Dangerous politic climate

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Both

What change specifically around 40 years ago?

Edited February 22, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[MigL]

By its very definition, polarization implies two poles.
And those 'poles' of American politics are getting further and further apart.

The center, midway point, between the two poles, has been wondering further to the right pole in the last 20odd yrs, with the rise of groups like the Tea Party movement.
And it took a big leap to the right with the election of D Trump !

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What change specifically around 40 years ago?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/polarized-politics-in-congress-began-in-the-1970s-and-has-been-getting-worse-ever-since/

[Ten oz]

58 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If you would like to assume that in the US the right and left extremes or political climate can't get worse, good luck with your discussion.

 

Not really. Was there a significant change around 40 years ago? Or is it constantly changing?

 

 

This can get worse or better. This thread isn't a philosophical one about global Politics throughout the 21 century. I have no idea what you were alluding to with your 10 of millions remark but I seriously doubt it is on topic. 

As for what changed 40yrs ago. For starters desegregation in the south.  Wallace won the South as a 3rd party candidate in the election which followed and ran again in 72'. So 76' was the first election post desegregation with just Democrats and Republicans. Of course it goes deeper than that. Nixon's impeachment and RFK's assassination impacted both parties at the highest levels as well. 

If you go back and look at the policies Nixon and Eisenhower advicated for they both aligned more with Democrats today than Republicans. JFK would fall somewhere in the middle or perhaps lean towards the right. The parties have changed. They will continue to change. 

 

 

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

By its very definition, polarization implies two poles.
And those 'poles' of American politics are getting further and further apart.

The center, midway point, between the two poles, has been wondering further to the right pole in the last 20odd yrs, with the rise of groups like the Tea Party movement.
And it took a big leap to the right with the election of D Trump !

The people Trump attacks in the media and the people right wing media attack have become targets of assassination. Bombs have been mailed to them and white supremacists have stocked piled weapons and plotted attacks. That is not happening to people who are attacked from the left. Clearly there is something different about the message being sent and received on the right than there is on the left. Making this about polarization broadly doesn't address the violence. As bad as polarization might seem now just imagine if one of these psychos were successful. It is a terrifying thought. 

Edited February 22, 2019 by Ten oz

[J.C.MacSwell]

19 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

This can get worse or better. This thread isn't a philosophical one about global Politics throughout the 21 century. I have no idea what you were alluding to with your 10 of millions remark but I seriously doubt it is on topic. 

As for what changed 40yrs ago. For starters desegregation in the south.  Wallace won the South as a 3rd party candidate in the election which followed and ran again in 72'. So 76' was the first election post desegregation with just Democrats and Republicans. Of course it goes deeper than that. Nixon's impeachment and RFK's assassination impacted both parties at the highest levels as well. 

If you go back and look at the policies Nixon and Eisenhower advicated for they both aligned more with Democrats today than Republicans. JFK would fall somewhere in the middle or perhaps lean towards the right. The parties have changed. They will continue to change. 

 

 

There is nothing philosophical about 100+ million deaths in the 20th century due to totalitarian regimes. (actually over that on the "left" alone)

That's the risk. Not just the work of isolated nut jobs on the current fringes of America.

But go ahead, let me know what limits you think are reasonable to consider.

 

How bad do you think it can get, and what stops it from getting worse?

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There is nothing philosophical about 100+ million deaths in the 20th century due to totalitarian regimes. (actually over that on the "left" alone)

This thread isn't about totalitarian regimes. It is about the current climate in the U.S. and the way Politicians and media and fanning the flames. 

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

go ahead, let me know what limits you think are reasonable to consider.

The OP outlined what this topic is about. Refer back to it if you are confused. 

Edited February 22, 2019 by Ten oz

[J.C.MacSwell]

Dangerous Political Climate for Democrat Leaders is a much better title if you wanted to limit it to that.

I was on topic otherwise.

 

On 2/21/2019 at 8:06 AM, Ten oz said:

Is the a link behind the way conservative media covers AOC, Pelosi, Booker, Waters, and etc and these Domestic Terrorists?  

