The conservative media dreamland, for instance, ensconces its audience in an impregnable bubble -- you eat breakfast with the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, you drive to the office with right-wing radio, you flit between Breitbart and Drudge at work, you come home to Fox News. The ideas bouncing around in this world -- say, ideas about the Obama administration allegedly favoring blacks -- don't seem like propaganda to those inside the bubble.Mr. Sirota forgot Glenn Beck. Obviously, these pundits and media sources offer a particular narrative on the political landscape. I surely won't deny the coherency of the worldview presented, but does this ostensible "bubble" even exist? And in the free market of ideas, can fallacious ideas persist without intellectual sustenance provided by real world experience and the depressing trend of our civilization?
That last question surely runs both ways, with the potential to undermine both conservative and liberal ideals. Let's start with liberals. The main premise of liberalism is the rejection of "original sin" and not in merely a religious context, but the notion that our evolutionary construction is fatally weakened by man's institutions. In essence, it's a struggle for man's soul, an edifice either bestowed upon him by an outside force or one nurtured and forged by his life's experiences. By accepting the latter, liberals champion an idealistic view of man as an ultimately amorphous creature incipient in both cognition and behavior. The only requirement is money, and more money, and better schools, and teachers, yes more teachers, and another 50 years, OK 75, then you'll see, you'll see!
So while I spend loads of time bashing liberals, I do sympathize with their limitless idealism. Liberalism feels good because anyone can succeed. And this underpins its success; realist ideologies advocate fatalism and no one likes that. Paralleling liberal idealism, what phenomenon maintains these purported conservative falsehoods? Conservatism persists not due to xenophobia or misogyny, but rather because most people go to public school, avoid the "bad neighborhoods", and log onto Youtube for these illustrative examples.
But I would be remiss to ignore the potency of ensconced ideas. Conservatives may spend most of their times digesting "propaganda" (polls actually say otherwise), but they live in a country dominated by the liberal zeitgeist and its restrictions on acceptable ideas. So while Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity disseminate apparent lunacy, the liberal mindset pervades the rest of society, so much so that many "conservatives" have adopted the nomenclature. I can't count how many times some right-wing politician added a disclaimer prior to making some un-PC remark.
Finally, AlterNet is now hawking their intrepid expose on Digg, a popular social networking site:
There's been a tremendous uproar in the social media world since AlterNet published a story accusing a group of influential social media users of actively engaging in political "censorship" on Digg.com, the popular social news network." ABC News' article, by Ki Mae Heussner summarizes Olson's story: "A group of conservative members of the popular link-sharing website Digg may be deliberately suppressing liberal stories submitted to the site.Digg.com or almost all of the Ivy League's faculty? Not to mention CNN, NYT, Time, Newsweek, MSNBC, etc. (Note: Ivy League donors list is not limited to humanities professors, an additional variable that would evince bias even further. Rundown of Ivy League Politics.)
39 comments:
Well Alternet´s belief in rightwing media bias is largely due to how the left precieves itself. Leftwing politics are largely based on the idea that the left represent underdogs in society. The idea that any institution with real power can have a leftwing bias contridicts their world view. The left in order to compensate for the fact that liberals now control powerful institutions like academia and tranditional media, they will get hysterical over any example of rightwing influence. The truth as the left is still able to maintain or increase power, liberals will become more hysterical about rightwing influence. The left is fueled on the desire to be society´s perpetual victims. This is the fundiemental flaw of leftwing politics. There is no end to it, since inorder to be perpetual victims you need perpetual revolution. Even if America became a socialist utopia overnight, the left would simply create a conspiracy about an all powerful group of white males. The reason why they are screaming racist at the tea party people is because they can not accept the fact that they have power now. Liberals get secret boners at the idea that Sarah Palin or any Republican would be president, since they would get to feel like geniue losers again. Basically liberals do not like to win, and need to find some way to lose.
