|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| How about a yes or no answer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| How about a yes or no answer to my very simple question? No point in stalling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Olivencia
Joined: 08 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes Foxy I understand it but that doesn't mean I agree with it. This is why I previously wrote and you wouldn't answer:
You can now explain to us how it is that you were engaging in a rhetorical device by your incorrect statement.
No point in stalling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
| Yes Foxy I understand it but that doesn't mean I agree with it. |
If you understand it, then you understand that these statements are in no way incorrect. You made a statement about conservative vs liberal entertainment programming. Specifically, you said liberal entertainment programming was lacking in in-depth analysis and critical thinking.
Now, any basic practicioner of the English language would understand that saying liberal entertainment programming lacks these things implies that, in contrast, conservative entertainment programming possesses these things. Otherwise there's no point in saying it. So, in order to demonstrate the absurdity of your claim, I gave examples of the types of things we can regularly see on conservative entertainment programming; things even someone like you would have a hard time characterizing as in-depth analysis or based in critical thinking.
My use of your name was a convenient rhetorical device; anyone who understands such devices (as you yourself claim to) would understand that you personally don't actually need to actually behave exactly as I describe for my point to be meaningful; the point I was making was about the caliber of the shows, not about you as a person. I could have used the names of any of the people participating in this thread who claim to be conservatives, or even just used "person X." I used you because you made the claim in question, and for no other reason. Thus, your claim that these statements are incorrect because you assert you never watch Limbaugh or Beck is just wrong; it's irrelevent to the point I'm making whether you personally actually watch them.
Now, you can either demonstrate you never really understood -- and still don't understand -- by continuing to whine about how you don't watch Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, or you can advance some argument that actually defends the idea that shows like Beck's and Limbaugh's somehow possess more in-depth analysis and critical thinking than Colbert's and Stewart's. Given every time you've tried to make an argument of any variety ever on this forum you've been absolutely crushed, though, I don't think any valid argument is forthcoming. Rather, I suspect we can expect more pointless whining about how you feel victimized with more smarmy sarcasm about liberals, perhaps peppered with some hatful remarks towards homosexuals. 맞지? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Olivencia
Joined: 08 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Too long to even bother to read ...I saw how your "logic" went when discussing the New Testament in another thread so Im not gonna waste my time to bother to read even one word of your response.
Liberals...say alot but its just alot of hot air.
later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
| Too long to even bother to read ...I saw how your "logic" went when discussing the New Testament in another thread ... |
You mean with pretty much every independent observer agreeing I was right and you were wrong with regards to your attempt to justify your hatred of homosexuals using Christianity? Yes, I suppose that would give you solid justification to bow out.
Yeah, heard this before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| When I read Fox's posts, I'm reminded of just why Air America failed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| When I read Fox's posts, I'm reminded of just why Air America failed. |
Given I described in this thread precisely why Air America did fail, that's a good thing, pkang. It means you're at least marginally literate, and can extract meaning from basic sentences. Congratulations, this is a proud day for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I used to try to listen to Franken's show and a few of the others a handful of years ago, but it was extremely painful to listen to. Every single thing they said sounded like a wild, wild conspiracy theory; it was like Glenn Beck but without the blackboard and other props (and thus much less entertaining). In fact, if it weren't for Mr. Beck and his surprising success, I would've written that off as the reason for their demise.
| Fox wrote: |
| This failed because liberals are no where near as interested in this kind of thing as conservatives are. It's really that simple. Just compare the ratings of guys like Keith Olbermann (the closest the left really has to a Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck), and you'll see this is true. |
I highly doubt that's true. My guess is it has more to do with the kaleidoscopic nature of the Democratic party. That the party is made up of so many easily isolated elements that have little to do with another (environmental protection, minority rights, homosexual rights, pro-choice, etc) and lacks anything other than a party name to tie them all together makes it difficult to build a profitable radio base. The Republican coalition manages to tie their disparate parts together much better (they've managed to link almost everything to Christianity), and so people like Limbaugh and O'Reilly are able to cultivate a strong and loyal following.
| Fox wrote: |
| Liberals are more inclined towards witty satire than the angry ranting that seemingly draws conservative attention so easily. That's why programs like the Daily Show and Colbert Report do so well, while lacking any real conservative analogue. We have our "political entertainment," and you have yours. Enjoy it, because we are. |
Do you really consider the Colbert Report to be liberal? I've heard that Stephen Colbert is much more liberal than Jon Stewart is in his personal life, but I've always found that his show is very much middle-of-the-road. I know he's parodying The O'Reilly Factor directly, but the commentary itself is fairly independent. The Daily Show? Well, that smells more and more like a donkey every episode.
