Right-Wing Media are Destroying Our Country

[FlyerInHi]

About the right wing media destroying our country….. I think that News Corp has poisoned the minds of the public against the liberal democratic world order that America was the leader of.

Brexit and America First fractured the western alliance and gave Russia and China a tremendous gift. Germany is emerging as an independent European leader. China will soon be the biggest economy and along with Russia they will form a new Eurasian power center. Russia is pushed towards China because of Western sanctions.

Anti-Latino sentiment in the USA is causing Latin American countries to coalesce to a center yet to be found. Brazil, Argentina, or Mexico, either can lead if it breaks free of the middle income trap.

Trump condeced to Putin on Syria so Iran, Iraq and Syria are forming the Shia crescent which will keep us bogged down in the Middle East.

Pakistan is our ally in name, but they are on China’s side because China is building their infrastructure without political preconditions. Pakistan will still support the Taliban to keep us busy in Afghanistan. So while we are consumed with military operations, China will press ahead with business and trade. Japan, Korea and Asian countries will fold to China because it is the biggest trading partner.

[zk]

[quote=livinincali]

If you maybe read the first page of the study you’d understand how it was performed, but instead you didn’t. The funny thing is it specific talks about how those on classify themselves as far left/liberal are more likely to block or ban someone with an opposing view point.

[/quote]

Damn, cali, every time we do this, your logic fails. Regardless of the subject. Nevertheless, you persist. Good on ya.

You assume I didn’t read the study based on your erroneous conclusion that if I’d read it, I would somehow come to the same (erroneous) conclusion that you did about what the study means.

There is not a single word in that study that says anything about whether the reporting on those outlets is biased one way or the other. The entire study is about how the audiences of those outlets behave. My response to your previous post was that the study had exactly zero to do with the actual reporting by those outlets. If you can show me otherwise, bring it.

[quote=livinincali]

Pretty much exactly what you are trying to do here. Let’s ban fox news because they disagree with my view point.
[/quote]

Another fail, cali. Show me where I said, discussed, implied, or hinted that I want to ban fox news.
[quote=livinincali]

It talks about how people who describe themselves as liberal get information from more sources while the conservatives tend to get there news from Fox. There’s some graphs for people in the middle of the spectrum and they seem to go Fox about as much as MSNBC.

You see Fox as having some sort of oversized impact because all the hard core conservatives/right go there while the hard liberal/left spreads it around the left leaning sites. I agree that there isn’t a dominate left leaning new network that the left all gathers around but it is what it is. Just because the left doesn’t have a fox news equivalent for their view point doesn’t mean Fox is destroying the country. They just seized on an opportunity of people consuming media with a selection bias. Conservatives wanted a news channel that agreed with their view point and Fox came along and gave it too them.

[/quote]

All of that is based on your opinion that media outlets that this study says liberals watch are liberally biased. But if your evidence of that is this study, or that fox news told you so, you fail yet again.

[Coronita]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/opinions/liberals-affirmative-action-asian-factor-bauerlein/index.html

Yup. That about sums it up…
Caltech admissions of Asians (where AA is illegal) 43%, significantly up from years past.

Harvard, 18%. Down from years past.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=flu]http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/opinions/liberals-affirmative-action-asian-factor-bauerlein/index.html

Yup. That about sums it up…
Caltech admissions of Asians (where AA is illegal) 43%, significantly up from years past.

Harvard, 18%. Down from years past.
[/quote]

Flu contrary to the article, liberals can handle the Asian factor very well. It’s just that we want a kinder, gentler society. However, we can compete very well in a hyper competitive setting if that’s what people want.

I think White Trump supporters live in the past. There are misinformed about the globalized world so they think tactics of the past continue to work.

Case in point, the new point based immigration proposal is great for upper middle class Asians. They will be able to qualify for green cards at the expense of family immigration and that will raise the bar. Top American cities will become like Vancouver and Toronto. As an educated Asian, enjoy it it. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that Trump and his folks support merit. Let the future happen and the xenophobic backlash will be swift.

Flu, you wisely said before that people are all for merit until other people are more qualified.

[Coronita]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=flu]http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/opinions/liberals-affirmative-action-asian-factor-bauerlein/index.html

Yup. That about sums it up…
Caltech admissions of Asians (where AA is illegal) 43%, significantly up from years past.

Harvard, 18%. Down from years past.
[/quote]

Flu contrary to the article, liberals can handle the Asian factor very well. It’s just that we want a kinder, gentler society. However, we can compete very well in a hyper competitive setting if that’s what people want.

I think White Trump supporters live in the past. There are misinformed about the globalized world so they think tactics of the past continue to work.

