Go republicans! Let's restrict womens bodies again!

[Dude#1279435]

Agree, we humans will taint or bias everything they touch.

If you ask a "thoughtful" conservative those questions they would respond as follows: The people(elites) that control current culture are all university educated (past 30 years). University professors identify over 90% as left wing. Universities are intolerant to opinions or debates that they do not like or fit their worldview. That applies to comedians too. The free exchange of ideas and exposure to the wisdom of @5,000 years of history and wisdom is dead. This is dangerous to the future of a "free" society. Hollywood same. The establishment media is made up of the same university products so of course the media's number of channels/outlets are @90% left wing biased. They also do not hire conservative journalists so there is no balance. A left wing bias' media is not a bad thing if you have a 'right wing' government. They would keep the government it in check. But, when you have a left wing government protected by a left wing media, that is a dangerous thing.

That's why. That's why audience and demographics are going down for media and Hollywood. Advertisers see this in their numbers and are cutting back. It's just business.

You own radio. You have Fox, the NY Post, Examiner, and WSJ. Algorithms been manipulated? Gov't shuts down any conservative thought? Blocked from the WH press secretary? Seems to me like some of the problem is conservatives have given up a lot of journalism for a different game plan. Otherwise it implies ALL of the problem is the left.

 

[Dude#1279435]

YT and Twitter have been actively caught censoring content they do not agree with so that's part of the creative content problem. You seem to like BTC and he seems to be talented but, from clips I have been sent, he's partisan so I would not agree that he's providing "evidence". His clips are clever but edited not to provide content or opinion that would not fit his worldview. As an example, "Liberals of tikktok" shows unedited or unfiltered videos of some zany's doing their thing and the media are trying to memory hole them for being "derogatory". Derogatory used to be part of the definition of being a "Comedian" but not in today's "illiberal" culture.

BTC and TYT are consistently providing live examples of behavior problems from the right. What you're talking about is them discussing policy, and as partisans they aren't going to do that because they're partisans. The right needs to pick up their game and investigate them much like they provide investigative examples. The right's game plan is to own the libs with fear, hate, and conspiracy and that's fine because it's worked well for them. But there's a void in investigative journalism from conservatives on the left IMO. I don't believe it's entirely the 90% rule but possible a lack of persuing it.

 

[Dude#1279435]

There's also the thought that conservatism is an uphill battle because the young tend to be rebellious and liberal while things like conservative come with experience and age. Or maybe once 60s liberals pass on then the country will become more right leaning. Just an idea anyway.

 

[NINaudio]

Ummmmmmm I think he called out both sides that do it he said whether your left or right if this is how you react to people that view your point differently your idiots. You dont remember that part?

Who in they're right minds would want to vandalize an organization designed to help pregnant women? Shouldn't they want to go after the Supreme Court Justices that.... oh wait they just tried that last week.

I remember that part, and while he may have given lip service to both sides, it was pretty obvious that he is more concerned about the crisis pregnancy centers being vandalized than all the poop pro lifer's have done to abortion clinics and Planned Parenthoods over the years (which, BTW, is far worse than anything that was done to the centers he showed/talked about). From reading the comments it's also pretty clear which side of the debate he caters to.

 

[Teetertotter?]

There's also the thought that conservatism is an uphill battle because the young tend to be rebellious and liberal while things like conservative come with experience and age. Or maybe once 60s liberals pass on then the country will become more right leaning. Just an idea anyway.

What do you mean by the young.....age wise? That is a pretty broad statement. Look at the crowd that stormed the capital........more older?? Of course, they were the Skin Head/Right type mentality. Some young and some older. The older seemed to be the leader of the band. Just to make a point.
FOX and the like, would be a good example of the Right MENTALITY. False News...............and many people believe. Pretty sad.

 

[Trell]

…
University professors identify over 90% as left wing

To people of science the Republican anti-science, climate denial and alternate facts ideology are not attractive. This is not a failing of conservatism but of the Republican party.

Also, what is “left wing” nowadays? A conservative economist like Milton Friedman turns out to be a lefty as he would have supported championing quantitative easing to fight deflation.

