7 ms·

I'll focus on the second paragraph in this response. I find it depressing how partisan and tabloidy Breitbart is, and I'm therefore unsurprised that people lik

I'll focus on the second paragraph in this response. I find it depressing how partisan and tabloidy Breitbart is, and I'm therefore unsurprised that people like Ben Shapiro have denounced it. However, Breitbart presents an alternative to the mainstream media, which has developed such a pervasive bias that it no longer understands what fair reporting is. The conservative community realized the depth of this problem in cases like the Kermit Gosnell trial, where the entire media ignores the topic and Fox, basically the only A-list conservative media outlet at this point, miss it too because it's simply under the radar. The mainstream media outlets rely so much on the AP and one another that you need a source that is fundamentally independent in determining what they find notable. So if I want news on immigration, abortion, or guns that isn't pandering garbage, Breitbart offers a better alternative. Here's an example that stuck with me. A couple months ago, the NYT had an article called "The Week In Hate" prominently listed on the front page of its website. It was a short list of hate incidents, including a high schooler sending a Snapchat with a racial epithet in it, and someone writing "black bitch" in the snow on a black woman's car. The front page of the NYT. The same people who didn't write a word on a man who murdered an estimated hundreds of infants by snipping their spinal cords because it was "local news". The world has gone insane, and although Breitbart is insane too, it might be the kind of insanity we need. In response to your last sentence: "serious" or "sensible" conservative thinking usually just means neutered conservative thinking. The current conservative revival is partially a backlash to the left's perceived entitlement to define acceptable right-wing thought.

tptacek 10y ago
What's the difference between neutered conservative thinking and full-throated conservative thinking? Is it mostly about being pro-life? For whatever it's worth: I'm Catholic, from an Irish and Eastern-European Catholic family in Chicago, and I am quite familiar with the activist pro-life movement. I respect it, though I do not admire or agree with it. If you were going to characterize your view of conservativism in just a few bullets, how would you? (I could do that for my view of Democratic liberalism).
- garanduss 10y ago
  I come from an immigrant Catholic background as well. Personally, I'm mildly pro-choice (I see first-trimester abortions as necessary but distasteful). I think that the populist conservatism I see and largely subscribe to has the following features: * a concern with upholding abortion as a woman's right and morally unambiguous (this is a peripheral one but relevant to our discussion) * a hatred of the New Left's hair trigger accusations of bigotry and hate speech, and the censorship that political correctness affords them * a frustration with the denigration of Western society that is becoming the norm in our education system * a deep-seated respect for the individual, his agency, and the importance that he take responsibility for his actions * a recognition that much of the rest of the world doesn't like us and wants to eat our lunch not because we're bad people (i.e. not because we deserve it), but because that's how tribalism works * a respect for cultural diversity in the sense that sovereign nations are entitled to do things differently (e.g. guns in America) * a recognition that no matter how much the New Left bashes colorblindness, that's the only way a multiethnic society is ever going to function * an appreciation of both masculinity and femininity, and a belief that modern feminism and gender theory is based heavily in man-hating and biological denialism * a frustration with the increasing integration of iffy and controversial progressive goals into so many aspects of corporate and academic life, and a frustration with the hegemony that threatens our livelihoods and reputations if we question these goals * a heavy suspicion that -- although most of us wish this weren't the case -- culture and genetics play a large role in the relative success of races * a disappointment in the mainstream media for so thoroughly strawmanning and denigrating right-wing thinking that people are sheltered from basic facts of reality (e.g. the relative tolerance of the US, the senses in which transgenderism may be a mental illness or a symptom thereof, to give two randomly selected examples) * a distaste for the fetishization of protest culture and the idea that any right-wing or traditionalist policymaking needs to be met with autistically shrieking hipsters and burning cars * a preference for facts and logic over feelings when justifying beliefs * a sense that "multiculturalism" often just means culturelessness, and that there is a real benefit to making sure people who immigrate are willing and able to integrate and arriving in small enough numbers to avoid major cultural disruption * a concern with the absolutist and marauding culture of the Muslim world, its resistance to Westernization in Arab immigrants, and the New Left's refusal to acknowledge this problem * and more Hopefully that wasn't too long. I'm interested to see your list.
grzm 10y ago
a man who murdered an estimated hundreds of infants by snipping their spinal cords Would you mind providing a reference for this?
- tptacek 10y ago
  He's referring to Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortion doctor who ran an incredibly gruesome, dangerous, and unethical medical practice that apparently included "abortions" for viable infants; he basically built a practice that victimized poor residents of Philadelphia. I agree that Gosnell got less coverage than it merited, although the motivation for that goes both ways: since a powerful majority of the country supports legal access to abortion, you could argue that Fox News avoided the story because it underscored the lack of availability of safe, ethical reproductive health services to the poor of this country, which is something the state-level Republican parties are campaigning against.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Ah. Thanks. I see the name mentioned upthread. I didn't make the connection to look him up.
    - garanduss 10y ago
      Ah right, I didn't realize that you didn't know who I was referring to.
- garanduss 10y ago
  The Wikipedia article is pretty thorough and well-cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell Without being combatant: it's usually best to quickly use Wikipedia and a search engine before asking for a reference in cases like this.
loki49152 10y ago
"Mainstream media" has not only developed a pervasive bias that has, somehow, incidentally developed. It is a direct and inevitable result of what they're taught in Journalism and Media schools - that there is no such thing as "truth", there is only opinion, and conforming to th narrative of one's political affiliation is he essence of doing their jobs. They have been taught to be Marxist propagandists as if that were the only possible thing that could constitute a "serious" media profession.
- grzm 10y ago
  It is a direct and inevitable result of what they're taught in Journalism and Media schools - that there is no such thing as "truth", there is only opinion, and conforming to the narrative of one's political affiliation is he essence of doing their jobs. What is your evidence of this? I went to school with a number of journalism students, some of whom I count as close friends, and this is nowhere close to what they would consider ethical journalistic behavior. There's always going to be bias in journalism, and it's good to work against that to be as fair as possible (if that's your aim), and it's also important readers to be on the lookout for it as critical readers. One that's impossible to avoid is bias on what to report. Publications are physically limited by what they can cover: they can't cover everything. Choices have to be made as to what to cover. Some stories are going to get covered, some won't, and regardless of the choices that are made, there's going to be bias from some side. It's impossible to avoid, and something they'll always be susceptible to by uncharitable accusers.

