Off Topic · Tea Party news coverage (page 4)

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by sebstar:

If you watched CNN or MSNBC most of the protestors had ulterior motives. If you watched Fox you would think ALL OF THE PROTESTORS were angels sent from above to save us from the government. The reality is that the real story was not told, and never is by these stations. All I know is that the line between Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz(all people paid to give their opinions) and those that bring us the news(people paid to give us information) has not just blurred, it has disappeared. That is a scary thing.

I'm really puzzled as to why you're so outraged over this story in particular.

My guess is that it's probably been stewing for him and this broke the Bips back.

That's pretty accurate........Why does it interest you which story made me react?

The reality is that it's been stewing in my mind for a while. My friends, we've discussed the sad state of affairs when it comes to our media on several occassions. Sometimes we joke about it. Sometimes we are perplexed. Sometimes we get angry. Yesterday's coverage jsut really annoyed me so I spoke about it on this site. Just because this particular story made me write about it on this site, does not mean it's the first time I've reacted to the assinine media. Let's not make these assumptions about people. There is a huuuuuuuge world outside of these Ultimateknicks walls.

I think there is a huge world within the UK confines. But, about the media, there is absolutely nothing, NOTHING anyone can do outside of praying that the powers who are pulling the string are benevolent enough to let us have a few cool material possessions, a cold beer once in a while, and maybe a joint on special occasions.

wow this thread is so totally insane i might have to open up a fresh package of cheetos, grab my closk in my hand and really send it . . .

Posted by Marv:

wow this thread is so totally insane i might have to open up a fresh package of cheetos, grab my closk in my hand and really send it . . .

This post just send closked my mind.

Posted by orangeblobman:

sebstar, what a send closk you are!!

whenever I read your stuff, I can actually imagine that it is indeed an orange blob that's making the post.

[Edited by - sebstar on 04-17-2009 6:21 PM]

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by sebstar:

If you watched CNN or MSNBC most of the protestors had ulterior motives. If you watched Fox you would think ALL OF THE PROTESTORS were angels sent from above to save us from the government. The reality is that the real story was not told, and never is by these stations. All I know is that the line between Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz(all people paid to give their opinions) and those that bring us the news(people paid to give us information) has not just blurred, it has disappeared. That is a scary thing.

I'm really puzzled as to why you're so outraged over this story in particular.

My guess is that it's probably been stewing for him and this broke the Bips back.

That's pretty accurate........Why does it interest you which story made me react?

just cause its such a non-story. Those protesters were clowns and they deserved to be covered as such.

me no know about clown

Just because there was mostly White people, as you say, doesn't mean that their motives or goals are indecent or evil. Those people look very much concerned about their families, their values, and their country. It is absolutely unfair and ABSURD to label them anything other than that. Please, exercise caution. And that goofball on the bike looks like a hippie stoner that speaks with a heavy peppering of 'dude' and 'like' and 'uhm' and 'cowabunga'.

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by orangeblobman:

sebstar, what a send closk you are!!

whenever I read your stuff, I can actually imagine that it is indeed an orange blob that's making the post.

[Edited by - sebstar on 04-17-2009 6:21 PM]

Hahahahaha I can't even respond to this guy

All I did was post an interesting picture that accurately describes the protesters. I offered no interpretation about goals or motives. It sounds like you have a guilty conscience and are letting it spill out.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 04-18-2009 12:05 PM]

No no, not at all. But lets use our common sense. No one would hold that sign up and expect it to be interpreted in a positive way. I am not for playing games and setting traps. Like I said, common sense would dictate that that kid on the bike meant it in a bad way. I am not saying the parties were good or bad, I was not involved and am not very political in nature, but really, what is the use of making that sign?

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by orangeblobman:

sebstar, what a send closk you are!!

whenever I read your stuff, I can actually imagine that it is indeed an orange blob that's making the post.

[Edited by - sebstar on 04-17-2009 6:21 PM]

Hahahahaha I can't even respond to this guy

Actually, I am an orange blob. Picture me like a friendlier Jabba the Hut.



[Edited by - orangeblobman on 04-18-2009 12:10 PM]

Posted by orangeblobman:

No no, not at all. But lets use our common sense. No one would hold that sign up and expect it to be interpreted in a positive way. I am not for playing games and setting traps. Like I said, common sense would dictate that that kid on the bike meant it in a bad way. I am not saying the parties were good or bad, I was not involved and am not very political in nature, but really, what is the use of making that sign?

