As an old white male, I think this guy is spot on
- Thread starter CO. Hoosier
- Start date
This is a good, thought provoking article. What struck a chord with me, is the section regarding media responsibility in driving public political discourse. I remember when the most trusted person in America was a news broadcaster, Walter Cronkite. I’m not one who longs for “the good old days”, but Americans were much better at disagreement and debate before the advent of cable news and political talk radio that values profit over the public welfare.
You may disagree, but I think the evolution of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh (who value profit, not necessarily ideology, over civic duty) is the single most factor of our current polarization, reactionary tendencies, and inability to seek common ground with a higher purpose.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I agree that this is a great read. It stung a little at some of the uncomfortable truths of which I know I have been guilty.
I, like @Morrison , also agree that the launch and rapid adoption of Fox News is responsible for a large portion of the degradation of journalism. Building on Fox News’ obvious and antagonistic biases, social media has created a wasteland of intolerance and ideology silos.
My parents, both upper middle class degreed professionals, were die hard Goldwater Republicans. That said, Democrats and liberals necessarily weren't evil, they weren't necessarily unpatriotic, they weren't necessarily traitors. Until Rush and Fox News.
My folks both died hateful and bitter about what had become of their country.
Wow. "As an old white male..." as if you remotely compare to the “Dead White European Males” of the Western canon. Maestro, your conceit knows no bounds and that's not a personal attack. It's my as-objective-as-possible view of your posting here. In fact, I don't make personal attacks, though you and others take it that way. I challenge you to be better and face yourselves, just as I challenge myself.
That said, your assertion that some athletes hate the flag demonstrates a complete and utter lack of the following:
That said, your assertion that some athletes hate the flag demonstrates a complete and utter lack of the following:
Most importantly, they are never based on a misunderstanding. On the contrary, the disagreements arise from perfect comprehension; from having chewed over the ideas of your intellectual opponent so thoroughly that you can properly spit them out.
In other words, to disagree well you must first understand well. You have to read deeply, listen carefully, watch closely. You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate empathically with his line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be persuaded of what he has to say.
I challenge you to properly spit out your perfect comprehension of Colin Kaepernick's protest.In other words, to disagree well you must first understand well. You have to read deeply, listen carefully, watch closely. You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate empathically with his line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be persuaded of what he has to say.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Read the article. He’s paying homage to its contents. You’ve jumped the gun here.
Limbaugh certainly changed the paradigm and made words like "moderate" seem bad. I don't agree with your take on FOX. first, I think it is more of a result of media problems than a cause. Second, except for Hannity and a handful of so-called contributors, I don't think it is all that bad. The difference is the story selection, not necessarily the accuracy. The NYT, WaPo, and NBC, CBS, TNT take similar approaches.
I read it, guy. Where do you think the quotes came from?
Nope. There's a history you're missing. And if there's one thing COH consistently and persistently does, it's disingenuously avoid his opponent's meaning.
Stephens' hope for noble disagreement is commendable, I guess, but it's also naive. He seems to suggest that the failure lies with the disagreeing party, who doesn't make the appropriate effort to understand and empathize with those to be disagreed with. However, while this is certainly sometimes the problem, it's not always the problem. Sometimes people make arguments in bad faith, and no amount of understanding or empathy will resolve that; in fact, it can actually make it worse, by granting moral and intellectual authority to an argument that deserves neither.
Arguments can show a lack of good faith in many ways. Sometimes someone uses shady or incomplete facts (such as Stephens' own reference to a recent survey to make a point, without any reference to the immediate red flags that were raised about the survey's methodology). Sometimes, people are simply dishonest about their goals, such as the white supremacists who careful couch their arguments in vague terms like "defense of western civilization" in order to gain more mainstream appeal.
And sometimes, even when an argument is made honestly and forthrightly, it simply doesn't deserve an equal seat at the table of morality. We don't need to waste time honestly debating those who would advocate the return of European concentration camps and continental ethnic cleansing. We've already settled that debate.
Finally, Stephens also, I think, overstates the extent of the problem. Often, honest disagreement and engagement is dismissed out-of-hand by people who have no intention of actually listening to critique (common among proponents of pseudoscience). If it's incumbent upon the disagreeing party to keep an open mind to the possibility that they may be persuaded by an argument, then it is also incumbent upon the original author of the argument to keep an open mind to the possibility that they may be persuaded by the arguments of a future critic.
TL;DR - Stephens correctly identifies many of the problems with our national discourse, but he incorrectly narrows these symptoms down to the singular inability to properly engage arguments we disagree with, instead of recognizing the true complexity of the problem.
Arguments can show a lack of good faith in many ways. Sometimes someone uses shady or incomplete facts (such as Stephens' own reference to a recent survey to make a point, without any reference to the immediate red flags that were raised about the survey's methodology). Sometimes, people are simply dishonest about their goals, such as the white supremacists who careful couch their arguments in vague terms like "defense of western civilization" in order to gain more mainstream appeal.
