NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently, now YouTube is a vessel for liberal lies:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3137127&page=1

Thus, I give you QueTube:
http://www.qubetv.tv/

First, there was Fox News. Then "Conservapedia." Now "QueTube?" All of these conservative "alternatives" are really starting to pile up. It makes you wonder: who's more biased? All of reality, from the media to scientists to user file-sharing networks, or the conservative elite who have to serve up a right-wing alternative to everything in existence? I have to hand it to the conservative movement; saying that reality has a liberal bias definitely helps in denying even the most undeniable truths that disfavor their causes. Too bad that the more they scream about liberal biases, the less credibility they appear to have. Eventually, I hope they'll accept the fact that reality doesn't always sway in their favor.

If they can put together the money to start their own outlet, and they have enough people willing to use that outlet, what problem is there?

Are you saying we should have been happy with the three television networks we had in the 1960s?

That we don't need any other voices, except those that chant in unison?

Not true! They are conservatives! Nothing ever changes! Nothing! Nothing!
The world is always on their side.

It's a marketing thing.

Fox succeeds (and CBS is tanking) because there's a market.

Wake up and smell the money.

If they can put together the money to start their own outlet, and they have enough people willing to use that outlet, what problem is there?

Are you saying we should have been happy with the three television networks we had in the 1960s?

That we don't need any other voices, except those that chant in unison?

No, the problem is that whenever something doesn't go their way - for example, global warming and climate change - they make up something else.

No, the problem is that whenever something doesn't go their way - for example, global warming and climate change - they make up something else.

That explains why, despite their best struggle, CBS is tanking in the ratings, and Fox is doing well.

Right? Ratings - and marketing - is everything.

If they can put together the money to start their own outlet, and they have enough people willing to use that outlet, what problem is there?

Are you saying we should have been happy with the three television networks we had in the 1960s?

That we don't need any other voices, except those that chant in unison?

Exactly, I'm failing to see the problem here.

Open-market, capitalistic economy. It's less of a conservative site and more of a niche marketing strategy.

If you are banning videos simply because they are "conservative" then yeah, thats biased.

It makes you wonder: who's more biased?

reality itself, obviously

Exactly, I'm failing to see the problem here.

Open-market, capitalistic economy. It's less of a conservative site and more of a niche marketing strategy.

Fox isn't exactly a niche. If we go by the ratings, CBS is in the niche.

If they can put together the money to start their own outlet, and they have enough people willing to use that outlet, what problem is there?

Are you saying we should have been happy with the three television networks we had in the 1960s?

That we don't need any other voices, except those that chant in unison?

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying...

My point was, if you actually took the time to read my post before pulling out the "woe is the poor little conservative" card, that right-wingers claim that everything has a bias, to the point of absurdity. Apparently, YouTube is too expanisve to serve their propaganda needs, so they had to start "QueTube", and factual information just didn't suit their views, so they had to start an alternative to Wikipedia in the form of "Conservapedia." You're telling me there's nothing ridiculous about claiming that anything and everything has a liberal bias, and then starting up sites whose aim is soley conservative propaganda?

Apparently, now YouTube is a vessel for liberal lies:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3137127&page=1

Thus, I give you QueTube:
http://www.qubetv.tv/

First, there was Fox News. Then "Conservapedia." Now "QueTube?" All of these conservative "alternatives" are really starting to pile up. It makes you wonder: who's more biased? All of reality, from the media to scientists to user file-sharing networks, or the conservative elite who have to serve up a right-wing alternative to everything in existence? I have to hand it to the conservative movement; saying that reality has a liberal bias definitely helps in denying even the most undeniable truths that disfavor their causes. Too bad that the more they scream about liberal biases, the less credibility they appear to have. Eventually, I hope they'll accept the fact that reality doesn't always sway in their favor.

Or maybe they just want a set of places they can get their entertainment and news without feeling like they're being treated like somebody's idiot cousin?

I know it isn't PC to say, but fuck PC anyway: there is a liberal bias in most mainstream media. I don't necessarilly think that's wrong; classic liberalism (basically, "you do your thing and I'll do mine, and provided we don't clash there's no problem") is the most enlightened social form we have, and I support it entirely. But there is also what might be called "neoliberalism" to coin a term, which might best be described as "if you're not as left-wing as I am you're evil, bigoted white trash."

And this bunch are just as desirous of telling you what to do, speak and think as the neocons. Plus, they are just as capable of ignoring the facts and spinning the opinions as anybody on Fox is - they've just been doing it to you longer, so you no longer notice.

We do need a counterpoint to the mainstream. Neither side is "wrong" - they're just pushing their own agendas. I'd suggest doing your own research and making up your own damn mind, and ignoring both sides.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying...

My point was, if you actually took the time to read my post before pulling out the "woe is the poor little conservative" card, that right-wingers claim that everything has a bias, to the point of absurdity. Apparently, YouTube is too expanisve to serve their propaganda needs, so they had to start "QueTube", and factual information just didn't suit their views, so they had to start an alternative to Wikipedia in the form of "Conservapedia." You're telling me there's nothing ridiculous about claiming that anything and everything has a liberal bias, and then starting up sites whose aim is soley conservative propaganda?

Are you saying that there's a problem with marketing to people?

If you are banning videos simply because they are "conservative" then yeah, thats biased.

Yeah, that's why the "liberally-biased" heads of YouTube allowed the Hillary "1984" video to premiere on the site, as well as John Kerry's little "botched joke" and numerous other videos that are detrimental to liberal politicians.

Give me a break.

