Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PaulS

Delusional psychopaths vs Religous belief

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Burl said:

Well said, Jack.

Burl, when you say "well said Jack", is this really the position you adopt around the term bigot and bigotry also?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Just on this word 'bigotry' - I think we need to understand what we are talking about here.  The word bigot, as I understand it, means a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions (Oxford dictionary).  Another definition (Cambridge Dictionary) describes a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs (people can fee l free to say that about my side of the argument if they want) and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life: The key to bigot and bigotry is intolerance and dislike of others because of their views.  I don't think a few interchanges or disagreements on views in a thread or two can or should be labelled as bigotry.  Otherwise it would seem to me that everyone who disagrees or refuses to accepts the others opposing view would seem to be a bigot by your understanding.

I have displayed no such intolerance......

I agree with Paul on the above. Enough of the bigotry talk.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Burl, when you say "well said Jack", is this really the position you adopt around the term bigot and bigotry also?

A bigot is anyone who is intolerant of others based on race, religion, politics, ideology or other personal characteristic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Burl said:

A bigot is anyone who is intolerant of others based on race, religion, politics, ideology or other personal characteristic.

Yes, that's what i said ("a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions").  So I am curious as to where you see the 'intolerance' part of the definition of the word being displayed in any way here.  Do you think the title of this thread (one thing VERSING another) displays intolerance?  There was a repertoire of exchanges in this thread and the other, much like a formal debate on a stage.  When debating as such, is it typical to accuse the other of intolerance when putting forward and/or defending their argument/points of view?  If so, you seem to be setting a very low bar for intolerance.  The synonyms used for intolerance such as bigotry, narrow-mindedness, small-mindedness, parochialism, provincialism, insularity, fanaticism, dogmatism, illiberality etc are all pretty strong words to use against anyone who may debate an opposing point of view (or who may agree on some differences but debate the similarities).

I'm just trying to clarify for future discussion if this is how you see intolerance and bigotry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody is bigoted in some way.  It's part of the human condition.  Prejudices become externalized.  

Personally, I am not bigoted against bigots but today that is a popular hypocracy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PaulS said:

Just on this word 'bigotry' - I think we need to understand what we are talking about here.  The word bigot, as I understand it, means a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions (Oxford dictionary).  Another definition (Cambridge Dictionary) describes a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs (people can fee l free to say that about my side of the argument if they want) and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life: The key to bigot and bigotry is intolerance and dislike of others because of their views.  I don't think a few interchanges or disagreements on views in a thread or two can or should be labelled as bigotry.  Otherwise it would seem to me that everyone who disagrees or refuses to accepts the others opposing view would seem to be a bigot by your understanding.

I have displayed no such intolerance, even though I may disagree and debate others beliefs and points of view..  Indeed by titling this topic psychopathy VERSUS belief I was acknowledging there are differences (accepting others views to a degree), but acknowledge I was primarily discussing similarities.  Now I have no intention of discussing the topic any further per se, but I think I need to address your charge of bigotry as I don't think that is an appropriate description and I think your explanation above doesn't correctly understand the definition of the word.  Ignorance is one thing, equating religion with mental illness is another, but neither are of themselves, bigotry.  Disagreeing with others beliefs is not intolerance


Note the context. I was speaking of Richard Dawkins there. For one example, during Reason Rally 2012, he encouraged his listeners to treat people who claim to have religious beliefs as follows: "Mock them! Ridicule them! In public! Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion."

 

Is it really that inaccurate to call Richard Dawkins a bigot and his branch of militant atheism a bigoted ideology?

Source:

https://ladydifadden.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/transcript-of-richard-dawkins-speech-from-reason-rally-2012/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burl said:

Everybody is bigoted in some way.  It's part of the human condition.  Prejudices become externalized.  

Personally, I am not bigoted against bigots but today that is a popular hypocracy.  

 

I for one, am bigoted and intolerant in few ways. I think pretty much everyone is.

 

Expressions of some form of bigotry or intolerance are too much a taboo in my view. Justice is made of three elements, all of which are equally important: 1) punishing the guilty 2) letting the innocent go and 3) punishing the guilty proportionate to their offense.

