Chuck Schumer radicalizes man, man tries to murder SCOTUS justice.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-18-2022, 05:51 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm late to this thread, but I share your skepticism about the Schumer-Carlson analogy, and I'm glad others have rejected the analogy as well.

That you would say so surprises literally no one.

[Dill]

(06-18-2022, 11:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That you would say so surprises literally no one.

???? 

That's important to know because . . . . ?  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-19-2022, 12:44 PM)Dill Wrote: ???? 

That's important to know because . . . . ?  

Odd, I would think a person as devoted to empirical and logical arguments as you are would think it very important that a person's biases were well know.  That way those considering their position have more information at hand to determine if said information is tainted by those biases.

[Dill]

(06-19-2022, 01:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Odd, I would think a person as devoted to empirical and logical arguments as you are would think it very important that a person's biases were well know.  That way those considering their position have more information at hand to determine if said information is tainted by those biases.

Sometime we ought to have a discussion about the term/concept "bias," what constitutes it and whether, how and/or to what degree it is avoidable/helpful in political analysis/critique. 

Your brief comment was not "information at hand" someone could then use in determining whether anything I said was "tainted by ... biases."  Remember, you were only announcing what everyone already supposedly knows--instead of addressing the substance of my post.

People devoted to empirical and logical--and I would add "dialectical"--arguments don't start analysis/critique by "knowing" someone's bias ahead of time. That's just a recipe for confirmation bias. They start with the empirical/factual base and infer what they can from that, and not beyond what it supports. (That's why I argue against people dismissing Fox News articles BEFORE they have even read them, because they believe they "already know" or can "predict" what is in them; that's also why I ask that people read or view as much primary evidence (documents, videos, data) as they can before pronouncing on political topics, instead of just relying on reporters.) 

Finally, predicting that leftists will break left on an issue, and rightists right, is just not particularly insightful--especially when predicted after the fact, and instead of addressing substance.  I don't follow up your pro-2A or anti-Biden/Portland or anti-anti Trump posts with announcements that "I'm not surprised" or "exactly what I predicted" because such comments only describe internal musings, which should have no value to anyone else. They certainly wouldn't prove or refute anything.  

Everyone has such musings. I keep mine to myself. You present yours as "more information at hand"?  Why?

[StoneTheCrow]

(06-17-2022, 03:52 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It wasn't a trumper because they didn't exist in 2009, but a man was arrested after calling 911 and threatening to blow Sotomayor up.
It's fairly similar to this story about Kavanaugh, as the shooter did not approach his house after seeing the added protection but rather called the police to turn himself in and was promptly arrested. The main difference is proximity to the person they wanted to kill. The more recent one traveled to Kavanaugh's house whereas the Sotomayor threatener did not leave New York.

 I can't find any major news publishers covering this, just local New York sites, many of which now have dead links.

https://gothamist.com/news/man-charged-after-threatening-to-kill-sotomayor

https://thedailybanter.com/2009/06/06/john-zaubler-arrested-for-threats-to-obama-sotomayor/

There was also that one story back in 2020 about the shooter who targeted a federal judge and their family, apparently was targetting Sotomayor as well.
Of course, he killed himself before he had an opportunity to do so, but he certainly showed the means, since he had attacked that judge's family already.
If you believe wikipedia, the guy was apparently a Trump supporter.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Den_Hollander
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/esther-salas-sonia-sotomayor-60-minutes-2021-02-19/

So, probably about the same response that we got here.

Has the media landscape not changed significantly since 2009? Media went from fan-girling over the Obamas for 8 years to whiplash in the opposite direction condemning every breath drawn by Trump.

The Den Hollander example is a good one but the victim
was not on the Supreme Court ahead of a major decision.

“Man arrested outside of Sotomayor’s house for attempted murder ahead of landmark decision to ban firearms” isn’t fading out of the spotlight so quietly.

[StoneTheCrow]

(06-17-2022, 10:08 AM)hollodero Wrote: I wager I already did, I widely agree with you. Of course depending on what you perceive to be the media.
I often wonder how people can say "the media" and mean the part of the media that is leaning liberal. How did FOX pull off that trick, that they can permanently brag about their superior ratings and still not being considered a part of the media. They are, and they would behave just in the way you lament, just the other way round (and a bit more extreme). 

In that sense, yeah I'd agree the media is a part of the problem, but it's not a problem exclusively found on the left, but way more distributed over the spectrum. And still it's often conservatives that use lines like "believe my take that just so happens to perfectly align with the FOX take, or I paint you as a gullible doofus that lets himself be tricked by the media". How does that work.

Opposite sides of the same shitty coin. The ratings FOX has are obviously because viewership is funneled their way as the only major network outlet for news bent in that direction.

It’s a good game the left plays because even if you get good reliable news from FOX on a topic that all the other outlets refuse to touch on, the finger can be pointed and it can be brushed aside as FAUX News.

[hollodero]

(06-19-2022, 02:55 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Opposite sides of the same shitty coin. The ratings FOX has are obviously because viewership is funneled their way as the only major network outlet for news bent in that direction.

It’s a good game the left plays because even if you get good reliable news from FOX on a topic that all the other outlets refuse to touch on, the finger can be pointed and it can be brushed aside as FAUX News.

Right. And I'm certain that every now and then, this happens, that folks dismiss a legit story because FOX.
I have to say though, that "good game" sure also, and imho way more often, happens the other way around. I can't count how often I was told to "stop watching CNN". You believe Russia was anything but a big nothingburger, stop watching CNN. You don't believe that unmasking is the real scandal, and a huge one at that? Stop watching CNN! [-10.000 examples to follow].

This is a trick both sides play for sure; but usually, there is a set of facts outside of all these bubbles, a visible reality each news story can be measured by. Which way these facts overall lean, well I have an opinion on that and we won't agree on it. As I said, FOX is way more extreme in its party (or Trump) loyalty than even MSNBC can ever be, who are far from celebrating a Biden love fest every day.

[BigPapaKain]

(06-19-2022, 02:55 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Opposite sides of the same shitty coin. The ratings FOX has are obviously because viewership is funneled their way as the only major network outlet for news bent in that direction.

It’s a good game the left plays because even if you get good reliable news from FOX on a topic that all the other outlets refuse to touch on, the finger can be pointed and it can be brushed aside as FAUX News.

FOX digs that hole themselves.

[CJD]

(06-19-2022, 02:51 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Has the media landscape not changed significantly since 2009? Media went from fan-girling over the Obamas for 8 years to whiplash in the opposite direction condemning every breath drawn by Trump.

The Den Hollander example is a good one but the victim
was not on the Supreme Court ahead of a major decision.

“Man arrested outside of Sotomayor’s house for attempted murder ahead of landmark decision to ban firearms” isn’t fading out of the spotlight so quietly.

Fair enough. I can't say how America would respond to that story because it didn't happen. All I can do is show relatively similar stories. That story of the federal judge's family being attacked made national news, but it wasn't something we as a nation dwelled on for very long, from my memory. I didn't even realize he was identified as a trump supporter until I googled it for this conversation. So, would America obsess about an opposite case of this story? I think it's possible, but I also think the news cycle moves so fast nowadays that nothing really gets much of a spotlight anymore.

Unless, of course, you air public trials dissecting it for days at a time. Then it will last one day after the trials end