Related Documentary (well worth watching, IMO): The Brainwashing of My Dad - Trailer Despite what it may appear like based on the trailer, it's not just about the story of her father but actually...
Despite what it may appear like based on the trailer, it's not just about the story of her father but actually does a quite thorough job at examining the rise of the right wing media machines through various well-funded right wing political foundations, and ultimately traces it all back to the dismantling of protective legislation (e.g. the Fairness Doctrine) that allowed it all to happen.
Thought I'd share this extremely depressing litany of testimonials about people who have functionally "lost" family members due to their unhealthy fixation on Fox News ruining their ability to...
Thought I'd share this extremely depressing litany of testimonials about people who have functionally "lost" family members due to their unhealthy fixation on Fox News ruining their ability to socialize productively.
Being "open-minded" to close-minded, bigoted, intolerant people is often impossible, and may ultimately be self-defeating (see: Paradox of Tolerance). Sometimes, similar to being in an abusive...
Being "open-minded" to close-minded, bigoted, intolerant people is often impossible, and may ultimately be self-defeating (see: Paradox of Tolerance). Sometimes, similar to being in an abusive relationship, no matter how much you love them, ostracizing and cutting off contact with the terrible people in your life is the only viable option, especially if your physical and mental health is being compromised by constant exposure to them.
I have not had to deal with the level of extremes the people in the article unfortunately had to, but I agree. If it gets to the point where the relationship is so toxic because the other person...
I have not had to deal with the level of extremes the people in the article unfortunately had to, but I agree. If it gets to the point where the relationship is so toxic because the other person has become an extremely vocal bigot, cutting off contact is a viable and often healthy option, depending on the circumstances.
Ultimately it's a very personal decision you have to make and I do hope if someone has to make it that they have another network of friends or family ready to catch them, because cutting contact with people so close to you can be dangerous to your mental health.
If you're not sure what "closed minded, bigoted and intolerant" means, just watch some Fox News editorial pieces. They are, as openly as they can be, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic...
If you're not sure what "closed minded, bigoted and intolerant" means, just watch some Fox News editorial pieces. They are, as openly as they can be, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic and more. It's really pretty clear they're not nice people. Moral relativism has a place but at some point it's just not convincing and if you're not careful you can start to look like you're an apologist for the bad guys (just to be clear, I don't think you are, but some people do look like that when deploying the "but what if you're the intolerant one?" line).
You could argue that Popper's philosophy is coloured by the fact he lived through the rise of the Third Reich. You might then suggest that him watching the Nazi rallies in Germany turn into the rise of Hitler and ultimately the Anschluss which led to his exile from his native Austria led to him concluding that words turn into actions and speeches are much easier to stop than tanks, and that was poor reasoning on his part. On the other hand, you might say that experience and empirical evidence is a solid basis upon which to build an idea and Popper is all about empirical proof (seriously, he's the canonical guy for critical rationalism)
Your example of the KKK isn't a good one, because in places where the KKK are allowed to rally, there's a huge problem with racism. There might not be lynchings any more but it's not exactly a solved problem by any means. If society doesn't say "you guys dressing up like murderers and making speeches about how your race is superior is NOT OK AND FUCKING STOP IT" then the people doing that think it's acceptable and while they might not be tying people to the back of horses any more, you don't want to be a black dude stopped by the cops in KKK country.
The idea that because society deems a number of things reprehensible right now, we shouldn't do anything about those things because at some point society might decide your thing is reprehensible is a form of the slippery slope fallacy, which is logically fairly wobbly. The reductio ad absurdum counter argument is where don't we stop? I was going to say "do we let the white supremacists hold rallies" but then I realised you'd already suggested that was acceptable and I honestly can't think of an example worse than the KKK right now. Interesting how your argument for is the same as my argument against.
Well put. I completely agree - giving platform and exposure to genocidal ideas often leads to genocide. Despite my numerous misgivings with Popper's body of work, I agree with him on this one. I...
Well put. I completely agree - giving platform and exposure to genocidal ideas often leads to genocide. Despite my numerous misgivings with Popper's body of work, I agree with him on this one. I generally think that the free speech argument has been weaponized recently to become a super-value that overshadows and supercedes all other values and is used selectively as a political tool. We live in an ever-complex society and oftentimes personal values and freedoms contradict each other. We have already set up a system of precedences in which our values and freedoms are assessed - if one's right to own property infringes another's right for self autonomy, one will have to take precedence. That precedence is very often context-driven and nuanced, which is difficult to argue and leads to a lot of grey areas. So to simplify the argument, many have taken to the extremes - freedom of speech above all else. But when that freedom of speech calls for another's extermination, it is our duty as a society which values life to step in and curb it.
