Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=5241)

Bloggingheads 05-18-2010 04:57 PM

What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 

Freddie 05-18-2010 05:26 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
"Best city" just doesn't mean anything. Cities are far too complex and diverse and multivariate to be ranked.

graz 05-18-2010 06:16 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/282...0:48&out=72:35

In other news: Water is wet!

No Conor, this small point isn't news or a problem for most people. Especially since most people don't live vicariously through the imagery of Hollywood sitcoms or NY mediated imagery. Many of us have crisscrossed the nation and are depressed by the visual and architectural sameness of cities large and small alike. That isn't to say that uniqueness of place or singular experiences don't abound. But your ill defined complaint, sounds more like a trumped up conservative lament for outside the beltway boosterism.

osmium 05-18-2010 06:23 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
Growing up in a small town in Tennessee, I was obsessed with the concept of a "block." I had a book for children to fill out about their surroundings, and it asked me all these questions about "how many blocks to the fire department" and "how many blocks to the park." I figured out that a block meant the distance between two cross streets, so I counted all these out in my head while in the car. The police station is 13 blocks (which means nothing since some of those blocks are several miles, and some are literally a few feet).

Now years later I feel a little superior to people in New York who understand block living, but not odometer living as well. It's like I can read two languages and they only know one. The New York (or just city-based) centrism of media has worked in my favor--or at least I see it that way, because it made childhood so much more confusing. As it should be. :)

(Oh wait, this forum isn't about me?)

pampl 05-18-2010 06:28 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
I enjoyed this diavlogue the way I enjoy a candy bar: I know it's bad for me (to have all my preconceived beliefs confirmed/to eat a block of sugar) but that just makes it all the more delicious. I do wish Sanchez and Friedersdorf luck in their quest to bring a modicum of integrity to mainstream right wing political discourse.

ImmRefDotCom 05-18-2010 06:44 PM

Oh my
 
1. The DOJ went on a fishing expedition to AZ trying to catch Arpaio in profiling, and couldn't get anything. They went after him on something else instead.

2. Instead of trying to figure out why the DOJ would do that in the first place (hint: Arpaio is one of those who could cost them power), the two hacks give a skewed view of what went on.

3. For instance, a DHS Asst. Sec'y defended Arpaio against claims of racial profiling.

4. Regarding the tea partiers, they lean libertarian and their strings are being pulled by, in addition to garden-variety DC hacks, libertarians. For instance, without Koch money, one wonders exactly where the partiers (or the Cato Institute) would be.

5. Regarding who's the true libertarian, maybe Sanchez can give us the libertarian justification for playing the race card as he did. (Hopefully BHTV won't delete this comment as Sanchez did with comments I left on his site.)

Freddie 05-18-2010 06:50 PM

Re: Oh my
 
Yes, because saying that anything at all is racism, ever, is "playing the race card" these days.

Baltimoron 05-18-2010 07:06 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
This is the pairing I've been waiting for on this topic....finally!

Abdicate 05-18-2010 07:08 PM

Porfirio Díaz quote
 
via Wikipedia:

Porfirio Díaz (in office 12/1/1884–5/25/1911) is usually credited with the saying, "¡Pobre México! ¡Tan lejos de Dios y tan cerca de los Estados Unidos!" (Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States!)

nikkibong 05-18-2010 07:29 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Baltimoron (Post 162359)
This is the pairing I've been waiting for on this topic....finally!

Sanchez, sure...

but I'm surprised/distressed to hear you're a Friedersdorf fan. Or is blander than bland pseudo-intellectual "Sensible" conservatism just your thing?

jimM47 05-18-2010 07:57 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Baltimoron (Post 162359)
This is the pairing I've been waiting for on this topic....finally!

Agreed.

JonIrenicus 05-18-2010 07:58 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 162364)
Sanchez, sure...

but I'm surprised/distressed to hear you're a Friedersdorf fan. Or is blander than bland pseudo-intellectual "Sensible" conservatism just your thing?

calling bloggingheads.tv staff, special nikkibong diavlog needs to be commissioned. Must have Friedersdorf + Christopher Beam + Christopher Hitchens.

Might make his head explode, but I'd probably like it.

harkin 05-18-2010 08:35 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
How very clique-like, posting a link to Jim Manzi's critique of Mark Levin's book without also posting Levin's retort where he does a pretty good job of showing that Manzi himself is guilty of “epistemic one-sidededness.”

What were Manzi's words....?