Case in point, the new point based immigration proposal is great for upper middle class Asians. They will be able to qualify for green cards at the expense of family immigration and that will raise the bar. Top American cities will become like Vancouver and Toronto. As an educated Asian, enjoy it it. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that Trump and his folks support merit. Let the future happen and the xenophobic backlash will be swift.

Flu, you wisely said before that people are all for merit until other people are more qualified.[/quote]

That’s bullshit… If you really were kinder and gentler and really cared about the disadvantaged, you wouldn’t be taking the easy way out and suggesting an administrative fix (IE lowering the academic standard) to let some people qualify…because if you really did care about their long term future, you would know that if you were to lower the standard, eventually those otherwise ill-prepared people would wash out/flunk out anyway, because they would be ill-prepared for the real world that demands qualified candidates. And then, you would be a in a predicament that you would have to extend that double standard beyond just college, to the workforce and on and on, creating in even more double standards.

If you really were kinder and gentler, you would realize that the only real way to solve this problem, is to catch the disadvantaged when they are young, and give them the necessary support for a good education, when their parents and their environment can’t. You would spend a considerable amount of your free time volunteering to teach those disadvantaged while they are young, so they can catch up by their own merit and effort, such that when it came time to adulthood like college admissions/employment, they can compete based on their merit they built themselves (with your initial help)… So that no double standard would need to exist at the higher/adult level, and no one can question whether the adult really was qualified or not. You would do this, especially if you were retired or semi-retired, and didn’t have that much of a busy schedule in your own life, for the better-ment of those disadvantaged that you care so much about.

Until this year, I spent 6-8hrs per week teaching robotics, STEM science/math to kids, mainly because there are lot of kids who don’t have parents that have the educational level to teach them…Even in a district that CarmelV, you find out the majority of parents, their math/science skills/ability start to taper off around 4th-5th grade level… Example: some parents had to review what “order of operations” are in math, something they teach starting end of 4th beginning of 5th her. 30minutes-1hour of math lesson to 25+kid by one teacher is not going to cut it for most kids that don’t have the benefit of a parent that can supplement in class instructions.S a lot of kids, irrespective of color, are at a disadvantage.

If you really really care about the disadvantaged, ask yourself how much time are you willing put into helping out the disadvantaged kids each week…And not having a STEM background is not an excuse for not doing it. I work with one parent volunteer who had no formal engineering/stem training. Her career was in human resources. She ended up learning everything she avoided learning when she was a student, in order to teach. Her teams i Science Olympia usually does pretty well, considering it’s a team of elementary school kids that ends up competing against junior high teams…and her science field day teams, at worst, comes in 3rd or 2nd, and usually comes in first. What is surprising is, while my kid’s class, there’s a lot of parents that volunteer to teach, that supplements those at a disadvantage…..There’s a lot less volunteers kids 5 years younger…It’s almost like pulling hair. I personally wouldn’t feel comfortable leaving education strictly to the hands of public schools. What really makes a difference between a lot of these high performing school districts and the not-so-high performing school districts have less to do with the teachers and the school, and much more to do with how much the parents are involved. We pick up a lot of temporary students in rental communities for our schools that don’t permanently stay in our school, and they end up doing just as well because the efforts of the rest of the parents involved.

The time you spend coming to this blog to vent about Donald Trump, you could actually be doing something that actually benefits the people you say should be helped.

[zk]

[quote=flu]

…you would know that if you were to lower the standard, eventually those otherwise ill-prepared people would wash out/flunk out anyway, because they would be ill-prepared for the real world that demands qualified candidates. And then, you would be a in a predicament that you would have to extend that double standard beyond just college, to the workforce and on and on, creating in even more double standards.
[/quote]

That is the main reason I’m against affirmative action.

[quote=flu]
…the only real way to solve this problem, is to catch the disadvantaged when they are young, and give them the necessary support for a good education, when their parents and their environment can’t. [/quote]

And I totally agree that this is what we should do instead. Well put, flu.

[Anonymous]

Looks like flu successfully moved this thread to his favorite topic.

BTW, why is “oriental” not politically correct but “asian” is ok?

My grandmother used the term “oriental” all her life, without malice.

Here’s the answer: Because oriental means eastern, which implies that Europe is the center of the world.

Somehow, somewhere, some orientals..errr… I mean, asians got upset about the etymology of a word and demanded to be called asians.

And it stuck.

(Nevermind that a significant population of Asia isn’t, well, “asian.”)

Who comes up with this stuff? Who has the time and energy to care?

[Coronita]

[quote=harvey]Looks like flu successfully moved this thread to his favorite topic.

