5 ms·

There is no Republican Snopes because conservatives, since the Enlightenment, don't do sense making that way (i.e. via institutional consensus). At the end of t

There is no Republican Snopes because conservatives, since the Enlightenment, don't do sense making that way (i.e. via institutional consensus). At the end of the day unless you were personally there to witness something or can prove something mathematically or do the science yourself, you are ultimately dependent on some network of trust to inform you of the truth or falsity of something. And even then "true" and "false" outside of logical and mathematical domains is entirely dependent on ones values. That's not to say there's no objective universal set of values. Most people are Liberal (in the American sense) because that's what all the organs of culture promote and reinforce. It's like the "default" position that people adopt. I grew up liberal in a liberal household where we watched Hollywood movies and mainstream news like ABC, NBC, PBS and I listened to NPR and I went to school which was run by generally liberal teachers and administrators and that's pretty much why I was liberal. This is the Cathedral vs the Bazaar approach to sense-making.

jhardy54 6y ago
You're in for a surprise when you discover Fox News.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  If you're talking about people like Chris Wallace, then I agree with your point. People like him are very much an example of The Cathedral but on the conservative side. Even stuff like The Five is pretty middle brow and establishmentarian but they aren't the vanguards of mainstream conservatism like Maddow and Joy Reid and others are for mainstream liberalism. Steve Bannon and his movement are more representative of mainstream conservatism. Even someone Tucker Carlson used to be very much like Chris Wallace. The reason why his program is so popular now is because he's shifted radically away from his establishmentarian position towards Steve Bannon's position. Personally I don't watch Fox News because of how low to middle brow and Cathedral-like it is.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    If Maddow is the vanguard of mainstream liberalism, why are her ratings so terrible?
    - googthrowaway42 6y ago
      Probably because the Cathedral of mainstream liberalism has been mortally wounded over the past decade. That has rapidly accelerated as of late and you're seeing the last dying breaths with the rise of populism on the left and right. Maddow used to have much higher ratings. AOC for example is not part of mainstream liberalism. She is at the vanguard of mainstream popular leftism.
    - stjohnswarts 6y ago
      You can only get a plurality in most cases with mainstream media, because like it or not it does tend to be progressive/liberal in most outlets (in the American sense, not European).
      - busterarm 6y ago
        That doesn't explain why FOX is twice as watched as MSNBC.
        PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
        NPR's drivetime radio shows have bigger audiences than Fox, for almost all of its shows (and sometimes, for all of its shows). Cable TV is still a niche.
- throwaway8582 6y ago
  I always laugh when I see someone bring up Fox News in this context. You realize your just proving his point, right? I can name dozens or hundreds of major media outlets that that lean left (MSNBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, BuzzFeed, etc.), but you can only name one or two that lean right.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Fox is the most familiar example, but there are many more: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    Most of the "left-leaning" organizations you cite above are not considered particularly left-leaning by the left. A better description of them would be "pro status quo", or if you're feeling punchy "relentlessly pro status quo" with a side of "pro-corporatist" thrown in for seasoning. Now, Fox News and OAN and Sinclair are not, publically, actually the John Birch Society, so sure, you could say "right wingers don't think they lean right either". Plot out a chart of US political opinion, and I more or less guarantee you that in most things, you'll find your list of media outlights absolutely "centrist", and the 3 I just named distinctly "to the right" of mainstream US political opinion.
lootsauce 6y ago
what is the reason to down-vote this comment?
- Supermancho 6y ago
  Lumping into an "us vs them" or "republican vs liberal" via > here is no Republican Snopes because conservatives, since the Enlightenment, don't do sense making Which is both mixing the some undefined set of concepts of the Enlightenment with some undefined characteristics of "All Republicans", in an awkward ad-hominem against "non-republicans"? It's nonsensical. > At the end of the day unless you were personally there to witness something or can prove something mathematically or do the science yourself, All truth is subjective, so there is no truth tautology. Etc etc. There isn't a point being made or a topic to discuss. It's a "too many ideas" post mixed with too many wild tangents that are intentionally designed to incite. ie Vapid flamebait.
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    Whether or not there is truth is dependent on if you believe in an objective set of values. Conservatives believe there is (the Bible, natural law, God, etc) and people like Postermodernists believe there isn't. And yes all discussions of this type require some generalization and lumping. "Republican" doesn't even mean one thing since the party consists of libertarians and evangelical Christians and neo-conservatives among many others.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> There is no Republican Snopes because conservatives, since the Enlightenment, don't do sense making that way (i.e. via institutional consensus). Conservatives have always done sense making via institutional consensus, even moreso than post-enlightenment liberals, though the institutions that they tend to appeal to are those explicitly devoted to their ideological world view (whether it's the organs of a particular Church, or economists of the Austrian School) and not so much those even superficially devoted to objective exploration of facts, even when approaching questions that are, at least on the surface, about objectives facts (what is) rather than ideology (what should be). > Most people are Liberal (in the American sense) No, they aren't, unless you are conflating multiple different and incompatible American senses of “Liberal” and thus covering the entire range from the moderate right to the far left.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  > objectives facts (what is) rather than ideology (what should be) What is a "fact" or what is "true" is dependent on your values (aka your ideology). This is one of Nietzsche's main contributions to philosophy. There are things like mathematical and logical truth and really basic physical assertions (e.g. the sky is blue) but those are qualitatively different than what we're talking about. Both normative and positive statements about the world of human affairs are ultimately dependent on ideology and that might explain to you why you perceive conservatives as focusing on arguments over ideology. That is what people should be arguing over since from that all else flows. When people don't share substantially similar values even language itself becomes useless as a means of communication because the words themselves mean different things.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > What is a "fact" or what is "true" in dependent on your values (aka your ideology). This is one of Nietzsche's main contributions to philosophy. No, it's not. That's one of the Enlightenment’s many contributions to philosophy and the foundation on which the advances in knowledge of the universe enabling the explosion of post-Enlightenment technical progress is built. Obviously, one might have ideological, aesthetic, or other preferences for what facts ought to be, and one might have beliefs about questions of fact that ultimately result from those preferences, but—Roadrunner cartoons not withstanding—beliefs about the material universe don't trump material facts. (However, it's kind of funny that you are making, as a positive argument in favor of conservatism, exactly the argument that conservatives usually not only reject, but also attribute—not entirely inaccurately though certainly overgenerally—to the “postmodern” left and cite as a key reason for rejecting the left.)
klyrs 6y ago
Snopes for Mormons: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_apologetics https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_apologetics
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  This looks like its for questions about Mormonism or theological questions, not current events or other pop-culture things (forwards from Grandma) like Snopes.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Yes, its scope is very narrowly about the Mormon faith. Conversely, Snopes doesn't tend to weigh in on things like the stories surrounding Joseph Smith.
    - googthrowaway42 6y ago
      If your point is that there is an analogy between liberals and Snopes and Mormons and fairmormon.org then I actually agree with you since things like Snopes are basically ecclesiology for liberals.
      - klyrs 6y ago
        That's precisely it! The internet is full of "X but for Y" but they rarely take off unless Y really needs their own X.