"The problem with this, of course, is that unwillingness to confront the strongest evidence or arguments contrary to our own beliefs normally means we fail to learn quickly, and therefore persist in correctable error."

ha

harkin 05-18-2010 08:46 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
Another link to Mark Lilla's very poorly-researched article on the tea-partiers? Where's AemJeff to decry the lack of 'new material'? lol

Since they felt the need to link once again, I will happily add the link to Minnesota Conservatives' post about Lillla's numerous shortcomings.

"Lilla's article is purportedly a review of six books but in his piece only mentions two of them and then indirectly. The review of this clutch of books allows him to lament that the American citizen is not a European. The point cannot be stressed enough: Lilla repeatedly condemns the individual, dismisses the autonomy of people and is contemptuous of the virtue of self-reliance. Culturally, the man is not American and that observation would most likely be met with quiet, smug self-satisfaction. The Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago is not quite a Rotary meeting.

Lilla observes that current conditions constitute a revolt against elites; being one himself, he doesn't approve. The goal of that revolt he feels is neutralization of political power. This is always the worst case scenario for people of his ilk. At one point he actually complains about appeals to "petulant individuals" who are convinced they can fend for themselves. The condescension at times leaves one breathless but he carries on.

For example, he blithely ascribes all current political polarization to the "shrunken base" of the Republican party. At such points he risks not being taken seriously and it is clear, whatever else the shortcomings of his missive, he is trying to be so. But myopia subtracts and never adds to seriousness. By now, even ardent supporters of Obama admit to a lack of serious outreach to the other side of the aisle. What's the phrase? Oh yes: "We won.""

pampl 05-18-2010 09:09 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
Wow, that guy's pretty dumb. The whole point of "we won" and "elections have consequences" was that Obama's supporters were tired of his constant serious outreach being met with a list of far-right demands instead of negotiations. You can argue with that perception, but to claim it's an admission of a lack of serious outreach means you're either a liar or a fool. I haven't read that Lilla article before but if this is the best his critics can do then I guess it's worth checking out.

harkin 05-18-2010 09:10 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
Amazing how someone like Sanchez can be so blind to the msm's liberal tilt, that they first and foremost are just trying to "get things right" before attaching any progressive leanings....lol.

Hey Julian see if you can spot the bubble of reality in the msm's view of AZ's willingness to enforce laws the feds ignore vs the people who are most impacted by illegal immigration:

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/2...tworks12to.jpg

Below - LATimes poll on whether readers agreed with the LA City Council's economic boycott of AZ (don't you just love the wording of the poll choices? They can't even consider that anyone may actually support the law).

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/4...cboycottaz.jpg

Don Zeko 05-18-2010 09:11 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonIrenicus (Post 162366)
calling bloggingheads.tv staff, special nikkibong diavlog needs to be commissioned. Must have Friedersdorf + Christopher Beam + Christopher Hitchens.

What, we can't get Andrew Sullivan in there too?

harkin 05-18-2010 09:22 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pampl (Post 162375)
Wow, that guy's pretty dumb. The whole point of "we won" and "elections have consequences" was that Obama's supporters were tired of his constant serious outreach being met with a list of far-right demands instead of negotiations. You can argue with that perception, but to claim it's an admission of a lack of serious outreach means you're either a liar or a fool. I haven't read that Lilla article before but if this is the best his critics can do then I guess it's worth checking out.

Yes....sigh,......self-reliance has nothing to do with America's past successes and needs to be placed in the dustbin of history.

Far-right, as in insisting that the majority of Americans who saw through his lies on Obamacare saving money shouldn't have it forced down their throats?

His own people now admit Obamacare is going to increase costs and reduce availability.

Serious outreach, as in condemning immigration laws that they don't even read and which are supported by a vast amount of Americans?

How about no tax cuts on people earning less than $250k?

How about his incredible outreach by taking 50 million of the over one $trillion health care boondoggle to investigate tort abuse?

LOL @ "serious outreach" - Keep drinkin the kool-aid.

And yes, elections do have consequences, even for the liars and fools (your words) who continue to support him.

Change You Can Believe In!

Whatfur 05-18-2010 09:36 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
I would be interested in where you feel the "serious outreach" happened and on what planet. Obama has not even been able to reach out to the White House press corp.

rcocean 05-18-2010 09:44 PM

The puzzling popularity of Conor
 
He's not very conservative, says nothing interesting, and shows no evidence of wit or great insight.

OTOH, he gives Bob Wright and liberals what they what. Speaks in an elitist tone, calls himself a "conservative", spends most his time attacking other conservatives, and occasionally offers mild, harmless, criticism of liberals on matters they don't really care about.

osmium 05-18-2010 10:02 PM

Re: The puzzling popularity of Conor
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 162382)
He's not very conservative, says nothing interesting, and shows no evidence of wit or great insight.

