Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
It has been suggested that links be limited to relevant and reputable sources. A noble and reasonable suggestion, but how is it possible when some here consider any source critical of Bush to be leftwing media hogwash?
|
Quote:
|
The probem here is not Host's posts (some of which I read and some I dont) ..or Ace's simplistic analogies, or any one single poster. IMO, the problem is unwillingness by some to have reasonable discourse BASED ON FACTS when the source is challenged.
|
Quote:
|
When I see a post that is entirely false, (more often than not, the product of right wing blogs) I will challenge it with relevant and reputable sources, for which I am then criticized for "threadjacking" or responded to with snide remarks and more false information.
|
Here is what I got out of the above.
I am smarter than you. When I challenge your source that is o.k., but if you challenge my source you are wrong. And one other thing, while I am at it here is another personal attack on Ace, eventhough my attack adds no value to my point.
Here is a very simplistic thought. Give credit when good points are made. Also, conceding to the obvious allows the discussion to progress. I often give "simplistic analogies", because of what appears to be fundemental disagreements on obvious points. For example at some point everyone would agree to take preemptive military action against a looming threat. So when people pretend that they would not, that makes me want to challenge their position. If that point was conceded, a more indepth discussion would occur without "Ace's simplistic analogies" when I participate in a discussion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
creating this problem was a major goal of the conservative media apparatus over many years. it was a space that enabled the right to borrow something from marxist ideology critique and stand it on its head: the right boiled ideology critique down to a simplistic forumla that relativized all information sources by claiming that all of it is equal in that all of it is political--and by "political" they meant "not conservative"---so it followed from there that the right would argue, not that conservatives needed to read critically what information they encountered (why do that?) but instead that since all information as political, and since, in the fantasyland of the american extreme right, conservative viewpoints were marginalized, that it followed that conservative political propositions built into the information itself can function to legitimate information provided to the conservative faithful.
|
Some information is political. I have often acknowledged that some "conservative sources" I have given has been political (i.e. - discussions where I provided info on global warming and and Walmart), however, I have yet to see the same kind of acknowledgement about a "liberal" source. I can see conservatives being guilty of what you suggest, but guess what. Perhaps liberals are guilty of it too.
I call it hypocrisy.