And sometimes, even when an argument is made honestly and forthrightly, it simply doesn't deserve an equal seat at the table of morality. We don't need to waste time honestly debating those who would advocate the return of European concentration camps and continental ethnic cleansing. We've already settled that debate.
Finally, Stephens also, I think, overstates the extent of the problem. Often, honest disagreement and engagement is dismissed out-of-hand by people who have no intention of actually listening to critique (common among proponents of pseudoscience). If it's incumbent upon the disagreeing party to keep an open mind to the possibility that they may be persuaded by an argument, then it is also incumbent upon the original author of the argument to keep an open mind to the possibility that they may be persuaded by the arguments of a future critic.
TL;DR - Stephens correctly identifies many of the problems with our national discourse, but he incorrectly narrows these symptoms down to the singular inability to properly engage arguments we disagree with, instead of recognizing the true complexity of the problem.
Hannity, Rush, Coulter......even Trump.....don't believe 25% of the crap they spew. It's all to make money (or gets votes)
5 minutes after he won, Trump actually bragged he only said all that stuff to get votes.....and he literally begged the Mexican Prez to stop talking about the wall because he didn't care about it all.
the current state of discourse didn't just happen, it was engineered.
the number one task of many sock puppet posters here isn't to solve anything, but to just keep the "us vs them" fight going, and keep actual solutions on everything from telecom policy to defense to healthcare from even being discussed.
perhaps it's a perversion of "Wag The Dog", where the opposing party becomes the object of the war.
the number one topic during the prez primaries was the moneyed interest's takeover of govt.
both parties are owned by the moneyed interests, and that's absolutely not what they want being the topic of discussion.
thus they have their MSM outlets' talking heads and their social media sock puppets and bots, going all out full time, to get voters minds off big money's control of govt, thus finance/bank reform, defense policy, healthcare policy, telecom policy, and every other economic policy, and back to Dems are evil, Pubs are wonderful, Dems are wonderful, Pubs are evil..
healthcare is discussed all day everyday, on the MSM and every discussion board.
both parties and most legislators know the answer, as do all the talking heads on tv, yet you virtually never even hear "single payer" even brought up in the discussion.
neither party wants a Medicare/Medicaid for all solution, no matter how much cheaper and universal. (they don't even want the already known and proven solution, even brought up in the conversation)
nor does the MSM, (who have their eye on the FCC and FTC 24/7/365), and who's ad spots are filled with pharma, hospital, and other healthcare related ads.
media also doesn't want much needed consumer based telecom/cable/internet policy, as they are all owned or controlled by the big telecom/cable/internet providers. (they even own C-Span).
do you ever even hear net neutrality or media consolidation so much as mentioned in the MSM? no way.
if Kim falls over dead tomorrow, that maybe costs "the complex" a trillion dollars.
so sock puppets, let's make your families proud, and get all the discussions away from actual solutions to our biggest problems, and back on to nothing but "us vs them","Dems are bad, Pubs are good", "Pubs are bad, Dems are good", all day every day.
or at least keep the discussions away from anything with any impact on big money, and focused instead on things like race, which Wall St could care less about.
the number one task of many sock puppet posters here isn't to solve anything, but to just keep the "us vs them" fight going, and keep actual solutions on everything from telecom policy to defense to healthcare from even being discussed.
perhaps it's a perversion of "Wag The Dog", where the opposing party becomes the object of the war.
the number one topic during the prez primaries was the moneyed interest's takeover of govt.
both parties are owned by the moneyed interests, and that's absolutely not what they want being the topic of discussion.
thus they have their MSM outlets' talking heads and their social media sock puppets and bots, going all out full time, to get voters minds off big money's control of govt, thus finance/bank reform, defense policy, healthcare policy, telecom policy, and every other economic policy, and back to Dems are evil, Pubs are wonderful, Dems are wonderful, Pubs are evil..
healthcare is discussed all day everyday, on the MSM and every discussion board.
both parties and most legislators know the answer, as do all the talking heads on tv, yet you virtually never even hear "single payer" even brought up in the discussion.
neither party wants a Medicare/Medicaid for all solution, no matter how much cheaper and universal. (they don't even want the already known and proven solution, even brought up in the conversation)
nor does the MSM, (who have their eye on the FCC and FTC 24/7/365), and who's ad spots are filled with pharma, hospital, and other healthcare related ads.
media also doesn't want much needed consumer based telecom/cable/internet policy, as they are all owned or controlled by the big telecom/cable/internet providers. (they even own C-Span).
do you ever even hear net neutrality or media consolidation so much as mentioned in the MSM? no way.
if Kim falls over dead tomorrow, that maybe costs "the complex" a trillion dollars.
so sock puppets, let's make your families proud, and get all the discussions away from actual solutions to our biggest problems, and back on to nothing but "us vs them","Dems are bad, Pubs are good", "Pubs are bad, Dems are good", all day every day.
or at least keep the discussions away from anything with any impact on big money, and focused instead on things like race, which Wall St could care less about.
Well just look right in the mirror on this post, It is of course the rights fault, Fox news,Hannity and Rush have such power to ruin the grand socialist and liberal plans. Millions are sure glad they foiled the plot.