 

If someone says something offensive once, the proportionate "punishment" is some social disapproval and that's it. Asking for more harsh, disproportionate consequences (such as labeling the person for life) for such a minor annoyance is to campaign for injustice, not for justice. Punishing the guilty too harshly is a similar form of injustice as letting the guilty go, or punishing the innocent, is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jack of Spades said:

 

I for one, am bigoted and intolerant in few ways. I think pretty much everyone is.

 

That may be true. Yet it would serve no beneficial purpose to a debate here to resort to such accusations. It would only be inflammatory in my view.  Thanks for clarifying that your use of the word was not directed to Paul.

Joseph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jack of Spades said:

Note the context. I was speaking of Richard Dawkins there. For one example, during Reason Rally 2012, he encouraged his listeners to treat people who claim to have religious beliefs as follows: "Mock them! Ridicule them! In public! Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion."

Is it really that inaccurate to call Richard Dawkins a bigot and his branch of militant atheism a bigoted ideology?

Source:

https://ladydifadden.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/transcript-of-richard-dawkins-speech-from-reason-rally-2012/

If you're talking context, are you also considering the context of you stating that I said something bigoted before then going on to say that this thread reminds you of a book that you call bigoted?  Maybe you didn't consider your previous accusation of bigotry or realise that drawing a similarity between this thread and bigotry somewhat places me as a bigot, so in your mind you weer just accusing Dawklns of being a bigot?  Okay then.

But to answer your question,  yes, I do think it is inaccurate to call Richard Dawkins a bigot, unless you don't want to use the word bigot as per its written definition.  Dawkins strongly refutes a Christian ideology there is no doubt, but as I have already pointed out, bigotry is intolerance and is usually regarded as a spiteful and hateful intolerance at that.  I don't know if you've seen many Dawkin's debates but he is usually absolutely tolerates others opinions and points of view and gives them every chance to present their side of the story - he just strongly refutes them as he is entitled to do.  Refusing to accept somebody else's beliefs is not bigotry. 

By your standards it would seem that anyone who strongly refutes another's belief is a bigot.  This is a misuse of the word entirely.  Dawkins is not intolerant of religious opinions - he thinks they are wrong and is prepared to speak out about them particularly against the framework of these beliefs taking pride of place (for some) in law (10 Commandments be displayed in Courthouses), in schools (the insistence to teach creation or intelligent design instead of the science of evolution) and in the area of politics mixing with religion.  

As much as you might not like what he and so called 'militant atheists' believe, it is not bigotry to refute other people's beliefs.  Just as you have a right to tell my why your beliefs are true, I (and Richard) have a right to tell you they are not true and why we thinks so.  Again, this is not bigotry or intolerance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jack of Spades said:

I for one, am bigoted and intolerant in few ways. I think pretty much everyone is.

Expressions of some form of bigotry or intolerance are too much a taboo in my view. Justice is made of three elements, all of which are equally important: 1) punishing the guilty 2) letting the innocent go and 3) punishing the guilty proportionate to their offense.

If someone says something offensive once, the proportionate "punishment" is some social disapproval and that's it. Asking for more harsh, disproportionate consequences (such as labeling the person for life) for such a minor annoyance is to campaign for injustice, not for justice. Punishing the guilty too harshly is a similar form of injustice as letting the guilty go, or punishing the innocent, is.

If you want to call yourself a bigot and intolerant of other people's views, knock yourself out, but I would appreciate it if you don't lump me (or others) into that category (the category where Burl and you seem to agree that everyone is an intolerant bigot).  You are both simply misusing and exaggerating the terms.

I actually don't really mind if somebody wants to consider me a bigot (for inadequate reasons in my opinion) but what irks me the most is this very ordinary justification of a term which is so wrong.  You actually belittle the real seriousness of bigotry and intolerance when you replace it simply for instances of people holding and or arguing opposing or disagreeing beliefs.

In regards to justice, you also must apply justice correctly and in accordance with the law, not simply the populism of the day or how you favour the understanding of a term such as bigot.  The real injustice would be that you think a crime is committed when in fact you are not even understanding the definition of the so-called said crime.  You've actually made up a crime where no such offence existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PaulS said:

But to answer your question,  yes, I do think it is inaccurate to call Richard Dawkins a bigot, unless you don't want to use the word bigot as per its written definition.  Dawkins strongly refutes a Christian ideology there is no doubt, but as I have already pointed out, bigotry is intolerance and is usually regarded as a spiteful and hateful intolerance at that.  I don't know if you've seen many Dawkin's debates but he is usually absolutely tolerates others opinions and points of view and gives them every chance to present their side of the story - he just strongly refutes them as he is entitled to do.  Refusing to accept somebody else's beliefs is not bigotry. 

