Fox News Tries to Bash Atheist and Agnostics

[Jeremy Taylor]

I do not have a list of examples as I do for the BBC, though I have seen the bias with my own eyes. And, indeed, CNN has the same ethos as the BBC, which is undoubtedly left-liberal. But a few examples that do spring to mind are Anderson Cooper, who is one of the less left-liberal hosts, always having a panel to discuss SSM events that only included an advocate for SSM and the left-wing lawyer Toobin (one might mention why one of their main legal analysts is a died-in-the-wool, journalist leftist). Another is their complete obsession with identity politics. They even outstrip the BBC in this.

That last bit you have right but they have a long way to go. Look at where our country was prior to Reagan. We had republicans pushing for single payer health care. Reagan would be too liberal for this current batch of republicans. Bernie is pulling us back to the left, but he has a long row to hoe.

You may even be right about single payer, but I don't think so. The fiscal case is much easier to make for single payer than the monster we are now stuck with. The only people he had to convince, at the time, were the marginally blue democrats from the south as the republicans stood unified against anything Obama did even then. I think the original hope may have been that he could make the plan bi-partisan by going with a more conservative plan, but it was clear 20 minutes in that this was not going to happen.

I'm not sure I believe that about Reagan. I think it was Murray Rothbard who pointed out the Republicans of 1955 would have been considered reactionaries in 2000.

Anyway, is not the point that it would have been a huge gamble with the electorate to have such a power grab by the federal government? It hasn't gone down that well as it is. Americans are, luckily for them, more adverse to centralism and statism than Europeans.

 

[Underhill]

I do not have a list of examples as I do for the BBC, though I have seen the bias with my own eyes. And, indeed, CNN has the same ethos as the BBC, which is undoubtedly left-liberal. But a few examples that do spring to mind are Anderson Cooper, who is one of the less left-liberal hosts, always having a panel to discuss SSM events that only included an advocate for SSM and the left-wing lawyer Toobin (one might mention why one of their main legal analysts is a died-in-the-wool, journalist leftist). Another is their complete obsession with identity politics. They even outstrip the BBC in this.


I'm not sure I believe that about Reagan. I think it was Murray Rothbard who pointed out the Republicans of 1955 would have been considered reactionaries in 2000.

Anyway, is not the point that it would have been a huge gamble with the electorate to have such a power grab by the federal government? It hasn't gone down that well as it is. Americans are, luckily for them, more adverse to centralism and statism than Europeans.

That's just it. The government hasn't grabbed anything. This plan is really governed by insurance companies. We have a token amount of control in the form of the exchanges, but the cost, all the way down the line, are completely out of the hands of the government. You cannot cut cost if you do not have control.

This is why sensible people don't like Obamacare. The primary complaints of the old system were two fold. Insurance cost to much and too many people aren't covered. Obama care helped with the latter in part, but did nothing about the former.

Identity politics is not a liberal thing.

Anderson Cooper is not what I am talking about. I am talking about news. Cooper is a panel discussion show (and there are a dozen of them of every ilk). Might as well compare him to Palin over at Fox News. Cooper is also a moderate. About as middle the road as they come in the panel show crowd.

 

[philbo]

What you are talking about is a reaction to the left. I could happily never hear terms like trigger warnings ever again. I only am forced to pay attention to them because of the left.

Maybe you ought to find out what trigger warnings are before you decry them? Just be thankful you don't need them, and try to recognize that while the number of people affected is fairly small in percentage terms, they can be actually quite important for that number of people.

..but blaming "the left" for them being broadcast is facile

I kept saying I had in another thread just recently, and didn't wish to bore you. From that other thread:

er.. you're using the BBC's (rather mild) europhilia as an example of left wing bias? Sorry to tell you this, pal, but there are Europhile and Europhobe tendencies on both left and right wing, so that means pretty much nothing.