Whatever the folks over at AlterNet are seeing, it's not reality. And if liberals secretly like to lose, I'll be doing them a big favor this November...
Tschafer
The conservative media dreamland, for instance, ensconces its audience in an impregnable bubble -- you eat breakfast with the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, you drive to the office with right-wing radio, you flit between Breitbart and Drudge at work, you come home to Fox News. The ideas bouncing around in this world -- say, ideas about the Obama administration allegedly favoring blacks -- don't seem like propaganda to those inside the bubble.
The liberal media dreamland, for instance, ensconces its audience in an impregnable bubble -- you eat breakfast with the New York Times' editorial page, you drive to the office with NPR, you flit between HuffPo and Daily Kos at work, you come home to MSNBC. The ideas bouncing around in this world -- say, ideas about the Tea Party movement allegedly being racist -- don't seem like propaganda to those inside the bubble.
Paraphrasing is fun!
And what of right wingers like me who hate most of that crap? I only read WSJ if I see a link to an interesting article. I live and work in a very left wing environment every day. I do read Sailer every day. I listen to NPR almost every morning. I wouldn't exactly say I'm in a bubble.
Also, One, I believe Dan Flynn (http://www.flynnfiles.com/) has done some research into political preferences of college professors. The results were predictable, but no less instructive.
The biases Glenn Beck and the New York Times are not equal. Even if you believe that the Times is run by crazy radicals, the actual output is restrained by some desire to be middle-of-the-road. Whereas Beck simply indulges whichever conspiracy theory is that day shrinking his nuts.
And though most of you seem not to be interested in information that undercuts your victim complex, but there's plenty of evidence for a corpartist, right-wing slant at the Times and CNN. It drives liberals up a wall that these big media outlets are "counted" as proof that we dominate the conversation, when they barely reflect our political views at all.
...but there's plenty of evidence for a corpartist, right-wing slant at the Times and CNN. It drives liberals up a wall that these big media outlets are "counted" as proof that we dominate the conversation, when they barely reflect our political views at all.
Yeah, the dirty right-wing corpartists (sic) at CNN and the NYT won't even endorse the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
"Blah blah Glenn Beck blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah the Times blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah middle-of-the-road. Blah Beck blah blah blah conspiracy theory blah blah blah blah blah nuts.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah your victim complex, blah blah blah blah blah blah a corpartist, right-wing slant blah blah blah blah blah."
We get it, Dave. The vast right-wing conspiracy is growing more powerful every day.
"Yeah, the dirty right-wing corpartists (sic) at CNN and the NYT won't even endorse the Dictatorship of the Proletariat."
"We get it, Dave. The vast right-wing conspiracy is growing more powerful every day."
Straw men. Do any of you not run screaming into the night from a reasonable conversation?
The Times op-ed page has run weekly columns by Bill Kristol and Ross Douthat. CNN gave Glenn Beck his start. Are you aware of these things? If so, how do you explain them in the context of a liberal-dominated media?
"The Times op-ed page has run weekly columns by Bill Kristol and Ross Douthat. CNN gave Glenn Beck his start. Are you aware of these things? If so, how do you explain them in the context of a liberal-dominated media?"
Ross Douthat is a neutered mainstream cocktail party Republican. He's a useless token. Kristol is a neocon extraordinaire, whose only real concerns are the security of Israel and defense of the moneyed elite, neither of which is controversial within the Jewish-dominated Times. Beck is a charlatan, and as much as he likes to stoke his ratings by exposing the intellectual history of the progressive movement, he's slavishly PC as his bi-weekly "victim-group-only" shows will attest. Did you somehow miss his impassioned defense of black chauvinist Shirley Sherrod?
Lefty whiners like these guys do point to a sliver of truth--now major conservative media outlets exist and it is indeed possible to consume right wing news almost exclusively. The utter dominance of the left wing media has been broken. However, decades of leftist control of the MSM/Entertainment industry and the continuing leftist control of the public schools guarantees that virtually everyone accepts man of the basic tenets of liberalism, as One has pointed out.
