Ploys of the left to distort the truth

[usmbguest5318]

Looks like a mix-up, Xelor. I was responding to your statement that your question was to find if the two of us had roughly the same view of the phrase "open minded." Earlier, in response to your question, I said that being open-minded implies a willingness to listen to opposing points of view. Did you ask another question that I missed?

Earlier, in response to your question, I said that being open-minded implies a willingness to listen to opposing points of view.

Sorry. Yes, you did write that. My bad. I was truly focused on the "is that a trick question" part of that post. I was so dumbfounded by your asking that of such a straightforward question.

Your question was a setup, and I knew there was more coming. And there it finally was, when you want me to evaluate myself by reading the study on blogs. I have downloaded it, and I'll read it and get back to you.

Your question was a setup

Actually it wasn't. If you'd have answered "no," I'd have had no study to upload/link. Of course, if you'd have answered "no," there'd have been no point to my continuing the line of discussion; it'd have been clear we have differing conceptions of what "open-minded" means.

Some people do have a very different view of what open-minded means. My mother, for instance, thinks it means being polite enough not to interrupt someone while they're talking. One of my great-great grandfathers thought he was being open minded by letting some of his slave learn to read. They each consider(-ed) themselves open-minded, but but my estimation they were open-minded in much the way one much say a skunk is aromatic.

I have downloaded it, and I'll read it and get back to you.

Cool.

 

[outrigger]

[/QUOTE]Some people do have a very different view of what open-minded means. My mother, for instance, thinks it means being polite enough not to interrupt someone while they're talking. One of my great-great grandfathers thought he was being open minded by letting some of his slave learn to read. They each consider(-ed) themselves open-minded, but but my estimation they were open-minded in much the way one much say a skunk is aromatic.

That's goofy.

I have read it and made notes. I'll post back again in the morning. Want to let it sift a little.

Looks like I got those quote things mixed up. You know what you said, right?

 

[outrigger]

Well, first, I don’t read blogs, if the definition of blog is a site where one or a group posts his or their ongoing, regular thoughts rather in modified diary form, on the news cycle. I read message boards, but I don’t think they are the same as blogs.

Generally, the authors of the study contend that blog writers and readers form insulated communities. While there is a degree of insulation on USMB, it is certainly a variegated place; no one ideology. The finding that bloggers link back and forth to their ideological mates is not surprising.

Bloggers might be considered “parasitical” in its strictest, and purest scientific sense, namely that they feed off something. But in this case, it is corrective, or trying to be corrective, regardless of which ideological flow direction. So corrections or perceived corrections made by a blogger can actually be beneficial to the parasite “host” by improving the “host’s” overall health. There is precedent in nature. (Even though the corrected host might not approve of the parasite’s message.)

The tendency of readers to gravitate to likeminded blogs applies also to news sources. It’s not surprising that people reading only blogs they agree with will become more polarized.

“Individuals prefer social contexts populated by others who share their core political values and avoid social discourse with people who disagree with them profoundly over politics.”

The above quote from the study is true for many, but then how do you explain USMB? “People who are exposed to arguments from people who disagree with
them are more tolerant of others.”(From the study.) USMB members must be very tolerant, do you think??

I see they are listing Huffington Post and Drudge Report as blogs. Huffington Post might fit the bill, but Drudge is an aggregation site linking to news sources, many of which are liberal.

“Political blog readers are significantly more likely than non-readers to have been educated at a four-year college and to have postgraduate education.” (From the study.) I ain’t got no 4 yeer degree, and none postgraduate ed gi kay shun.

Conclusions from the study. Followers of left wing blogs are more politically active at the grass roots level. “There are strong differences between leftwing and rightwing bloggers’ willingness to exhort their readers to engage in political action.” (Barnes and Kaase 1979)

“Instead, readers of leftwing blogs and cross-cutting readers participate more
than readers of rightwing blogs, which cannot be explained by a shared interest in politics among blog readers. A potential explanation is the social movement structure among leftwing bloggers and blog readers, and the absence of such a structure among rightwing bloggers and blog readers. The left blogosphere in particular has some of the qualities of a more traditional social movement, which could inspire people to participate in politics.” Is this religious in form? Revolutionary? Cultic?

For the most part, I found the study predictable, if not trite. I hope it didn’t cost a lot.

I had some liberal friends until their kids started selling dope. The older I get, the fewer friends I have. Now my interactions with liberals are mostly on message boards, where I find most but not all of them smug, condescending, and educated but closed-minded, and woefully dependent on the MSM. My conservative religious friends are open-minded about my views on religion. Are you wondering if I self-selected them based on their conservatism? Thus I found them more accepting of my atheism? My religious friends accept my antagonistic religious views much more than liberals accept my antagonistic political views.