The biggest problem in determining BBC bias is those shouting loudest are the (very) right-wing voices from media magnates who can't abide the BBC as they see it as unfair competition - the Mail, Telegraph, anything owned by Murdoch.. put together, they make up a sizeable majority of the UK media, and they're all owned by people who want to see the end of the BBC. But they realize that this isn't a popular position with the general public, so they just write long opinion pieces about how biased, wasteful and generally crap the BBC is, to try and turn public opinion against.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

That's just it. The government hasn't grabbed anything. This plan is really governed by insurance companies. We have a token amount of control in the form of the exchanges, but the cost, all the way down the line, are completely out of the hands of the government. You cannot cut cost if you do not have control.

This is why sensible people don't like Obamacare. The primary complaints of the old system were two fold. Insurance cost to much and too many people aren't covered. Obama care helped with the latter in part, but did nothing about the former.

Well, universal healthcare like the NHS has great problems. It costs a lot. It is simply that the state absorbs the cost and the average person doesn't notice. It tends to inefficient and service has to be rationed. Americans would be surprised at the sort of waiting lists you get on the NHS. But that is perhaps a different discussion. My point is I don't think the progressive wing of the Democratic - including Obama - is much different to the UK Labourites.

Identity politics is not a liberal thing.

Obsession with racialism, sexism, etc., generally is. The right is not really as obsessed with it. I don't think you will find much obsession at all on the right, but if you wish to claim there is, I think you'll find it is simply a reaction to the left, and not anything innate.

Anderson Cooper is not what I am talking about. I am talking about news. Cooper is a panel discussion show (and there are a dozen of them of every ilk). Might as well compare him to Palin over at Fox News. Cooper is also a moderate. About as middle the road as they come in the panel show crowd.

Cooper show is moderate, but he leans to the left still. I'm not sure why you rule out such shows from examples of bias.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Maybe you ought to find out what trigger warnings are before you decry them? Just be thankful you don't need them, and try to recognize that while the number of people affected is fairly small in percentage terms, they can be actually quite important for that number of people.

..but blaming "the left" for them being broadcast is facile

Trigger warnings are idiocy. They are an example of the obsession with identity politics and just plain stupidity of the modern left. Most grown ups can go about their lives without being warned about anything at all confrontational or contrary to politically correct tastes.

er.. you're using the BBC's (rather mild) europhilia as an example of left wing bias? Sorry to tell you this, pal, but there are Europhile and Europhobe tendencies on both left and right wing, so that means pretty much nothing.

I would say the BBC is moderately Europhile. Not allowing Eurosceptics much coverage for eleven years, by their own admission, is hardly mild, and neither is the constant twisting of reports, getting on Europhiles, including Tory Europhiles like Howe and Heseltine, etc. They have to have a soft bias, though, which moderates their views, as they are technically supposed to be impartial. I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't mention Europhilism in isolation, so I was not just relying on it. But, yes, much of the left in modern Britain is Europhile. Much of the right is Eurosceptic. The old fashioned Eurosceptic left is dying out, and the Eurosceptics on the rights tend to be on the centre-right.

The biggest problem in determining BBC bias is those shouting loudest are the (very) right-wing voices from media magnates who can't abide the BBC as they see it as unfair competition - the Mail, Telegraph, anything owned by Murdoch.. put together, they make up a sizeable majority of the UK media, and they're all owned by people who want to see the end of the BBC. But they realize that this isn't a popular position with the general public, so they just write long opinion pieces about how biased, wasteful and generally crap the BBC is, to try and turn public opinion against.

This hardly seems like a problem if you are willing to pay attention and try to work out the bias for yourself. I gave many examples. I can give more.

 

[philbo]

Trigger warnings are idiocy. They are an example of the obsession with identity politics and just plain stupidity of the modern left. Most grown ups can go about their lives without being warned about anything at all confrontational or contrary to politically correct tastes.

I guess a lot depends on your experience: I'm guessing you've never had the experience of someone flip when something they couldn't handle came on the TV. Would it make you feel better about it if the rationale behind their broadcast was indemnity insurers trying to avoid the broadcaster being sued for causing these attacks? After all, you say "most grown ups", which means you concede there are those who can't. And it has nothing to do with "politically correct tastes" - that's just you conflating things you don't like.