Yeah, that's why the "liberally-biased" heads of YouTube allowed the Hillary "1984" video to premiere on the site, as well as John Kerry's little "botched joke" and numerous other videos that are detrimental to liberal politicians.

Give me a break.

Why there's an army of liberal people who constantly try to bury conservative sites at digg.com....

Gotcha.

If they can put together the money to start their own outlet, and they have enough people willing to use that outlet, what problem is there?

Are you saying we should have been happy with the three television networks we had in the 1960s?

That we don't need any other voices, except those that chant in unison?
Except that YouTube is user generated content. There is no filter between content and distribution. Conservative voices have just as much access to YouTube as liberal voices do. In essence, to accept that YouTube has a liberal bias you have to tacitly acknowledge that reality really does have a liberal bias. It means that conservatives cannot create enough of an impression without an uneven playing field, since YouTube is about as even a playing field as you can create.

And I think your ratings information is out of date. I seem to remember Fox having lost @14% share recently. And comparing an all news cable network to a broadcast network that carries only a portion of its programing as news seems like a poor comparison at best, never mind trying to actually establish CBS as a 'liberal' equivalent of Fox News.

It's only propaganda if you don't agree.

Besides, I'm sure even a White Belt in Google-Fu could bring up a dozen or more sites designed to expel Feminist/Liberal/Religious/Athiest/American/etc propaganda. How is this really any different?

If you are banning videos simply because they are "conservative" then yeah, thats biased.

they aren't

Or maybe they just want a set of places they can get their entertainment and news without feeling like they're being treated like somebody's idiot cousin?

I know it isn't PC to say, but fuck PC anyway: there is a liberal bias in most mainstream media. I don't necessarilly think that's wrong; classic liberalism (basically, "you do your thing and I'll do mine, and provided we don't clash there's no problem") is the most enlightened social form we have, and I support it entirely. But there is also what might be called "neoliberalism" to coin a term, which might best be described as "if you're not as left-wing as I am you're evil, bigoted white trash."

And this bunch are just as desirous of telling you what to do, speak and think as the neocons. Plus, they are just as capable of ignoring the facts and spinning the opinions as anybody on Fox is - they've just been doing it to you longer, so you no longer notice.

We do need a counterpoint to the mainstream. Neither side is "wrong" - they're just pushing their own agendas. I'd suggest doing your own research and making up your own damn mind, and ignoring both sides.

Despite claims of liberal bias in the media, I've never seen a credible example. Not one. It doesn't help that the conservatives' "proof" are books like "Slander" by Ann Coulter and "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, both of which have been shown to be full of lies.

Are you saying that there's a problem with marketing to people?
No, but I'm saying there is a problem with doing so under false pretenses about reality being manipulated by an evil liberal puppet master in the sky.

Yeah, that's why the "liberally-biased" heads of YouTube allowed the Hillary "1984" video to premiere on the site, as well as John Kerry's little "botched joke" and numerous other videos that are detrimental to liberal politicians.

Give me a break.

Great, there are some conservative videos on that site. Not biased after all then :rolleyes:

Except that YouTube is user generated content. There is no filter between content and distribution. Conservative voices have just as much access to YouTube as liberal voices do. In essence, to accept that YouTube has a liberal bias you have to tacitly acknowledge that reality really does have a liberal bias. It means that conservatives cannot create enough of an impression without an uneven playing field, since YouTube is about as even a playing field as you can create.

And I think your ratings information is out of date. I seem to remember Fox having lost @14% share recently. And comparing an all news cable network to a broadcast network that carries only a portion of its programing as news seems like a poor comparison at best, never mind trying to actually establish CBS as a 'liberal' equivalent of Fox News.

CBS, through Walter Cronkite, has admitted their liberal bias publicly.
I don't need to establish it.

But there is also what might be called "neoliberalism" to coin a term, which might best be described as "if you're not as left-wing as I am you're evil, bigoted white trash."

neoliberalism already has a meaning and that ain't it.

Apparently, now YouTube is a vessel for liberal lies:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3137127&page=1

Thus, I give you QueTube:
http://www.qubetv.tv/

First, there was Fox News. Then "Conservapedia." Now "QueTube?" All of these conservative "alternatives" are really starting to pile up. It makes you wonder: who's more biased? All of reality, from the media to scientists to user file-sharing networks, or the conservative elite who have to serve up a right-wing alternative to everything in existence? I have to hand it to the conservative movement; saying that reality has a liberal bias definitely helps in denying even the most undeniable truths that disfavor their causes. Too bad that the more they scream about liberal biases, the less credibility they appear to have. Eventually, I hope they'll accept the fact that reality doesn't always sway in their favor.

good post :)

*gives thumbs up*

If they can put together the money to start their own outlet, and they have enough people willing to use that outlet, what problem is there?
They are obviously dangerously delusional.

Great, there are some conservative videos on that site. Not biased after all then :rolleyes:

I would absolutely love to see your proof of bias in YouTube (and preferably from somewhere other than "QueTube", which is admittedly biased against YouTube and liberals).

CBS, through Walter Cronkite, has admitted their liberal bias publicly.
I don't need to establish it.

walter cronkite who retired in 1981? even if that did establish anything (and it doesn't), it would establish it for more than a quarter century ago. seriously, you can't be this stupid, and it is bad form to assume that we are.

walter cronkite who retired in 1981? even if that did establish anything (and it doesn't), it would establish it for more than a quarter century ago. seriously, you can't be this stupid, and it is bad form to assume that we are.

But that's the whole point of conservative propaganda: it assumes that its listeners are morons. Unfortunately, many are.

They are obviously dangerously delusional.

