7 ms·

Liberals read across the aisle all the time. Feels like it's half the shows on Comedy Central.

by moomin 10y ago

beaconstudios 10y ago
all the cries of Trump being supported by a resurgence in fascism or racism say otherwise. I often find that liberals understand conservative values much less than conservatives understand liberal values, and are thus prone to off-handedly ascribing conservative views as based in racism, xenophobia, or protecting white privilege.
- pavlov 10y ago
  I fairly often read Breitbart out of (morbid) curiosity to see how they cover stories. 95% of the commenters espouse a viewpoint based on very transparent racism, xenophobia or protecting white privilege. Maybe Breitbart readers are not representative of American conservative values -- but if that's the case, given Bannon's role in the White House, that should worry everyone.
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    I also regularly read Breitbart and can attest that none of these supposed attitudes are the reason for the comments you're seeing. There are genuine reasons to oppose e.g. BLM or muslim immigration that aren't backed by racism and the automatic attribution that you're displaying is exactly a symptom of people walling themselves off from people of the opposite opinion. Breitbart is actually reasonably mainstream, and despite what you may have read, Steve Bannon is not a neo-nazi. At least, as far as I can tell from the flimsy "evidence" that has been provided.
    - pavlov 10y ago
      Are we reading the same Breitbart? When there's a mention of Michelle Obama, most comments call her some variation of hideous ape. When there's a mention of muslims, most comments discuss paranoid theories of global invasion. And so on. Help me understand: Am I supposed to ignore what people actually write and imagine what unfortunate circumstances make them act like that? But wouldn't that be terribly patronizing, just the kind of thing that liberals get accused of...? I just don't see what's the proper way to read Breitbart without the "automatic attribution".
      - beaconstudios 10y ago
        one thing the left seems to talk about a lot, but not really understand, is personal bias. The left talks about racial bias, sexist bias, and so on, all of which are subconscious, and this is known to be a scientific fact. However, one thing I often see left-leaning individuals fail to recognise is their own bias towards language. The left is very stifled in terms of language, due to concerns about offending people or making social mis-steps around people of specific assigned minority groups. And yet, the left is often willing to direct these deemed-offensive patterns of communication against groups deemed "fair game", such as males or whites. Hence you will often find left-leaning commentary similar to "white people need to X" or "white men are ruining Y". You would never see these phrases directed against black or gay people. My point is that the mainstream left believes in (or at least tolerates) an asymmetric treatment of people based on unchangeable characteristics. The rationale is around how this is "punching up" or that power imbalance between groups makes race-based attacks acceptable or unacceptable in different circumstances, but the key thing you need to understand is that the right is vehemently opposed to this concept and in many ways takes the complete opposite approach. Modern conservative communication (I'm talking about younger conservative movements - The_Donald, Breitbart, you name it) doesn't generally care what race or gender or orientation you are, and will attack or praise you based on your ideas alone. When right-leaning outlets or communities make anti-muslim comments, the left-wing assumption is "my conception of a muslim person is brown, attacking a brown person is racist, this person is racist" but in actual fact the criticism will often be about perceived cultural incompatibilities. A conservative may criticise BLM or promote "all lives matter", because they oppose racialising police brutality (an issue that is much more closely tied to economic station than race) or some of the acts of BLM-backed groups. In the interpretation of the left, BLM is a civil rights group for black people, the conservative is attacking a black civil rights group, therefore the conservative is racist. The modern right also often goes out of its way to subvert political correctness by using offensive language, for the express purpose of offending the left and in-group signalling to the right. See Milo Yiannopoulos, a gay Jewish man and figurehead of modern conservatism, making Jew jokes at his own expense or talking about how gay he is in thinly-veiled stereotypes or references. And he seems to have fun doing it. Do you really think that a racist or homophobic movement would have people like Milo, Sheriff David Clarke, Ben Shapiro and so on as figureheads if they were motivated by hatred of gays, blacks or Jews? I hope you don't take this as an attack as it isn't intended as such - but there's a lot of context to understand if you want perspective from the other side of the aisle. I personally see the right as more egalitarian than the left in modern times as it more closely follows MLK's dream of judging people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character".
- knz 10y ago
  There are some huge assumptions and obvious bias in this statement... I agree that both sides would benefit from learning about what the other side values beyond the sound bites but part of the reason "liberals" are pushing back is because of the outrageous behavior of the Trump administration in regards to blatant lies and an apparent policy of reform through dismantlement (c.f. some of his cabinet picks and their lack of qualifications/pedigree for the position). If conservatives want better understanding then they should act more moderately. There is a massive double standard by conservatives/Trump supporters in regards to issues like executive orders, presidential vacations, adultery by politicians, conflicts of interest, nepotism, and congressional investigations. If you want more understanding then stop pushing a divide and conquer agenda.
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    I've followed the reporting on both Trump's campaign and presidency, and have attempted to follow both sides of the aisle. While Trump has lied or exaggerated, the extent to which the left media has also lied and exaggerated has been astronomical. I think the most overt example I can show you, that you can't argue against whatever your political position may be, is this clip of Chris Cuomo of CNN claiming that it is illegal for viewers to read the Clinton emails themselves and that all opinions must be pre-approved by the media: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749893649600512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749893649600512?ref_... this is but one of many, many overt lies and untruths that the media has told over the last year to attempt to construct a narrative about who Trump is and what he stands for. Reform through dismantlement was a key plank of Trump's campaign so I don't know why you think that him implementing sweeping changes is either a surprise or a bad thing in the eyes of his supporters. The election between Clinton and Trump in part boiled down to a choice between "business as usual, corruption and all" or "tear it down and rebuild it in the image of business". Trump's election is an intentional attack on bureaucracy, politics, and government expansionism by the working and middle classes.
    - knz 10y ago
      Respectfully.... > While Trump has lied or exaggerated, the extent to which the left media has also lied and exaggerated has been astronomical I don't disagree that the media is biased but Trump is the President and still blatantly lying. That is not normal in a healthy government. > Reform through dismantlement was a key plank of Trump's campaign so I don't know why you think that him implementing sweeping changes is either a surprise or a bad thing in the eyes of his supporters. And you wonder why accusations of privilege are used? Reform may be needed but not everyone had the luxury of being buffered from the change process as they dismantle environmental regulations, welfare programs, and the institutions of government. This isn't some political game it's people's lives. > The election between Clinton and Trump in part boiled down to a choice between "business as usual, corruption and all" or "tear it down and rebuild it in the image of business". Trump's election is an intentional attack on bureaucracy, politics, and government expansionism by the working and middle classes Is there any objective evidence that the Trump administration isn't corrupt, doesn't have massive conflicts of interest, and isn't "business as usual" for special interests? I'm just as biased as you are but come on!! Do the tax returns and refusal to actually divest not bother you if you care about corruption etc? (Typing on mobile so apologize for typos and errors!)
- DanBC 10y ago
  "When you do it you're an idiot, but when I do it it's because I know what I'm talking about"?
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    you might want to clarify that. I have no idea what you're trying to invoke.