jhardy54 6y ago

You're in for a surprise when you discover Fox News.

googthrowaway42 6y ago
If you're talking about people like Chris Wallace, then I agree with your point. People like him are very much an example of The Cathedral but on the conservative side. Even stuff like The Five is pretty middle brow and establishmentarian but they aren't the vanguards of mainstream conservatism like Maddow and Joy Reid and others are for mainstream liberalism. Steve Bannon and his movement are more representative of mainstream conservatism. Even someone Tucker Carlson used to be very much like Chris Wallace. The reason why his program is so popular now is because he's shifted radically away from his establishmentarian position towards Steve Bannon's position. Personally I don't watch Fox News because of how low to middle brow and Cathedral-like it is.
- busterarm 6y ago
  If Maddow is the vanguard of mainstream liberalism, why are her ratings so terrible?
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    Probably because the Cathedral of mainstream liberalism has been mortally wounded over the past decade. That has rapidly accelerated as of late and you're seeing the last dying breaths with the rise of populism on the left and right. Maddow used to have much higher ratings. AOC for example is not part of mainstream liberalism. She is at the vanguard of mainstream popular leftism.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    You can only get a plurality in most cases with mainstream media, because like it or not it does tend to be progressive/liberal in most outlets (in the American sense, not European).
    - busterarm 6y ago
      That doesn't explain why FOX is twice as watched as MSNBC.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
        NPR's drivetime radio shows have bigger audiences than Fox, for almost all of its shows (and sometimes, for all of its shows). Cable TV is still a niche.
throwaway8582 6y ago
I always laugh when I see someone bring up Fox News in this context. You realize your just proving his point, right? I can name dozens or hundreds of major media outlets that that lean left (MSNBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, BuzzFeed, etc.), but you can only name one or two that lean right.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Fox is the most familiar example, but there are many more: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  Most of the "left-leaning" organizations you cite above are not considered particularly left-leaning by the left. A better description of them would be "pro status quo", or if you're feeling punchy "relentlessly pro status quo" with a side of "pro-corporatist" thrown in for seasoning. Now, Fox News and OAN and Sinclair are not, publically, actually the John Birch Society, so sure, you could say "right wingers don't think they lean right either". Plot out a chart of US political opinion, and I more or less guarantee you that in most things, you'll find your list of media outlights absolutely "centrist", and the 3 I just named distinctly "to the right" of mainstream US political opinion.

