The 2020 General Election Thread

[DoggyDaddy]

1) It’s true enough NPR will present the news from a left slant. The author assumes that the GOP typical position is a racist one, and that’s partisan nonsense.

2) You say that as if being critical of trump automatically makes him untrustworthy. Everyone should be critical of every political officeholder. Just because we vote for a candidate doesn’t mean we have to hold his **** when he pees. But perhaps you meant critically unfair or partisan.

Re: #2 - when someone is described as being a "vocal" critic of anyone or anything, to me, that implies something more than just being critical. It implies (to me) very strong feelings one way or another, which has a tendency to make one's views something less than neutral. Just my interpretation.

You and many others have been critical of Trump, and that's certainly fair (and I'd say encouraged), but I wouldn't describe you as a "vocal critic" of Trump. You've given credit where credit is due. I'm less inclined to believe that's the case with Singleton.

 

[BugI02]

People still listen to NPR!

I think they harbor nostalgia for a time 15 or 20 years ago when they actually did present a less bias and agenda-driven version of the news, as did the BBC for world news

Like most old people, they have not adjusted and re-assessed relative to their current behavior

 

[JettaKnight]

Your crossed out question is not so. It is no more either than the other party, unless of course you've bought into only whites can be racist. In fact, I would say that the progressives that say all whites are racist are in fact racists. Judging someone inferior based upon the color of their skin seems like it would qualify.

That's pretty much the answer I expected (and generally agree with), which is why I crossed it out.

I think they harbor nostalgia for a time 15 or 20 years ago when they actually did present a less bias and agenda-driven version of the news, as did the BBC for world news

Like most old people, they have not adjusted and re-assessed relative to their current behavior

I eschew news that's bombastic, or overly simplified for sound bites, so there's little alternative.


And like most every outlet, avoid the commentary and panel discussions, and stick with the news.

 

[jamil]

Re: #2 - when someone is described as being a "vocal" critic of anyone or anything, to me, that implies something more than just being critical. It implies (to me) very strong feelings one way or another, which has a tendency to make one's views something less than neutral. Just my interpretation.

You and many others have been critical of Trump, and that's certainly fair (and I'd say encouraged), but I wouldn't describe you as a "vocal critic" of Trump. You've given credit where credit is due. I'm less inclined to believe that's the case with Singleton.

Okay, I guess we both have semantic differences about "vocal critic" then. And I don't even think that neutrality should be a goal. It wouldn't bother me to see someone constantly criticizing Trump if the criticisms were fair, even if they never gave him credit where credit is due. It's the unfair criticisms that are a problem. And I think the article in question is full of critical assumptions that aren't all that fair.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Okay, I guess we both have semantic differences about "vocal critic" then. And I don't even think that neutrality should be a goal. It wouldn't bother me to see someone constantly criticizing Trump if the criticisms were fair, even if they never gave him credit where credit is due. It's the unfair criticisms that are a problem. And I think the article in question is full of critical assumptions that aren't all that fair.

I think we're on the same page, semantics aside.

 

[KLB]

Okay, I guess we both have semantic differences about "vocal critic" then. And I don't even think that neutrality should be a goal. It wouldn't bother me to see someone constantly criticizing Trump if the criticisms were fair, even if they never gave him credit where credit is due. It's the unfair criticisms that are a problem. And I think the article in question is full of critical assumptions that aren't all that fair.

You don't want all?

 

[BugI02]

Okay, I guess we both have semantic differences about "vocal critic" then. And I don't even think that neutrality should be a goal. It wouldn't bother me to see someone constantly criticizing Trump if the criticisms were fair, even if they never gave him credit where credit is due. It's the unfair criticisms that are a problem. And I think the article in question is full of critical assumptions that aren't all that fair.

Yet, as I recall, the obverse bothers you (someone constantly praising Trump if the praises are fair, but never criticizing him where criticism is due). Why is that? Is it indicative of a bias in favor of criticizing Trump?