Good. Because I wasn't and none of my arguments ever did. This attempt to draw a moral parallel between tolerance and those who preach for anti-tolerance had already been covered my @mat and the...
Good. Because I wasn't and none of my arguments ever did. This attempt to draw a moral parallel between tolerance and those who preach for anti-tolerance had already been covered my @mat and the paradox of tolerance. I do not wish to expound on it further. If at this point you can't see the differences, no amount of words from me will convince you otherwise.
i have no stake in this conversation but, if you're just going to reject all the evidence as "out of context" when that's pretty obviously not the case and fox has a pretty well established...
Regarding the Fox News stuff, I looked at the links, and all of them actually seem to take some quote out of context and sensationalize it to become something it isn't. Keep in mind, I'm not saying Fox news is not racist (nor am I saying CNN, MSNBC, etc are not racist),
i have no stake in this conversation but, if you're just going to reject all the evidence as "out of context" when that's pretty obviously not the case and fox has a pretty well established history anchors like glenn beck, tucker carlson, sean hannity, jeanine pirro and others espousing viewpoints that are demonstrably racist, what's the point in anybody trying to convince you at all? you say you're open to new ideas but you haven't exactly demonstrated that at any point in this conversation, which leads me to believe that while you might be open to hearing people out, you are not open to actually following up on that and reanalyzing your viewpoints against what people say, which is the important part of being open to other viewpoints. you can be a KKK member or a black nationalist and be 'open' to other viewpoints for example, but that's meaningless and indistinguishable from not being open to other viewpoints if you never actually change your viewpoints based on what people tell you.
The topic is interesting, but I honestly couldn't get past the first few paragraphs. There are no commas, and it's pretty difficult to read. I think the author could have done with a quick...
The topic is interesting, but I honestly couldn't get past the first few paragraphs. There are no commas, and it's pretty difficult to read. I think the author could have done with a quick proofread before publishing this.
Honestly, I didn't think it was worth reading. It's not really an article about "Fox News poisoning" so much as a bunch of redundant stories from a bunch of random people.
Honestly, I didn't think it was worth reading. It's not really an article about "Fox News poisoning" so much as a bunch of redundant stories from a bunch of random people.
I think the point of the first paragraph was to be written in such a way, to flood you in information and seem desperate. As the article comes from multiple writers anyway, skip the first...
I think the point of the first paragraph was to be written in such a way, to flood you in information and seem desperate. As the article comes from multiple writers anyway, skip the first paragraph if you want to, it gets a lot better, although no part of it will get any literary awards.
The first few paragraphs were just stream of consciousness nonsense. It gets better when you skip down to the testimonials from people. I probably should have included a warning about that.
The first few paragraphs were just stream of consciousness nonsense. It gets better when you skip down to the testimonials from people.
I probably should have included a warning about that.
Faux News is the reason my brother, who isn't very well educated - he never finished high school, unfortunately - voted for Trump. He now sorely regrets it.
Faux News is the reason my brother, who isn't very well educated - he never finished high school, unfortunately - voted for Trump. He now sorely regrets it.
Related Documentary (well worth watching, IMO):
The Brainwashing of My Dad - Trailer
Despite what it may appear like based on the trailer, it's not just about the story of her father but actually does a quite thorough job at examining the rise of the right wing media machines through various well-funded right wing political foundations, and ultimately traces it all back to the dismantling of protective legislation (e.g. the Fairness Doctrine) that allowed it all to happen.
edit: Here is an extended excerpt to give you a much better idea of what to expect in the documentary than the sensationalized and overly dramatic trailer does. I think the trailer really does the documentary a huge disservice, TBH.
Thought I'd share this extremely depressing litany of testimonials about people who have functionally "lost" family members due to their unhealthy fixation on Fox News ruining their ability to socialize productively.
Religion and politics will always be a difficult subject in discussions. And if a family isn't open-minded about these things, it can tear them apart.
Being "open-minded" to close-minded, bigoted, intolerant people is often impossible, and may ultimately be self-defeating (see: Paradox of Tolerance). Sometimes, similar to being in an abusive relationship, no matter how much you love them, ostracizing and cutting off contact with the terrible people in your life is the only viable option, especially if your physical and mental health is being compromised by constant exposure to them.
I have not had to deal with the level of extremes the people in the article unfortunately had to, but I agree. If it gets to the point where the relationship is so toxic because the other person has become an extremely vocal bigot, cutting off contact is a viable and often healthy option, depending on the circumstances.
