White terrorist kills muslims with car

[Dill]

(06-22-2017, 05:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm curious about the term "liberal democracy".  Is there such a thing as a conservative democracy?  Would not the democracy of our nation at its founding be considered somewhat less than liberal by current standards?  Is the US version of democracy not decidedly more conservative than that of many/most European democracies?  

1. Erdogan's AKP party in Turkey is trying to construct a "conservative democracy" whose salient features appear to be autocratic rule and erasure of the boundary between religion and state. I have heard Iran and Malyasia called conservative democracies. I don't see an analogy to the US at its founding.

2. I am not sure what you mean by "current standards"; perhaps you are using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as synonyms for "socially permissive" and "socially strict." Blacks and Women have the vote now so we are more "liberal" than at the founding?
I am going by conventional political science definitions when I call the US a liberal democracy--at its beginnings and now.  One feature of US democracy which distinguishes it from European is the absence of an effective left and an aristocratic, anti-democratic right. US conservatives usually trace their ideals back to Edmund Burke, not de Bonald or de Maistre or Metternich. "Conservatism" in the US is for the most part classical liberalism, as this has taken shape in opposition to "new" or progressive liberalism, which appeared in the later 19th century. So liberal either way.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-23-2017, 12:37 AM)Dill Wrote: Looks like I addressed your premise before you stated it in declarative form.

An interesting way to admit you were wrong while trying to implicate me at the same time.

Quote:Can you provide an example of an article which provides "nothing but hard facts" which have not been selected by an editorial policy which decides which "hard facts" to include and which not?

Hahaha, can you provide a post you've made that didn't include arbitrary obfuscation of points you fear to make?

[Dill]

(06-22-2017, 05:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What a wholly irrelevant piece of pontificating.  You clearly can't discuss issues without injecting partisan opinion which must be why you have trouble discerning reporting from editorializing.
Is your point that Fox News is a bad news source and throws journalistic standards in the dumpster, therefore it's alright if others engage in the same behavior to a lesser degree?  I suppose if you were quoting my pointing out that Fox is a good news source this paragraph would be relevant.  Seeing as I have repeatedly attacked their reporting throughout the years your "point" comes off as rather oddly placed.

I love it when you make thinly veiled insinuations.  I grouse about extremists, which is why I grouse about the left at this point in time and the right for the previous 12-16 years, again all proven by posts I made either here or on the old board.  Face it, you're part of the extremists now.  I get that you're potentially uncomfortable with this fact, hence your need to attack me.  Remember, the first step is admitting you have a problem.

Which part of anything I said was "partisan opinion." Your arguments would be more precise and easier to follow if you could quote or otherwise specify what statements you are referring to. Otherwise you are just throwing around impressions.

You asked what journalism is about. I contrasted the function of journalism in liberal democracies with the function of journalism in illiberal societies.  The point of the contrast is clarity, and a standard to gauge when journalism in liberal societies goes off track.

You ask me to explain my comments about Fox. I did. It's greatest accomplishment has been to convince its audience that "leftist extremism" appears everywhere in a country without an effective left.  From which statement of mine could you infer that if Fox is a bad news source, it's alright for others to engage in their practices? You may have missed the point of the contrast with Russia.

I have missed your attacks on Fox News. I have not missed your attacks on "the far left."

[Dill]

(06-23-2017, 01:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: An interesting way to admit you were wrong while trying to implicate me at the same time.

Hahaha, can you provide a post you've made that didn't include arbitrary obfuscation of points you fear to make?

So you are not going to provide an example?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-23-2017, 12:54 AM)Dill Wrote: 1. Erdogan's AKP party in Turkey is trying to construct a "conservative democracy" whose salient features appear to be autocratic rule and erasure of the boundary between religion and state. I have heard Iran and Malyasia called conservative democracies. I don't see an analogy to the US at its founding.

"Conservative democracy" whose salient feature is autocratic rule and borderline theocracy.  LOL, how do you manage to type this tripe without laughing the whole time?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-23-2017, 01:21 AM)Dill Wrote: Which part of anything I said was "partisan opinion."

The whole thing.

