christmas.

The professor you're referring to was making a joke about the "White Genocide" nonsense that's floating around on the internet -- he was not actually wishing for a White Genocide, and has said as much.

There's a teacher calling voting for a candidate they don't agree with an act of terrorism, and asking any child who supported someone they did to stand up and identify themselves.

Why on Earth would this be meaningful to you in any way shape or form?

Why would a dumbass existing somewhere in the aether literally affect your worldview or ideological position?

How does this teacher change the premises or empirical data of any argument that we might have regarding the various positions supported by progressives juxtaposed next to arguments supported by conservatives?

Think about what you're saying here: you're literally defining yourself as a reactionary... the very group you're saying is being lost due to progressives appeal to social progress (which, is the basis of the progressive movement).

That's fucking nuts bro.

Bro, crazy people exist. Crazy teachers exist.. I ought to know, I've had my share of experiences with crazy ass (pedo) teachers... But how does this person being crazy, in any way, shape your world view? How is that rational on your part?

Extreme examples? Sure. I'm confident that in the spectrum of things, they are representative of who has power and what their beliefs are.

You're confident that these crazy people are representative of who has the power? How have you come to this conclusion? I've worked in politics my entire adult life, I would put to you that I think you're pretty far from the truth...

Most folks in politics are nothing like the people you describe; most aren't radicals; and most are doing what they can to move forward their careers. I have no idea why you would think most people in politics are like a crazy teacher berating children or someone asking for "White Genocide?" I'm not sure what gave you this idea -- but it's pretty far from reality.

My ACCOUNTING professor gave an outraged, misinformed lecture on the wage gap. Last place you should expect to hear that, no?

Why shouldn't an accounting professor talk about the wage gap? Is that inappropriate? It's a college campus.... Are you really suggesting that your classroom be a safe space for accounting topics only?

And if your professor was misinformed, did you let him know? Did you try to debate the topic with him in private? I used to LOVE debating with my professors over ideological or political differences, at least, those that were open to such conversations (some weren't) -- hell, I learned how to debate (really debate) in college, particularly the fundamentals of truly structured logical and critical reasoning.

To assume I was never a liberal in the first place is what you said you wouldn't do a post prior, you don't assume because it cuts conversation short. I'm a moderate,

No, I make no assumptions -- I'm asking..

But, you've now just said you're a moderate. A moment ago you said you were a progressive. Those two things are rarely if ever compatible. Centrist/moderates != progressives...

and was pushed away primarily because people want my race dead,

You think progressives who, are by and large (massively) White want White people dead? You can't be serious bro, c'mon.... You're really buying this "White Genocide" nonsense?

or I can't see mainstream media blaming me for being a white male for a litany of issues. How can I get behind that ideology?

What ideology?

Dave you haven't said anything about progressivism at all; you've talked about a crazy teacher, a crazy professor, and your accounting instructor... you've described people -- not an ideology..

You then tell me that someone wants your "race" to die; and then you're telling me that you've been personally blamed for all the ills of the world...

None of those things are accurate depictions of reality, let alone progressivism. Progressives don't blame YOU individually for shit... You're Dave K, who the fuck is blaming you for anything???

It's extreme, it's racist, is sexist, and it's not the kind of progressive movement I'm going to get behind.

It's actually none of those things... you may or may not get behind it, but I've been a progressive for quite some time and I'm neither an extremist, a racist, or a sexist. I have no idea how you've come to this conclusion but, I'd be happy to guide you back out of it.

No, I don't ever want to vote for a party if that many "progressives" will have the power of media, government, and the sense of "being right" in their corner.

Again, you're not talking about progressivism, you're talking about a handful of people you've read about or interacted with...

I'm an independent.

Me too!

Haven't finished fully going over each ideologys position on each issue w ENOUGH information, but I'll tell you right now, nuts to bolts, I'd be shocked as hell if I went down the line and put a check mark in every box for one party or the other.

I'd be shocked too.. I'm not a Democrat any longer and when I was a Democrat there were many many many issues I didn't agree with.

But, we were talking about progressivism; not the Democratic Party, right? Those two things are very very different.

^^I think this is the way you form your opinions. Knowledge and life experience. Being a lib looks great on paper. Millenials are subject to going off what looks good on paper rather than having a significant amount of life experience and knowledge about all the issues, their context, and how everything works.

The fact thatmore and more people are doing just that is a problem.

Again, I'm not sure how you come to these conclusions... Being a "lib" looks great on paper? What paper? Who is reading this paper?

But more importantly Dave, the way you should form your opinions is through rational thought.

In this conversation about progressivism, we haven't discussed progressivism at all... Isn't that strange to you?

I agree with "why" being as important as "how" in those studies.. if I was to guess, it would be the media and how we communicate politics with each other that drive everyone further apart.

Or that some folks just are not willing or able to communicate to themselves... There is a very large segment of the population that is uneducated, uninformed, and are being continually misinformed. They trust the wrong people to do their thinking for them, and then go out and participate in the democratic institutions in this country without really understanding what it is they're voting for or against.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I alluded to why I thought young people were identifying as liberals a little further upthread. There's been more mainstream media from the daily show, mtv, all media outlets outside of fox news, celebrities, teen Vogue, universities, etc. Influencing the impressionable at a higher rate than the right possibly could given their resources. It's likely why trump is pulling brietbart up by the bootstraps.

I think this is largely correct, but I also think it omits perhaps the primary cause of liberalism among the young -- a (generally) very liberal academic community (at least in the social science disciplines that matter in terms of shaping political beliefs) that gets those kids for at least 4 critical years, and essentially indoctrinates them. Many of those academics truly believe that conservative views are not just wrong, but illegitimate. Add that influence to the peer pressure that still exists in colleges, and you've got your liberal pipeline.

I generally do think, that the left is more idealist and the right is more realist, in certain aspects. Who wouldn't get behind the idea that "everyone should be treated equal"? I'm for that idea too.. but one party is addressing it in a way that seems to be somewhat aesthetic, the other more pragmatic.

That type of argument "what do you have against everyone being treated equally" is applied by the left to a great many things: "what do you have against everyone having good food? What do you have against everyone having good housing? What do you have against everyone being healthy?" Or alternatively, "why do you want people to starve/be homeless/be sick?"

My initial response to that always is "well, we were booted out of the place where all that stuff was provided to us without effort by God, so we have to meet those needs through our own efforts now." And that's what makes it complicated.

 

[AZ_]