"the Obama administration allegedly favoring blacks"
No?!? Who could dare make such a claim?
It's baffling that lefties would even deny this--democrats are supposed to favor minorities, remember?
Frankly, even Rush Limbaugh is probably only 60-65th percentile conservative relative to the US population as a whole. The MSM is mostly 5th to maybe 15th percentile. Fox is right around 50th or so. Anything beyond 70th percentile or so has no major outlet outside the Internet. Imagine what a mirror image (85th to 95th percentile conservative/reactionary) network to the MSM would look like. Why it'd run emotional appeal stories in the exact opposite slant to the ones the MSM usually runs.
What are the anti-corporate policies that the troll wants CNN and the NYT to push for? Do they exist in, for example, Sweden?
F-k the NYT's O-Ed page. When they
hire Pat Buchanan, Paul Gottfried or Steve Sailer I'll be impressed. Kristol is just a warmonger and Douthat accepts the premises of the hegemonic Globalism-Cultural Marxism.
"The MSM is mostly 5th to maybe 15th percentile. Fox is right around 50th or so."
FNC's viewership numbers verify this. If Fox News wasn't so different from the other cable news outlets, it wouldn't be dominating them so heavily.
"Ross Douthat is a neutered mainstream cocktail party Republican. He's a useless token. Kristol is a neocon extraordinaire, whose only real concerns are the security of Israel and defense of the moneyed elite, neither of which is controversial within the Jewish-dominated Times. Beck is a charlatan, and as much as he likes to stoke his ratings by exposing the intellectual history of the progressive movement, he's slavishly PC as his bi-weekly "victim-group-only" shows will attest."
OK, I'm not saying "these guys are your guys." I'm saying these are not our guys, these are not the guys I'd hire if I was a liberal running the media. I'm just as frustrated as you are with what you believe is a liberal-dominated media.
"Frankly, even Rush Limbaugh is probably only 60-65th percentile conservative relative to the US population as a whole. The MSM is mostly 5th to maybe 15th percentile."
I dunno, I kind of think that's really bogus. Is that backed up by polling data, or just how you feel in your gut?
"OK, I'm not saying "these guys are your guys." I'm saying these are not our guys, these are not the guys I'd hire if I was a liberal running the media. I'm just as frustrated as you are with what you believe is a liberal-dominated media."
Well, we're both probably considered "fringe" by the mainstream tastemakers. Most of the guys I'd hire if I was "running the media" would be considered extremists at odds with the mainstream. But our fringe desires have little to do with whether the mainstream media leans left or right. The fact remains that over 70% of the "journalists" who work at big-name publications self-identify as Democrats or liberals. Even if you hate the Democrats as much as I hate the Republicans, you have to acknowledge that media coverage slants in that partisan direction.
Dave,
I know lots of people who are far more reactionary than Rush Limbaugh. You never hear Rush talk advocating a reprise of Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback", but there's at least 25% of the population that wants it desperately. You'll also never hear him weigh again against anti-discrimination in favor of free association, something else that there's at least 10-20% of the population that is in favor of. For all his portrayal, Rush is right in the middle of the conservative mainstream. There's a good 30% of the population whose views are considered 'beyond the pale'. I'm one of them. Here's a piece of prime heresy for you. I believe that Whites as a group are just as entitled to promote their interests as Whites through the political process as are Blacks and Hispanics.
@Dave
The media does not have a far left bias, but definitely a mainstream left bias. This mainstream left bias is what Carl Oglesby of S.D.S. defined as corporate liberalism. Generally the media preaches an ideology of profit oriented social justice. The problem with the left is that they can not accept the face that ideas about muliticulturalism, enviromentalism, and government oversight of the economy are ideas of the elite. Instead they merely focus on the fact that most of the left oriented elite likes to still make money as proof of rightwing bias. Basically the left will need some accuse to feel powerless in society. The only rational one is that powerful people still like to make lots of money. However when you have the richest white men like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet giving billions of dollars to the third world, you can not in good conscious at as if world is still run by conservatives. Even George W. Bush was very socially conscious. He supported government programs that spent billions of dollars to help disadvantage racial minorities to own there houses.