Quote:You asked what journalism is about. I contrasted the function of journalism in liberal democracies with the function of journalism in illiberal societies.  The point of the contrast is clarity, and a standard to gauge when journalism in liberal societies goes off track.

I'll ask again, what is a "liberal democracy"?

Quote:You ask me to explain my comments about Fox. I did. It's greatest accomplishment has been to convince its audience that "leftist extremism" appears everywhere in a country without an effective left.  From which statement of mine could you infer that if Fox is a bad news source, it's alright for others to engage in their practices? You may have missed the point of the contrast with Russia.

I didn't ask you to explain that at all.  I asked if your opinion of Fox justified your inane examples of other media outlets.

Quote:I have missed your attacks on Fox News. I have not missed your attacks on "the far left."

I'm shocked that you've only seen what you want to see.  Truly.

(06-23-2017, 01:25 AM)Dill Wrote: So you are not going to provide an example?

Nope.  

[Dill]

(06-23-2017, 01:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: "Conservative democracy" whose salient feature is autocratic rule and borderline theocracy.  LOL, how do you manage to type this tripe without laughing the whole time?

Why would I laugh when reporting about "conservative democracy"?  Is it your view that Turkey is going in a different direction?

I don't see any engagement with my point at all here. Do you think it is wrong?  If so, why?  Is it just something you feel?

[Dill]

(06-23-2017, 01:59 AM),Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The whole thing.
I'll ask again, what is a "liberal democracy"?
I didn't ask you to explain that at all.  I asked if your opinion of Fox justified your inane examples of other media outlets.
I'm shocked that you've only seen what you want to see.  Truly.
Nope.  

This is pretty bad.  You claim there are plenty of journalists who, Fox-style, report just the facts.
While presuming my good faith in asking me "again" what a liberal democracy is (without showing you have understood anything I have written so far) you yourself won't respond in good faith by providing an example of "just the facts" reporting. Perhaps you realize you cannot.

Your remaining statements are unsupported, lazy impressions, starting with "the whole thing."

I think you cannot really engage the points I am making.  But I'll give you another chance, by answering your question, since I can.

Liberal democracies emerged in North and South America and Europe from the late 18th to the 20th century, establishing states based on social contract theories laid out by philosophers like John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, which framed government as a "contract" between people and a government of chosen representatives. In contrast to their feudal predecessors, these liberal democracies were "liberal" because they defined maximization of individual freedom as their raison d'etre, separating state from civil society and minimizing state interference in the economy. To varying degrees, they disestablished religion as well. These democracies take a range of forms, including two-party and parliamentary systems, some of the latter still "monarchial" to some degree.  All tend to be tripartite, with separate and balancing judicial, executive and legislative branches.  As monarchies were adapted to feudal economies, liberal democracies were a political form adapted to capitalism.  There's your liberal democracy in a nutshell.

Do you see any errors here? Did I miss something? The picture becomes clearer when modern liberal democracies are contrasted with the ancient Greek variety or with contemporary "conservative democracies" or one-party "democracies" like China.  Don't waste time with the copypasta thing again. You will avoid one line, unsupported generalizations, right? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-23-2017, 03:34 AM)Dill Wrote: This is pretty bad.  You claim there are plenty of journalists who, Fox-style, report just the facts.

I never claimed that this type of reporting was "Fox-style" nor did I imply it.  Stop lying, it invalidates any point you're trying to make when you flat out lie.
 

Quote:While presuming my good faith in asking me "again" what a liberal democracy is (without showing you have understood anything I have written so far) you yourself won't respond in good faith by providing an example of "just the facts" reporting. Perhaps you realize you cannot.

Yes, i am too stupid to understand your erudite scribblings.  Please explain to me as if I was a child.

Quote:Your remaining statements are unsupported, lazy impressions, starting with "the whole thing."

I think you cannot really engage the points I am making.  But I'll give you another chance, by answering your question, since I can.

Nope, too stupid.

