Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

The Cult of FOX News

Media Fox News 2012

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 04:43 PM

I was just talking about this with my sister last night.  I was cooking dinner for Thanksgiving, and my sister came into the kitchen asking about our mother.  Mom was sitting in the living room watching a Glen Beck Special.  We were talking about mom's TV and radio habits, and as we did, we realized that our mother only watches Glen Becks new station, Fox News, and the Tennis channel.  That's it.  Nothing else.  Not a movie, not a sit com, nothing but right wing propaganda and tennis.  Oh, and the BYU channel for Church conference when it is on.  She also listens to Talk radio all day long and all night long [while she sleeps even] and only turns it off when she's gonna watch TV for more right wing talk.  

I said to my sister, "You do realized that our mother is totally indoctrinated "  And she said, yes, but there are worse things she could listen to. Since my sister is way right of center along with my mom [sis is more in the survivalist category though], she would think that it was OK, but I'm slightly left of center and I'm actually worried about the level of hate my mom is now demonstrating.

It's made me think about the "right wing bubble" that many in the punditry are talking about at the moment.  I don't think it is altogether a problem for someone to watch Fox News, or Hannity, or even Glen Beck.  Most people watch people they agree with when it comes to political programming.  It's not what she is watching that has me concerned.  It's how much she is watching and listening and the fact that she literally listens to no other voice at all.

No one would ever describe me as a right winger  but I watch Fox News at least once a week.  I don't trust any one  news source any longer. So, each time I hear one side say "Liberals say this" as reported by the Right wing media, or "Conservatives say this" as reported by the liberal media, I go check out exactly what actual liberals are reporting or what actual conservatives are reporting.  It's my own way of remaining as balanced as possible in our political world.  

But someone like my mom, who never even takes an hour away from it, well can real indoctrination take place?  Are some people becoming brain washed?  Because my mom has always been a conservative.  That's not the problem imo.  Conservatism is not the problem in our culture.  I don't agree with it, but it's not dangerous as an ideology.  It's just conservative.  But, the loss of  critical thinking, and the stilted POV my mother and others now have on everything that deviates from the Party line, is a problem.  

Are there now cult qualities to Right wing media and as a result in the GOP?  And, before someone brings it in, yes, there are just as many cultists on the Left, but I don't have a Liberal sitting in the front room, staring glassy eyes at the TV soaking up a daily diet of fear and hatred.  If you have had that experience share it, but if not, I'd rather just talk about indoctrination.  

I'll tell you why.  My mother is a smart woman.  I mean really smart.  She has achieved more in her lifetime that I could ever hope to accomplish in mine.  I didn't need to study women's issues in school, my mother and grandmother expected me to succeed and make something of my life.  There were no wilting flowers or submissive women in my family  and believe me we have the records going back 100's of years.  My mother is not a low information voter.  

And yet, she is scaring me.



http://www.real-time...ommon-cult.html

Quote

Fox News, you win. You have spewed your fact-free bile so insistently and so repetitively that the hypnosis has worked. A significant percentage of your viewers have accepted your ravings as gospel and what you report is no longer just a diversion or entertainment. Your fan base has become a dangerous cult.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#2 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 07:54 PM

Well written and thought provoking post. Lots of people are deeply uncritical thinkers and it is frustrating as much as anything - but not sure it's a new phenomenon or relates directly to Fox News (or The Daily Mail, or The Daily Show I guess). This is chicken and egg.

You take a very balanced approach to politics Cait, but as you note - most people just watch what they agree with. It is very interesting reading the same article on two differently slanted news sources (I did this recently for an article between The Guardian (slightly left) and The Telegraph (slightly right) - both articles were almost identical - and responsibly reported - but the comments people made about them were incredibly different - total opposites, in fact.) Most people are not going to go out of their way to read a different point of view. People want to be reassured, not provoked - personally I'd rather the aim were simply to be informed. But it is definitely to be reassured.

I think the most interesting thing you highlight here though is the question of when "They are saying what I agree with" becomes "I agree with what they are saying". How do you know when that line has been crossed? And can it ever be crossed by people who are naturally critical thinkers, no matter how slanted their news sources are? After all, if you are aware of the slant, that goes some way to mitigating it.