The simple fact is that the majority of leftwing ideas are not radical anymore. That does not mean that every leftwing idea is embraced by the elite. There are still people like Alexander Cockburn who are leftwing and geniue radical to some degree. However, Cockburn is very socialistic, and does not believe in accepted leftwing ideas like anthropic global warming. To be truly radical and leftist these days is to be a communist who hates other leftists, and even at that point, you are still far more likely to keep your job and freedom than some idiot who worships Hitler.
Basically to be leftist is to be a conformist. In truth many rightwing commentators at this blog like me are conformist, simply because we are not that rightwing. OneSTDV is actually quite moderate. OneSTDV is not worshiping Hitler or saying that black people are evil. However, many liberals can not get over the fact that he does not worship black people, he is automatically a Nazi. The simple fact is that extreme conformists have to appease the gods of liberalism by attacking moderate conformists like OneSTDV.
Basically I will admit that the media is not far left, but center left. That is still a business that needs to make money, and will make concessions to rightwing ideas to advance it's profit making goals. Thats why people like Glenn Beck had there start at CNN. Many of his bosses did not like what he had to say, but still wanted to capture some of the middle america market. Also like many of the commentators on this blog have pointed out. Most token conservatives like Glenn Beck are very moderate and politically correct. Glenn Beck pretty much conforms to the leftwing establishment in this country like everybody else. who is not a nazi or a nut.
Unless you are against people making lots of money, than truthfully you are pretty much an extreme conformist to the leftwing establishment in this country. By trolling a blog of a moderate conservative like OneSTDV, all you prove is how desperate you are to appease the ones in power. Cass Sustein would congragulate you on a job will done. Bascially Dave, you are not a radical. I am not radical either, but I know better not to pretend to be one.
"The fact remains that over 70% of the "journalists" who work at big-name publications self-identify as Democrats or liberals. Even if you hate the Democrats as much as I hate the Republicans, you have to acknowledge that media coverage slants in that partisan direction."
Well, first to establish some common ground, I don't object to the quotation marks around ""journalist"."
Secondly, as to the possibly of a partisan slant: I don't know. It's possible, and I'm open to evidence-based arguments, if you care to make one. I think the goal of today's mega-journalist is to establish a good relationship with someone in power. That's not incompatible with supporting Democrats, especially when they're winning elections.
I don't think these guys are loyal to left-wing principles over their own careers, and I don't think the Democratic Party is particularly liberal in practice, so I don't think calling the media "liberal" is accurate.
If you think that makes me a blinkered lunatic, so be it, but I'll at least demonstrate the chain of lunatic reasoning that leads to my lunatic worldview. I believe we owe that to each other, as countrymen.
NUOSU-
"The media does not have a far left bias"
Thank you.
"The problem with the left is that they [...] focus on the fact that most of the left oriented elite likes to still make money as proof of rightwing bias."
So, even though people who are left wing sell out their principles as soon as they come into some power, I shouldn't complain, because there's still some liberal residue left in their brain, or something?
"Most token conservatives like Glenn Beck are very moderate and politically correct."
Glenn Beck is not a moderate, unless you define anyone below Nazis as moderate. I don't think you can call him "politically correct" just because he isn't a Nazi.
"OneSTDV is actually quite moderate. OneSTDV is not worshiping Hitler or saying that black people are evil. However, many liberals can not get over the fact that he does not worship black people, he is automatically a Nazi."
No. Sorry, I want to find as much common ground with you as possible, but I can't go along with this. OneSTDV's attitudes aren't moderate. Whatever he feels about black people, it's his own issue, but it doesn't appear on the intellectual spectrum.