"but if there is a market space for dangerous delusions, then clearly providing space for them is good and should be celebrated. because...um...well...all things on the market are good, no matter what!! yeah, that's the ticket."

I would absolutely love to see your proof of bias in YouTube (and preferably from somewhere other than "QueTube", which is admittedly biased against YouTube and liberals).

I can't show you deleted videos. They are deleted. I'm not complaining that they have a subtle bias, but to just pretend away that youtube is 100% impartial (which is pretty much impossible for any media outlet) and that the conservatives are wrong for complaining about it is just flippant. I also seem to feel as if you are suggesting only the conservatives complain about bias, although you havn't actually said it.

I think the "liberal" bias thing is used purely as justification for creating a "conservative" bias. It's a fallacious reasoning, of course - tu quoque - but since when did reason enter into the whole "liberal vs conservative" false dichotomy pissing contest?

"but if there is a market space for dangerous delusions, then clearly providing space for them is good and should be celebrated. because...um...well...all things on the market are good, no matter what!! yeah, that's the ticket."

As opposed to: "it's wrong to produce a new market space for opinions I disagree with, because I disagree with them :rolleyes: "

Remote observer isn't saying it's "good", hes saying there is nothing inherently wrong in doing this.

Why there's an army of liberal people who constantly try to bury conservative sites at digg.com....

Gotcha.

What does that have to do with the comment you quoted?

Despite claims of liberal bias in the media, I've never seen a credible example. Not one. It doesn't help that the conservatives' "proof" are books like "Slander" by Ann Coulter and "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, both of which have been shown to be full of lies.


Primarily because Coulter and Goldberg are both idiots. Bias isn't about what you report, but how you report it.

One of the biggest liberal bias memes at the moment is "Bush is a moron." Here is a man who was a fighter pilot, successful state governor, and managed to get himself elected President twice - but from the way the mainstream media portray him, you would think he's a semi-functional illiterate Down's-syndrome sufferer. They've taken his lack of erudition and policies they don't like as proof of idiocy.

I don't like many of Bush's policies. But I don't make the serious mistake of underestimating his intelligence.

They cut his speeches into sound bites that make him sound bad. If he makes a statement that turns out wrong, it's repeated ad infinitum - his "victory speech" on the carrier was repeated again on the news tonight. That's what, four years old now? Where are the parts of his economic speeches from then?

I think it's pretty obvious for anyone looking with an unjaundiced eye at our media that there is indeed a liberal bias there. A voice from the other side should be welcomed, not vilified.

I can't show you deleted videos. They are deleted. I'm not complaining that they have a subtle bias, but to just pretend away that youtube is 100% impartial (which is pretty much impossible for any media outlet) and that the conservatives are wrong for complaining about it is just flippant. I also seem to feel as if you are suggesting only the conservatives complain about bias, although you havn't actually said it.

Wow. So your argument amounts to: "Oh, the bias is there...I can't prove it, but it's there." Well, I dunno about anyone else, but I'm convinced.

And yes, liberals might complain about conservative bias, but might I point out that I haven't seen any liberal alternatives to neutral things popping up with the justification being that the originals were too "biased."

neoliberalism already has a meaning and that ain't it.

Ah? What's the meaning? I've not come across it.

CBS, through Walter Cronkite, has admitted their liberal bias publicly.
I don't need to establish it.

That's really the best you've got? An unsourced comment by a long since retired (retired loooooonnngggg before cable news was even an issue) news person is all you have to that whole thing? I mean, establishing CBS as the liberal equivalent of FOX (which I still see as incomplete) was the smallest portion of that post. Can I take the fact that you bothered to respond to the post but not to the rest of the points that you then agree?

Can I take the fact that you bothered to respond to the post but not to the rest of the points that you then agree?


OOh. So, if I post at 2 AM, and you don't respond, I can take it that you agree with everything I post....

That the best you can do?

In fact, Cronkite believes there IS a liberal media bias...

"I believe that most of us reporters are liberal, but not because we consciously have chosen that particular color in the political spectrum. More likely it is because most of us served our journalistic apprenticeships as reporters covering the seamier sides of our cities – the crimes, the tenement fires, the homeless and the hungry, the underclothed and undereducated."

OOh. So, if I post at 2 AM, and you don't respond, I can take it that you agree with everything I post....

That the best you can do?

Not the same at all

A much more correct situation would be that if you posted at 2 am and he responded but ignoring parts ....

Ah? What's the meaning? I've not come across it.

I believe it's something to do with governments trying to promote a free market.

OOh. So, if I post at 2 AM, and you don't respond, I can take it that you agree with everything I post....

That the best you can do?

You know, generally I agree with that. I don't take a lack of response as 'victory' as most do.

But you quoted my post and even bothered to respond, but only to a small tangential part of the whole. And you continue to post in this thread. So that is hardly the situation now, is it? I'm not calling you out on not having the time to see everything everyone posts about you, I'm calling you out on the weakness of your response.

In fact, Cronkite believes there IS a liberal media bias...
Of course if we don't bother getting to the reasons or anything...

And I don't see you "proving" being liberal results in a "liberal bias."

Liberal Bias? Come on. It's the opposite. The media is conservative friendly. You think Bush would have been re-elected if the media was able to remind people of just how bad everything has gone under Bush? Instead, the media focused on flag burning, Terry Shiavo, non-existent "controversies", etc. Hell, people have so many misconceptions about Social Security, and some even think privatizing it is a good option and that otherwise it's going to tank, and that there is no SS money. The same thing happens for so many issues, where an inane talking point gets as much validity as real data.