I have read Dawkins and Sam Harris and never thought the former intolerant, just having strong opinions but if Jack's quote is correct and Dawkins did say, "Mock them. Ridicule them. In public..." that certainly seems to have gone to the intolerant side (i'm okay with the remainder of the quoted sentence but mock and ridicule 'them' is different than disagreeing with their views). I'm more than fine with someone disagreeing with religious claims or my positions, as long as they too can stand the heat.

 

4 hours ago, Jack of Spades said:

I for one, am bigoted and intolerant in few ways. I think pretty much everyone is.

Expressions of some form of bigotry or intolerance are too much a taboo in my view. Justice is made of three elements, all of which are equally important: 1) punishing the guilty 2) letting the innocent go and 3) punishing the guilty proportionate to their offense.

If someone says something offensive once, the proportionate "punishment" is some social disapproval and that's it. Asking for more harsh, disproportionate consequences (such as labeling the person for life) for such a minor annoyance is to campaign for injustice, not for justice. Punishing the guilty too harshly is a similar form of injustice as letting the guilty go, or punishing the innocent, is.

Jack, you are now losing me a bit. 

Everyone os bigoted or intolerant in a few ways? Regardless of that, I disagree with your notion of justice, but I admit I'm not sure you are speaking of societal justice or the justice associated with God. But, regarding this site, I am not about 'punishing.' I disagreed with Paul, on a particular topic, thought his comparison was 'a bit much' (and not the best way to present his position) and could have been stated in a different way and was willing to continue for however long it was necessary. Paul made a decision to end it, apologized and it is over. I was not (nor did I care to) punish him, I was simply disagreeing in the strongest possible way that that I thought was acceptable for this site. Any talk of punishment is a bit too dramatic fro me. 

Furthermore, I disagreed with all the (continuing) intolerance talk: I do not believe Paul is intolerant of others. He and I have agreed in the past and he and I have disagreed in the past and eventually we move to another topic since neither will convince the other (I suspect) on certain issues. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thormas said:

I have read Dawkins and Sam Harris and never thought the former intolerant, just having strong opinions but if Jack's quote is correct and Dawkins did say, "Mock them. Ridicule them. In public..." that certainly seems to have gone to the intolerant side (i'm okay with the remainder of the quoted sentence but mock and ridicule 'them' is different than disagreeing with their views). I'm more than fine with someone disagreeing with religious claims or my positions, as long as they too can stand the heat.

Yes, I think the comment does go to the intolerant side of things but I struggle with judging the man as a bigot because he gets carried away sometimes.  I mean, to the contrary of this 2012 speech, he apologised to Christians in 2015 for mocking their beliefs because he acknowledged he can’t prove there is not a God.  I find it hard to label the man as a bigot in the face of such.  That and the way I have seen him conduct himself in debates, TV interviews and conferences - always tolerant of the others views whilst strongly disagreeing with them, but allowing them their say fairly.  And his book the God Delusion does not contain bigotry or intolerance but simply presents a case for its beliefs and refutes others - again, that is not bigotry or intolerance.

But I’m sure there will be times when RD lets some of his strongly felt beliefs get the better of him.  It’s no excuse, but Christianity has been so much more bigoted throughout history, yet many Christians have no truck with that because such is on their ‘side’.  Indeed some of the bible includes the most horrendous, bigoted words one could read, yet the tolerance granted religion is incomparable with the tolerance granted in other beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PaulS said:

If you're talking context, are you also considering the context of you stating that I said something bigoted before then going on to say that this thread reminds you of a book that you call bigoted?  Maybe you didn't consider your previous accusation of bigotry or realise that drawing a similarity between this thread and bigotry somewhat places me as a bigot, so in your mind you weer just accusing Dawklns of being a bigot?  Okay then.