My view is that news sources have a clear responsibility to report stories in a neutral, unbiased way. The BBC has a legal responsibility to do so, the others have an ethical one. And it is then down to the individual to take responsibility for their news input and select the news rather than the propaganda. And that second part is where it all falls to pieces, sadly. Schools over here teach explicitly what makes for biased political news and what makes for neutrally presented news, and yet-  how and yet- The Sun is still the most popular paper, to my enduring embarrassment on behalf of my fellow Brits. Seems like most people aren't interested in engaging their brain.

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#3 Themis

Themis
  • Islander
  • 6,544 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:16 PM

Wow.  I knew there are people who get all their news from Fox and right-wing blogs, but with your mom seemingly devoting her life to it, that's a whole different thing.  No entertainment programming at all?  No musical programming, no drama, no comedy, no local news (and weather) casts?  What about reading?  Movies (in the cinema or on tv)?  I'm sure a steady diet of anything could result in indoctrination, just like the communist retimes seem to have done by allowing no other voices.  Just as (imo) religion does by grabbing children, with most folk hearing or studying nothing but their church's doctrine from childhood through adulthood.   Er... when was her last physical?  Any signs of depression or anything else that would lead her to pretty much cut herself off from the world?  Don't know how old your mom is, but any signs of dementia?  There could be all sorts of reasons, including physical, why she avoids entertainment and local news, but the end result it seems to me, would be a form of indoctrination.  

FYI I've only watched Fox when a couple of celebs I like (despite their politics!) appear on their shows.  I watch MSNBC sometimes but find most of their commentators too bombastic except for Rachel Maddow (who does have conservatives on).  Love Bill Maher but he can go overboard.  I know what I'm getting, though. My go-to for all-day news if I'm home is CNN because they cover something besides US politics.  If I still lived in Los Angeles, I'd be reading the LA Times.  In Nashville, I watch the local news and read the local "news"paper.   Plus visit OT on ExIsle.  So I like to think I'm exposing myself to a range of opinions, and retain the "huh, WTF?) factor.  The gray matter still functions.  

To me, a 100% diet of one point of view (to the exclusion of any other form of entertainment) would qualify as indoctrination.
Cats will never be extinct!

#4 ShotenStar

ShotenStar

    Collector of Silly Mares

  • Islander
  • 182 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:02 AM

Cait, you have (mostly) described my parents .... Fox News, Beck and O'Reilly are their major / sole sources of information (though they do watch lovely shows like "American Picker" for their entertainment).  What I find so interesting is that my Mother and I used to discuss my Grandmother's reading habits ... she had stacks of the National Enquirer in her house and was convinced all their stories were true.  Mom and I would try to convince her otherwise and be firmly shutdown.  Now when I try to bring other news sources or opinions into a conversation, Mom is the one doing the complete shutdown and she thinks I am mean for pointing out issues with Beck and O'Reilly's viewpoints.  I'm not sure if I should be amused or frightened that this is a glimpse into my future.

*Star*
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." Douglas Adams

#5 Orpheus

Orpheus

    I'm not the boss of you!

  • Administrator
  • 17,757 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:09 AM

We're all indoctrinated.

Early in grade school, we're trained what facts are "polite" to mention. The kid who points out that we don't live in a democracy or that Lincoln didn't free the slaves is considered a nitpicking jerk by the same class that learned it alongside him/her and the teacher who taught it to them.

I could name several well-known facts/straightforward interpretations that could spark reactionary [often transparent or shallow] defenses or even outrage here on EI, without resort to party politics --'left' and 'right' alike would be made very uncomfortable, and at best feign tolerance only to go right back to ignoring the facts-- but I think the trivial examples above make my point.

#6 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:08 AM

^ Probably because I am Canadian but I am not offended by either of those. So I do wonder what you mean by them, simply out of some ignorance. Such what you mean by America not being a democracy. Do you mean it isn't a direct democracy, but a Republic, or something else? I don't know enough about Lincoln to comment. IIRC he was President during the civil war, and assassinated after it (shortly so?), but that wouldn't automatically translate to freeing slaves, directly or indirectly.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#7 Orpheus

Orpheus

    I'm not the boss of you!