What GOP Economists Don't Understand About Milton Friedman

Conservatives love Milton Friedman. But lately they've attacked Ben Bernanke for following Friedman's advice. What gives?

www.theatlantic.com

 

[SithZedi]

There's also the thought that conservatism is an uphill battle because the young tend to be rebellious and liberal while things like conservative come with experience and age. Or maybe once 60s liberals pass on then the country will become more right leaning. Just an idea anyway.

The current young are rebellious for sure but not "liberal" in the 1960s sense. This current product of universities is most decidedly "illiberal" with the lack of support of free speech being only one of their many many sins. The generation of the 1960s would and should be ashamed of this crop of "young". Without free speech and open debate how would they have gone up against the government to help end the Vietnam War or push for civil rights. This generation is pro big government.

This generation(obviously not all) group mindset has more in common with Pol Pot's Cambodia and Mao's Cultural Revolution of the 70s. Both movements prominently featured the brain washed, illiberal youth that hacked and shot teachers, intellectuals, and political opponents at the behest of the government.

Bill Maher totally captures a bit of what we have been going back and forth about as he deservedly roasts the WP, media, and millennials. Even 10 years ago he would have certainly have been and labeled himself very "left of center". Today, the Overton Window has moved to where he is a moderate in many respects and now an enemy of the left. He would not be welcome on college campus and must be destroyed.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1538013603701280775

 

[highfigh]

Agree, we humans will taint or bias everything they touch.

If you ask a "thoughtful" conservative those questions they would respond as follows: The people(elites) that control current culture are all university educated (past 30 years). University professors identify over 90% as left wing. Universities are intolerant to opinions or debates that they do not like or fit their worldview. That applies to comedians too. The free exchange of ideas and exposure to the wisdom of @5,000 years of history and wisdom is dead. This is dangerous to the future of a "free" society. Hollywood same. The establishment media is made up of the same university products so of course the media's number of channels/outlets are @90% left wing biased. They also do not hire conservative journalists so there is no balance. A left wing bias' media is not a bad thing if you have a 'right wing' government. They would keep the government it in check. But, when you have a left wing government protected by a left wing media, that is a dangerous thing.

That's why. That's why audience and demographics are going down for media and Hollywood. Advertisers see this in their numbers and are cutting back. It's just business.

Bias at colleges and universities depends a great deal on what they teach. It's less likely to find extreme liberalism at engineering schools, although state-unis like the U-Wisconsin system have gone way down that rabbit hole. Why should a history professor require the students to choose their preferred pronouns and show their clear disgust for members of the opposite sex and push their extremely liberal agenda? IMO, they should tech the effing subjects and leave the other shyte out of it. If someone asks, fine, but don't push it on the students.

One party controlling all three branches PLUS the media would likely cause the end of life as we know it, at least for some time. Our form of Democracy would probably end and unless the opposing party is allowed to remain in existence, only the party in power has a decent chance of being elected unless they do something so bad and stupid that their own turn on them.

Another problem with many people is that whenever someone comes up with an opposing viewpoint and shows their sources for the info, they're immediately dumped on just for posting that source, even though the people dumping on them could very easily look into it for themselves. To them, I say "Look it up- don't be an a$$".

Here's a video that's sure to pi$$ people off, not only for the dialog, but for the source. I'm only posting it because it's not far from what's happening, so don't shoot me-

The Babylon Bee | Your Trusted Source For Christian News Satire.

The Babylon Bee is Your Trusted Source For Christian News Satire.

babylonbee.com

 

[Danzilla31]

I remember that part, and while he may have given lip service to both sides, it was pretty obvious that he is more concerned about the crisis pregnancy centers being vandalized than all the poop pro lifer's have done to abortion clinics and Planned Parenthoods over the years (which, BTW, is far worse than anything that was done to the centers he showed/talked about). From reading the comments it's also pretty clear which side of the debate he caters to.

Bro why can't he be concerned about those centers? They're the ones that just got hit. Does everyone these days have to stop while making a point and go back 20 years to make sure they covered both sides to your satisfaction? It would take an hour to talk about anything.

He said any person who takes this stance whether right or left is the problem. THATS WHAT HE SAID. Anyone with any ability to understand context understands he's not bagging the other side just because he didn't take time to speak about it. I think it's funny that his clip is not left or right biased. It's about shi$$ty people who use violence to push agendas. But immediately you went team blue.
The crazy part is what are you defending? Don't democrats want more centers like this for mothers that decide to go ahead and keep there babies? Don't people say we don't do enough to help mothers that are put in these situations? Well here's people stepping up and doing what people want them to do.