 

You are right. I wasn't sensitive enough in bringing the adjacent topic of atheist bigotry up in this context. I should have been more sensitive, considering everything you just said in the quote. Sorry. I find atheist bigotry generally to be a legitimate topic to discuss but I should have done so after having put some time and space between the earlier accusation I made about your comments.

FYI. The reason why I said that paragraph about Dawkins, was that I wanted to demonstrate that this "equating religion to mental illness" - problem is alive and well, and it's not just a product of my imagination. So I was looking for some practical example to bring up. It was a choice between the Soviet Union, state atheist China and Dawkins. Soviet Union is history (and I was reluctant to get accused of playing the Stalin-card) and China is geographically and culturally far away so I end up with Dawkins. That was the way how my thought process in this case went.

 

 

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

...yes, I do think it is inaccurate to call Richard Dawkins a bigot, unless you don't want to use the word bigot as per its written definition.

 

I vehemently disagree that a person who tells his young supporters in a prepared public speech to publicly mock and ridicule the people whom he disagrees with, is not an intolerant bigot.

 

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

By your standards it would seem that anyone who strongly refutes another's belief is a bigot.

 

It depends how strongly. If they mock and ridicule the another publicly, yes, I consider them bigots. But look, I generally speaking understand that these topics are difficult to discuss without collateral shooting of by-standers who happen to share some traits with the people being accused. Every time, in any context, when one claims "intolerance","discrimination" or "bigotry" by a group, there is another, somewhat innocent group of people who feels it's an accusation against them, their ideas, their way of life etc. This is nothing new. It's the same with women accusing men of discrimination, or accusations of racism, etc. I consider militant atheism in may instances bigoted and whenever I mention this, atheists - including the atheists whom I don't mean to include into my accusation - get defensive. I genuinely understand the reaction. I've been on the other side of the equation in some other topics.

 

Again, generally speaking, in such situations, if one wants to truly understand both sides of such situations, it's a difficult, multi-dimensional balancing act. However, in the particular instance I was referring to, no amount of sugarcoating is going to convince me that Dawkins encouraging his audience to publicly mock and ridicule their religious peers is not bigotry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Examples of anti-white Christian bigotry appearing in NYC last week.

image.jpg

image.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burl said:

Examples of anti-white Christian bigotry appearing in NYC last week.


Just for the record to avoid any misunderstandings in the future; While I share some opinions with the US conservatives, please don't mistake me as a sympathizer of the MAGA crew or expect me to defend anyone wearing a red hat. I despise them myself. Since I already confessed having certain bigoted or intolerant feelings, I won't make any excuses for my feelings there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Yes, I think the comment does go to the intolerant side of things but I struggle with judging the man as a bigot because he gets carried away sometimes.  I mean, to the contrary of this 2012 speech, he apologised to Christians in 2015 for mocking their beliefs because he acknowledged he can’t prove there is not a God.  I find it hard to label the man as a bigot in the face of such.  That and the way I have seen him conduct himself in debates, TV interviews and conferences - always tolerant of the others views whilst strongly disagreeing with them, but allowing them their say fairly.  And his book the God Delusion does not contain bigotry or intolerance but simply presents a case for its beliefs and refutes others - again, that is not bigotry or intolerance.

But I’m sure there will be times when RD lets some of his strongly felt beliefs get the better of him.  It’s no excuse, but Christianity has been so much more bigoted throughout history, yet many Christians have no truck with that because such is on their ‘side’.  Indeed some of the bible includes the most horrendous, bigoted words one could read, yet the tolerance granted religion is incomparable with the tolerance granted in other beliefs.

I'm fine with Dawkins and take your point but don't need to compare his rhetoric to some Christian bigotry to make (or get) the point. And, let's remember it is some Christians. And we have already been to the Bible and one can debate its 'bigotry.' Tolerance did probably lean toward religion but I no longer see it as incomparable to other beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, PaulS said:

But I’m sure there will be times when RD lets some of his strongly felt beliefs get the better of him.  It’s no excuse, but Christianity has been so much more bigoted throughout history, yet many Christians have no truck with that because such is on their ‘side’.