| RufusW wrote: |
| But my favourite spin-off is The Young Turks, who used to do the morning show. You can watch their streaming webcast here - http://www.theyoungturks.com/. Cenq (the host) is very funny and they're real progressives. |
Oh no no no... That guy is yet another Glenn-Beck-gone-liberal clone. That show somehow manages to repeatedly tie humor and logic together and chunk em off the side of a cliff, never to be seen again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| This failed because liberals are no where near as interested in this kind of thing as conservatives are. It's really that simple. Just compare the ratings of guys like Keith Olbermann (the closest the left really has to a Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck), and you'll see this is true. |
I highly doubt that's true. My guess is it has more to do with the kaleidoscopic nature of the Democratic party. That the party is made up of so many easily isolated elements that have little to do with another (environmental protection, minority rights, homosexual rights, pro-choice, etc) and lacks anything other than a party name to tie them all together makes it difficult to build a profitable radio base. The Republican coalition manages to tie their disparate parts together much better (they've managed to link almost everything to Christianity), and so people like Limbaugh and O'Reilly are able to cultivate a strong and loyal following. |
While Republican politicians manage to walk in tighter ranks than Democratic ones do, I don't think conservatives in the population are as monolithic as you describe. Just as liberals have varying views on environmental protection, minority rights, homosexual rights, abortion, and so forth, so do conservatives. Economic conservatives who are socially liberal, moderate social conservatives, heavy social conservatives who are also economically conservative, heavy social conservatives who are economically fairly liberal (if you support social security and medicare but oppose abortion, yes, you fall into this category), and so forth; there are plenty of diversities in the Republican Party's voting base, and thus in their viewing base.
There's simply a very solid pattern here. Conservative talk radio does well, while conservative satire does not. Liberal satire and comedy does well, while liberal talk radio does not. I really think the easiest explanation is just to appeal to the population bases in question. We all to at least some extent like to hear our beliefs validated, but for whatever reason, conservatives seem more likely to enjoy them being validated by Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh engaging in an angry rant, while liberals seem more likely to enjoy them being validated by Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert exercising wit. The above of course is a generalization; I'm sure there's a fair amount of cross over.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Do you really consider the Colbert Report to be liberal? I've heard that Stephen Colbert is much more liberal than Jon Stewart is in his personal life, but I've always found that his show is very much middle-of-the-road. I know he's parodying The O'Reilly Factor directly, but the commentary itself is fairly independent. The Daily Show? Well, that smells more and more like a donkey every episode. |
I actually think the Colbert Report is more liberal than the Daily Show. The Daily Show has brought on conservative guests and had reasonable, polite discussions which explore their views. The Daily Show has also gone after Democrats when they really screwed up. They're liberal, but they can be respectful towards the conservative side of things if they feel its warranted. The Colbert Report is like a non-stop wave of mockery towards conservatives. Any conservative guest brought on is constantly ridiculed. I remember him recently having the fellow who made conservapedia (sp?) on there, and he just tore the guy apart. But, he did it satirically, so it's certainly easy to miss if one didn't want to see it. This is the danger of satire I suppose.
What conservative positions do you think he supports on his show, exactly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They weren't good enough. They weren't smart enough. And doggone it, people didn't like them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiknkorea
Joined: 16 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| They weren't good enough. They weren't smart enough. And doggone it, people didn't like them. |
Post of the month!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| While Republican politicians manage to walk in tighter ranks than Democratic ones do, I don't think conservatives in the population are as monolithic as you describe. Just as liberals have varying views on environmental protection, minority rights, homosexual rights, abortion, and so forth, so do conservatives. Economic conservatives who are socially liberal, moderate social conservatives, heavy social conservatives who are also economically conservative, heavy social conservatives who are economically fairly liberal (if you support social security and medicare but oppose abortion, yes, you fall into this category), and so forth; there are plenty of diversities in the Republican Party's voting base, and thus in their viewing base. |
I'd be able to buy that if you could show me that the percentages inside the Republican party support that diversity.
I will admit that my presuppositions were based on personal experience without looking for other statistics, but I would be very surprised to see a sizable group of Republicans who don't agree at least somewhat on their big-ticket issues. Likewise, I would be very surprised to find that, for example, a large percentage of the minority base of the Democratic party actually cares much at all about issues like homosexual rights and environmental protection.
| Quote: |
| Conservative talk radio does well, while conservative satire does not. |
Have there been serious attempts at conservative satire before?
| Quote: |
| Liberal satire and comedy does well, while liberal talk radio does not. I really think the easiest explanation is just to appeal to the population bases in question. |
I won't deny that that probably does factor in a bit, but not in the way you're describing; there's at least a 30-40 year difference in the average age of the viewers for The O'reilly Factor and The Daily Show / Colbert Report.
| Quote: |
| I actually think the Colbert Report is more liberal than the Daily Show. The Daily Show has brought on conservative guests and had reasonable, polite discussions which explore their views. The Daily Show has also gone after Democrats when they really screwed up. |
When Jon Stewart goes after a conservative (note: not just Republicans), it's usually based on ideological differences. When he goes after a Democrat, it's usually because they screwed up in an attempt to achieve something for their party(see recent Daily Show coverage of the Mass. election). He attacks them both sides very differently.