lootsauce 6y ago

what is the reason to down-vote this comment?

Supermancho 6y ago
Lumping into an "us vs them" or "republican vs liberal" via > here is no Republican Snopes because conservatives, since the Enlightenment, don't do sense making Which is both mixing the some undefined set of concepts of the Enlightenment with some undefined characteristics of "All Republicans", in an awkward ad-hominem against "non-republicans"? It's nonsensical. > At the end of the day unless you were personally there to witness something or can prove something mathematically or do the science yourself, All truth is subjective, so there is no truth tautology. Etc etc. There isn't a point being made or a topic to discuss. It's a "too many ideas" post mixed with too many wild tangents that are intentionally designed to incite. ie Vapid flamebait.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  Whether or not there is truth is dependent on if you believe in an objective set of values. Conservatives believe there is (the Bible, natural law, God, etc) and people like Postermodernists believe there isn't. And yes all discussions of this type require some generalization and lumping. "Republican" doesn't even mean one thing since the party consists of libertarians and evangelical Christians and neo-conservatives among many others.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> There is no Republican Snopes because conservatives, since the Enlightenment, don't do sense making that way (i.e. via institutional consensus). Conservatives have always done sense making via institutional consensus, even moreso than post-enlightenment liberals, though the institutions that they tend to appeal to are those explicitly devoted to their ideological world view (whether it's the organs of a particular Church, or economists of the Austrian School) and not so much those even superficially devoted to objective exploration of facts, even when approaching questions that are, at least on the surface, about objectives facts (what is) rather than ideology (what should be). > Most people are Liberal (in the American sense) No, they aren't, unless you are conflating multiple different and incompatible American senses of “Liberal” and thus covering the entire range from the moderate right to the far left.

googthrowaway42 6y ago
> objectives facts (what is) rather than ideology (what should be) What is a "fact" or what is "true" is dependent on your values (aka your ideology). This is one of Nietzsche's main contributions to philosophy. There are things like mathematical and logical truth and really basic physical assertions (e.g. the sky is blue) but those are qualitatively different than what we're talking about. Both normative and positive statements about the world of human affairs are ultimately dependent on ideology and that might explain to you why you perceive conservatives as focusing on arguments over ideology. That is what people should be arguing over since from that all else flows. When people don't share substantially similar values even language itself becomes useless as a means of communication because the words themselves mean different things.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > What is a "fact" or what is "true" in dependent on your values (aka your ideology). This is one of Nietzsche's main contributions to philosophy. No, it's not. That's one of the Enlightenment’s many contributions to philosophy and the foundation on which the advances in knowledge of the universe enabling the explosion of post-Enlightenment technical progress is built. Obviously, one might have ideological, aesthetic, or other preferences for what facts ought to be, and one might have beliefs about questions of fact that ultimately result from those preferences, but—Roadrunner cartoons not withstanding—beliefs about the material universe don't trump material facts. (However, it's kind of funny that you are making, as a positive argument in favor of conservatism, exactly the argument that conservatives usually not only reject, but also attribute—not entirely inaccurately though certainly overgenerally—to the “postmodern” left and cite as a key reason for rejecting the left.)

klyrs 6y ago

Snopes for Mormons: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_apologetics https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_apologetics

googthrowaway42 6y ago
This looks like its for questions about Mormonism or theological questions, not current events or other pop-culture things (forwards from Grandma) like Snopes.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Yes, its scope is very narrowly about the Mormon faith. Conversely, Snopes doesn't tend to weigh in on things like the stories surrounding Joseph Smith.
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    If your point is that there is an analogy between liberals and Snopes and Mormons and fairmormon.org then I actually agree with you since things like Snopes are basically ecclesiology for liberals.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      That's precisely it! The internet is full of "X but for Y" but they rarely take off unless Y really needs their own X.