I would say the BBC is moderately Europhile. Not allowing Eurosceptics much coverage for eleven years, by their own admission, is hardly mild, and neither is the constant twisting of reports, getting on Europhiles, including Tory Europhiles like Howe and Heseltine, etc. They have to have a soft bias, though, which moderates their views, as they are technically supposed to be impartial. I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't mention Europhilism in isolation, so I was not just relying on it. But, yes, much of the left in modern Britain is Europhile. Much of the right is Eurosceptic. The old fashioned Eurosceptic left is dying out, and the Eurosceptics on the rights tend to be on the centre-right.

Odd, then, that I can think of hard left Eurosceptics, fairly moderately left wing ones, centre-right ones and swivel-eyed loony right ones. And ditto Europhiles (though offhand I can't think of any of the swivel-eyed brigade being that pro-Europe). It really isn't a left/right issue, which is why using it as an example of the BBC's "left wing bias" doesn't work.

This hardly seems like a problem if you are willing to pay attention and try to work out the bias for yourself. I gave many examples. I can give more.

On the contrary, it *is* the problem: if nearly all the claims of BBC bias come from the right wing media, the majority of complaints heard will be that the BBC is "too left wing" and that sets a narrative that many people take on board without thinking. Your "if you are willing to pay attention and work out the bias" works fine for some, but most people don't think that much. Pulling quote-mined excerpts from "biasedbbc" rather emphasises this.

The BBC gets it about as right as it can, given that it's run by people and they're not perfect.

Well, universal healthcare like the NHS has great problems. It costs a lot.

You are aware that the NHS per capita costs a tiny fraction of what the US insurance-based system costs? In that it costs less per capita than just the medicare bill over there. Yes, it costs a lot, but it costs a heck of a lot less than any other way of providing the service.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I guess a lot depends on your experience: I'm guessing you've never had the experience of someone flip when something they couldn't handle came on the TV. Would it make you feel better about it if the rationale behind their broadcast was indemnity insurers trying to avoid the broadcaster being sued for causing these attacks? After all, you say "most grown ups", which means you concede there are those who can't. And it has nothing to do with "politically correct tastes" - that's just you conflating things you don't like.

Trigger warnings come out of identity politics. They are entirely associated with this sort of political correctness. They are idiocy, like microaggressions, no-platforms, and all the rest.

Odd, then, that I can think of hard left Eurosceptics, fairly moderately left wing ones, centre-right ones and swivel-eyed loony right ones. And ditto Europhiles (though offhand I can't think of any of the swivel-eyed brigade being that pro-Europe). It really isn't a left/right issue, which is why using it as an example of the BBC's "left wing bias" doesn't work.

Your argument here suffers from two obvious flaws. One is that I listed Europhilism alongside other areas of bias. So, your focus on it is out of context. The other fatal flaw is that trendy left-liberalism is Europhile and this is the BBC's kind of leftism. Those areas of bias I mentioned, amongst which I placed Europhilism, all match this sort of bias. Pointing out that some others - mostly insignificant minorities (I have never met a proper conservative who was Europhile) or in the past or left-leaning Tories - have been Europhile is obviously not a refutation of my point.

On the contrary, it *is* the problem: if nearly all the claims of BBC bias come from the right wing media, the majority of complaints heard will be that the BBC is "too left wing" and that sets a narrative that many people take on board without thinking. Your "if you are willing to pay attention and work out the bias" works fine for some, but most people don't think that much. Pulling quote-mined excerpts from "biasedbbc" rather emphasises this.

Are you saying the quotes are made up? Otherwise, to dismiss them because of the site they came from - which you haven't shown is dubious - is just fallacious. You also haven't responded to my earlier examples of bias - to which I can add indefinitely - except a silly point about Europhilism.

You are aware that the NHS per capita costs a tiny fraction of what the US insurance-based system costs? In that it costs less per capita than just the medicare bill over there. Yes, it costs a lot, but it costs a heck of a lot less than any other way of providing the service.

Proof? I may be wrong here, but that is my understanding. The wiki suggests the U. S. might have higher costs, but also has more care, better results, etc. There is also the case the U. S. has more chronic conditions, like obesity, I believe. And geographical issues Britain does not have.