Not a direct one.

 

On 2/21/2019 at 8:06 AM, Ten oz said:

  Does Conservative leaning media have a responsibility to change their tone and reporting related to those who are now being repeated for murder by Right Wing Extremist?

Definitely not. There may be extreme media that I am not aware of.

 

On 2/21/2019 at 8:06 AM, Ten oz said:

Does the President? 

Legally no. Morally yes. But you're getting what was advertised.

[Ten oz]

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Legally no. Morally yes. But you're getting what was advertised.

While Trump himself is an individual his office and support network is made up by many. You say Conservative leaning media definitely shouldn't change their tone yet they are the ones championing Trump whom you admit is behaving immorally. If Trump is morally responsible than so are the ones who advocate for him. Trump regularly live tweets his favorite News shows, quotes his favorite pundits, calls in to shows, and has even brought news personalities out on stage with him. Trump brought conservative media mogul Steve Bannon into the White House with him as an adviser. Media mogul Roger Alles helped Trump manage his campaign. Trump and the right wing media have a more significant relationship than have any Presidents in the past had with media. It think you are making distinctions between Trump and others which don't actually exist in practicality. 

Below is a real opinion piece from 2015 posted by Foxnews "bravely" (sarcasm) challenging readers to wonder if the Unabomber had been right. It is an example of the sort on irresponsible behavior in media which has been fueling White Supremacist and anti govt anarchists for years. 
 

Quote

 

 "Kaczynski, who is still alive, wrote that the increasing industrialization of America and the world, and our increasing reliance on technology, would end up short-circuiting the ability of human beings to think for themselves and act on their own ideas and abilities.

[pullquote]

He saw the political “left” as embracing these technologies with special fervor, because they were in keeping with the “leftist” ideology that centralized power was the way to govern men.

He saw these “leftists” as psychologically disordered—seeking to compensate for deep feelings of personal disempowerment by banding together and seeking extraordinary means of control in society.

Well, Kaczynski, while reprehensible for murdering and maiming people, was precisely correct in many of his ideas."

"And having seen Barack Obama elected, in part, by mastering the use of the Internet as a campaign tool, then watching his administration preside over eavesdropping on the American public, monitoring their emails and tapping their phones, denying them their due process and privacy, and making a play to disarm them, Kaczynski, must wonder what it will take for Americans to wake up to the fact that their individuality and autonomy—indeed, what constitutes the core of a human life—is under siege (by the very forces he predicted—technology and leftist political leaders).

What the Unabomber did was reprehensible.  And he was wrong:  Killing people to bring attention to his ideas ended up making most people lock up his ideas, along with him.  They became unmentionable, for politically correct folks."

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/was-the-unabomber-correct

 

 *I cited the Unabomber piece because it predates Trump while still being recent. Also because I assume it is something we can all agree is irresponsible. It is not an attempt to go tit for tat naming extremists from throughout history. I cited to highlight the the sort of stuff being posted by mainstream conservative media even before Trump came along and not to just randomly dredge up extremists. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You say Conservative leaning media definitely shouldn't change their tone

I indicated they definitely should not be responsible to in their reporting of stated Democrat leaders...as per what you asked.

I would be happy to see both sides of the media change both content and tone toward a more accurate and civil discourse. I'm not sure how this can be achieved, without placing further limits on free speech.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I indicated they definitely should not be responsible to in their reporting of stated Democrat leaders...as per what you asked.

I would be happy to see both sides of the media change both content and tone toward a more accurate and civil discourse. I'm not sure how this can be achieved, without placing further limits on free speech.

In my opinion one of the big problems is that a lot of hate speech and fringe propaganda isn't accurately identified. Take a well known right wing pundit like Rush Limbaugh. Throughout his career he has repeated made racially explicit remarks and dabbled in conspiracies like accusing Hillary Clinton of murder. 