 

How much do you know about the history of atheism? It appears you are not familiar with the other side of the story. The Soviet Union. China. Cambodia. Vietnam. Albania. To name a few highlights. During the 20th century, the first century when state atheism has been practiced, the amount of persecution against Christians and other religions was worse than all the crusades put together were if measured by the amount of victims. The same state atheism - fun continues today in China and possibly in Vietnam (I'm not actually sure about that one, so I say possibly). 

The centuries of Christian state religion were bad, but at times they were pretty easy-going in comparison. And yes, there were horrible periods, particularly those of the glory days of the Inquisition and the Crusades.

 

Historically speaking, atheism has one of the worst track records, if not the worst, when it comes to religious tolerance. Far worse than Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thormas said:

Jack, you are now losing me a bit. 

Everyone os bigoted or intolerant in a few ways? Regardless of that, I disagree with your notion of justice, but I admit I'm not sure you are speaking of societal justice or the justice associated with God. But, regarding this site, I am not about 'punishing.' I disagreed with Paul, on a particular topic, thought his comparison was 'a bit much' (and not the best way to present his position) and could have been stated in a different way and was willing to continue for however long it was necessary. Paul made a decision to end it, apologized and it is over. I was not (nor did I care to) punish him, I was simply disagreeing in the strongest possible way that that I thought was acceptable for this site. Any talk of punishment is a bit too dramatic fro me. 

Furthermore, I disagreed with all the (continuing) intolerance talk: I do not believe Paul is intolerant of others. He and I have agreed in the past and he and I have disagreed in the past and eventually we move to another topic since neither will convince the other (I suspect) on certain issues. 

 

My speaking of justice was addressed to Blur, when he mentioned the present day cultural perceptions on bigotry. It wasn't a reference to anything said in this conversation. I take it as a sign that the discussion has become overheated when everything I have said the last 5 posts has been interpreted by more than one person to be a reference to Paul, when I was answering to someone about something else.

 

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

You actually belittle the real seriousness of bigotry and intolerance when you replace it simply for instances of people holding and or arguing opposing or disagreeing beliefs.

 

I strongly disagree. I think it's the other way around.
I think the recent trend of trying to make bigotry a taboo social stigma, a case of "either horrible 100% or or 0% bigot" and have everyone have a competition of proving that they are never bigoted in way shape or form, is the attitude that has destroyed the topic.

In real life these things exist on a scale of 0 to 100. If we keep treating insensitivity, bigotry or intolerance as absolutely unacceptable, unforgivable tabboo, we keep providing the dangerous 100 point bigots cover by condemning the 5, 10 or 15 points bigots the same as them. If you say that the 5/100 bigots are as bad as the 100/100 are, what you end up doing in practice is communicating the opposite; you end up sounding like the 100/100 bigots are just as harmless as the 5/100s are. That's what has gone wrong recently.

Edited by Jack of Spades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jack of Spades said:

My speaking of justice was addressed to Blur, when he mentioned the present day cultural perceptions on bigotry. It wasn't a reference to anything said in this conversation. I take it as a sign that the discussion has become overheated when everything I have said the last 5 posts has been interpreted by more than one person to be a reference to Paul, when I was answering to someone about something else.

Thanks for the clarification. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thormas said:

Thanks for the clarification as it does get confusing. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jack of Spades said:

 

I strongly disagree. I think it's the other way around.
I think the recent trend of trying to make bigotry a taboo social stigma, a case of "either horrible 100% or or 0% bigot" and have everyone have a competition of proving that they are never bigoted in way shape or form, is the attitude that has destroyed the topic.

In real life these things exist on a scale of 0 to 100. If we keep treating insensitivity, bigotry or intolerance as absolutely unacceptable, unforgivable tabboo, we keep providing the dangerous 100 point bigots cover by condemning the 5, 10 or 15 points bigots the same as them. If you say that the 5/100 bigots are as bad as the 100/100 are, what you end up doing in practice is communicating the opposite; you end up sounding like the 100/100 bigots are just as harmless as the 5/100s are. That's what has gone wrong recently.

Yes.  I linked the posters because they are current examples of American anti-Christian bigotry and do not involve any personalities here.

 

There is a continuum.  We all have opinions about known individuals based on either first-hand experience or information from others.  

The next step on the continuum is to form various prejudices about what all unknown individuals are like based on signifiers.