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

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I guess a lot depends on your experience: I'm guessing you've never had the experience of someone flip when something they couldn't handle came on the TV.

I remember watching an episode of House, and it brought me to tears because as the character House was dealing with his pill addiction and doing really bad things because of his addiction, my brother was, at the same time, dealing with his pill addiction and doing really bad things because of his addiction. It was more of an issue with timing (the particular episode, I think the one where he drives his car into Cuddy's house) because it aired just a week or two after my brother really hurt me.

Trigger warnings come out of identity politics. They are entirely associated with this sort of political correctness. They are idiocy, like microaggressions, no-platforms, and all the rest.

They're no different than a video game rating that list what content the game contains, or a movie rating which list what content the movie contains, or a parental advisory sticker on music records or manga. Because parents who care about what their children take in may not want them to see graphic depictions of violence, it helps parents to keep such things away from their kids, and it helps those who are dealing with and sensitive to certain issues have a warning they are about to come up. For example, someone who is sensitive to a rape scene should probably be warned about the rape scene ahead of time, rather than reading it only to trigger a meltdown because of a past experience.

 

[leibowde84]

"I say what I mean. I don't speak in code. That's why I am a star and ace communicator." Limbaugh

"You shouldn't listen to us at all if you're looking for information. We don't take ourselves seriously on any level; we're just comedians." Colbert

Pretty much sums up the difference between them.

Epic retort.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

They're no different than a video game rating that list what content the game contains, or a movie rating which list what content the movie contains, or a parental advisory sticker on music records or manga. Because parents who care about what their children take in may not want them to see graphic depictions of violence, it helps parents to keep such things away from their kids, and it helps those who are dealing with and sensitive to certain issues have a warning they are about to come up. For example, someone who is sensitive to a rape scene should probably be warned about the rape scene ahead of time, rather than reading it only to trigger a meltdown because of a past experience.

Most people who are reading an article about rape, or listening to a lecture, can understand it might disturb those very sensitive. Trigger warnings are associated with identity politics:


http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Trigger_warning

Trigger warnings are customary in some feminist and other Safe spaces.

They are associated with the hypersensitivity, the political correctness, and the general navel-gazing stupidity of the radical left. It is, to use an old but good term, cant. Take a look at that link, I am almost certain it is not a parody, though I can't be sure:

There is no consensus on the 'best' way to word a trigger warning so that it accurately describes the potentially-triggering content without becoming a trigger itself. The phrase "trigger warning" may itself be triggering to some trauma survivors. People can also be triggered by warnings that include too much detail.

Oh that Peter Simple still lived, what fun he would have had with this canting prattle, though it almost defies satire in its self-parody, as is so common with today's left.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Epic retort.

I missed the post you replied to, but, yeah that one is good. Colbert never pretended to be serious or anything more than a gimmick (which is what really has me wondering if he'll be as funny on the Late Show). A ton of photo shopped images, being a comical *** while he's interviewing representatives, and the occasion where he'd end up laughing so hard he'd cover his mouth with his papers, which also really let his eyes beam and almost twinkle. Or being his own correspondent, or debate opponent, the intern he abused and humiliated, and going on about how bears are a major threat to America.

Most people who are reading an article about rape can understand it might disturb those very sensitive. Trigger warnings are associated with identity politics:

Such things aren't just in articles. In Hunter S. Thompson's Hell's Angels, for example, one of the chapters gives a rather graphic depiction of a rape scene. It's not like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas where his friend mentions that he raped a girl, but enough detail to let the reader know the poor girl was covered in semen from being gang raped, and that her husband even joined in. And, as I also mentioned, they are no different than things we already have.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Of course they're different. That is why they arose from the radical left. They are taking the sensible advertisement of what is going to occur in a film, especially to parents, and universalising it, so that all are hypersensitive, and especially, always keeping in mind certain groups for ultimately political reasons. In the end, the point is not to help those who have been raped, for example, so much as to constantly use such events for political reasons. This is how all these terms originate and are used - microagression, no-platform, etc. The real sharp end of them, even when there is some genuine concern expressed by those using them, is political.