And they're going to get put in the crossfire because some douchebags can't handle a legal outcome and are too immature and pu$$y to take there anger to the source. Takes a real man to hit up a center for women run by mostly women staffers

But wait if it will make you feel better I can type out the exact same thing that is just as long that covers how this applies to pro abortion. Because yes it does apply. People who do this to centers that are helping to support mothers that decide abortion is there option are the exact same kind of coward and a pu$$y

Would 5 more paragraphs satisfy you that he is not being biased? I know your a good person Ive dialoged enough with you to see that but bro you took a simple concept a good message and go tribal and get it all twisted.

But look if that's what you want to see out of what he said okay. That he is only supporting one side thats fine. There's no reason for us to go around and around on it and just waste our day. You do you. I'll do me.

 

[Dude#1279435]

What do you mean by the young.....age wise? That is a pretty broad statement. Look at the crowd that stormed the capital........more older?? Of course, they were the Skin Head/Right type mentality. Some young and some older. The older seemed to be the leader of the band. Just to make a point.
FOX and the like, would be a good example of the Right MENTALITY. False News...............and many people believe. Pretty sad.

I wasn't talking about the alt-right. Thats many ages. Of course Faux too has a couple of the finest in Tucker and Hannity. No I was talking about HS and college age kids.

 

[SithZedi]

To people of science the Republican anti-science, climate denial and alternate facts ideology are not attractive. This is not a failing of conservatism but of the Republican party.

Also, what is “left wing” nowadays? A conservative economist like Milton Friedman turns out to be a lefty as he would have supported championing quantitative easing to fight deflation.

What GOP Economists Don't Understand About Milton Friedman

Conservatives love Milton Friedman. But lately they've attacked Ben Bernanke for following Friedman's advice. What gives?

www.theatlantic.com

There are people of both parties that that find facts not attractive as you say. In the world of today, some argue that facts can be many things, even racist.

Who are the "people of science" you mention? Do you mean views that support a "conclusion" the left agrees with? In the case of climate science, the left says "the science is settled on matter X" That's not science, its pushing an agenda. It goes against the history of modern science.

To put it another way, "Let's say you were piloting an alien spacecraft and visited Earth during the Cryogenian Period, or "Snowball Earth Period". After viewing Earth completely covered in ice, would you have reported back to home base "it's a frozen planet, nothing to see here?" There is no settled science.

Climate denial is a term that distorts or tries to shut down proper debate. Most reasonable conservaties, at least the ones that don't believe the earth is 6k years old, do believe in climate change because there is empirical evidence over the last 4.5 billion years. The real debate is how much evidence do we have that human activity is impacting a very complex system that we still do not understand. This is my cautionary arrogance of modern mankind argument. Should we reset and bankrupt the world economy based on "settled science" of the Green Agenda promoters? Doing this could potentially cause millions of humans in poor nations to die of cold and starvation because of the rationing or lack of cheap energy? Only the rich elites will be warm. I think it's worth a serious debate about tradeoffs instead of "othering" people who want to talk about this?

Anyway, I have to go finish putting up a fence for the dog...

 

[Dude#1279435]

To people of science the Republican anti-science, climate denial and alternate facts ideology are not attractive. This is not a failing of conservatism but of the Republican party.

Basically Republicans have given up science and journalism because they believe they are left wing fields. That doesn't mean I think all science and journalism is reputable, but the Republicans have given it up to divide.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Bias at colleges and universities depends a great deal on what they teach. It's less likely to find extreme liberalism at engineering schools, although state-unis like the U-Wisconsin system have gone way down that rabbit hole. Why should a history professor require the students to choose their preferred pronouns and show their clear disgust for members of the opposite sex and push their extremely liberal agenda? IMO, they should tech the effing subjects and leave the other shyte out of it. If someone asks, fine, but don't push it on the students.

Any evidence this is happening, links etc? Seems to me it's time to start supporting it with some actual live examples. Any Pew research etc?

 

[highfigh]

Any evidence this is happening, links etc? Seems to me it's time to start supporting it with some actual live examples. Any Pew research etc?