BTW, why is “oriental” not politically correct but “asian” is ok?

My grandmother used the term “oriental” all her life, without malice.

Here’s the answer: Because oriental means eastern, which implies that Europe is the center of the world.

Somehow, somewhere, some orientals..errr… I mean, asians got upset about the etymology of a word and demanded to be called asians.

And it stuck.

(Nevermind that a significant population of Asia isn’t, well, “asian.”)

Who comes up with this stuff? Who has the time and energy to care?[/quote]

It’s not my favorite topic. Favorite topic would be something pleasant to deal with. I consider this a gross social injustice. It’s the only thing I consider to be a gross social injustice in this country, continuously perpetrated by the extreme far left. (moderate left usually don’t believe in affirmative action as it stands today)
It had an impact on me (to a lesser extent), and It has a direct impact on my kid.

Regarding oriental versus asian. Actually, a lot of this came out of the progressive camp. It apparently offends some people. Semantics. I really don’t care frankly about this nit picking semantics.

Here’s food for thought. Here’s two things someone can say:

1: you can have someone say something that is non-PC but had no intention of offending….

2: you can have someone say something 100% PC, but said in a way to be offensive.

Case#1: is a product of someone’s ignorance. It’s not a big deal.

Example, someone in middle america completely obvious to PCness and didn’t know times have changed and says oriental instead of asian in the context of an otherwise harmless sentence….
For example: “your oriental daughter is polite and well mannered, she’s a doll”

Ok, really? Are you going to make a big deal about this?

Case#2: is more interesting. It’s more subtle, and you might not realize it first. But it’s something carefully crafted under the guise of being PC, but when in reality it is far more menacing.

For example: “Because all Asian Americans are good at math and science (not true, that’s a generalization)….we need to encourage diversity in engineering and science to others and give opportunities to underrepresented minorities”
That’s a complete PC thing to say.. It’s also completely racial.

Example 2 is far more alarming to me than example 1, as it should be to just about every other asian american.

[Anonymous]

I’m just ribbing you dude.

I’m also against affirmative action of any sort, but c’mon, “gross social injustice?”

Put it in the context of our history and it’s only a minor social injustice.

Fortunately we live in an age where most social injustices are minor.

You do know our history … I thought you orientals were supposed to be smart?

But back on topic…sorta. Yes, the PC nonsense is ridiculous. The actual impact on people’s lives is minor in the big picture but as your posts illustrate, many people perceive it as affecting them far more than it does.

It bugs people. It bugs me.

If the next Democratic presidential candidate were to call bullshit on identity politics, they would win by a landslide.

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]

There is not a single word in that study that says anything about whether the reporting on those outlets is biased one way or the other. The entire study is about how the audiences of those outlets behave. My response to your previous post was that the study had exactly zero to do with the actual reporting by those outlets. If you can show me otherwise, bring it.
[/quote]

The study takes people that view themselves in 5 distinct categories. Very left, moderate left, middle, moderate right, and far right. It asks them what their view is of each news network. Those on on the far left had a untrustworthy view of Fox and like far right programming. The far right distrusted most news outlets to the far left. Those in the moderate categories and middle took exception with far right and far left media but most of the mainstream media was fine including regular old Fox news. If that’s not a measure of how the general public perception of bias I don’t know what is.

The fact that you take so much exception with news media on the right probably means you really probably are in the far left category. You might not view yourself as far left but relative to the general US population you probably are. That’s probably why you and some of the other posters see this asymmetrical bias you like to claim. You see yourself as the middle but don’t realize that you’re actually on the far left compared to the general population.

I view myself as pretty middle moderate left on social issue, but far right on fiscal issues, but know know maybe I really am moderately right on social issues compared to the general population. How do I quantify that, since it’s a measure that relative to everyone else.

[FlyerInHi]

Flu, affirmative action doesn’t lower academic standards. They are min standards above which student can be successful.

There is more to life than academic achievement, and people can be very productive with lower scores. Plus academic achievement is something accumulated in childhood. Adults do change.

But I understand that scores are objective measures and can be easily pointed to. It’s easy to say that a 4.0 GPA should be admitted over a 3.7 GPA.

What about the concept that private institutions should be able to admit whoever they want without oversight from Uncle Sam? Should Christian schools who accept some public funds be forced to admit Muslim students who wear the hijab?

And where do the lawsuits stop? Can employers be sued for not hiring and promoting the “most qualified” candidates? I guess the dumb kids of the founder are out of a job.