Liberals read across the aisle all the time. Feels like it's half the shows on Comedy Central.

by moomin 10y ago

Liberals read across the aisle all the time. Feels like it's half the shows on Comedy Central.

all the cries of Trump being supported by a resurgence in fascism or racism say otherwise. I often find that liberals understand conservative values much less than conservatives understand liberal values, and are thus prone to off-handedly ascribing conservative views as based in racism, xenophobia, or protecting white privilege.

pavlov 10y ago
I fairly often read Breitbart out of (morbid) curiosity to see how they cover stories. 95% of the commenters espouse a viewpoint based on very transparent racism, xenophobia or protecting white privilege. Maybe Breitbart readers are not representative of American conservative values -- but if that's the case, given Bannon's role in the White House, that should worry everyone.
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  I also regularly read Breitbart and can attest that none of these supposed attitudes are the reason for the comments you're seeing. There are genuine reasons to oppose e.g. BLM or muslim immigration that aren't backed by racism and the automatic attribution that you're displaying is exactly a symptom of people walling themselves off from people of the opposite opinion. Breitbart is actually reasonably mainstream, and despite what you may have read, Steve Bannon is not a neo-nazi. At least, as far as I can tell from the flimsy "evidence" that has been provided.
  - pavlov 10y ago
    Are we reading the same Breitbart? When there's a mention of Michelle Obama, most comments call her some variation of hideous ape. When there's a mention of muslims, most comments discuss paranoid theories of global invasion. And so on. Help me understand: Am I supposed to ignore what people actually write and imagine what unfortunate circumstances make them act like that? But wouldn't that be terribly patronizing, just the kind of thing that liberals get accused of...? I just don't see what's the proper way to read Breitbart without the "automatic attribution".
    - beaconstudios 10y ago
      one thing the left seems to talk about a lot, but not really understand, is personal bias. The left talks about racial bias, sexist bias, and so on, all of which are subconscious, and this is known to be a scientific fact. However, one thing I often see left-leaning individuals fail to recognise is their own bias towards language. The left is very stifled in terms of language, due to concerns about offending people or making social mis-steps around people of specific assigned minority groups. And yet, the left is often willing to direct these deemed-offensive patterns of communication against groups deemed "fair game", such as males or whites. Hence you will often find left-leaning commentary similar to "white people need to X" or "white men are ruining Y". You would never see these phrases directed against black or gay people. My point is that the mainstream left believes in (or at least tolerates) an asymmetric treatment of people based on unchangeable characteristics. The rationale is around how this is "punching up" or that power imbalance between groups makes race-based attacks acceptable or unacceptable in different circumstances, but the key thing you need to understand is that the right is vehemently opposed to this concept and in many ways takes the complete opposite approach. Modern conservative communication (I'm talking about younger conservative movements - The_Donald, Breitbart, you name it) doesn't generally care what race or gender or orientation you are, and will attack or praise you based on your ideas alone. When right-leaning outlets or communities make anti-muslim comments, the left-wing assumption is "my conception of a muslim person is brown, attacking a brown person is racist, this person is racist" but in actual fact the criticism will often be about perceived cultural incompatibilities. A conservative may criticise BLM or promote "all lives matter", because they oppose racialising police brutality (an issue that is much more closely tied to economic station than race) or some of the acts of BLM-backed groups. In the interpretation of the left, BLM is a civil rights group for black people, the conservative is attacking a black civil rights group, therefore the conservative is racist. The modern right also often goes out of its way to subvert political correctness by using offensive language, for the express purpose of offending the left and in-group signalling to the right. See Milo Yiannopoulos, a gay Jewish man and figurehead of modern conservatism, making Jew jokes at his own expense or talking about how gay he is in thinly-veiled stereotypes or references. And he seems to have fun doing it. Do you really think that a racist or homophobic movement would have people like Milo, Sheriff David Clarke, Ben Shapiro and so on as figureheads if they were motivated by hatred of gays, blacks or Jews? I hope you don't take this as an attack as it isn't intended as such - but there's a lot of context to understand if you want perspective from the other side of the aisle. I personally see the right as more egalitarian than the left in modern times as it more closely follows MLK's dream of judging people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character".