Well I agree that it is generally bad when any group does not have diversity. I'm a psychology professor and I teach a course on stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, actually, and enjoy this topic a lot. Prejudice can occur at many levels of conscious awareness. I don't think many of these people are intentionally or consciously racist or prejudiced. Some may be but I suspect most are not and are generally good people who have just developed very different attitudes than I have and than most of our country right now. "Less conscious" prejudice (which we call implicit prejudice) is a much more complicated topic.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 04-18-2009 12:17 PM]

Bip you aren't going to win this one. It's pretty much you're with us or against us in politics these days. If someone whom we disagree it is treated poorly, they deserve it because they are dumb, hateful extremists(right or left). If you don't glow over someone on our side you're part of the enemy and deserve to be mocked and scorned.

Posted by Bippity10:

I don't even think I disagreed with anyone on this thread. I just tried to talk about media coverage and somehow got thrust into a conversation about Bush, and Klansmen and white people being pissed at black presidents, "angry conservatives" and Obama haters. I now remember why I joke around on this site so much.

Posted by nykshaknbake:

Bip you aren't going to win this one. It's pretty much you're with us or against us in politics these days. If someone whom we disagree it is treated poorly, they deserve it because they are dumb, hateful extremists(right or left). If you don't glow over someone on our side you're part of the enemy and deserve to be mocked and scorned.

Posted by Bippity10:

I don't even think I disagreed with anyone on this thread. I just tried to talk about media coverage and somehow got thrust into a conversation about Bush, and Klansmen and white people being pissed at black presidents, "angry conservatives" and Obama haters. I now remember why I joke around on this site so much.

I've said it time and time again, but the party structure has drawn such a line in the sand that it's ruined politics in this country.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by orangeblobman:

No no, not at all. But lets use our common sense. No one would hold that sign up and expect it to be interpreted in a positive way. I am not for playing games and setting traps. Like I said, common sense would dictate that that kid on the bike meant it in a bad way. I am not saying the parties were good or bad, I was not involved and am not very political in nature, but really, what is the use of making that sign?

Well I agree that it is generally bad when any group does not have diversity. I'm a psychology professor and I teach a course on stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, actually, and enjoy this topic a lot. Prejudice can occur at many levels of conscious awareness. I don't think many of these people are intentionally or consciously racist or prejudiced. Some may be but I suspect most are not and are generally good people who have just developed very different attitudes than I have and than most of our country right now. "Less conscious" prejudice (which we call implicit prejudice) is a much more complicated topic.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 04-18-2009 12:17 PM]

Why is it bad when a group does not have diversity? It is worse, I feel, when diversity is thrust upon a population that is, was, doing fine without it. So, as a psychology professor, do you think that forcing diversity on a population might have something to do with these 'less conscious' prejudices?

Posted by orangeblobman:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by orangeblobman:

No no, not at all. But lets use our common sense. No one would hold that sign up and expect it to be interpreted in a positive way. I am not for playing games and setting traps. Like I said, common sense would dictate that that kid on the bike meant it in a bad way. I am not saying the parties were good or bad, I was not involved and am not very political in nature, but really, what is the use of making that sign?

Well I agree that it is generally bad when any group does not have diversity. I'm a psychology professor and I teach a course on stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, actually, and enjoy this topic a lot. Prejudice can occur at many levels of conscious awareness. I don't think many of these people are intentionally or consciously racist or prejudiced. Some may be but I suspect most are not and are generally good people who have just developed very different attitudes than I have and than most of our country right now. "Less conscious" prejudice (which we call implicit prejudice) is a much more complicated topic.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 04-18-2009 12:17 PM]

Why is it bad when a group does not have diversity? It is worse, I feel, when diversity is thrust upon a population that is, was, doing fine without it. So, as a psychology professor, do you think that forcing diversity on a population might have something to do with these 'less conscious' prejudices?

You'll have to explain what you mean by "forcing diversity" if you want me to answer the question. If you're talking about affirmative action, then my answer is no, prejudice was around way before affirmative action and will continue regardless of what happens with affirmative action. Based on my own readings of the literature, I believe prejudice, or at least a preference for those most similar to us and a bias against those dissimilar, is an inherent component of human existence. The best we can do, in my opinion, is to try to reduce it and have programs that compensate for it in areas where scientific studies show that prejudice is abundant.

RE: Diversity: There's a lot of evidence that groups of people with diverse opinions and experiences tend to make better decisions than homogeneous groups. I'm not going to go into it in detail but suffice it to say this was one of the many reasons the (mostly Republican-appointed, btw) US Supreme Court ruled a few years ago in favor of affirmative action programs.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by orangeblobman:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by orangeblobman:

No no, not at all. But lets use our common sense. No one would hold that sign up and expect it to be interpreted in a positive way. I am not for playing games and setting traps. Like I said, common sense would dictate that that kid on the bike meant it in a bad way. I am not saying the parties were good or bad, I was not involved and am not very political in nature, but really, what is the use of making that sign?