I don't think Rush Limbaugh should be silenced. I don't think his free speech should be taken away. Rather I just feel many well intentioned people are enabling hate mongers who promote divisive and dangerous ideology by normalizing them as standard political yin yang. You mention both sides but there isn't a Rush Limbaugh equivalent on the left. There isn't an Alex Jones on the left. There isn't a Steve Bannon equivalent on the left. There aren't hate groups with the size and organization as the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and other White Nationalist groups on the left. Acknowledging that the scale and infrastructure of divisive media is different on the Right than the left doesn't require censoring free speech. 

Quote

Rush Limbaugh at one point sang the words, "Barack the magic negro" to the tune of song "Puff, the Magic Dragon".[15][16] Shortly after that Paul Shanklin recorded a song about Barack the Magic Negro set to that same tune, which Limbaugh played numerous times throughout the 2008 presidential election season.[17] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro#Barack_Obama

On the September 19 and 20 broadcasts of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh resurrected his scurrilous suggestion that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) had then-deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster murdered while she was first lady. Media Matters for America has documented previous instances (here and here) of Limbaugh insinuating that the Clintons were involved in the death of Foster, who committed suicide in Northern Virginia's Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993. Link

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

In my opinion one of the big problems is that a lot of hate speech and fringe propaganda isn't accurately identified. Take a well known right wing pundit like Rush Limbaugh. Throughout his career he has repeated made racially explicit remarks and dabbled in conspiracies like accusing Hillary Clinton of murder. 

I don't think Rush Limbaugh should be silenced. I don't think his free speech should be taken away. Rather I just feel many well intentioned people are enabling hate mongers who promote divisive and dangerous ideology by normalizing them as standard political yin yang. You mention both sides but there isn't a Rush Limbaugh equivalent on the left. There isn't an Alex Jones on the left. There isn't a Steve Bannon equivalent on the left. There aren't hate groups with the size and organization as the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and other White Nationalist groups on the left. Acknowledging that the scale and infrastructure of divisive media is different on the Right than the left doesn't require censoring free speech. 

What might left versions of these three appear to be like?

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Acknowledging that the scale and infrastructure of divisive media is different on the Right than the left doesn't require censoring free speech. 

I think most would acknowledge that they are different, though they might not agree on the scale of the problems of each. 

Acknowledging some of the problems would be a start, but it is much harder (as it should be) to find ways to make real improvements.

[Ten oz]

12 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What might left versions of these three appear to be like?

I don't understand your question.

12 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think most would acknowledge that they are different, though they might not agree on the scale of the problems of each. 

Acknowledging some of the problems would be a start, but it is much harder (as it should be) to find ways to make real improvements.

I don't think think most would. Rather it has progressed slowly enough overtime to just have become part of the standard political landscape. It is easier to just loosely assume there is left wing media and right wing media and it is all the same. 

The first step to resolving a problem or issue is to identify it. Avoiding identification till such time a perfect solution exists only allows problems to progress. From pizzagate where Edgar Welch open fired on a Washington DC restaurant where he believed Hillary Clinton was running  human trafficking to Sandy Hooker Truthers  who harass parents who tragically lost their children the right dabbles far too hard in conspiracy and lies.

This isn't FoxNews vs CNN. It goes far beyond that. The right has a whole network of pundits who speak to their own fiefdoms. Even if one believes network media (NBC, ABC, CBS) leans left it isn't comparable. Network TV doesn't promote conspiracy. It can't. Networks can get sued, advertisers can protest, they'd be fined by the FCC, they could lose their broadcaster license, and etc. Stephen Colbert can't go around claiming in all seriousness that Mitch McConnell is running a human trafficking operation out of a restaurant. 

More than just conspiracy right wing media promotes a sense disenfranchisement. Despite all the choice one has in media today 3 quarters of Republicans feel the media doesn't understand people like them. A message they are plainly being fed by right wing media who promote the idea of bias left leaning media and fake news, Link. 

 

  

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I don't understand your question.

You say there is not a left equivalent of a Limbaugh, or of a Jones, or of a Bannon. 

What would their equivalents appear as if they were to exist? 

The media, left and right, are not symmetrically distributed. This could be defined such that the bulk of it is on the left, with more extremes on the right. (or the opposite but I doubt many would define it that way) An arbitrary centre can be chosen where it can be considered balanced, or not, depending on that choice of centre.