This blog shows how if anything, there is a conservative bias. Even with great ratings, "liberal" news hosts have been canned by the conservative leaning network owners:

http://houseoflabor.tpmcafe.com/blog/joseph_hughes/2007/apr/18/don_imus_and_whats_ailing_the_media

Although, the mainstream media does have a bias, and that is towards things that make people watch TV, sensationalism rather than boring topics, the controversy rather than the consensus, etc.

I believe it's something to do with governments trying to promote a free market.

Hmm. I would have though that would simply be "economic liberalism". Oh well; I think my point was clear enough.

Wow. So your argument amounts to: "Oh, the bias is there...I can't prove it, but it's there." Well, I dunno about anyone else, but I'm convinced.


I don't have an argument, I have already told you that I cannot prove to you that youtube has a bias.


And yes, liberals might complain about conservative bias, but might I point out that I haven't seen any liberal alternatives to neutral things popping up with the justification being that the originals were too "biased."

What do you mean by "neutral things"?

In fact, Cronkite believes there IS a liberal media bias...

Whoa, there. That quote doesn't say what you claim it does. Saying that reporters tend to be liberal is not at all the same thing as saying that news reporting is biased towards liberalism.

If they can put together the money to start their own outlet, and they have enough people willing to use that outlet, what problem is there?

Are you saying we should have been happy with the three television networks we had in the 1960s?

That we don't need any other voices, except those that chant in unison?

I strongly encourage conservatives to mount their own outlets to get their "messages" out. That doesn't make it any less stupid when they proclaim that they're being hounded from places like Youtube. If anything, conservative places have shown themselves repeatedly to be less tolerant of opposing opinions than any liberal site is.

I can't show you deleted videos. They are deleted. I'm not complaining that they have a subtle bias, but to just pretend away that youtube is 100% impartial (which is pretty much impossible for any media outlet) and that the conservatives are wrong for complaining about it is just flippant.

considering the fact that michelle malkin herself posted a response to this 'banning' on youtube, and posted dozen of other videos there as well sorta undermines the point.

the fascists are liars. every time they think there is even the slightest advantage to it, they completely make shit up. like easily disproved, utterly illogical, batshit insane nonsense. this 'bias' line has been used for decades to great effect, but recently has been getting pushed to such ridiculous extremes that i'm amazed anyone even bothers to pretend to care. there is a reason that stephen colbert's use of my phrase ("reality has a liberal/left-wing bias") has caught on to such a great extent. the crazy fuckers themselves tried to use 'reality-based community' as a slam.

You know, generally I agree with that. I don't take a lack of response as 'victory' as most do.

But you quoted my post and even bothered to respond, but only to a small tangential part of the whole. And you continue to post in this thread. So that is hardly the situation now, is it? I'm not calling you out on not having the time to see everything everyone posts about you, I'm calling you out on the weakness of your response.

I agree with you ... I wonder if it was a deliberate strawman

I agree with you ... I wonder if it was a deliberate strawman

From Remote Observer? Him? A deliberate straw man? Never. ;)

Ah? What's the meaning? I've not come across it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism_%28international_relations%29

In fact, Cronkite believes there IS a liberal media bias...

1) because Cronkite says something doesn't make it true

2) being liberal is not the same as having a liberal bias

3) if in fact it IS the same, Cronkite states that he believes that many reporters are liberal having seen the misfortunate, the down and out, the desperate and the poor, the sad facts of life in our nation. Therefore if you submit Cronkite's statement as true, and believe that his statement implies liberal bias, than seeing things for what they are makes them biased. Which means you have just admitted that yes, in fact, reality does have a liberal bias.

I don't have an argument, I have already told you that I cannot prove to you that youtube has a bias.
Then don't :rolleyes: as if you have proof that there is.
What do you mean by "neutral things"?
I mean user-generated content sites like YouTube and Wikipedia which can only reflect the biases of the people who post content on them. Surely some conservatives use those sites? The only way that they could be liberally biased is if every user that uses them is a liberal. "But the webmasters!", you say. If YouTube is a such a paragon of liberalism, then why does QueTube only have one supposed example of liberal bias (the alleged removing of that video about Islamic extremists)?

considering the fact that michelle malkin herself posted a response to this 'banning' on youtube, and posted dozen of other videos there as well sorta undermines the point.


how?


the fascists are liars. every time they think there is even the slightest advantage to it, they completely make shit up. like easily disproved, utterly illogical, batshit insane nonsense. this 'bias' line has been used for decades to great effect, but recently has been getting pushed to such ridiculous extremes that i'm amazed anyone even bothers to pretend to care.

I would be pretty annoyed if youtube were censoring my political opinions. I admit they don't have any case in the US for bias, but in Europe, thats another matter entirely.

From Remote Observer? Him? A deliberate straw man? Never. ;)

do we have any american-style right-wingers that aren't completely intellectually dishonest and bankrupt here? seems to me all of the big ones at least are essentially always lying, misrepresenting, pretending counter-arguments haven't been made, etc.

how?

It's pretty simple, no? If Youtube has an anti-conservative bias, how would Malkin have a chance to bitch on Youtube about the removal of a single video?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism_%28international_relations%29

Thank you.

If anything, conservative places have shown themselves repeatedly to be less tolerant of opposing opinions than any liberal site is.

You are 100% correct, but thats not the point. Youtube is not suppost to have any bias at all, not left or right. It is suppost to be impartial. It's ok to be biased of you are meant to be biased.

People seem to complain on "bias" when it comes to negative reporting on Bush but for a major fuck up like him, it would be wrong to make 50% of the reports of him positive and 50% negative. If all he's done is to srew up badly, he should get fried.