The old phrase for this kind of thing is cant, or canting. The use of jargon for political purposes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Of course they're different.

How? Movies and video games list if they have graphic violence, drug usage, sexual content, the V-Chip displays the content of a TV show, and music records have a sticker on them says "explicit lyrics" if it applies. Applying such a system to literature is no different. And it's not just for those with sensitivities or parents filtering stuff out before letting their kids have it, it's also because some people don't like certain things in their entertainment. Is there really any harm done when you tell someone "hey, this movie has lots of violence in it" if you know that person does not like watching violent movies?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Firstly, it isn't just literature. It is lectures, articles, and all sorts of areas. That is why that link talked about safe zones. They are not just talking about rogue books. Why would the idea originate with radical left, then? Also, if you are reading a book, you should be able to work out whether or not it might offend or upset you. I enjoy ghost stories, and sometimes they can be startling or frightening, but I wouldn't dream of complaining that this wasn't advertised from the beginning.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The old phrase for this kind of thing is cant, or canting. The use of jargon for political purposes.

And just because you don't understand a word doesn't make it jargon. "Micro-aggression," for example, is not jargon but a term to describe actions that occur, without intention or knowledge, that are denigrating towards a person or group. Micro-aggressions are actions such as being surprised when you hear an black person who is articulate, referring to a woman as a sexualized term, or telling someone with a mental illness that it's just all in their head.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Firstly, it isn't just literature. It is lectures, articles, and all sorts of areas.

What is wrong with doing that, in any of those? I know a teacher who taught a class that covered content so disturbing and graphic that the teacher had students sign a paper saying they were told in advance about the content and were ok with seeing it. I see nothing wrong with that. However, I do see a problem with a teacher who knows the content may upset some and saying nothing about it.

Also, if you are reading a book, you should be able to work out whether or not it might offend or upset you.

With that comment, I'm going to assume you don't read much.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

And just because you don't understand a word doesn't make it jargon. "Micro-aggression," for example, is not jargon but a term to describe actions that occur, without intention or knowledge, that are denigrating towards a person or group. Micro-aggressions are actions such as being surprised when you hear an black person who is articulate, referring to a woman as a sexualized term, or telling someone with a mental illness that it's just all in their head.

What makes it jargon is that is contrary to reason and common sense and is meant to obscure truth whilst furthering a rhetorical and ideological agenda. Political prose, Orwell wrote, should be like a windowpane. Cant is meant to obscure. Microagression is obviously cant. It is meant to suggest that all people except select groups, are secretly bigoted and that they have to watch absolutely everything lest they inadvertently discriminate in even the most innocuous way. This is to ignore common sense - that we shouldn't, obviously, be so navel-gazing that we look for discrimination in absolutely everything - and to politicise all.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

What is wrong with doing that, in any of those? I know a teacher who taught a class that covered content so disturbing and graphic that the teacher had students sign a paper saying they were told in advance about the content and were ok with seeing it. I see nothing wrong with that. However, I do see a problem with a teacher who knows the content may upset some and saying nothing about it.

I have given you reasons. See post #135.

With that comment, I'm going to assume you don't read much.

I see you ignored my point about ghost stories.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What makes it jargon is that is contrary to reason and common sense and is meant to obscure truth whilst furthering a rhetorical and ideological agenda.

From the OED: Jargon:
Unintelligible or meaningless talk or writing; nonsense, gibberish. (Often a term of contempt for something the speaker does not understand.)
A barbarous, rude, or debased language or variety of speech; a ‘lingo’; used esp. of a hybrid speech arising from a mixture of languages. Also applied contemptuously to a language by one who does not understand it.
Applied contemptuously to any mode of speech abounding in unfamiliar terms, or peculiar to a particular set of persons, as the language of scholars or philosophers, the terminology of a science or art, or the cant of a class, sect, trade, or profession.
To utter jargon; to talk unintelligibly.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Exactly. Microaggressions is jargon because it is meant to be rhetoric and obscure, and hide its real motives and the truth.