Quote:Liberal democracies emerged in North and South America and Europe from the late 18th to the 20th century, establishing states based on social contract theories laid out by philosophers like John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, which framed government as a "contract" between people and a government of chosen representatives. In contrast to their feudal predecessors, these liberal democracies were "liberal" because they defined maximization of individual freedom as their raison d'etre, separating state from civil society and minimizing state interference in the economy. To varying degrees, they disestablished religion as well. These democracies take a range of forms, including two-party and parliamentary systems, some of the latter still "monarchial" to some degree.  All tend to be tripartite, with separate and balancing judicial, executive and legislative branches.  As monarchies were adapted to feudal economies, liberal democracies were a political form adapted to capitalism.  There's your liberal democracy in a nutshell.

So in using the term liberal you admit that this has no connection to "liberal" ideology as in liberal versus conservatism?  Because to the person paying attention your use of the term is a not so subtle way of pimping liberal ideology by claiming it is the foundation for our form of governance.

Quote:Do you see any errors here? Did I miss something? The picture becomes clearer when modern liberal democracies are contrasted with the ancient Greek variety or with contemporary "conservative democracies" or one-party "democracies" like China.  Don't waste time with the copypasta thing again. You will avoid one line, unsupported generalizations, right? 

As you state that "maximizing personal freedom" was the raison d'etre for such democracies then you'd be forced to admit that neither side in the left vs. right debate on our country could be considered "liberal'.  Just making sure you're being consistent.

[Dill]

(06-23-2017, 09:13 AM)P Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So in using the term liberal you admit that this has no connection to "liberal" ideology as in liberal versus conservatism?  Because to the person paying attention your use of the term is a not so subtle way of pimping liberal ideology by claiming it is the foundation for our form of governance.

As you state that "maximizing personalpersonal freedom" was the raison d'etre for such democracies then you'd be forced to admit that neither side in the left vs. right debate on our country could be considered "liberal'.  Just making sure you're being consistent.

I'd be "forced to admit" exactly what I said above in a "not so subtle way" to anyone "paying attention."

Post #41 One feature of US democracy which distinguishes it from European is the absence of an effective left and an aristocratic, anti-democratic right. US conservatives usually trace their ideals back to Edmund Burke, not de Bonald or de Maistre or Metternich. "Conservatism" in the US is for the most part classical liberalism, as this has taken shape in opposition to "new" or progressive liberalism, which appeared in the later 19th century. So liberal either way.

That is BOTH are liberal in social science terms. And this has something to do with "liberal ideology as in liberal versus conservatism." In response to practices like child labor and segregation, progressive liberalism extended one of the tenets of classical liberalism--to protect individual freedom--into the sacred free market economy. "Conservatives" emphasize another tenet of classical liberalism--minimal intervention in the market--to roll back progressive gains as "big government."

People unaware of this history get confused. Calling progressive liberalism "far leftism" is a symptom of this confusion. Its entire traction is lack of knowledge.

[Dill]

(06-23-2017, 09:13 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I never claimed that this type of reporting was "Fox-style" nor did I imply it.  Stop lying, it invalidates any point you're trying to make when you flat out lie.
 

I was not quoting you when I said "Fox-style." That was my descriptor of supposedly value free reporting.
Like it or not, you are upholding a principle Fox and audience put forward as a journalistic standard--"we report, you decide"--even as they adopted the openly partisan goal of eliminating or balancing "liberal bias" in other news media. 

So just to keep on track, your claim was that reporters do report "just the facts" in contrast to my contention all such facts are selected, the result of social and editorial priorities and judgment.     

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-23-2017, 11:26 AM)Dill Wrote: I'd be "forced to admit" exactly what I said above in a "not so subtle way" to anyone "paying attention."

Post #41 One feature of US democracy which distinguishes it from European is the absence of an effective left and an aristocratic, anti-democratic right. US conservatives usually trace their ideals back to Edmund Burke, not de Bonald or de Maistre or Metternich. "Conservatism" in the US is for the most part classical liberalism, as this has taken shape in opposition to "new" or progressive liberalism, which appeared in the later 19th century. So liberal either way.

That is BOTH are liberal in social science terms. And this has something to do with "liberal ideology as in liberal versus conservatism." In response to practices like child labor and segregation, progressive liberalism extended one of the tenets of classical liberalism--to protect individual freedom--into the sacred free market economy. "Conservatives" emphasize another tenet of classical liberalism--minimal intervention in the market--to roll back progressive gains as "big government."