 

[chipbennett]

[STRIKE]Thoughtful question: Is the GOP the racist party, or the party of racist?[/STRIKE]

Nope. I already know the response.

What if I were to tell you that racism isn't a political ideology? What if there were racists all throughout the spectrum of political ideology? What if it were more likely that racism was more closely correlated to statist ideologies than individual liberty ideologies (but of course, modern political parties don't diverge cleanly on the statist-vs-liberty spectrum)?

 

[JettaKnight]

I think they harbor nostalgia for a time 15 or 20 years ago when they actually did present a less bias and agenda-driven version of the news, as did the BBC for world news

Like most old people, they have not adjusted and re-assessed relative to their current behavior

Hey, at least NPR can tell the difference between reality and Monty Python.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-run...f-infighting-at-chaz-protest-area-in-seattle/

 

[KLB]

Ah, more deflection on INGO. How refreshing.

 

[JettaKnight]

Ah, more deflection on INGO. How refreshing.

Sorry, let's back to complaining about Democrats.

 

[jamil]

Yet, as I recall, the obverse bothers you (someone constantly praising Trump if the praises are fair, but never criticizing him where criticism is due). Why is that? Is it indicative of a bias in favor of criticizing Trump?

Did I not say "fair"? So the complement of fair criticism would be fair praise. People who criticize Trump all the time even when the criticism isn't fair, yeah. I'd say that person isn't capable of intellectual honestly. Should that work any differently for unfair praise?

 

[jamil]

What if I were to tell you that racism isn't a political ideology? What if there were racists all throughout the spectrum of political ideology? What if it were more likely that racism was more closely correlated to statist ideologies than individual liberty ideologies (but of course, modern political parties don't diverge cleanly on the statist-vs-liberty spectrum)?

That's a good point, though I do think the definition of racist could apply to an individualist.

I think a good definition of racist individual would be a person who is prejudiced and/or discriminates against, or otherwise has ill will towards another person based on the race of that person. I think that definition could withstand statist and non-statist alike.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That's a good point, though I do think the definition of racist could apply to an individualist.

I think a good definition of racist individual would be a person who is prejudiced and/or discriminates against, or otherwise has ill will towards another person based on the race of that person. I think that definition could withstand statist and non-statist alike.

And here I thought you were so much woker than this.

 

[jamil]

And here I thought you were so much woker than this.

Oh. Indeed I aim to understand wokeness. But I still endeavor to keep my sanity.

 

[KLB]

That's a good point, though I do think the definition of racist could apply to an individualist.

I think a good definition of racist individual would be a person who is prejudiced and/or discriminates against, or otherwise has ill will towards another person based on the race of that person. I think that definition could withstand statist and non-statist alike.

Why are you now trying to redefine the word racism? If you want to say someone is prejudiced, say they are prejudiced. If they are truly racist, say they are racist. Don't go down the path of redefining one word to mean another.

 

[Phase2]

People already lining up for Trump’s weekend rally in Oklahoma

Amazing.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

People already lining up for Trump’s weekend rally in Oklahoma

Amazing.

They're going to kill grandma!!! Or disrespect the slaves!!! Or something...

 

[jamil]

Why are you now trying to redefine the word racism? If you want to say someone is prejudiced, say they are prejudiced. If they are truly racist, say they are racist. Don't go down the path of redefining one word to mean another.

I didn't take much time parse my words as I defined what I intended to be the traditional definition of racism, because the point was more that the racism applies to individualists as well as collectivists, notwithstanding the fact that as Chip pointed out, racism is not an ideology. I did not mean for racism to focus around a couple of words like "prejudice" and "discriminate". Not every prejudiced person is racist, but every racist person is prejudiced. Not every person who discriminates is a racist, but ever racist discriminates. If he reasons for that are just based on race, and there's some kind of feeling of superiority or hate/ill will, malice, then that's racism.

 

[Phase2]