[iNow]

58 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The media, left and right, are not symmetrically distributed. This could be defined such that the bulk of it is on the left, with more extremes on the right. 

Reality has a well known liberal bias. 

[dimreepr]

On 2/23/2019 at 2:04 PM, Ten oz said:

Below is a real opinion piece

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You say there is not a left equivalent of a Limbaugh, or of a Jones, or of a Bannon. 

What would their equivalents appear as if they were to exist? 

The media, left and right, are not symmetrically distributed. This could be defined such that the bulk of it is on the left, with more extremes on the right. (or the opposite but I doubt many would define it that way) An arbitrary centre can be chosen where it can be considered balanced, or not, depending on that choice of centre.

4

who cares?

?

 

[MigL]

If you don't, you are free to not participate.
It would be appreciated by some.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You say there is not a left equivalent of a Limbaugh, or of a Jones, or of a Bannon. 

What would their equivalents appear as if they were to exist? 

Asking the same question again doesn't help me understand it. 

I said there aren't equivalents. If you feel that isn't accurate feel free to explain why it isn't accurate. Asking me to describe individuals who doesn't exist (fortunately) seems like an empty exercise.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The media, left and right, are not symmetrically distributed. This could be defined such that the bulk of it is on the left, with more extremes on the right. (or the opposite but I doubt many would define it that way) An arbitrary centre can be chosen where it can be considered balanced, or not, depending on that choice of centre.

 

It isn't symmetrically distributed. The Domestic Terrorism is predominately coming from the Right. Whether or not one believes media as a whole leans one way or another does change that or justify it. On the right it seems obvious to me enough isn't being done to reject the ideology related to the hatred and violence. 

Compare the worst violent acts from or motivated by the left you can think of over the last decade to those perpetrated by right wing extremists? Compare What happened and what the worst case scenarios may have been had their plans been fully executed. The two are not equivalent. Right wing extremists have murder black church goers, murdered people at Planned Parenthood , murdered Synagogue goers, plotted to blow up Muslim communities, sent bombs in the mail to former Presidents, and etc. People have died and the scale of some of the foiled attacks are horrific. The mentioned domestic terrorism acts have all accorded since 2015 and just the well known ones which quickly come to mind. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Reality has a well known liberal bias. 

It seems to a a handful of areas for sure. However that isn't really the concern to me. People have media choice. If NBC is too left leaning for someone they can watch NRA TV instead. People are free to be bias. They are not free to be violent and that is the problem. Domestic Terrorism is on the rise. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

38 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

It isn't symmetrically distributed. The Domestic Terrorism is predominately coming from the Right. Whether or not one believes media as a whole leans one way or another does change that or justify it. On the right it seems obvious to me enough isn't being done to reject the ideology related to the hatred and violence. 

Compare the worst violent acts from or motivated by the left you can think of over the last decade to those perpetrated by right wing extremists? Compare What happened and what the worst case scenarios may have been had their plans been fully executed. The two are not equivalent. Right wing extremists have murder black church goers, murdered people at Planned Parenthood , murdered Synagogue goers, plotted to blow up Muslim communities, sent bombs in the mail to former Presidents, and etc. People have died and the scale of some of the foiled attacks are horrific. The mentioned domestic terrorism acts have all accorded since 2015 and just the well known ones which quickly come to mind. 

First off I agree with most of this whole post so +1. The extreme right sexist/racist element should be disowned.  They aren't going to reject themselves, but everyone else should reject them, at least with regard to those topics, and overall they do, though often not enough, or not clearly enough. Unfortunately many (not all) that do reject them most strongly support sexism and racism in reverse, which of course is the same thing even if immediately less dangerous, and additionally supports the justification of the very thing they believe they are rejecting.

The problem needs a solution, but not just any solution that might seem to help.

We at least agree somewhat on identifying the scope of the problem.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[J.C.MacSwell]

If we agree the alt right is a concern, what reasonable steps can be made to reduce that concern?

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The problem needs a solution, but not just any solution that might seem to help.