My friends' daughter is a student at UW-Milw and he showed some photos from a test she had to take. You won't see links to that unless the professor is so proud of itself that it posted them. Yeah, that's the professor's preferred pronoun. I'll see if he still has them, so I can post the shots here.

Is PEW your reference for things like this? If so, here's one for ya-

It's Official: Democrats Are The Extremists Today

Partisanship: Everyone knows that the country is more politically polarized than ever, but most don't know why. Data from the highly respected Pew Research Center provides a definitive answer. It's... Read More

www.investors.com

 

[Dude#1279435]

My friends' daughter is a student at UW-Milw and he showed some photos from a test she had to take. You won't see links to that unless the professor is so proud of itself that it posted them. Yeah, that's the professor's preferred pronoun. I'll see if he still has them, so I can post the shots here.

Is PEW your reference for things like this? If so, here's one for ya-

It's Official: Democrats Are The Extremists Today

Partisanship: Everyone knows that the country is more politically polarized than ever, but most don't know why. Data from the highly respected Pew Research Center provides a definitive answer. It's... Read More

www.investors.com

Democrats believe in socialism more than Republicans believe in capitalism. -- Jason Lewis

This would be my concern for Republicans.

 

[Dude#1279435]

The current young are rebellious for sure but not "liberal" in the 1960s sense. This current product of universities is most decidedly "illiberal" with the lack of support of free speech being only one of their many many sins. The generation of the 1960s would and should be ashamed of this crop of "young". Without free speech and open debate how would they have gone up against the government to help end the Vietnam War or push for civil rights. This generation is pro big government.

This generation(obviously not all) group mindset has more in common with Pol Pot's Cambodia and Mao's Cultural Revolution of the 70s. Both movements prominently featured the brain washed, illiberal youth that hacked and shot teachers, intellectuals, and political opponents at the behest of the government.

I thought "liberal" in the 60s meant basically only leftist thought at campuses? Today's "illiberal" and lack of free speech would basically mean shutting down conservative viewpoints. So what's the difference?

I also would NOT equate it to anything like Cambodia or Mao where teachers were shot.

 

[SithZedi]

Liberal is a word that has morphed considerably over the years both in the US and in UK / Europe. In the 60s, the idea of truth, justice and free speech (and to quote Superman), and "the American way" were considered liberal values then. If you asked a WW2 veteran then, they would tell you that's what they fought for. Some colleges did not take kindly to protests but free speech won out in the end.

You might not equate it but that doesn't mean the mindset is not there. Just read the history and take out the shooting. Ask a Chinese, Cambodian, or Vietnamese immigrant that came to the US right after that period and listen to what they tell you about the behaviour during buildup phase before the violence started. The only thing missing is the physical violence. The intolerance, sanctimony, and, not inaccurately, a fascist mindset is obvious.

 

[highfigh]

I thought "liberal" in the 60s meant basically only leftist thought at campuses? Today's "illiberal" and lack of free speech would basically mean shutting down conservative viewpoints. So what's the difference?

I also would NOT equate it to anything like Cambodia or Mao where teachers were shot.

Conservatives were shouted down during the '60s, just as they are now. Not much has changed, there. However, come campuses had a branch of the Young Republicans.

 

[highfigh]

If anyone thinks their way is the only way to operate this country, remember that immigrants come here because of how they perceive this country and how it's different from where they had lived. They're here because they WANT to be here. How do you think they feel about people wanting to "fundamentally change' this place (in either direction), the way people think, the opportunities, etc?

Also, look at how the votes cast by immigrants have changed in the last 15 years- they're not voting for the same party that seemed like the one they wanted to hitch their wagon to.

 

[Old Onkyo]

If anyone thinks their way is the only way to operate this country, remember that immigrants come here because of how they perceive this country and how it's different from where they had lived. They're here because they WANT to be here. How do you think they feel about people wanting to "fundamentally change' this place (in either direction), the way people think, the opportunities, etc?

Also, look at how the votes cast by immigrants have changed in the last 15 years- they're not voting for the same party that seemed like the one they wanted to hitch their wagon to.

How did that first wave of immigration work out for the indigenous people ?
white people did not discover America and build it into the country it is by their hard work and ingenuity. Murder rape pillage and loot is what settled the land.
now you want to stop anyone from teaching American history. I am all in favor of fundamentally changing the way yawl think!