Ultimately it's a very personal decision you have to make and I do hope if someone has to make it that they have another network of friends or family ready to catch them, because cutting contact with people so close to you can be dangerous to your mental health.
If you're not sure what "closed minded, bigoted and intolerant" means, just watch some Fox News editorial pieces. They are, as openly as they can be, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic and more. It's really pretty clear they're not nice people. Moral relativism has a place but at some point it's just not convincing and if you're not careful you can start to look like you're an apologist for the bad guys (just to be clear, I don't think you are, but some people do look like that when deploying the "but what if you're the intolerant one?" line).
You could argue that Popper's philosophy is coloured by the fact he lived through the rise of the Third Reich. You might then suggest that him watching the Nazi rallies in Germany turn into the rise of Hitler and ultimately the Anschluss which led to his exile from his native Austria led to him concluding that words turn into actions and speeches are much easier to stop than tanks, and that was poor reasoning on his part. On the other hand, you might say that experience and empirical evidence is a solid basis upon which to build an idea and Popper is all about empirical proof (seriously, he's the canonical guy for critical rationalism)
Your example of the KKK isn't a good one, because in places where the KKK are allowed to rally, there's a huge problem with racism. There might not be lynchings any more but it's not exactly a solved problem by any means. If society doesn't say "you guys dressing up like murderers and making speeches about how your race is superior is NOT OK AND FUCKING STOP IT" then the people doing that think it's acceptable and while they might not be tying people to the back of horses any more, you don't want to be a black dude stopped by the cops in KKK country.
The idea that because society deems a number of things reprehensible right now, we shouldn't do anything about those things because at some point society might decide your thing is reprehensible is a form of the slippery slope fallacy, which is logically fairly wobbly. The reductio ad absurdum counter argument is where don't we stop? I was going to say "do we let the white supremacists hold rallies" but then I realised you'd already suggested that was acceptable and I honestly can't think of an example worse than the KKK right now. Interesting how your argument for is the same as my argument against.
Well put. I completely agree - giving platform and exposure to genocidal ideas often leads to genocide. Despite my numerous misgivings with Popper's body of work, I agree with him on this one. I generally think that the free speech argument has been weaponized recently to become a super-value that overshadows and supercedes all other values and is used selectively as a political tool. We live in an ever-complex society and oftentimes personal values and freedoms contradict each other. We have already set up a system of precedences in which our values and freedoms are assessed - if one's right to own property infringes another's right for self autonomy, one will have to take precedence. That precedence is very often context-driven and nuanced, which is difficult to argue and leads to a lot of grey areas. So to simplify the argument, many have taken to the extremes - freedom of speech above all else. But when that freedom of speech calls for another's extermination, it is our duty as a society which values life to step in and curb it.
Could you point out where I called for their extermination?
Good. Because I wasn't and none of my arguments ever did. This attempt to draw a moral parallel between tolerance and those who preach for anti-tolerance had already been covered my @mat and the paradox of tolerance. I do not wish to expound on it further. If at this point you can't see the differences, no amount of words from me will convince you otherwise.
i have no stake in this conversation but, if you're just going to reject all the evidence as "out of context" when that's pretty obviously not the case and fox has a pretty well established history anchors like glenn beck, tucker carlson, sean hannity, jeanine pirro and others espousing viewpoints that are demonstrably racist, what's the point in anybody trying to convince you at all? you say you're open to new ideas but you haven't exactly demonstrated that at any point in this conversation, which leads me to believe that while you might be open to hearing people out, you are not open to actually following up on that and reanalyzing your viewpoints against what people say, which is the important part of being open to other viewpoints. you can be a KKK member or a black nationalist and be 'open' to other viewpoints for example, but that's meaningless and indistinguishable from not being open to other viewpoints if you never actually change your viewpoints based on what people tell you.
The topic is interesting, but I honestly couldn't get past the first few paragraphs. There are no commas, and it's pretty difficult to read. I think the author could have done with a quick proofread before publishing this.
Honestly, I didn't think it was worth reading. It's not really an article about "Fox News poisoning" so much as a bunch of redundant stories from a bunch of random people.
I think the point of the first paragraph was to be written in such a way, to flood you in information and seem desperate. As the article comes from multiple writers anyway, skip the first paragraph if you want to, it gets a lot better, although no part of it will get any literary awards.
i almost went out of breath mentally reading some of this and had to stop.
The first few paragraphs were just stream of consciousness nonsense. It gets better when you skip down to the testimonials from people.
I probably should have included a warning about that.
Faux News is the reason my brother, who isn't very well educated - he never finished high school, unfortunately - voted for Trump. He now sorely regrets it.