"By trolling a blog of a moderate conservative like OneSTDV, all you prove is how desperate you are to appease the ones in power."
What? That's crazy. I have my own reasons for trolling here, but I'm not motivated by any desire to conform. I rarely express my political views off the internet, because I don't think they'd be welcome. I don't think anyone powerful cares about me or this blog.
"Cass Sustein would congragulate you on a job will done."
Curse you, Cass Sunstein. CURSE YOU TO HELL!!!
OneSTDV's attitudes aren't moderate. Whatever he feels about black people, it's his own issue, but it doesn't appear on the intellectual spectrum.
Ha. You troll here so much yet you never really articulate what you object to so passionately.
I'm assuming you believe racial intelligence, behavioral, and general cognitive differences are the concoction of racists? Do you think that diversity is awesome and tenable in the long run? Do you believe whites have as much social and cultural power as they did 30 years ago and that the amount of social power they hold now is equal to that of NAMs?
Why do you find the content so objectionable and so outside the "realm of intellectual discourse"?
It's funny that liberal creationist trolls like you never can actually articulate what is so egregiously wrong with the HBDosphere. It's just "racist"!
What is comes down to is demanding that whites be capitulating philanthropists to America's NAMs and the world's impoverished. Anything else is "beyond the intellectual realm".
@Dave
"Principles", ideals is probably a better term, are used to define and identify a type of life. They are a product of life itself not it's driver. Leftists *are* advancing their own careers when they espouse leftist ideas - their ideals and self-interest are synonymous. Leftist do-goodism is a class status symbol, sort of like wearing an Ed Hardy tee-shirt.
The difference is that leftist do-gooders tend to be much bigger preening dickheads than the frat wankers wearing Ed Hardy.
@Dave
What makes OneSTDV's views moderate is that for one he has never advocated an ethnostate for whites. He is not oppose to limited immigration of high IQ immigrants. OneSTDV does not praise the Third Reich or the Confederacy. I have never read a post in support of the reinstitution of segragation on this blog. Lastly, he is not oppose to inter racial dating or marriage.
Seriously Dave, if you want to troll racist blogs, OneSTDV is not the place to be. Try Occidental Dissent, or even better Stormfront. I can not fathom how people like you decide to troll this blog, and not those blogs and websites.
Now for the other things you have said in my reponse to my reply. Glenn Beck bends over backwards not to appear bigoted. Beck often supports really stupid ideas like the idea that America had black founding fathers. Seriously, Glenn Beck is really political correct. He is pretty much Alex Jones with a better hair cut, and bigger audience.
Also it is not that anybody cares what you do on this blog, but the fact that you feel you are doing good in world. Basically you are conforming to mass morality of our current times. Fighting obstensible racists makes you feel good about yourself.
Lastly, I will state this again. We live in a world where the two richest white men are agnostics spending billions of dollars for foreign aid and educational programs for non-whites. That example alone should spell out the fact that leftwing journalists do not sellout to the elite. The money interests in this world are pretty liberal. I could go on, but I feel that could throw the whole barn at you, and you would not care. I will let smarter commentators than me at this blog take care of you.
@OneSTDV
Kick Dave's ass.
@OneSTDV
"I'm assuming you believe racial intelligence, behavioral, and general cognitive differences are the concoction of racists?"
You assume a lot of things!
"Do you think that diversity is awesome and tenable in the long run? "
I don't know that I'd say awesome, but yeah, I think it's tenable. What do you think? America is doomed unless we split up into racially segregated ethnostates?
"Do you believe whites have as much social and cultural power as they did 30 years ago"
My guess would be that they do not, quite.
"and that the amount of social power they hold now is equal to that of NAMs?"
No, I believe white people have greater social power than any non-white minority group. I believe this is a point on which we disagree.