We at least agree somewhat on identifying the scope of the problem.

We generally agree but not specifically agree. We agree so long as the Alt Right remains faceless and we are merely discussing the specific actions of terrorist who have been caught.  I suspect there would be plenty of disagree about which media and personalities are involved in encouraging the behavior. So we are only halfway to identifying the problem. 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Unfortunately many (not all) that do reject them most strongly support sexism and racism in reverse, which of course is the same thing even if immediately less dangerous, and additionally supports the justification of the very thing they believe they are rejecting.

There will always be bias, bigotry, and disagreement. Public debate must accommodate for that safely as it if a fact of life. The problem I am concerned with isn't that racism, sexism, or whatever exists (it always will) the problem I am concerned with is the violence and terrorism. Being a member of the KKK is not a crime. Lynching someone is a crime. Being a member of an anti fur movement isn't a crime. Tossing red pant on someone walking down the street minding there own business is a crime. Disagreement isn't the issue. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If we agree the alt right is a concern, what reasonable steps can be made to reduce that concern?

As mentioned above I don't believe we do fully agree.

 

 

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

19 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

We generally agree but not specifically agree. We agree so long as the Alt Right remains faceless and we are merely discussing the specific actions of terrorist who have been caught.  I suspect there would be plenty of disagree about which media and personalities are involved in encouraging the behavior. So we are only halfway to identifying the problem. 

There will always be bias, bigotry, and disagreement. Public debate must accommodate for that safely as it if a fact of life. The problem I am concerned with isn't that racism, sexism, or whatever exists (it always will) the problem I am concerned with is the violence and terrorism. Being a member of the KKK is not a crime. Lynching someone is a crime. Being a member of an anti fur movement isn't a crime. Tossing red pant on someone walking down the street minding there own business is a crime. Disagreement isn't the issue. 

As mentioned above I don't believe we do fully agree.

So what would you suggest be done to avoid it?

[rangerx]

40 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So what would you suggest be done to avoid it?

By changing the way threats are framed. For example, demanding billions of dollars on marginally effective walls to protect against perceived threats of terror by racial entities, while downplaying domestic terror directed at political adversaries as lone wolf. In recent times, Americans killed more Americans in terror attacks than other entities. To follow suit on the meme "radical Islamic terror", it would be fair to say more Americans die because of "radical Christian terror" but it's not. The left does not paint entire groups with a wide brush in the same manner as the right does. The rehashed meme "socialist" is rearing it's ugly head again and it's not to counter the left framing the right as fascist, insomuch as deliberate propaganda to instill fear.

Or by removing the "fake news" or "enemy of the people" labels simply because one cannot refute the facts reported to them. Those kind of retorts are ball bearings and crazy carpets on the slippery slope to tyranny.

[J.C.MacSwell]

20 minutes ago, rangerx said:

By changing the way threats are framed. For example, demanding billions of dollars on marginally effective walls to protect against perceived threats of terror by racial entities, while downplaying domestic terror directed at political adversaries as lone wolf. In recent times, Americans killed more Americans in terror attacks than other entities. To follow suit on the meme "radical Islamic terror", it would be fair to say more Americans die because of "radical Christian terror" but it's not. The left does not paint entire groups with a wide brush in the same manner as the right does. The rehashed meme "socialist" is rearing it's ugly head again and it's not to counter the left framing the right as fascist, insomuch as deliberate propaganda to instill fear.

Or by removing the "fake news" or "enemy of the people" labels simply because one cannot refute the facts reported to them. Those kind of retorts are ball bearings and crazy carpets on the slippery slope to tyranny.

How would you propose this be brought about?

[rangerx]

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How would you propose this be brought about?

By actually taking personal responsibility for it, instead of passing the buck by hiding behind freedom of speech, doubling down, shifting blame or deflection.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, rangerx said:

By actually taking personal responsibility for it, instead of passing the buck by hiding behind freedom of speech, doubling down, shifting blame or deflection.

I don't think you will get everyone to agree on exactly what this should mean, never mind agree or make the personal decision to uphold it.