And american media is extremelly right wing, which is quite obvious.

how?

by demonstrating that our lady of the concentration camps wasn't banned, nor were any videos associated with her except for one flagged for inappropriate content.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=michellemalkin

1) because Cronkite says something doesn't make it true

2) being liberal is not the same as having a liberal bias

3) if in fact it IS the same, Cronkite states that he believes that many reporters are liberal having seen the misfortunate, the down and out, the desperate and the poor, the sad facts of life in our nation. Therefore if you submit Cronkite's statement as true, and believe that his statement implies liberal bias, than seeing things for what they are makes them biased. Which means you have just admitted that yes, in fact, reality does have a liberal bias.

Your point three doesn't scan. The "sad facts of life" you impute simply isn't the case in a lot of our nation. I'm not saying it's not real (since it is, of course), but to state that it is "The Reality" of the United States is itself a biased statement - and an untrue one.

Cronkite was right - in being exposed to the seamy nastiness of the bad parts of our cities, journalists are predisposed towards a liberal view - not because that is the reality of the nation, but because it is the environment, not representative of our entire nation, that they were trained in and exposed to.

It's pretty simple, no? If Youtube has an anti-conservative bias, how would Malkin have a chance to bitch on Youtube about the removal of a single video?

Can you imagine how bad youtube would look if they actually decided to censor that video.

Whoa, there. That quote doesn't say what you claim it does. Saying that reporters tend to be liberal is not at all the same thing as saying that news reporting is biased towards liberalism.

That's right. Teachers, professors, journalists, and scientists do tend to hold more liberal personal beliefs, but that certainly doesn't mean that their works include a liberal bias. A common fallacy is the "middle ground" argument, that the truth or best answer must be in the middle of 2 different beliefs. But if the logically reasoned facts point to one answer and not the other, it doesn't make the answer biased.

If teachers, professors, journalists, and scientists tend to have more education, and that education leads them to see the facts for what they are, they shouldn't introduce a conservative bias just the balance the argument towards the middle of an extreme position and the sensible position.

Unfortunately, media occasional does this such as repeating what ultra right-wingers say in talking points without regard to its basis of being a factual, well-reasoned argument or not. And conservative pressure to avoid the label of liberal-bias seems to me like it's a large factor, along with poor journalism, and appealing to ratings.

I strongly encourage conservatives to mount their own outlets to get their "messages" out. That doesn't make it any less stupid when they proclaim that they're being hounded from places like Youtube. If anything, conservative places have shown themselves repeatedly to be less tolerant of opposing opinions than any liberal site is.
You forgot to put liberal in quotes. Accusing a site like "YouTube" of being a "liberal" stronghold is absurd.

Your point three doesn't scan. The "sad facts of life" you impute simply isn't the case in a lot of our nation. I'm not saying it's not real (since it is, of course), but to state that it is "The Reality" of the United States is itself a biased statement - and an untrue one.


Not that this is the reality of the US, but rather the reality of the US is that such a thing exists within it.

Something liberals have known for years. Something conservatives have denied for years, spouting off about welfare queens, and those damned lazy poor people.

Is all the US like that? Of course not. But the reality is parts are, and they continue to get worse, and what party is typically responsible for scaling back social welfare and tax cuts for the upper class?

Not that this is the reality of the US, but rather the reality of the US is that such a thing exists within it.

Something liberals have known for years. Something conservatives have denied for years, spouting off about welfare queens, and those damned lazy poor people.

Is all the US like that? Of course not. But the reality is parts are, and they continue to get worse, and what party is typically responsible for scaling back social welfare and tax cuts for the upper class?

The Republicans, at least since WWII.

Now, you didn't say this, and I'm not claiming you did, nor that you implied it. But there is a style of reporting that DOES try to represent the areas we are talking about as the "norm" for the United States. They typically also hold up poor people as paragons of virtue and the rich as devils. And I see this in mainstream media - not all the time, not even regularly (except perhaps 60 Minutes), but it happens. Is that not liberal bias?

I'm reading this thread and fine myself in agreement with the general points that YouTube is unbiased, as the content is user-provided. Given that, I'm lead to wonder if more liberals than conservatives are active users of the internet.

NSG has a liberal-slant most days.

It's not the reality has a liberal bias (it's pretty middle ground most days) but the internet reality has a strong liberal bias because more liberals use computers and the internet...?

Anyone think I'm blowing out my ass on this one?

I'm reading this thread and fine myself in agreement with the general points that YouTube is unbiased, as the content is user-provided. Given that, I'm lead to wonder if more liberals than conservatives are active users of the internet.

NSG has a liberal-slant most days.

It's not the reality has a liberal bias (it's pretty middle ground most days) but the internet reality has a strong liberal bias because more liberals use computers and the internet...?

Anyone think I'm blowing out my ass on this one?

I think NSG leans more liberal because it's an international forum and most of the world is to the left of the US. In the US, I'm as liberal as they come, and I get called a moderate by a number of people here.

I'm reading this thread and fine myself in agreement with the general points that YouTube is unbiased, as the content is user-provided.

But censored by the admins.

I'm reading this thread and fine myself in agreement with the general points that YouTube is unbiased, as the content is user-provided. Given that, I'm lead to wonder if more liberals than conservatives are active users of the internet.

NSG has a liberal-slant most days.

It's not the reality has a liberal bias (it's pretty middle ground most days) but the internet reality has a strong liberal bias because more liberals use computers and the internet...?

Anyone think I'm blowing out my ass on this one?

Not entirely. The better educated people get, the more commonly they embrace classic liberal ideas.

Also, the average age here is pretty young, and people tend to grow more conservative with age and experience.