tptacek 10y ago

What's the difference between neutered conservative thinking and full-throated conservative thinking? Is it mostly about being pro-life? For whatever it's worth: I'm Catholic, from an Irish and Eastern-European Catholic family in Chicago, and I am quite familiar with the activist pro-life movement. I respect it, though I do not admire or agree with it. If you were going to characterize your view of conservativism in just a few bullets, how would you? (I could do that for my view of Democratic liberalism).

garanduss 10y ago
I come from an immigrant Catholic background as well. Personally, I'm mildly pro-choice (I see first-trimester abortions as necessary but distasteful). I think that the populist conservatism I see and largely subscribe to has the following features: * a concern with upholding abortion as a woman's right and morally unambiguous (this is a peripheral one but relevant to our discussion) * a hatred of the New Left's hair trigger accusations of bigotry and hate speech, and the censorship that political correctness affords them * a frustration with the denigration of Western society that is becoming the norm in our education system * a deep-seated respect for the individual, his agency, and the importance that he take responsibility for his actions * a recognition that much of the rest of the world doesn't like us and wants to eat our lunch not because we're bad people (i.e. not because we deserve it), but because that's how tribalism works * a respect for cultural diversity in the sense that sovereign nations are entitled to do things differently (e.g. guns in America) * a recognition that no matter how much the New Left bashes colorblindness, that's the only way a multiethnic society is ever going to function * an appreciation of both masculinity and femininity, and a belief that modern feminism and gender theory is based heavily in man-hating and biological denialism * a frustration with the increasing integration of iffy and controversial progressive goals into so many aspects of corporate and academic life, and a frustration with the hegemony that threatens our livelihoods and reputations if we question these goals * a heavy suspicion that -- although most of us wish this weren't the case -- culture and genetics play a large role in the relative success of races * a disappointment in the mainstream media for so thoroughly strawmanning and denigrating right-wing thinking that people are sheltered from basic facts of reality (e.g. the relative tolerance of the US, the senses in which transgenderism may be a mental illness or a symptom thereof, to give two randomly selected examples) * a distaste for the fetishization of protest culture and the idea that any right-wing or traditionalist policymaking needs to be met with autistically shrieking hipsters and burning cars * a preference for facts and logic over feelings when justifying beliefs * a sense that "multiculturalism" often just means culturelessness, and that there is a real benefit to making sure people who immigrate are willing and able to integrate and arriving in small enough numbers to avoid major cultural disruption * a concern with the absolutist and marauding culture of the Muslim world, its resistance to Westernization in Arab immigrants, and the New Left's refusal to acknowledge this problem * and more Hopefully that wasn't too long. I'm interested to see your list.

grzm 10y ago

a man who murdered an estimated hundreds of infants by snipping their spinal cords Would you mind providing a reference for this?

tptacek 10y ago
He's referring to Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortion doctor who ran an incredibly gruesome, dangerous, and unethical medical practice that apparently included "abortions" for viable infants; he basically built a practice that victimized poor residents of Philadelphia. I agree that Gosnell got less coverage than it merited, although the motivation for that goes both ways: since a powerful majority of the country supports legal access to abortion, you could argue that Fox News avoided the story because it underscored the lack of availability of safe, ethical reproductive health services to the poor of this country, which is something the state-level Republican parties are campaigning against.
- grzm 10y ago
  Ah. Thanks. I see the name mentioned upthread. I didn't make the connection to look him up.
  - garanduss 10y ago
    Ah right, I didn't realize that you didn't know who I was referring to.
garanduss 10y ago
The Wikipedia article is pretty thorough and well-cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell Without being combatant: it's usually best to quickly use Wikipedia and a search engine before asking for a reference in cases like this.

loki49152 10y ago

"Mainstream media" has not only developed a pervasive bias that has, somehow, incidentally developed. It is a direct and inevitable result of what they're taught in Journalism and Media schools - that there is no such thing as "truth", there is only opinion, and conforming to th narrative of one's political affiliation is he essence of doing their jobs. They have been taught to be Marxist propagandists as if that were the only possible thing that could constitute a "serious" media profession.

grzm 10y ago
It is a direct and inevitable result of what they're taught in Journalism and Media schools - that there is no such thing as "truth", there is only opinion, and conforming to the narrative of one's political affiliation is he essence of doing their jobs. What is your evidence of this? I went to school with a number of journalism students, some of whom I count as close friends, and this is nowhere close to what they would consider ethical journalistic behavior. There's always going to be bias in journalism, and it's good to work against that to be as fair as possible (if that's your aim), and it's also important readers to be on the lookout for it as critical readers. One that's impossible to avoid is bias on what to report. Publications are physically limited by what they can cover: they can't cover everything. Choices have to be made as to what to cover. Some stories are going to get covered, some won't, and regardless of the choices that are made, there's going to be bias from some side. It's impossible to avoid, and something they'll always be susceptible to by uncharitable accusers.