People unaware of this history get confused. Calling progressive liberalism "far leftism" is a symptom of this confusion. Its entire traction is lack of knowledge.

Nope, you don't get to use this out.  The term "liberal democracy" is not universally known or immediately recognized in the way you're trying to explain.  It's not the same as using "theory" in the scientific term versus its more common usage.  You got caught, just own it.

(06-23-2017, 12:02 PM)Dill Wrote: I was not quoting you when I said "Fox-style." That was my descriptor of supposedly value free reporting.

Sure, except you phrased it to look like that's precisely what you were doing.  You're a dishonest poster, you engage in this conduct all the time then claim innocence when you get called on it.

Quote:Like it or not, you are upholding a principle Fox and audience put forward as a journalistic standard--"we report, you decide"--even as they adopted the openly partisan goal of eliminating or balancing "liberal bias" in other news media. 

And know you're doing it again.  Wanting honest, fact based, opinion free reporting is not associated with any news channel, paper or organization.

Quote:So just to keep on track, your claim was that reporters do report "just the facts" in contrast to my contention all such facts are selected, the result of social and editorial priorities and judgment.     

As any lawyer will tell you, deliberately omitting a pertinent fact is the same as lying.  You don't mind lying from journalists, I do.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 

[Dill]

(06-24-2017, 02:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: I'd be "forced to admit" exactly what I said above in a "not so subtle way" to anyone "paying attention."

Post #41 One feature of US democracy which distinguishes it from European is the absence of an effective left and an aristocratic, anti-democratic right. US conservatives usually trace their ideals back to Edmund Burke, not de Bonald or de Maistre or Metternich. "Conservatism" in the US is for the most part classical liberalism, as this has taken shape in opposition to "new" or progressive liberalism, which appeared in the later 19th century. So liberal either way.

That is BOTH are liberal in social science terms. And this has something to do with "liberal ideology as in liberal versus conservatism." In response to practices like child labor and segregation, progressive liberalism extended one of the tenets of classical liberalism--to protect individual freedom--into the sacred free market economy. "Conservatives" emphasize another tenet of classical liberalism--minimal intervention in the market--to roll back progressive gains as "big government."

People unaware of this history get confused. Calling progressive liberalism "far leftism" is a symptom of this confusion. Its entire traction is lack of knowledge.

Nope, you don't get to use this out.  The term "liberal democracy" is not universally known or immediately recognized in the way you're trying to explain.  It's not the same as using "theory" in the scientific term versus its more common usage.  You got caught, just own it.

What "out"?  You "caught" me providing a sound (if brief) account of what liberal democracy is. Just as there are people the world over who understand "theory" in a scientific sense and some who do not, so there are people who understand "liberal democracy" as a descriptive term of informed political discourse, and some who do not.  You are someone who does not. Google "liberal democracy" and a dozen definitions appear along with hundreds of discussions, along with comparisons to other kinds of democracy. The world is awash in informed discussion of this subject.

Again, you take yourself as the measure of all things. YOU didn't "immediately recognize" the term so it's "not universally recognized."

Now I have explained why what you call "liberal and conservative" are both political orientations that evolved from classical liberalism. If you think you can dispute that account in factual terms then do so. If you can't ,then agree this description is correct, whether you were aware beforehand or not. Stop trying to blame me for knowing what you don't.

[Dill]

(06-24-2017, 02:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, except you phrased it to look like that's precisely what you were doing.  You're a dishonest poster, you engage in this conduct all the time then claim innocence when you get called on it.
And know you're doing it again.  Wanting honest, fact based, opinion free reporting is not associated with any news channel, paper or organization.
As any lawyer will tell you, deliberately omitting a pertinent fact is the same as lying.  You don't mind lying from journalists, I do.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 

So you call me a liar for what AT WORST was ambiguous phrasing. When I restated your position without the ambiguity ("you are upholding a principle Fox and audience put forward as a journalistic standard--"we report, you decide"), you repeat the claim I am somehow lying.