But there are plenty of conservative fora out there too.

Are you saying that there's a problem with marketing to people?

I'll say that.

Ah? What's the meaning? I've not come across it.

Straight from Wiki

Neoliberalism is a label for economic liberalism that describes government policies aiming to promote free competition among business firms within market, notably liberalization and monetarism.[1]

Neoliberalism is associated with the Friedrich Hayek, economics departments such as that at the University of Chicago (and such professors as Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger), and international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (none of whom use the label "neoliberal"). In general, neoliberalism represents a move away from the Keynesian economics that were dominant immediately after World War II. The philosophy promotes a "liberalization" of capital markets (thus called "neoliberal reform").

More specifically, neoliberalism promotes a stable currency, a balanced budget, free market capitalism, and free trade. Characteristic aspects include expansion of the market to a 24-hour global trading cycle, contract maximalization, increase in the frequency of contracts, continuous assessment, and derivative markets.

Opponents argue that neoliberalism is the implementation of global capitalism through government/military interventionism to protect the interests of multinational corporations, as well as the effects of free trade on wages and social structures. Notable opponents to neoliberalism in theory or practice include economists Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, Noam Chomsky,[2] and the anti-globalization movement.

I'm reading this thread and fine myself in agreement with the general points that YouTube is unbiased, as the content is user-provided. Given that, I'm lead to wonder if more liberals than conservatives are active users of the internet.

NSG has a liberal-slant most days.

It's not the reality has a liberal bias (it's pretty middle ground most days) but the internet reality has a strong liberal bias because more liberals use computers and the internet...?

Anyone think I'm blowing out my ass on this one?

I would agree with that.

Most liberals are younger, higher educated, generally more affluent. One could say the same for the average internet user (or at least your average message-board junkie).

I think NSG leans more liberal because it's an international forum and most of the world is to the left of the US. In the US, I'm as liberal as they come, and I get called a moderate by a number of people here.

I'm only moderate left but I've been called a pink commie. :D

Of course, the fact that it's an international forum does change the political slant.

But censored by the admins.

The material YouTube has removed has been flagged for violating copyright.

Show me where the admins had censored.

Also, the average age here is pretty young, and people tend to grow more conservative with age and experience.

I don't think people grow more conservative as ideas get more radical with each new generation. Of course some people do change...

But censored by the admins.

If it violates the user agreement - no nudity (because it's American) and no copyrighted material.

Wake up and smell the money.

:) It smells like coffee...

:confused:
The material YouTube has removed has been flagged for violating copyright.

Show me where the admins had censored.

You didn't know youtube censored material? :confused: Anything which they feel is too graphic, obscene, rude, offensive they will remove. Videos don't just get flagged because they breach copyright.

If it violates the user agreement - no nudity (because it's American) and no copyrighted material.

It's more then that. They've been removing material even for stupid things like too much swearing.

Wait... western nations in the 21st century are biased against the "good old" ways of sexism, racism and theocracy? Stop the press!

:confused:

You didn't know youtube censored material? :confused: Anything which they feel is too graphic, obscene, rude, offensive they will remove. Videos don't just get flagged because they breach copyright.
Well, I knew they removed stuff that infringed on copyrights or violated the user agreement, but I don't see how they are censoring outside of that.

When a video is submitted, it's submitted with the user knowing and agreeing to the rules.

Apparently, now YouTube is a vessel for liberal lies:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3137127&page=1

Thus, I give you QueTube:
http://www.qubetv.tv/

First, there was Fox News. Then "Conservapedia." Now "QueTube?" All of these conservative "alternatives" are really starting to pile up. It makes you wonder: who's more biased? All of reality, from the media to scientists to user file-sharing networks, or the conservative elite who have to serve up a right-wing alternative to everything in existence? I have to hand it to the conservative movement; saying that reality has a liberal bias definitely helps in denying even the most undeniable truths that disfavor their causes. Too bad that the more they scream about liberal biases, the less credibility they appear to have. Eventually, I hope they'll accept the fact that reality doesn't always sway in their favor.

HAHAHAHAA!!!

They copied it off GodTube.

Here is a man who was a fighter pilot,Never participated in combat
successful state governorCompetent? I have no Idea
and managed to get himself elected President twiceTchnically once. Remember, Gore had more poplar votes than bush but the corts gave shrub the election.:rolleyes:

Well, I knew they removed stuff that infringed on copyrights or violated the user agreement, but I don't see how they are censoring outside of that.

When a video is submitted, it's submitted with the user knowing and agreeing to the rules.

But if they break those rules, the admins remove it.

Never participated in combat
Irrelevant
Competent? I have no Idea
Irrelevant
Tchnically once. Remember, Gore had more poplar votes than bush but the corts gave shrub the election.:rolleyes:
Irrelevant.

But if they break those rules, the admins remove it.

Sure it's "censorship" but that site is privately owned. It may be opened to the public, but in the end, it's the admins who ensure that the rules are followed.

Just like the mods do here on NSG.

Irrelevant

Irrelevant

Irrelevant.

I guess if it was all so irrelevant, you won't be bringing those points up next time.

I guess if it was all so irrelevant, you won't be bringing those points up next time.

His response was irrelevant, not my points.

His response was irrelevant, not my points.

You'll have to do better than that to be persuasive. The courts decided '00. It was not an electoral victory in the true sense.

You'll have to do better than that to be persuasive. The courts decided '00. It was not an electoral victory in the true sense.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the point of my post. Please go back and read it.