OTOH, he gives Bob Wright and liberals what they what. Speaks in an elitist tone, calls himself a "conservative", spends most his time attacking other conservatives, and occasionally offers mild, harmless, criticism of liberals on matters they don't really care about.

What are examples of the elitist tone? Seriously asking, not being critical.

Baltimoron 05-18-2010 10:07 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
OK, I do I have this wonky side that gets way into the weeds, so I like plodding sometimes - maybe after a silly comic aperitif. But, it's mostly IR and Korea stuff. Right now, I'm knee-deep into statistics for a methodology class, so I tend to go off cryptically on Boards and on my blog because my brain is fried. I love Sanchez and The American Scene. I've just wanted a sober, libertarian/conservative critique of the Tea Party that didn't start with "white guys".

rcocean 05-18-2010 10:38 PM

Re: The puzzling popularity of Conor
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by osmium (Post 162386)
What are examples of the elitist tone? Seriously asking, not being critical.

Sorry, but I don't have time to convince you, I'm too busy working on my term papers:

"Why Andrew Sullivan Sounds English" and "Why George Will has an elitist tone".

chamblee54 05-18-2010 10:41 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
Mr. Friedersdorf is too polite. Mr. Sanchez rambles on, and has a tough time finishing his point. Besides, he wore a tie for this broadcast, and makes funny faces.
The sound is good today. This is so important, especially after the disaster with Alexander Zaitchik.
This was a good background for working on the pictures. There is fresh product up on the blog, and will be more tomorrow. The Library of Congress is a wonderful, big government supported institution.

kezboard 05-18-2010 10:49 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
Quote:

Yes....sigh,......self-reliance has nothing to do with America's past successes and needs to be placed in the dustbin of history.
What the hell does this even mean?

osmium 05-18-2010 10:52 PM

Re: The puzzling popularity of Conor
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 162389)
Sorry, but I don't have time to convince you, I'm too busy working on my term papers:

"Why Andrew Sullivan Sounds English" and "Why George Will has an elitist tone".

Ah I see.

(Osmium gives the homeless man a dollar and walks away.)

BornAgainDemocrat 05-18-2010 11:16 PM

Honest “racial dialogue” vs. social norms of politeness
 
A more important question than whether different population groups have different intelligence profiles is what difference would it make -- or, rather, what difference should it make -- in a democracy? In a smartocracy, of course, the spoils go to the smart. And that might be the source of our problem. I am thinking of trade and immigration policies that favor the most intelligent slices of society at the expense of everyone else, and play one disprivileged group off against another as a form of self-defense.

That our current elites, Jewish and Gentile alike, cannot imagine it any other way is just a symptom of what ails us. To imagine what a truly fair and just society might look like in which this would not be true, in which all groups would be equally able to lead fulfilling lives without envy or resentment of the other groups around them, I suggest you rummage around here. It ain't no literary masterpiece but it should give you the general picture.

Of course it will never happen without help from the top. But then think of the opportunities for ambition and talent! It might beat being an unsexy slave trader at Goldman Sachs or trying to make partner at some kiss-ass corporate law firm.

osmium 05-18-2010 11:33 PM

Re: The puzzling popularity of Conor
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by osmium (Post 162392)
Ah I see.

(Osmium gives the homeless man a dollar and walks away.)

Added: I'm sorry if this is rude. I can't tell if rcocean is mocking me. Is rcocean mocking me? It reminds me of talking to someone on the street you don't know is a little off, but then suddenly you're like "okay wow that guy's off."

Does anyone else want to talk about what exactly elitism is, how it manifests in Conor Freidersdorf, and what we should think of that?

Baltimoron 05-18-2010 11:34 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
I'll register some disappointment now with this diavlog.

On the Tea Party, Friedersdorf makes a lot of empirical claims about what Tea Partiers believe, and then offers no proof. I'm still waiting for someone to offer a statistical sketch of this movement and its origins. I have two of my own suppositions: one, that the Tea Party is the ugly and emotional side - who knew it had one! - of libertarianism; two, that it's all astroturf, but that the average Rea Partier believes him/herself to be righteous and sincere.

BTW, Arun Gupta wrote this editorial , which has its own problems. Full disclosure: I went to college with Arun, and we participated in divestment and anti-Gulf War campaigns, as well as some other non-political organizations. But, at least he writes this:

Quote:

[/The Tea Party is the latest chapter in the history of the Republicans as the “Party of No.” Its existence depends on continuous promotion from FOX News, organizing by Republican consultants, front groups such as Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works, and the GOP itself. Much of the Tea Party’s funding comes from right-wing foundations through the front groups, and its politics are anti-government, anti-labor, pro-corporate and often socially conservative, which is the same agenda the right has been pushing for more than 30 years.