  • Administrator
  • 17,757 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 01:02 PM

Yes, the US is a republic. We elect representatives, who may vote according to public will or according to personal "statesmanlike" judgment vs. voting directly on most issues ourselves (The pro-democracy enlightenment thinker Rousseau said that he doubted that democracy could be implemented in countries much larger than Switzerland, where he lived, and [at least many cantons in] Switzerland remained mostly democratic into my own lifetime)

Lincoln didn't free ANY slaves. His Emancipation Proclamation (quoted below) explicitly applied ONLY to areas that didn't acknowledge his authority [he might as well have declared Arab slaves free] and excluded any part of the [self-accepted] US. It didn't outlaw slavery, and by failing to make the slave citizens, rendered them stateless refugees. The Emancipation Proclamation was actually Lincoln claiming martial law (he'd already suspended many Constitutional rights like habeas corpus) to override Art. 4 Sec. 2 of the US Constitution and Federal Laws like the Fugitive Slave Act.

Historians don't consider the Civil War to have been over slavery, but a schism between agrarian and industrial states. Slavery was ended by the 13th Amendment after Lincoln died, but throughout the war remained legal in all parts of the Union where it had been legal to begin with. Ironically, some parts of the Confederacy [e.g. Tennessee] outlawed slavery by the end of the war, before the Union did.

But you're a spoilsport if you bring that up during a political debate, speech or classroom discussion.

Similarly, a lot of media discussion, conservative and liberal, is "you know what I mean" handwaving [Yes, I know what you mean, but what you mean is wrong]

Emancipation Proclamation said:

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, in time of actual armed rebellion against authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are, for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

Abraham Lincoln


#8 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 06:29 PM

View PostOrpheus, on 24 November 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Yes, the US is a republic. We elect representatives, who may vote according to public will or according to personal "statesmanlike" judgment vs. voting directly on most issues ourselves (The pro-democracy enlightenment thinker Rousseau said that he doubted that democracy could be implemented in countries much larger than Switzerland, where he lived, and [at least many cantons in] Switzerland remained mostly democratic into my own lifetime)

Lincoln didn't free ANY slaves. His Emancipation Proclamation (quoted below) explicitly applied ONLY to areas that didn't acknowledge his authority [he might as well have declared Arab slaves free] and excluded any part of the [self-accepted] US. It didn't outlaw slavery, and by failing to make the slave citizens, rendered them stateless refugees. The Emancipation Proclamation was actually Lincoln claiming martial law (he'd already suspended many Constitutional rights like habeas corpus) to override Art. 4 Sec. 2 of the US Constitution and Federal Laws like the Fugitive Slave Act.

Historians don't consider the Civil War to have been over slavery, but a schism between agrarian and industrial states. Slavery was ended by the 13th Amendment after Lincoln died, but throughout the war remained legal in all parts of the Union where it had been legal to begin with. Ironically, some parts of the Confederacy [e.g. Tennessee] outlawed slavery by the end of the war, before the Union did.

But you're a spoilsport if you bring that up during a political debate, speech or classroom discussion.

Similarly, a lot of media discussion, conservative and liberal, is "you know what I mean" handwaving [Yes, I know what you mean, but what you mean is wrong]

Emancipation Proclamation said:

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, in time of actual armed rebellion against authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are, for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

Abraham Lincoln

It looks like he freed the salves to me. :think:

Edited by DWF, 24 November 2012 - 06:32 PM.

The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#9 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:08 PM

Mon is elderly, but she is sharp as a tack mentally.  She forgets things, but no more than any of us.  She is an avid reader, so she was never really a fanatic of TV, but she did used to watch Law and Order,SVU  and two years ago I got her interested in "The Good Wife", but this last year she has dropped all other TV watching except Right wing stuff and of course tennis.

I do tend to agree that we are all indoctrinated to a certain degree.  We believe what we were taught, and very few continue learning in any self-motivated school type kind of learning.  We move out of academia and learn from life, but academia [regardless of how far we go] informs what we see in real life.  In that regard, I agree, we are all prone to hang on to our beliefs on what is accurate and not.