[Anonymous]

[quote=zk]
There is not a single word in that study that says anything about whether the reporting on those outlets is biased one way or the other. The entire study is about how the audiences of those outlets behave. My response to your previous post was that the study had exactly zero to do with the actual reporting by those outlets. If you can show me otherwise, bring it.
[/quote]

Emphasis mine.

[quote=livinincali]The study takes people that view themselves in 5 distinct categories. Very left, moderate left, middle, moderate right, and far right. It asks them what their view is of each news network. Those on on the far left had a untrustworthy view of Fox and like far right programming. The far right distrusted most news outlets to the far left. Those in the moderate categories and middle took exception with far right and far left media but most of the mainstream media was fine including regular old Fox news. If that’s not a measure of how the general public perception of bias I don’t know what is.[/quote]

Key word: The reporting. Which you didn’t mention at all in your response.

If your description of the study is true, all it says is that people who describe themselves as far left disagree with far right opinions, and vice versa. Not very insightful.

Here’s what’s going over so many heads here: It’s not the viewers that make an outlet left/right/moderate, it’s the content.

[Insert link to video of dog chasing tail…]

[Anonymous]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
What about the concept that private institutions should be able to admit whoever they want without oversight from Uncle Sam? Should Christian schools who accept some public funds be forced to admit Muslim students who wear the hijab?[/quote]

Very few colleges are wholly separate from government funding. In fact, none that anybody cares about are.

There’s research funds, student aid, infrastructure provided by the local communities, etc….

Sure there are a few grey areas, but any major college is going to have to comply with federal discrimination laws in just about anything they do. There’s no sensible way around it.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=harvey][quote=FlyerInHi]
What about the concept that private institutions should be able to admit whoever they want without oversight from Uncle Sam? Should Christian schools who accept some public funds be forced to admit Muslim students who wear the hijab?[/quote]

Very few colleges are wholly separate from government funding. In fact, none that anybody cares about are.

There’s research funds, student aid, infrastructure provided by the local communities, etc….

Sure there are a few grey areas, but any major college is going to have to comply with federal discrimination laws in just about anything they do. There’s no sensible way around it.[/quote]

Yes I understand that. I was just playing the devil’s advocate.

Likewise, any company of any size has government contracts and subcontracts. Even a church school has property tax breaks. “Where does government intervention” stop as conservatives like to say?

Given limited slots, do schools eliminate preferential treatment for children of “important” people in favor of the most academically gifted? I don’t think “important” people would like their kids excluded, or are they a class apart?

Btw, why does the Trump base care so much about Harvard.? Their kids will never get in, The parents don’t have enough money and the kids are not smart enough. It’s a kind of a retrograde cultural sense that Whites are superior but suffer reverse discrimination. But the world has changed….. Asians would benefit from changes at Harvard, not Whites.

So flu….. enjoy the win. But don’t think the Trumpistas are on your side. When Foxconn opens the factory in WI, and the chinsese restaurants proliferate, Asians kids get in the best neighborhoods and schools, Chinese families flash their Mercedes and LV, the rumblings will begin, never mind capitalism and/or merit.

[Coronita]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Flu, affirmative action doesn’t lower academic standards. They are min standards above which student can be successful.

There is more to life than academic achievement, and people can be very productive with lower scores. Plus academic achievement is something accumulated in childhood. Adults do change.

But I understand that scores are objective measures and can be easily pointed to. It’s easy to say that a 4.0 GPA should be admitted over a 3.7 GPA.

What about the concept that private institutions should be able to admit whoever they want without oversight from Uncle Sam? Should Christian schools who accept some public funds be forced to admit Muslim students who wear the hijab?

And where do the lawsuits stop? Can employers be sued for not hiring and promoting the “most qualified” candidates? I guess the dumb kids of the founder are out of a job.[/quote]

Like I said. If you really care about the disadvantaged, you would stop talking theory, and start volunteering. But I am guessing like many that talk about affirmative action and the disadvantaged, very few actual bother to lift a finger to do the real things that would make a difference.

With that, end of discussion. I hope the Justice Dept is successful in completely ripping this bullshit to shreds.

And after that is done, it can go after every u.s. company that also has a underrepresented minority hiring practice.

And lastly..Brian, people like you are exactly why Donald Trump won. A lot of people hate people like you that tries to create and “solve problems” by with easy “solutions”, yet ineffective solutions that screw someone else over on the process and doesn’t really solve the real issue, besides pandering to the least informed minorities that buy into your “solutions” that don’t work. It’s no different that.trimp pandering to the illinformed middle America.

And because of that, all of us have to put up with Trump for the next 4 years definitely and possibly 8 if you keep up shoveling the bullshit from the waco extreme far left.

[Author]

Posts