"Why do you find the content so objectionable and so outside the "realm of intellectual discourse"?
It confuses things when you put quotes around words I never used. Lots of things that you talk about are in the realm of discourse. Most of the time, I think you're on the wrong side of the argument, but you're in the discourse. That's why I try and engage you and your readers.
I think you're at your least rational when you're talking about black people. To see a video of a teenager freaking out because someone just tried to rape his sister, and to use it as an example to damn an entire a race of people is just bizarre, unpleasant, and a little creepy. And good luck entering the mainstream on the "we laugh at rape victims if they're black" parade float.
I don't think you're evil, or worth less than another human being, just because you have weird issues about another ethnic group and you express them by acting out. Lots of people have that problem, including friends and family, and I can tolerate it. It's their right to be that way, and yours.
But the behavior is not "moderate." It's not on the "intellectual spectrum," in my book, because it's nothing more than a tic. A compulsion. Probably something you could escape. But not a political argument, sorry.
"It's funny that liberal creationist trolls like you never can actually articulate what is so egregiously wrong with the HBDosphere."
You've yet to discover the limits of what I can articulate.
@Mr. N.U.O. ShutUp
"Seriously Dave, if you want to troll racist blogs, OneSTDV is not the place to be. Try Occidental Dissent, or even better Stormfront. I can not fathom how people like you decide to troll this blog, and not those blogs and websites."
That's an easy one. I like long odds, but I'm not stupid. I think a lot of what you guys believe is unvalid or unsound, but you aspire to be rational, and reality-based, and I admire that.
Besides, they'd just ban me at Stormfront, or whatever.
We had a great day!
It seems my first reply to Dave was quite accurate. He managed to spill a ton of words on this thread without actually saying anything. All I can take from this is that liberals are like fish in water when it comes to detecting liberal media bias.
@Dave
Consider the following quote from your last comment:
It confuses things when you put quotes around words I never used. Lots of things that you talk about are in the realm of discourse. Most of the time, I think you're on the wrong side of the argument, but you're in the discourse.
And compare to the statement later in the same post:
But the behavior is not "moderate." It's not on the "intellectual spectrum," in my book, because it's nothing more than a tic. A compulsion. Probably something you could escape. But not a political argument, sorry.
These two statements contradict each other, and the second confirms OS' first assertion. You're not even attempting to engage the position, but, rather, you're putting outside the realm of discussion by pathologizing HBD.
The basic HBD position can be summed up in the proposition that outcome differences between different ethnic population clusters is, at least partially, explicable through evolved differences over the past hundred thousand years, or so. You're putting that straightforward proposition outside the bounds of intellectual discourse by claiming it is some sort of behavioral tic. While you're welcome to do this, you immediately contradict yourself by admitting that HBD'ers try to be rational and reality based.
Again, you're contradicting yourself, which is because you aren't willing to engage in argument. All you do is proclaim HBD to be outside of intellectual discourse. Someone who consistently operates outside of intellectual discourse is, axiomatically, someone who does NOT even attempt to be rational or reality-based.
You've yet to discover the limits of what I can articulate.
You haven't articulated anything. The entire corpus of your comments is one big, hot mess of disingenuous hand-waving.
As mike already noted, the inability of leftists to comprehend the complete pervasiveness of leftist thought in the elite circles of Western life is astonishing. It's like fish not realizing they're in water. A complete lack of self-awareness.
What a complete troll - a word which I have only used a few times in my life.
You've yet to discover the limits of what I can articulate.
I just have to reiterate the complete vacuousness of you're entire body of commenting, which is stunningly displayed in this single sentence. What an absolutely effeminate, shrewish comment. I can almost hear the prissy, feminine, lispy, urban castratized affect:
You've yet to dithcova ttthhe limitth of what *sighs, rolls eyes*, h, I can articulate
There that's more like it.
@mike
Yeah, wow, this guy really knows how to churn out a bunch of verbose, meaningless swill.