A further step is bigotry, where we do not tolerate others based on their signifiers.  This intolerance can range from avoidance to incivility to disparagement, ridicule and even animosity but is still a just personal opinion.  Two classic stereotype bigots are Fred Sandford and Archie Bunker.  Loveable, but I also feel sorry for how much of life they miss out on.

There is no problem until the bigot tries to interfere with the free will of another through bullying, manipulation, discrimination &c.  That is not acceptable.  Even worse is when this grows into social enforced norms.

The bigotry stage, where we are still dealing with personal levels of tolerance is where self-examination and a willingness to change is needed.  We are all bigots about some things and we should be able to discuss such natural character defects.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Burl said:

The bigotry stage, where we are still dealing with personal levels of tolerance is where self-examination and a willingness to change is needed.  We are all bigots about some things and we should be able to discuss such natural character defects.

 

I agree with pretty much everything you said and I'm glad whenever I hear someone address the topic in a sober-headed fashion that recognizes the reality of all the shades of grey.

 

15 minutes ago, Burl said:

Yes.  I linked the posters because they are current examples of American anti-Christian bigotry and do not involve any personalities here.

 

There is more mainstream version of that than posters in a trash can. I watch MSNBC myself occasionally and what I very often hear is: "White males... ddzzzz.... white men.... dzzzz.... white people.... dzzz.. white males.... dzzzz... men....dzzzz... white males... dzzzz"

(that "dzzz" refers to speaking of unspecified words)

It's like a sneaky brain-washing tape from a scifi-movie that is indoctrinating the audience to see an enemy when they look at white males. Or to put it another way, it's racist and it's sexist. What makes it worse is that it's promoted, not by extremist edge cases but by well-read, smart and sophisticated people so it has the aura of intellectual legitimacy. 

To be clear, it's not as bad as some right-wing conspiracy-mongering propaganda is, I think Breitbart etc. are far worse, but it's still pretty bad.

 

But, we are getting badly off-topic. Excuses moi!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jack of Spades said:

There is more mainstream version of that than posters in a trash can. I watch MSNBC myself occasionally and what I very often hear is: "White males... ddzzzz.... white men.... dzzzz.... white people.... dzzz.. white males.... dzzzz... men....dzzzz... white males... dzzz"  (that "dzzz" refers to speaking of unspecified words)

It's like a sneaky brain-washing tape from a scifi-movie that is indoctrinating the audience to see an enemy when they look at white males. Or to put it another way, it's racist and it's sexist. What makes it worse is that it's promoted, not by extremist edge cases but by well-read, smart and sophisticated people so it has the aura of intellectual legitimacy. 

To be clear, it's not as bad as some right-wing conspiracy-mongering propaganda is, I think Breitbart etc. are far worse, but it's still pretty bad.

Perhaps it is perspective but I don't hear the dzzz and not exactly sure what that means. 

I don't feel indoctrinated although I don't always have it on or when on, the sound is sometimes off. But certainly no 'sneaky brain-washing tape'  when I actually listen.  What's racist and sexist? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, thormas said:

Perhaps it is perspective but I don't hear the dzzz and not exactly sure what that means. 

I don't feel indoctrinated although I don't always have it on or when on, the sound is sometimes off. But certainly no 'sneaky brain-washing tape'  when I actually listen.  What's racist and sexist? 

 

Okay I was probably a bit too figurative. What I meant is that the anchors, commentators and panelists on MSNBC mention white males in some negative context in a very predictable, repetitive fashion, many times a day, every day 365 days a year. If someone grows up listening to that, they'll blame white males for everything that has ever been wrong in the world.

Do an experiment yourself; turn on MSNBC, check what the time is when you start, and when you first hear "white males" see how long time it took and whether the context was negative, neutral or positive. Then just repeat and see how many "white males" in a negative context you get before you get bored.

Edited by Jack of Spades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jack of Spades said:

Okay I was probably a bit too figurative. What I meant is that the anchors, commentators and panelists on MSNBC mention white males in some negative context in a very predictable, repetitive fashion, many times a day, every day 365 days a year. If someone grows up listening to that, they'll blame white males for everything that has ever been wrong in the world.

Well, you're more clear but I disagree. I'm a white male and I see some white males in a negative context but not all of us - as presented by the white men and others on shows. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×