knz 10y ago
There are some huge assumptions and obvious bias in this statement... I agree that both sides would benefit from learning about what the other side values beyond the sound bites but part of the reason "liberals" are pushing back is because of the outrageous behavior of the Trump administration in regards to blatant lies and an apparent policy of reform through dismantlement (c.f. some of his cabinet picks and their lack of qualifications/pedigree for the position). If conservatives want better understanding then they should act more moderately. There is a massive double standard by conservatives/Trump supporters in regards to issues like executive orders, presidential vacations, adultery by politicians, conflicts of interest, nepotism, and congressional investigations. If you want more understanding then stop pushing a divide and conquer agenda.
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  I've followed the reporting on both Trump's campaign and presidency, and have attempted to follow both sides of the aisle. While Trump has lied or exaggerated, the extent to which the left media has also lied and exaggerated has been astronomical. I think the most overt example I can show you, that you can't argue against whatever your political position may be, is this clip of Chris Cuomo of CNN claiming that it is illegal for viewers to read the Clinton emails themselves and that all opinions must be pre-approved by the media: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749893649600512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749893649600512?ref_... this is but one of many, many overt lies and untruths that the media has told over the last year to attempt to construct a narrative about who Trump is and what he stands for. Reform through dismantlement was a key plank of Trump's campaign so I don't know why you think that him implementing sweeping changes is either a surprise or a bad thing in the eyes of his supporters. The election between Clinton and Trump in part boiled down to a choice between "business as usual, corruption and all" or "tear it down and rebuild it in the image of business". Trump's election is an intentional attack on bureaucracy, politics, and government expansionism by the working and middle classes.
  - knz 10y ago
    Respectfully.... > While Trump has lied or exaggerated, the extent to which the left media has also lied and exaggerated has been astronomical I don't disagree that the media is biased but Trump is the President and still blatantly lying. That is not normal in a healthy government. > Reform through dismantlement was a key plank of Trump's campaign so I don't know why you think that him implementing sweeping changes is either a surprise or a bad thing in the eyes of his supporters. And you wonder why accusations of privilege are used? Reform may be needed but not everyone had the luxury of being buffered from the change process as they dismantle environmental regulations, welfare programs, and the institutions of government. This isn't some political game it's people's lives. > The election between Clinton and Trump in part boiled down to a choice between "business as usual, corruption and all" or "tear it down and rebuild it in the image of business". Trump's election is an intentional attack on bureaucracy, politics, and government expansionism by the working and middle classes Is there any objective evidence that the Trump administration isn't corrupt, doesn't have massive conflicts of interest, and isn't "business as usual" for special interests? I'm just as biased as you are but come on!! Do the tax returns and refusal to actually divest not bother you if you care about corruption etc? (Typing on mobile so apologize for typos and errors!)
DanBC 10y ago
"When you do it you're an idiot, but when I do it it's because I know what I'm talking about"?
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  you might want to clarify that. I have no idea what you're trying to invoke.