But, like I said, she is scaring me.  Since I began this thread, I've been thinking and I believe some of it is religious.  She is a Mormon, and believes that she is indeed in the Last Days, so everything takes on a more dramatic tone.  She believes unquestioningly in the fact that these are the last days.  So that colors much of what she sees, and Glen Beck [also a Mormon  is really pushing that POV.

She just scares me.  You can't talk to her any more about any other POV at all.  She becomes so angry and begins to almost shake with her anger.  I'm just afraid for her, and I wondered how indoctrinated she actually is, both politically and religiously.  That kind of unshakable belief in "Domesday & the last days" is hard to see in people you love.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#10 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:04 PM

Sadly I Do know someone like this, not scary but clearly indoctrinated. He has shoveled so much crap our way based on what he hears on FOX, from Rush, Hannity, Beck, chain emails, you name it. He not as over-the-top angry as you decribe your mom to be but he I could see him amping it up significanty with other like-minded people. He beleives every negative bit of crappola that comes down the pipe about Obama and honestly, in HIS case, it IS racially tinged. I think people start out beleiving a thing and start listening to whatever network or media source backs up that beleif. For some people it becomes a driving force in their lives and such a narrowly focused POV that nothing else is gets through anymore.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#11 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:54 PM

View PostCait, on 24 November 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

Mon is elderly, but she is sharp as a tack mentally.  She forgets things, but no more than any of us.  She is an avid reader, so she was never really a fanatic of TV, but she did used to watch Law and Order,SVU  and two years ago I got her interested in "The Good Wife", but this last year she has dropped all other TV watching except Right wing stuff and of course tennis.

I do tend to agree that we are all indoctrinated to a certain degree.  We believe what we were taught, and very few continue learning in any self-motivated school type kind of learning.  We move out of academia and learn from life, but academia [regardless of how far we go] informs what we see in real life.  In that regard, I agree, we are all prone to hang on to our beliefs on what is accurate and not.

But, like I said, she is scaring me.  Since I began this thread, I've been thinking and I believe some of it is religious.  She is a Mormon, and believes that she is indeed in the Last Days, so everything takes on a more dramatic tone.  She believes unquestioningly in the fact that these are the last days.  So that colors much of what she sees, and Glen Beck [also a Mormon  is really pushing that POV.

She just scares me.  You can't talk to her any more about any other POV at all.  She becomes so angry and begins to almost shake with her anger.  I'm just afraid for her, and I wondered how indoctrinated she actually is, both politically and religiously.  That kind of unshakable belief in "Domesday & the last days" is hard to see in people you love.

Speaking generally but not trying to make a generalization, some older people get very lonely and find religion as their only sanctuary fearing that they don't have long to live.
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#12 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 03:50 AM

ah be he did free those slaves, 'I declare' , because he considered that the Union was still, and those states were and would continue to be in the Union once they got that secesh beat out of em, so those areas were still according to him under his jurisdiction and after the war would be once more in the fold with no Act needed to make them so, and so he freed those people in his country of which he was the chief declaration maker ............... I listen to Hannity and Medved because Hannity often has a caller challenge him and it then becomes interesting, and Medved though I often disagree with his pol point usually has interesting topics including history.
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#13 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 10:19 AM

My mom is and always has been a liberal - and a thoughtful one, not blindly following the party line (she's 86). However, her friends her age are conservative Republicans constantly sending her forwarded crap about Obama, Obamacare, Birther, Truther, The-World-Is-Going-to-Hell-in-a- Handbasket kind of stuff.. She reads enough of it to say she's read it, sighs, and deletes it. Go, Mom! She can't listen to Fox because the blatant "errors" drive her nuts. "But don't these idiots know this guy is a Republican, not a Democrat the way the label reads?" "Um...Yes." "Well, that's just idiotic!" The next part is omitted because my genteel Southern mom doesn't like people to know she "cusses." :p." (The idea of deliberate misinformation drives my mom nuts. ;)
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#14 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 02:08 PM

When I'm stuck in a VAMC waiting room with Fox on the monitor, it helps to know that most other veterans are wishing they had the nerve to ask the check in clerks to change the channel or at least turn the volume down.  Sure, I occasionally get into a shouting match with another veteran, but mostly I get big laughs, happy smiles and rueful shrugs.  A while back I started doing my commentaries out loud, accidentally at first, now to drown out the unwelcome tv noise.  I might be the only veteran who ever worked on the flightline without hearing loss, so gathering conversation my way helps.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#15 Orpheus

Orpheus

    I'm not the boss of you!