Apparently, now YouTube is a vessel for liberal lies:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3137127&page=1

Thus, I give you QueTube:
http://www.qubetv.tv/

First, there was Fox News. Then "Conservapedia." Now "QueTube?" All of these conservative "alternatives" are really starting to pile up. It makes you wonder: who's more biased? All of reality, from the media to scientists to user file-sharing networks, or the conservative elite who have to serve up a right-wing alternative to everything in existence? I have to hand it to the conservative movement; saying that reality has a liberal bias definitely helps in denying even the most undeniable truths that disfavor their causes. Too bad that the more they scream about liberal biases, the less credibility they appear to have. Eventually, I hope they'll accept the fact that reality doesn't always sway in their favor.

I guess this just proves that reality has a liberal bias

better start working on Conserviality. :p

I guess this just proves that reality has a liberal bias

better start working on Conserviality. :p

"a reality you can deal with!"

It's more then that. They've been removing material even for stupid things like too much swearing.

Which is far from implying a liberal bias. A "liberal bias" would be censoring videos because they support conservative views when they violate no terms of the YouTube user agreement. So far, nobody here has been able to conclusively show that YouTube is censoring videos for political reasons. Hell, there has been no evidence at all, credible or otherwise, presented to show that YouTube is censoring videos over their political content. Which means that there is no demonstrated need for a "conservative alternative" to YouTube.

There doesn't have to be a need. Some folks wanted it, now they've got it. The fact that they're deluding themselves into believing that it's needed is meaningless.

Wow.. I'm honestly amazed that Americans can debate and get angry over "biased media". I'm living in Sweden, where the two main tv channels and the four main radio channels are all run by the government. On top of that, the newspapers get government funding as long as they abide by certain, government-set "ethical rules". All of our movies are funded by the government. Artists and writers with the correct political views get lifetime government pensions regardless of age.

We are constantly bombarded, day in and day out, with reports of how the Swedish system is perfect, of how America is evil, and of how important it is to contribute to the common good at the expense of the individual. Most of my friends have given up on watching or listening to Swedish news or documentaries.

Compared to that, whether your American media is "liberally biased" or not is a joke. Be grateful that you don't live here in socialist h*ll. >.<

Bullshit. The media has an obvious conservative bias, read "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" by Al Franken for evidence of this, or really just watch the news.

As for this, I hope it gets flooded with videos of Bush undulating to tribal beats, Rumsfeld rapping, People denying god's existence, and stuff like that.

Wow.. I'm honestly amazed that Americans can debate and get angry over "biased media". I'm living in Sweden, where the two main tv channels and the four main radio channels are all run by the government. On top of that, the newspapers get government funding as long as they abide by certain, government-set "ethical rules". All of our movies are funded by the government. Artists and writers with the correct political views get lifetime government pensions regardless of age.

We are constantly bombarded, day in and day out, with reports of how the Swedish system is perfect, of how America is evil, and of how important it is to contribute to the common good at the expense of the individual. Most of my friends have given up on watching or listening to Swedish news or documentaries.

Compared to that, whether your American media is "liberally biased" or not is a joke. Be grateful that you don't live here in socialist h*ll. >.<

This actually explains a lot about our Swedish posters...

Bullshit. The media has an obvious conservative bias, read "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" by Al Franken for evidence of this, or really just watch the news.

That was a good book though I should tell you that mentioning Al Franken's name doesn't help when arguing with conservatives. They start to foam at the mouth at the mention of him. ;)

That was a good book though I should tell you that mentioning Al Franken's name doesn't help when arguing with conservatives. They start to foam at the mouth at the mention of him. ;)

It's an allergic reaction--to facts in context.

The fact that they're deluding themselves into believing that it's needed is meaningless.

except the delusion has real world consequence. fucking horrific real world consequences.

It's a marketing thing.

Fox succeeds (and CBS is tanking) because there's a market.

Wake up and smell the money.

Come on, you know it's just because no one likes Katie Couric.

Come on, you know it's just because no one likes Katie Couric.

Dan Rather was nothing to brag about either. I'd say Fox though has some success from people who watch just so they can stare dumbfounded at the utter shit that is on there. People like to stare at car wrecks after all.

It's an allergic reaction--to facts in context.

Yeah, it must get exasperating to have those little irritants known as "facts" to distort their own viewpoints. Too bad the entire country isn't as dumb as they would like.

First, there was Fox News. Then "Conservapedia."

Conservapedia is actually a joke, though, isn't it?

Conservapedia is actually a joke, though, isn't it?
Sadly, no. It's run by the son or nephew or something of noted uber-conservative Phyllis Schlafly. It's a "serious" venture.

If they can put together the money to start their own outlet, and they have enough people willing to use that outlet, what problem is there?

Are you saying we should have been happy with the three television networks we had in the 1960s?

That we don't need any other voices, except those that chant in unison?
This is an interesting argument to justify setting up a place where people can chant in unison...

Sadly, no. It's run by the son or nephew or something of noted uber-conservative Phyllis Schlafly. It's a "serious" venture.

Wow, that's sad. That's really sad. I thought it was way too over-the-top to be anything other than a parody of conservatives.

Conservapedia is actually a joke, though, isn't it?

It is unfortunately quite real.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Apparently, now YouTube is a vessel for liberal lies:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3137127&page=1

Thus, I give you QueTube:
http://www.qubetv.tv/

First, there was Fox News. Then "Conservapedia." Now "QueTube?" All of these conservative "alternatives" are really starting to pile up. It makes you wonder: who's more biased? All of reality, from the media to scientists to user file-sharing networks, or the conservative elite who have to serve up a right-wing alternative to everything in existence? I have to hand it to the conservative movement; saying that reality has a liberal bias definitely helps in denying even the most undeniable truths that disfavor their causes. Too bad that the more they scream about liberal biases, the less credibility they appear to have. Eventually, I hope they'll accept the fact that reality doesn't always sway in their favor.