(...)

The Tea Party movement – which the Republicans have helped create and exploit to oppose the entirety of the Obama administration – is the latest political variant of the right’s themes. Much of the right’s anger is directed at immigrants, African Americans and social welfare and equality in general. Among Tea Partiers, 73 percent think “Blacks would be as well off as whites if they just tried harder”; 73 percent believe “providing government benefits to poor people encourages them to remain poor”; 60 percent believe “We have gone too far in pushing equal rights in this country”; 56 percent think “Immigrants take jobs from Americans”; 92 percent want a smaller government with “fewer services”; 92 percent think Obama’s policies are moving the country toward socialism; only 7 percent approve of Obama’s performance as president; and a combined 5 percent identify themselves as black, Asian or of Hispanic origin.
(Where are these figures from?)

Baltimoron 05-18-2010 11:40 PM

Re: The puzzling popularity of Conor
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by osmium (Post 162394)
Added: I'm sorry if this is rude. I can't tell if rcocean is mocking me. Is rcocean mocking me? It reminds me of talking to someone on the street you don't know is a little off, but then suddenly you're like "okay wow that guy's off."

Does anyone else want to talk about what exactly elitism is, how it manifests in Conor Freidersdorf, and what we should think of that?

Yeah, rcocean did come off flippant. I took his post seriously, too, until he buckled when pressed.

Friedersdorf knows people who can or want to pay top dollar for specialists? I don't know if that argument works. The American medical system has created its own culture, and I don't think the way Americans have to deal with it reflects any other aspect of the broader political culture. Lilla's argument might be questionable, but Friedersdorf didn't slay it.

badhatharry 05-18-2010 11:41 PM

Re: The puzzling popularity of Conor
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by osmium (Post 162386)
What are examples of the elitist tone? Seriously asking, not being critical.

How about this? Sanchez comparing talk show listeners to open minded geniuses in North Korea....they can't be blamed for their environment. Geez!!

ImmRefDotCom 05-18-2010 11:52 PM

Re: Oh my
 
1. Referring to "George Will’s column on Arizona’s round-up-the-darkies law" is what exactly, if it's not playing the race card?

2. There's ethnic pride and similar, and then there's hustling. Sanchez seems to be playing up his ethnicity, for some strange reason that I'm absolutely positive has nothing to do with becoming something akin to a libertarian Linda Sanchez.

badhatharry 05-18-2010 11:59 PM

Re: What Kind of a Monster Are You? (Julian Sanchez & Conor Friedersdorf)
 
Things I noticed...

1) Sanchez says the power of legislation won't prevent the police in Arizona from racially profiling. but lately we've heard so much about the power of legislation straightening out the banks and financial institutions. This power of legislation thing is certainly confusing and hard to predict.

2) Conor mentions Joe Arpaio and insinuates he is abusing his power and cites this as the kind of danger the Arizona law will encourage. Arpaio has never been convicted or formally charged of any abuse. There apparently is going to be some kind of Grand Jury investigation, but that in no way means Arpaio has done anything wrong. It's relatively easy to set up a Grand Jury investigation.

3) The average Mark Levin listener isn't a zombie.

4) The New York Times would never lie to their readers but if they did we wouldn't blame the readers. Therefore we should view the listeners of talk radio as victims and not villains and very much like Conor's grandparents...people who had hard lives and have made the best of themselves and are being lied to by radio show hosts. Geez!

5) Couldn't find anything about the San Diego ACORN worker who called the police, but found one that got fired. Maybe it was a different San Diego.

6) Conor doesn't really want open dialog about race because he said the woman he was refering to was wrong to even wonder about such things

Do either of these guys have jobs?

rcocean 05-19-2010 12:03 AM

Re: The puzzling popularity of Conor
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by osmium (Post 162394)
Added: I'm sorry if this is rude. I can't tell if rcocean is mocking me. Is rcocean mocking me? It reminds me of talking to someone on the street you don't know is a little off, but then suddenly you're like "okay wow that guy's off."

Does anyone else want to talk about what exactly elitism is, how it manifests in Conor Freidersdorf, and what we should think of that?

Yeah, OS I was mocking you. I have no idea what your motive is in asking such a question or whether you're sincere. To often, these type of questions are disingenuous. Further, I have no time or interest in writing an essay on why my opinion in correct - only to get a two sentence reply. Nor am I interested in trying to convince *you* that my opinion is correct.

