The problem here is that we're using the terms liberal/conservative, but in too many different 'spheres' for a comparison. The USA parties (Democrat/Republican) aren't really even close to pure forms of either end of the spectrum, with a few specific exceptions.
I suppose there are more 'political left' forms outside the USA that are more pure socialistic, and in that regard, the USA is only slightly left on the left side (with the possible exception if a few newcomers like AOC who don't even know what socialism is, but embrace the name... maybe Bernie a bit).
When we're talking about education, as in liberal education, we're not talking about political spectrum at all. In fact, most colleges today aren't very liberal education at all, as they have moved more towards specialization. In other words, liberal education has a 'whole person focus' meaning, not a political slant.
The problem is that more of the curriculum and pushed view of the professors in today's colleges is political left-leaning. If certain views are being pushed at the exclusion (or even banning of others), that isn't classicaly liberal, nor is it critical thinking... almost the opposite, no matter if the school was politically conservative or liberal.
Then there is classical liberal vs traditional conservative, which is more like what people in the USA would think of as libertarian vs social-class and institutional-heavy. So, almost completely different meanings there as to what people think liberal and conservative mean.
Then there are political liberal and conservative in terms of spectrum between capitalism/socialism or anarchy-'freedom'/authoritarian, progressive/tradition, etc.
The problem is that in the USA, the parties are weird mixes of various definitions that don't fit neatly together.
In some ways, I agree though.... IF they escape what I'm complaining about above. For example, I've studied with students from asian countries, and (as a broad overgeneralization) they tend to expect to be taught a particular view, which is the (supposedly) correct view. Whereas, professors in the 'West' tend to bring out conflicting views in their assigned reading for discussion purposes and giving the students the tools to choose and/or blend.
BUT... that exists more (in my experience) on the conservative side of the education spectrum more than the liberal side, as typically the liberal view is that conservative writers have little to offer, so they don't study them. Conservatives tend to read both sides, if for nothing else than to argue against the liberal authors... but at least the students are exposed to them.
What we're seeing on campuses these days, though, is an almost radical exclusion of particular viewpoints... which is insanely dangerous, and quite the opposite of what we're talking about here, critical thinking.
I think you're also assuming that only the 'right' engages in "active peddling of lies, misinformation and misguided outrage" which isn't the case at all.
[doublepost=1553142328][/doublepost]
I loosely agree with much of what you wrote, BUT the problem is who gets to be the arbiter of truth?
While there is a ton of misinformation and lots of good info on social media, so is there on the MSM. It used to be (or, at least a bit more so) that professional journalism meant something, and that the bigger media outlets (though not without slant) did more reporting than opinion pieces.
Now, I actually find independent, low-budget journalists on social media and podcasts to be more accurate on the whole... the problem is picking and choosing which ones vs those who are clueless or have some agenda to distort.
With the MSM, you are GOING to get a particular bias, partly from the gov't, partly from the political ideology of the organization and journalists, but mostly from the advertisers (and/or sponsors, hello NPR!).
With social media, it's a mixed bag.... some great resources all the way to crack-pots. You have to (and get to) decide.
If there were some authority I'd trust to do the de-platforming, then great. But, unfortunately, there isn't. They might be de-platforming to truly take down some bad stuff, but they might also be doing so to silence the truth. And, both has been happening.
[doublepost=1553142768][/doublepost]
Ahh, yes. But, the solution to that, is teaching people critical thinking skills and logic, not gate-keeping information or promoting 'official' news authorities. In fact, these two approaches are in opposition to one another.
That's the point I'm trying to make. Setting up curated 'good' news and de-platforming 'bad' news is actually counterproductive to promoting critical thought. It is essentially trying to train people to believe that authority XYZ is doing the critical thinking for them, so they don't have to.
[doublepost=1553143397][/doublepost]
The problem is that sea-level rise is quite small over a long period of time. The problem they are having aren't due to sea-level rise. And, as popular as it is to blame every storm and and flood on global warming in news reports, even the top climate scientists are starting to warn against that baloney.
They may well be having problems in Miami, but they won't know for a century or two whether global warming is making things worse or not.
[doublepost=1553144015][/doublepost]
The problem is that Brietbart/Infowars/Fox are kind of their own political thing, not necessarily conservative. And, most of the Democratic party are their own thing, too, which is more neocon than liberal.
And, unfortunately, both of those 'parties' or segments of parties, actually agree on most things which are beneficial to their power, greed, and support of special interests, and antithetical to what is beneficial to you and I (if you don't believe me, pay more attention to what goes on in Congress).
So long as we all play into this Democrat/Republican and/or Fox vs other-MSM game, they kind of have us right where they want us (warring against each other, rather than taking them down).
[doublepost=1553144466][/doublepost]
THIS ^^^ Bingo!
Because, if you are a critical thinker, that kind of behavior should immediately raise red-flags. Even if you know nothing about the topic, you'll (historically) be right more than wrong if you take the side of the underdog when you see that kind of behavior.
When your argument isn't strong enough to stand on its own and you have to shut-down dissent... that's typically a sign that there is a problem. You might even be right, but you're trying to cover up something, even if that is some lack of confidence in your position.
So, I immediately take the opposition side (as a safety precaution), until I can fill in my knowledge enough to form a reasonable opinion (and hopefully, eventually, a solid trust/belief).
[doublepost=1553145218][/doublepost]
I'm curious if you watched it on TV, or were among the crowd? Because, I watched the MSM in horror, but then ran across some stuff that wasn't adding up. Then I spent like 2 solid days doing my own research, which involved watching a LOT of cell-phone footage, which differed greatly from the MSM story line.
The main reason I ask, is that you said Nazis marched on your town. While the viewpoints on the 'right' were pretty diverse, I only saw one 'Nazi' who was an obvious plant who made sure to appear in most of the MSM clips. (Point being... if people can't differentiate between nationalists and supremacists, and are just tossing around terms like that to mean 'very undesirable' then we're in trouble!)
Very well said. And, while I have no wish to watch the video the shooter produced (should I?), what I find more disturbing is the distortion and cover-up of his motives and ideology, and/or the people behind him. While I suppose one can say anyone capable of doing something like that is nuts, the manifesto clearly wasn't... and is something we're all going to be dealing with soon enough if we don't wake up.
I'm not actually sure the producers of the MSM even realize that, or if they were just so anxious to try and make it about Trump somehow, that they got distracted.
Last edited:
