Why do people talk about "liberal bias" when the phrase is technically an oxymoron?

[JoeNormal]

That you are okay with greed and selfishness is all I need to know about you. Congratulations.

"Greed" is just the name the envious give to the success of the people they envy. No one in this forum has ever managed to post a logical argument against self-interest.

Here's one.

Richard Wilkinson How economic inequality harms societies Talk Video TED.com

I'm not watching some propaganda video. Simply post your argument. Otherwise, go home.

TED Talks are propaganda? I can see how an uneducated buffoon might think so.

I don't know enough about the organization to say whether everything the publish is propaganda, but this video definitely is.

They offer very thought provoking presentations of a WIDE variety of topics from flight control to sustainable agriculture to a trillion FPS camera to social science. If you can't be bothered to look at scientific data that shows the negative effects of wealth inequality (resulting from greed), you can't claim that no one has ever posted a logical argument against it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

Hi TSJohnson
There is a difference between True North and the North Pole.
Liberal views have become an "anti"-bias.

For example, homosexuality is approved as something you are born with not chosen,
so saying "bisexuality is a choice" is rejected. Choosing reparative therapy and healing of homosexuality is "not a choice," but you "weren't gay to begin with." That's not full acceptance, but onesided conditions on acceptance.

Being for health care is one thing but fining the choice of other means to pay besides insurance
is ANTI-CHOICE.

So the left has gone too far.

What you are speaking of is the TRUE left, the TRUE progressives.
And those have become censored by the politicized left who need to push an agenda
that fits in sound bites to get elected.

As rightwinger criticized me in another thread,
RW said that my posts were not as precise as the Obamacare bill.

But as a progressive prochoice Democrat and Constitutionalist, I believe in protecting
all choices equally, even prolife and those opposed to govt mandates on health care.

My views including all beliefs, do not FIT into simple sound bites.

So people who want easy answers that 'sound good' they can sell on TV
compromise Constitutional freedoms for political expedience.

and as many Republicans and Conservatives on the right
are complaining of career politicans in their party selling out, also.

Promising "prolife" protections because they "sound good"
but knowing such laws are unconstitutional without consent of the public.

Same as the left pimping the anti-war vote, knowing we are still going to have war as a defense.

The problem is on both sides.

There is the right and left we see on TV.

And there are the real solutions people are pushing
that go beyond this rhetoric for political points.

Listen to the solutions first, then the language will change.
Don't listen to the hype or it will go round and round, back and forth.

 

[bripat9643]

"Greed" is just the name the envious give to the success of the people they envy. No one in this forum has ever managed to post a logical argument against self-interest.

Here's one.

Richard Wilkinson How economic inequality harms societies Talk Video TED.com

I'm not watching some propaganda video. Simply post your argument. Otherwise, go home.

TED Talks are propaganda? I can see how an uneducated buffoon might think so.

I don't know enough about the organization to say whether everything the publish is propaganda, but this video definitely is.

They offer very thought provoking presentations of a WIDE variety of topics from flight control to sustainable agriculture to a trillion FPS camera to social science. If you can't be bothered to look at scientific data that shows the negative effects of wealth inequality (resulting from greed), you can't claim that no one has ever posted a logical argument against it.

It's propaganda. Lots of stuff is called "scientific" that really isn't. Most so-called "social science" is nothing more than propaganda.

 

[JoeNormal]

Here's one.

Richard Wilkinson How economic inequality harms societies Talk Video TED.com

I'm not watching some propaganda video. Simply post your argument. Otherwise, go home.

TED Talks are propaganda? I can see how an uneducated buffoon might think so.

I don't know enough about the organization to say whether everything the publish is propaganda, but this video definitely is.

They offer very thought provoking presentations of a WIDE variety of topics from flight control to sustainable agriculture to a trillion FPS camera to social science. If you can't be bothered to look at scientific data that shows the negative effects of wealth inequality (resulting from greed), you can't claim that no one has ever posted a logical argument against it.

It's propaganda. Lots of stuff is called "scientific" that really isn't. Most so-called "social science" is nothing more than propaganda.

Then economics and most of what is taught in MBA programs is propaganda as well.

 

[orogenicman]

Right. That would explain why the democratic party is composed of people from all walks of life while the GOP is composed primarily of old white guys. The fact is that you so-called conservatives are deathly afraid of multiculturalism, the idea that multiple ethnic groups can live together and get along, create a new peaceful world where people of all races and creeds can be successful. How else to explain your xenophobic statement, above?

Why does "multiculturalism" require looting one of the cultures? If it wasn't for white guys paying all the bills, the Democrat agenda would be dead on arrival.

Quite frankly - I resent that remark - I'm not white and I pay much more than my fair share - Lets just say , if it wasn't for productive people paying all the bills the Democrat Parasite agenda would be DOA

Orogenicman was attacking "old white guys." I'm fully aware of the fact that not all people who opposed organized plunder are white. Some of them are even black or Hispanic, but the libs are obviously trying to make white people the enemy.

Pointing out that the Republican party is composed primarily (but not exclusively) of old white guys is not attacking old white guys any more than pointing out that a dead guy is dead is attacking a dead guy.

Ah but it is when Oprah Winfrey does it.

Well, I'm not Oprah, am I? Not the last time I checked, anyway.

 

[orogenicman]

Here's one.

Richard Wilkinson How economic inequality harms societies Talk Video TED.com

I'm not watching some propaganda video. Simply post your argument. Otherwise, go home.

TED Talks are propaganda? I can see how an uneducated buffoon might think so.

I don't know enough about the organization to say whether everything the publish is propaganda, but this video definitely is.

They offer very thought provoking presentations of a WIDE variety of topics from flight control to sustainable agriculture to a trillion FPS camera to social science. If you can't be bothered to look at scientific data that shows the negative effects of wealth inequality (resulting from greed), you can't claim that no one has ever posted a logical argument against it.

It's propaganda. Lots of stuff is called "scientific" that really isn't. Most so-called "social science" is nothing more than propaganda.

How would you know? Have you conducted research on the matter yourself and published the results in a peer reviewed journal? No, of course you haven't. So what we have here is your opinion based simply on nothing discernible in this thread.

 

[orogenicman]

That you are okay with greed and selfishness is all I need to know about you. Congratulations.

"Greed" is just the name the envious give to the success of the people they envy. No one in this forum has ever managed to post a logical argument against self-interest.

Here's one.

Richard Wilkinson How economic inequality harms societies Talk Video TED.com

I'm not watching some propaganda video. Simply post your argument. Otherwise, go home.

TED Talks are propaganda? I can see how an uneducated buffoon might think so.

I don't know enough about the organization to say whether everything the publish is propaganda, but this video definitely is.

Prove it.

 

[orogenicman]

That's an interesting point of view. I have always felt that this differentiation of citizens is more propaganda than real. People have differences of opinion on issues, and for each person you will find a scattering of opinion that is not easy to classify as liberal or conservative, left or right, etc. Citizens may align themselves with one of these terms or with a political party, but their stance on the issues for each person varies. This has been proven by polls when done "without bias".

And I have to laugh when anyone talks about liberal bias in the media except for Fox News. The media is biased by the military-industrial complex that owns it. This bias is pro corporate and Wall Street. Profit is the guiding principle. Truthful and accurate information is the victim. The liberal - conservative divide is the main propaganda, and it keeps us divided.

Disney is part of the military-industrial complex? Who knew?

 

[orogenicman]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

Hi TSJohnson
There is a difference between True North and the North Pole.
Liberal views have become an "anti"-bias.

For example, homosexuality is approved as something you are born with not chosen,
so saying "bisexuality is a choice" is rejected. Choosing reparative therapy and healing of homosexuality is "not a choice," but you "weren't gay to begin with." That's not full acceptance, but onesided conditions on acceptance.

It is proven fact that homosexuality has genetic components. Not only that, it is a rather common occurrence in the animal kingdom, particularly among many higher mammals. In fact, the only species that has a violent problem with it is Homo sapiens.

Being for health care is one thing but fining the choice of other means to pay besides insurance
is ANTI-CHOICE.

Erm, what?

So the left has gone too far.

There are extremes on both sides, as you point out later. Pat Robertson and David Duke come to mind on the right side of the spectrum.

 

[Pogo]

Why does "multiculturalism" require looting one of the cultures? If it wasn't for white guys paying all the bills, the Democrat agenda would be dead on arrival.