Well I agree that it is generally bad when any group does not have diversity. I'm a psychology professor and I teach a course on stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, actually, and enjoy this topic a lot. Prejudice can occur at many levels of conscious awareness. I don't think many of these people are intentionally or consciously racist or prejudiced. Some may be but I suspect most are not and are generally good people who have just developed very different attitudes than I have and than most of our country right now. "Less conscious" prejudice (which we call implicit prejudice) is a much more complicated topic.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 04-18-2009 12:17 PM]

Why is it bad when a group does not have diversity? It is worse, I feel, when diversity is thrust upon a population that is, was, doing fine without it. So, as a psychology professor, do you think that forcing diversity on a population might have something to do with these 'less conscious' prejudices?

You'll have to explain what you mean by "forcing diversity" if you want me to answer the question. If you're talking about affirmative action, then my answer is no, prejudice was around way before affirmative action and will continue regardless of what happens with affirmative action. Based on my own readings of the literature, I believe prejudice, or at least a preference for those most similar to us and a bias against those dissimilar, is an inherent component of human existence. The best we can do, in my opinion, is to try to reduce it and have programs that compensate for it in areas where scientific studies show that prejudice is abundant.

RE: Diversity: There's a lot of evidence that groups of people with diverse opinions and experiences tend to make better decisions than homogeneous groups. I'm not going to go into it in detail but suffice it to say this was one of the many reasons the (mostly Republican-appointed, btw) US Supreme Court ruled a few years ago in favor of affirmative action programs.

So, you believe that a preference for those most similar to us is an inherent component of human existence, and yet your opinion is that we should reduce it? Eat and breathing is an inherent component of human existence as well, should we try to reduce this?

And as far as diverse opinions and experiences resulting to better decisions, sure, I agree. But the word 'diverse' is applied in too broad of a way in this sentence. There are different types of diversity.

As far as what I meant by 'forcing diversity'-- just the fact that this back and forth started when I questioned the intentions of the stoner on a bike is evidence of a forced diversity. Otherwise, the comment about the kid on the bike wouldn't have led us to the issues we're discussing now.

Posted by orangeblobman:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by orangeblobman:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by orangeblobman:

No no, not at all. But lets use our common sense. No one would hold that sign up and expect it to be interpreted in a positive way. I am not for playing games and setting traps. Like I said, common sense would dictate that that kid on the bike meant it in a bad way. I am not saying the parties were good or bad, I was not involved and am not very political in nature, but really, what is the use of making that sign?

Well I agree that it is generally bad when any group does not have diversity. I'm a psychology professor and I teach a course on stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, actually, and enjoy this topic a lot. Prejudice can occur at many levels of conscious awareness. I don't think many of these people are intentionally or consciously racist or prejudiced. Some may be but I suspect most are not and are generally good people who have just developed very different attitudes than I have and than most of our country right now. "Less conscious" prejudice (which we call implicit prejudice) is a much more complicated topic.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 04-18-2009 12:17 PM]

Why is it bad when a group does not have diversity? It is worse, I feel, when diversity is thrust upon a population that is, was, doing fine without it. So, as a psychology professor, do you think that forcing diversity on a population might have something to do with these 'less conscious' prejudices?

You'll have to explain what you mean by "forcing diversity" if you want me to answer the question. If you're talking about affirmative action, then my answer is no, prejudice was around way before affirmative action and will continue regardless of what happens with affirmative action. Based on my own readings of the literature, I believe prejudice, or at least a preference for those most similar to us and a bias against those dissimilar, is an inherent component of human existence. The best we can do, in my opinion, is to try to reduce it and have programs that compensate for it in areas where scientific studies show that prejudice is abundant.

RE: Diversity: There's a lot of evidence that groups of people with diverse opinions and experiences tend to make better decisions than homogeneous groups. I'm not going to go into it in detail but suffice it to say this was one of the many reasons the (mostly Republican-appointed, btw) US Supreme Court ruled a few years ago in favor of affirmative action programs.

So, you believe that a preference for those most similar to us is an inherent component of human existence, and yet your opinion is that we should reduce it? Eat and breathing is an inherent component of human existence as well, should we try to reduce this?

Yes, because there are innocent victims and my beliefs about justice view that as fundamentally wrong. There are plenty of things that are fundamental parts of human existence that we devised ways to reduce or stop in modern society:
-Difficulty traveling long distances, or traditionally beyond one's immediate family (cars, planes, boats)
-Growing facial and other body hair (Shaving, other commercial products)
-Skin burning in response to sun (sunblock)
-Pimples during adolescence (Oxy and other products)
-Hair loss during aging (Rogaine and other products)

I'm sure we can come up with thousands actually

Regarding "forced diversity," I was actually hoping you would define what you mean by it, as the term seemed vague to me, and I didn't feel I could respond before knowing what exactly you meant.




[Edited by - bonn1997 on 04-19-2009 12:48 PM]