@NutUpOrShutUp - To lump the 3rd Reich in with the Confederacy or mention them in the same breath is pretty silly. And only something a leftist and/or someone completely brainwashed would do.
@Anonymous
Of course Confederacy is far better than the Third Reich. Confederacy never commited the level genocide done by the Third Reich. My point is that OneSTDV has not expressed love or support for neither regime, as another sign of his political moderation.
@NutUpOrShutUp - I understood the thrust of your point and certainly didn't think you meant to compare J. Davis and R.E. Lee (for example) to Hitler and Himmler.
However, my point still holds: there is nothing inherently immoderate about praising the Confederacy. The states that seceded from the union had every right to do so. The South was the conservative (Constitutionally) side in the WBTS.
This doesn't mean one wishes slavery would have continued in perpetuity. It would have ended on its own without a war that killed over 600,000 men.
"The basic HBD position can be summed up in the proposition that outcome differences between different ethnic population clusters is, at least partially, explicable through evolved differences over the past hundred thousand years, or so."
I find that position on its own to be both plausible and morally neutral. It's just a factual statement that's true or false. Although, the consequences either way are massive.
But that seemingly neutral statement gets used to mask a variety of weird racial pathologies. Inevitably. I don't know how you can deny this. Have you seen some of the comments that Steve Sailer deletes from his blog? Some offbeat stuff.
"You're putting that straightforward proposition outside the bounds of intellectual discourse by claiming it is some sort of behavioral tic."
See, this is the problem with OneSDTV misquoting me. I never said anything was out of bounds, or out of the discourse. I think the sum of OneSDTV's writing on black people represent a feeling of racial alienation that he wants to communicate. An emotional statement, but not a political argument. And so, unmappable on any kind of political spectrum.
If you two guys want to pretend I said something else, go right ahead, but it'll just be your shared fantasy.
"I can almost hear the prissy, feminine, lispy, urban castratized affect:
You've yet to dithcova ttthhe limitth of what *sighs, rolls eyes*, h, I can articulate
There that's more like it."
But, then again, your fantasies about me are so vivid! Enjoy your joy.
-Dave
@Anonymous
I see your point that supporting the Confederacy is not an extreme position. In the America before the nineties, such an idea would not be extremist. However, we live in a world where the left decides the boundries of poltiical debate. What I should have said is that OneSTDV views are not very anti leftist. Openly supporting the Confederacy is only extreme from a leftwing world view. Another example of this is Nelsen Mandela. In a rational world, believing Nelsen Mandela to be a terrorist would be a moderate political opinion. However, the left has made it politically extremist to talk about Mandela career as a terrorist. The proof of leftwing power in the world is how they have defined things that were once moderate views of the world to extremist. In a world where the left did not dominate political debate, the Confederacy would be seen as an legitmate regime, Mandela would be still in jail for his crimes, and that the Civil RIghts Movement had communist involvement. All these ideas are only extremist, because the left made it extremist. I guess next time I will say that someone is not very anti leftist, instead of moderate because of their positions.
@Anonymous
Basically you are right, and I was wrong. Thank you for helping me think through a new position on what moderate actually is.
From Dave:
"But that seemingly neutral statement gets used to mask a variety of weird racial pathologies. Inevitably. I don't know how you can deny this. Have you seen some of the comments that Steve Sailer deletes from his blog? Some offbeat stuff."
So unless I stop believing that races differ, its INEVITABLE that I'll use this belief to mask weird racial pathologies?
More from Dave:
"I think the sum of OneSDTV's writing on black people represent a feeling of racial alienation that he wants to communicate. An emotional statement, but not a political argument."
And yet you provide not one whit of evidence, which leads me to think that maybe you don't really want to have an honest discussion, you just want to insult belief that differ from yours.
"So unless I stop believing that races differ, its INEVITABLE that I'll use this belief to mask weird racial pathologies?"