Quite frankly - I resent that remark - I'm not white and I pay much more than my fair share - Lets just say , if it wasn't for productive people paying all the bills the Democrat Parasite agenda would be DOA

Orogenicman was attacking "old white guys." I'm fully aware of the fact that not all people who opposed organized plunder are white. Some of them are even black or Hispanic, but the libs are obviously trying to make white people the enemy.

Pointing out that the Republican party is composed primarily (but not exclusively) of old white guys is not attacking old white guys any more than pointing out that a dead guy is dead is attacking a dead guy.

Ah but it is when Oprah Winfrey does it.

Well, I'm not Oprah, am I? Not the last time I checked, anyway.

I was referring to this ridiculous thing.

 

[DonaldFG]

The media is biased by the military-industrial complex that owns it. This bias is pro corporate and Wall Street. Profit is the guiding principle. Truthful and accurate information is the victim. The liberal - conservative divide is the main propaganda, and it keeps us divided.

Disney is part of the military-industrial complex? Who knew?

Disney is one of the very few major media companies that control most of our media. Since their profits depend in a large part on the other major American multinational corporations, they are intertwined with our industrial complex, and indeed much of it military. If they didn't swing with the imperial agenda, they would be in trouble.

 

[Pogo]

That's an interesting point of view. I have always felt that this differentiation of citizens is more propaganda than real. People have differences of opinion on issues, and for each person you will find a scattering of opinion that is not easy to classify as liberal or conservative, left or right, etc. Citizens may align themselves with one of these terms or with a political party, but their stance on the issues for each person varies. This has been proven by polls when done "without bias".

And I have to laugh when anyone talks about liberal bias in the media except for Fox News. The media is biased by the military-industrial complex that owns it. This bias is pro corporate and Wall Street. Profit is the guiding principle. Truthful and accurate information is the victim. The liberal - conservative divide is the main propaganda, and it keeps us divided.

Good to know that somebody is looking up to see who the puppeteers are instead of getting mesmerized by the cute red and blue costumes on the puppets.

 

[Londoner]

There's "Liberal Media Bias", which was famously used by Nixon to intimidate reporters from investigating his crimes. This charge against the media was institutionalized by the Right in the 70s to force the media further to the right.

The OP is encouraged to read Allan Bloom's "Closing of the American Mind". This book features a brilliant conservative argument against Liberalism's value neutrality. Bloom points out that Liberals who don't believe in the inherent superiority of American values will be incapable of defending the nation, its language and traditions. Indeed, many soldiers die for the flag because they love their nation and believe it is special.

I disagree with Bloom, but it's refreshing to see a well-reasoned argument against the Lefts terminal openness and tolerance.

 

[orogenicman]

The media is biased by the military-industrial complex that owns it. This bias is pro corporate and Wall Street. Profit is the guiding principle. Truthful and accurate information is the victim. The liberal - conservative divide is the main propaganda, and it keeps us divided.

Disney is part of the military-industrial complex? Who knew?

Disney is one of the very few major media companies that control most of our media. Since their profits depend in a large part on the other major American multinational corporations, they are intertwined with our industrial complex, and indeed much of it military. If they didn't swing with the imperial agenda, they would be in trouble.

That is a very cynical opinion. But you knew that.

 

[DonaldFG]

...

Disney is one of the very few major media companies that control most of our media. Since their profits depend in a large part on the other major American multinational corporations, they are intertwined with our industrial complex, and indeed much of it military. If they didn't swing with the imperial agenda, they would be in trouble.

That is a very cynical opinion. But you knew that.

After researching things, a person gets to understanding more than they ever suspected. But how do we explain it to others who are not willing to listen? Our nation is in a media trance, mostly entertainment and sports with a dab of misinformation given as news.

Those in control call it "The New Roman Empire".

 

[Unkotare]

I wonder if new kid knows there is a Conspiracy Forum for just his sort of nonsense?

 

[DonaldFG]

I wonder if new kid knows there is a Conspiracy Forum for just his sort of nonsense?

Yes, I am aware. However, I was responding to your observation about my opinion, not posting a new thread about any conspiracy or trying to hijack this thread about liberal bias.