| Quote: |
| The Colbert Report is like a non-stop wave of mockery towards politicians. Any [...] guest brought on is constantly ridiculed. |
That's what I see. When Sharpton came on, he was ridiculed for little more than his failed attempts to seek political office. When Huckabee came on, he was ridiculed for little more than his poor showing in the Republican primary. He very rarely breaks character, and his character attacks everyone.
| Quote: |
| I remember him recently having the fellow who made conservapedia (sp?) on there, and he just tore the guy apart. |
Admittedly, this was one of those rare times that he broke character. He "tore him apart" on one question, when he pressed him on "objective facts." The rest of the time he just moved on before Schlafly was finished speaking on a topic. And honestly, this is something I see him do with all guests. If they let themselves get pushed around, Colbert will do it. Which may be why Rahm Emanuel barred all freshman Democrats from appearing on the "Better Know a District" segment.
| Quote: |
| What conservative positions do you think he supports on his show, exactly? |
None. What extreme liberal positions do you think he supports? For example, I've seen him support gun control but not the banning of firearms. The former is something most conservatives and liberals are for, the latter is something I wouldn't be surprised to see on The Daily Show. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| While Republican politicians manage to walk in tighter ranks than Democratic ones do, I don't think conservatives in the population are as monolithic as you describe. Just as liberals have varying views on environmental protection, minority rights, homosexual rights, abortion, and so forth, so do conservatives. Economic conservatives who are socially liberal, moderate social conservatives, heavy social conservatives who are also economically conservative, heavy social conservatives who are economically fairly liberal (if you support social security and medicare but oppose abortion, yes, you fall into this category), and so forth; there are plenty of diversities in the Republican Party's voting base, and thus in their viewing base. |
I'd be able to buy that if you could show me that the percentages inside the Republican party support that diversity. |
I'm not going to troll the web for statistical breakdowns of every single part of this category. Honestly I felt it was fairly intuitively obvious that there's reasonable conservative diversity on these topics. Conservatives aren't robots, after all; like other human beings, they vary with regards to their opinions and feelings about matters. I'm happy to agree to disagree on this particular point, though.
I think the most questionable point up for discussion is homosexual rights, so I'll provide some statistics on that. In May of 2004, 13% of very conservative Republicans and 29% of moderate Republicans, and 38% of independents indicated they were in favor of gay marriage. By May of 2008, 12% of very conservative Republicans, 22% of moderate Republicans, and 43% of independents said they were in favor of it. I think it's pretty clear that some Republicans switched to independents during that time frame, but I don't know exactly how many, so rather than speculating I'll simply present the numbers as is. In any case, I think it's clear that there's at least a reasonable minority of conservatives who differ with regards to homosexual marriage. I believe the numbers on ending DADT -- another homosexual rights issue -- show higher support.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Conservative talk radio does well, while conservative satire does not. |
Have there been serious attempts at conservative satire before? |
The Dennis Miller Show was moderately conservative, showed late nights on HBO. I think that stayed on for a while. Fox ran something called the 1/2 Hour News Hour, but it got cancelled pretty quickly. There's also of course been things speckled on the web here and there. It just doesn't really seem to take off well.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Liberal satire and comedy does well, while liberal talk radio does not. I really think the easiest explanation is just to appeal to the population bases in question. |
I won't deny that that probably does factor in a bit, but not in the way you're describing; there's at least a 30-40 year difference in the average age of the viewers for The O'reilly Factor and The Daily Show / Colbert Report. |
Younger people also tend to be more liberal. It seems to me that you're now getting into the complexities of why we're liberal or conservative, rather than the basics of "What liberals or conservatives generally prefer from their entertainment." That has the makings of a very complex discussion.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| That's what I see. When Sharpton came on, he was ridiculed for little more than his failed attempts to seek political office. When Huckabee came on, he was ridiculed for little more than his poor showing in the Republican primary. He very rarely breaks character, and his character attacks everyone. |
Yeah, but when Huckabee went on the Daily Show, he was given very fair treatment and Stewart seemed to enjoy chatting with him. Stewart is often very fair and reasonable to his conservative guests. I think Colbert and Stewart are both very equitable in their treatment of their guests; it's the subject material of the programs rather than the interviews in particular that I'm judging the shows by.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| What conservative positions do you think he supports on his show, exactly? |
None. What extreme liberal positions do you think he supports? |
See, I'm not talking about extremes, just moderate slants. I don't think either Stewart's or Colbert's show is actually extremely liberal. I don't think most of our "liberal" media is extremely liberal. I think most of our media -- these comedy shows included -- have moderate left slants. If you really want I could write up a short list of particular left-leaning positions he's supported through his comedy. Do you really feel I need to in order to make my point?
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| For example, I've seen him support gun control but not the banning of firearms. |
This strikes me as a moderately liberal position. I certainly wouldn't call it centrist, so it must be left of center. Judging where to put most things on a political scale is pretty subjective, though, and that's probably the basis of some of our disagreement. What's moderate left to me might just be centrist in your eyes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm really surprised you even bother Fox. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