No, it's inevitable that some people will. It's possible to approach the facts neutrally. But that kind of detachment is not easy for anyone to achieve.
"And yet you provide not one whit of evidence, "
That's bullshit.
@NutUpOrShutUp - Thanks.
As you stated, the left controls the terms of debate in this country. The zeitgeist is theirs. But thank God at least that we on the right control the media....
One last Confederacy bit: when I was a kid back in the mid 70s, I bought a small Confederate flag at Disney World. You don't get much more mainstream then Disney World. Now I'll assume that there isn't a chance in hell that they would still be sold there.
("No, it's inevitable that some people will. It's possible to approach the facts neutrally. But that kind of detachment is not easy for anyone to achieve."
Projection on your part Dave. Its actually pretty easy for me (and I'd guess most HBDers) to achieve.
"That's bullshit."
How does this response not reinforce my earlier point?
"Projection on your part Dave. Its actually pretty easy for me (and I'd guess most HBDers) to achieve."
Well, good for you, Roy. Hey, by the way, when is it ever your guys' turn to provide evidence for any of the proclamations you make about yourselves, or about me?
Oh, that's right, never.
"How does this response not reinforce my earlier point?"
Did you read my posts? I wrote about the context in which OneSTDV placed the Antoine Dodson video. I explained how far beyond the bounds of common decency and normal human empathy OneSTDV's rhetorical usage of that video was.
That's what's called "evidence."
And it's one example from many. The posts here are laden with needlessly cruel potshots at black people. That's the behavior I find pathological.
When I referenced the posts that show up on HBD blogs like Steve Sailer's that have to be deleted because they're too bigoted?
That's what's called "evidence."
Is that clear enough for you? You can disagree with my interpretation of the facts, but when you say that I don't back up my claims at all? That's bullshit.
@ Dave:
You're misconstruing the inclusion of that video.
I actually applaud Mr. Dodson for having balls to stand up to his sister's attacker and for his passion in protecting a loved one. He's not like the liberals who try to find every reason to exonerate criminals (though this is related to high black crime, but I digress).
No, I included the link not to denigrate the man, but to illustrate the plethora of evidence that blacks simply act different than whites. The liberal media has this idea that blacks are just like whites and that only a handful actually act like the stereotype thugs, ghetto queens, etc. But to anyone who trusts their own lying eyes, with evidence coming from everyday life, the Internet, and your local news crime report, it's becoming harder to NOT notice the racial differences in behavior and demeanor.
Basically, the Internet allows us an intimate view into the private lives of residential communities, age cohorts, and different racial groups.
[Your comment didn't deserve this reply because the context and intention were rather obvious in the original post.]
"You're misconstruing the inclusion of that video."
I'm skeptical, but go ahead. I certainly didn't misconstrue deliberately.
"I included the link not to denigrate the man, but to illustrate the plethora of evidence that blacks simply act different than whites."
An anecdote does not illustrate a plethora. Especially if your illustrative example is a minor in an extremely emotional situation.
"blacks simply act different than whites.""
Just differently? Like, on a superficial level? Not better or worse, but just different?
Certainly, a lot of your language indicates a different intention. That what you are actually trying to assert is that blacks behave worse than whites.
Exhibits A- E, for those who demand whits of evidence:
"stereotypical thugs"
"ghetto queens"
"local news crime report"
Your second video: a kid blundering his way into an ice cream truck.
The thesis of the paragraph: what evidence, other than "xenophobia," would lead one to racial fatalism?
All context suggests that your argument is that blacks are more likely to be criminal, and less intelligent, on average, than whites. Is this not what you were arguing?
And my point is, in order to make this argument, you used footage of a kid in emotional distress. You're back-pedaling now, which is admirable. But your original decision to use this footage was, exactly as I asserted, unpleasant.
"Your comment didn't deserve this reply because the context and intention were rather obvious in the original post"
Not at all. You have a real communication problem if you believe that.
Post a Comment