Then you go on to defend the very position I impute to you--but also adding more descriptors like "honest" as if I had implied people don't want honest reporting. Next you assert that I "don't mind lying from journalists."  Since I do mind lying from journalists, you are imputing to me something I don't believe and certainly never said. By the standard you apply to me, that would make you a liar.

This accusatory style of yours makes it very difficult to engage in serious discussion. You frequently turn away from the substance of a discussion to unleash personal invective and accusations on people you disagree with (remember "copypasta"?). And yet, time after time, thread after thread, you have thrown me challenging questions and I have answered them directly and substantively. When you ask for further clarification, I do not dismiss the request. I respond. This is the "conduct I engage in all the time." You cannot say you've done the same.

I am not sure whether the accusations are a deliberate tactic, a means of defending you your beliefs by throwing up smoke and diversions, or that you are just unaware of any other way of proceeding, so you respond scattershot to differing premises and conclusions with no intent or ability to address the whole other than with one-liners and broad generalizations.  When you feel threatened, you turn the threat back on your interlocutors as quickly as you can. I ignore much of this, as I ignore most of the personal invective. But sometimes, like now, I think it important to restate some important principles of civil discussion about politics.

There might be people out there who are interested in a discussion of what counts as sound journalism. They might even be willing to participate. But no one is interested in listening to people argue over who is lying. That is a thread killer.

[Dill]

(06-24-2017, 02:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And know you're doing it again.  Wanting honest, fact based, opinion free reporting is not associated with any news channel, paper or organization.

As any lawyer will tell you, deliberately omitting a pertinent fact is the same as lying.  You don't mind lying from journalists, I do.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 

Back to the issue of journalistic standards--To restate my point: "opinion free" reporting is not possible. You just pointed out that "deliberately omitting a pertinent fact us lying." This is your recognition that missing facts can alter the truth value and completeness of any report. But the same can hold true of any omitted fact, even if it is not DELIBERATELY omitted.

 Nowhere are professional reporters offered a set of already certified "pertinent facts" which have somehow selected themselves, and which reporters may then just jot down without selection or judgment or some sense personal/social/professional priorities. These priorities change over time and from place to place and according to subject addressed. These priorities may not matter much when a reporter is reporting on a local high school basketball game, but they matter a great deal when reporters are describing events like the Fishbury Park incident which started this thread, or the recent murder of the young Muslim woman in Virginia.

Professional journalists discuss this problem all the time. They take courses on the subject in journalism school.  One goal of critical media literacy is to get people to understand how, in EVERY "fact-based" report, "pertinent facts" have been filtered through reporters and editors according to a range of priorities and necessities, from lack of space on a page to regional foci to national or political bias. Recognizing this doesn't make all journalists "liars." As best they can, good, honest journalists present what readers need to know to be informed. To do that, the journalist must already have some ideal of what readers need to know, some sense of social priorities. Without such priorities--which are values, not facts--it would not be possible to determine what facts were pertinent.

So do you agree with all, part or none of this argument?  If you agree, say so and we can move on to what the implications of this view are for journalism in a liberal democracy. If you don't agree, then identify a premise or two you think are false and explain why you think they are false. That will be more effective than sweeping dismissal.

[THE Bigzoman]

Hashtag pray for finaburry park/notallwhitepeople.

White people are the real victims here. Attacks like this only raise animosity towards them.

Now, what flag should I drape my social media profiles with?

[Vlad]

(06-22-2017, 04:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Nowhere is anyone reporting "just facts."

Too bad.

[HarleyDog]

The thread title claims to be one of bringing hate against white people. Interesting!

[Dill]

(06-25-2017, 06:16 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Hashtag pray for finaburry park/notallwhitepeople.

White people are the real victims here. Attacks like this only raise animosity towards them.

Now, what flag should I drape my social media profiles with?

I know a lot of white people believe they are the real victims.

But some white people also say their anger at Muslims is not about race. It's about religion.
What is your view on the matter?

[Dill]

(06-25-2017, 07:31 PM)Vlad Wrote: Too bad.

Welcome back Vlad.

Have you ever seen a news report that was "just facts"?