If you disagree & think Conor is NOT an elitist - then state so, and give your reasons. If you truly cannot understand *why* Conor is an elitist, then maybe you need to listen and read more.

osmium 05-19-2010 12:09 AM

Re: The puzzling popularity of Conor
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 162401)
Yeah, OS I was mocking you. I have no idea what your motive is in asking such a question or whether you're sincere. To often, these type of questions are disingenuous. Further, I have no time or interest in writing an essay on why my opinion in correct - only to get a two sentence reply. Nor am I interested in trying to convince *you* that my opinion is correct.

If you disagree & think Conor is NOT an elitist - then state so, and give your reasons. If you truly cannot understand *why* Conor is an elitist, then maybe you need to listen and read more.

Ok great, I don't feel bad anymore. Thanks.

osmium 05-19-2010 12:21 AM

Re: The puzzling popularity of Conor
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 162398)
How about this? Sanchez comparing talk show listeners to open minded geniuses in North Korea....they can't be blamed for their environment. Geez!!

Yeah, I can see that. To be fair, I think he only means the segment of listeners who don't expose themselves to alternative opinions. At least that's how the metaphor would make sense, i.e. you need to hear a reasoned argument for the "other side" to get the big picture.

I certainly know a lot of people who are left of center that could do to listen to the other side a bit as well, and for them the North Korean Genius(TM) comparison would also apply.

I just wonder about this word elitist and what people mean by it. If elitism means discounting people who actively insulate themselves from the opposing argument, then elitism is okay.

I think elitism means discounting people due to education or social status without taking into account their articulation of a point of view.

A lot of the time when I hear the word "elitist," such as from the mouth of James Pinkerton, it is pretty much synonymous with "college boy." No?

badhatharry 05-19-2010 12:28 AM

Re: The puzzling popularity of Conor
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by osmium (Post 162403)
Ok great, I don't feel bad anymore. Thanks.

What a good hearted person you are!

BTW. I answered your question. agree? disagree?

How about this? Sanchez comparing talk show listeners to open minded geniuses in North Korea....they can't be blamed for their environment. Geez!!

badhatharry 05-19-2010 12:34 AM

Re: The puzzling popularity of Conor
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by osmium (Post 162404)
Yeah, I can see that. To be fair, I think he only means the segment of listeners who don't expose themselves to alternative opinions. At least that's how the metaphor would make sense, i.e. you need to hear a reasoned argument for the "other side" to get the big picture.

I certainly know a lot of people who are left of center that could do to listen to the other side a bit as well, and for them the North Korean Genius(TM) comparison would also apply.

I just wonder about this word elitist and what people mean by it. If elitism means discounting people who actively insulate themselves from the opposing argument, then elitism is okay.

But it's obvious that he thinks those people don't expose themselves, blah blah.... How arrogant! This guy has no idea what these people do or do not expose themselves to. Besides the North Korea reference infers that these people are too damned ignorant to even know there is a larger world out there....even though they may be latent geniuses. Those two or three sentences tell me a lot about this guy and the kind of epistemic closure he is guilty of.

As far as discounting people who actively insulate themselves from opposing argument...I suppose we are all guilty of insulating ourselves sometimes, but it should be avoided. And it's impossible to know to what extent a person is doing that. But in Sanchez's case, I think he's just trying to be cool and doesn't want to be vaguely associated to the class of people who listen to talk radio...like Conor's grandparents.

osmium 05-19-2010 12:49 AM

Re: The puzzling popularity of Conor
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 162406)
But it's obvious that he thinks those people don't expose themselves, blah blah.... How arrogant! This guy has no idea what these people do or do not expose themselves to. Besides the North Korea reference infers that these people are too damned ignorant to even know there is a larger world out there....even though they may be latent geniuses. Those two or three sentences tell me a lot about this guy.

True, I see. I think it's probably safe to assume they insulate themselves at the same level as the general population. However, assuming a higher percentage than that would require evidence. And Julian does kind of sound like he's presupposing that very thing, which is disparaging.

What I wonder, only tangentially connected to this, is what percentage of people do challenge their own assumptions. Also, how does one tell if one is adequately doing that? It seems like a non-trivial concern.

Starwatcher162536 05-19-2010 01:00 AM

Re: The puzzling popularity of Conor
 
It's paradoxical, but challenging your own assumptions by exposing yourself to the mainstream of a different political philosophy often leads your views becoming more stratified. It's what happens to me every time I listen to AFR, Limbaugh, Levin, etc. I suspect the same hold true for conservatives who listen to Olbermann or Media Matters.

But if you don't expose yourself to the aforementioned you risk living in an echo chamber. It's all very catch-22.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.