  • Administrator
  • 17,757 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 02:22 PM

Yeah, a lot of people try to see it that way, but note that Lincoln excluded all places that were CLEARLY under his jurisdiction: i.e. "I free your slaves, not mine" where "mine" = "anyone who would honor my command".

Is it impolite to note the 500,000 still-and-always slaves in "always Union" territory at the end of the Civil War?

Lincoln declared Confederate slaves (only) nominally free because otherwise the Constitution, Fugitive Slave Act, etc would require Union troops/states to return captured/escaped slaves to their owners.

#16 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 07:11 PM

View PostOrpheus, on 25 November 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

Yeah, a lot of people try to see it that way, but note that Lincoln excluded all places that were CLEARLY under his jurisdiction: i.e. "I free your slaves, not mine" where "mine" = "anyone who would honor my command".

Is it impolite to note the 500,000 still-and-always slaves in "always Union" territory at the end of the Civil War?

Lincoln declared Confederate slaves (only) nominally free because otherwise the Constitution, Fugitive Slave Act, etc would require Union troops/states to return captured/escaped slaves to their owners.

It doesn't say that at all, all of the states mentioned were southern states involved in the rebellion, they're added to the United States in the order. The 500,000 slaves it failed to free were in the border states of Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland.
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#17 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 07:39 PM

so Lincoln really did free the slaves... http://www.philly.co...le_results.html

'
Nevertheless, he knew his true north: He needed the 13th Amendment. He had freed the slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation, but he had done so as a "wartime necessity" using his ill-defined powers as commander-in-chief. If the war ended without abolition embedded in the Constitution, the courts might order re-enslavement - which would undercut the whole purpose of the war and betray the men who had died fighting.
In politics, timing is everything. Lincoln, often loath to act boldly, knew he had a narrow window. He had to tame the rat's nest with great speed, corralling a two-thirds majority before the war ended. He needed 20 votes from the pro-slavery opposition party, which would never materialize if the war ended first. They would figure, who cares what happens to the slaves if we already have peace?
Lincoln also knew that the representatives would never pass the ban on slavery if he merely appealed to the better angels of their nature. So, as accurately depicted in the film, he deputized Seward to do what needed to be done. If recalcitrant lawmakers had to be bought off, fine. Some of them were lame ducks due to leave office soon; they would be "looking for work," said Lincoln, and he had "jobs to fill." He deputized Seward to sweat the dirty details, and Seward hired some rascals to give Lincoln further deniability
'
.. by pushing that amendment, really sort of his amendment ;)

But yes, I do know people who act almost like in a cult, only want to hear what they already know and agree with it and do not want to hear NPR is they are right wing, or Hannity if they are liberals. I walked into an office, they had on Matthews of the msnbc, I asked bout stations, she said Co. policy the telly must be on that channel, cannot show another ;) so I DO Wonder how many say it's policy to have on the Fox and canna change it ;)
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#18 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 26 November 2012 - 11:17 AM

My company policy was actually to block all major news channels for a while. Much more pleasant. :)

#19 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 02:38 PM

Cait - have you seen this?

http://www.ted.com/t...t_the_news.html

Sparky

Edited by SparkyCola, 01 December 2012 - 02:40 PM.

Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#20 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:19 PM

I'll give it a lok, but do you really think Europeans get a real look at middle east issues from their domestic news sources?
Seriously, in the web media, Israel takes a dose of dung for building apartments, while Hamas doesn't get told by the world to quit firing missiles at civilians.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Media, Fox News, 2012

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users