I keep telling you guys. Intellectual war! Besides liberalism is as sussed on making everyone like them no matter the cost as everyone else who has the "everyone should be like me/us ideology". In fact it was liberalism which made Germany nazi and Japan militaristic or so say the documentaries and textbooks, the left pissed the righties off with that so the righties pulled out their guns. That being said, this is just another right wing defensive reaction to liberal actions.

I keep telling you guys. Intellectual war! Besides liberalism is as sussed on making everyone like them no matter the cost as everyone else who has the "everyone should be like me/us ideology". In fact it was liberalism which made Germany nazi and Japan militaristic or so say the documentaries and textbooks, the left pissed the righties off with that so the righties pulled out their guns. That being said, this is just another right wing defensive reaction to liberal actions.

It's more like a bunch of righties can't handle the intellectual heat the left brings, so they take their ball and go back to their gated communities where they aren't threatened by things like reality.

It's more like a bunch of righties can't handle the intellectual heat the left brings, so they take their ball and go back to their gated communities where they aren't threatened by things like reality.

Or rather their brains cannot hold the insanity that the left releases on them. Besides shouldn't the left respect other people's opinions and leave conservatives and other non liberals who chose not to be liberal alone?

Besides shouldn't the left respect other people's opinions and leave conservatives and other non liberals who chose not to be liberal alone?

no

Besides shouldn't the left respect other people's opinions and leave conservatives and other non liberals who chose not to be liberal alone?

Not really.

Besides, that wouldn't be the left so much as post-modernists, and increasingly we don't serve their kind around here.

Sadly, no. It's run by the son or nephew or something of noted uber-conservative Phyllis Schlafly. It's a "serious" venture.

Wow, I got IP banned in less than 10 minutes, without being at all rude. All I did was correct some of the bullshit they had in articles on stem cells.

Or rather their brains cannot hold the insanity that the left releases on them. Besides shouldn't the left respect other people's opinions and leave conservatives and other non liberals who chose not to be liberal alone?

If conservatives want to start their own little biased sites than they are welcome to it. They will then stay away from the main sites and will simply post their little articles where only their likeminded believers will view. Will allow the rest of us to sigh in relief at their absence.

Wow, I got IP banned in less than 10 minutes, without being at all rude. All I did was correct some of the bullshit they had in articles on stem cells.

"Upstanding pro-life conservatives consider taking stem cells from human embryos, as tantamount to abortion, a hideous and evil practice."

Funny. I guess we should all agree with the author because "upstanding pro-life conservatives" also believe in this.

Not really.

Besides, that wouldn't be the left so much as post-modernists, and increasingly we don't serve their kind around here.

no

What about free will then? People have a right to choose which ideology they're a part of. This is the main reason I dislike liberalism, they constantly shove their beliefs down people's throats and wish for every non liberal's destruction. They're like Southern Baptists almost. I disagree with anything that says things along the lines as "be like us or else" "everyone has to be [place ideology/beleif here] Free will is the most valuable thing every sentient being has and anything that imposes beliefs against someone's will is evil because it destroys free will and reduces sentient human beings into uber-conformist animals that do whatever the majority or group they're in [political or religious] tells them.

"Upstanding pro-life conservatives consider taking stem cells from human embryos, as tantamount to abortion, a hideous and evil practice."

Funny. I guess we should all agree with the author because "upstanding pro-life conservatives" also believe in this.

The funny thing is, I didn't take any of that out (save the "Upstanding"). All I did was add the fact that embryonic stem cells cannot be obtained from abortion, and that most lines were derived from discarded in vitro fertilization embryos. Apparently, that, and a few corrections on the other stem cell pages makes me a "vandal" trying to "insert my liberal viewpoints."


What about free will then? People have a right to choose which ideology they're a part of. This is the main reason I dislike liberalism, they constantly shove their beliefs down people's throats and wish for every non liberal's destruction. They're like Southern Baptists almost. I disagree with anything that says things along the lines as "be like us or else" "everyone has to be [place ideology/beleif here] Free will is the most valuable thing every sentient being has and anything that imposes beliefs against someone's will is evil because it destroys free will and reduces sentient human beings into uber-conformist animals that do whatever the majority or group they're in [political or religious] tells them.

Nothing is wrong with someone choosing their ideology. There is something wrong with spreading outright lies to "back up" that ideology. As a general rule, it is that which is opposed.

Just another outbreak of right-wing allergy derived from their persecution fantasies.

Most of them are King Arthur waving about Excalibur, but the way they whine you know they fantasize about being Dennis the Peasant, right up to screaming "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"

This isn't new.

When Michael Moore hosted the Traverse City Film Festival (which had little to no political films in it), a whole bunch of red-staters overreact by setting up their own "counterfestivals," all of which were jingositic Bushevik propaganda slideshows.

The funny thing is, I didn't take any of that out (save the "Upstanding"). All I did was add the fact that embryonic stem cells cannot be obtained from abortion, and that most lines were derived from discarded in vitro fertilization embryos. Apparently, that, and a few corrections on the other stem cell pages makes me a "vandal" trying to "insert my liberal viewpoints."



Nothing is wrong with someone choosing their ideology. There is something wrong with spreading outright lies to "back up" that ideology. As a general rule, it is that which is opposed.

I never said there was anything wrong with choosing an ideology, I said choosing it for other people by forcing it down peoples' throats is wrong, I think everyone should choose their ideologies rather than being forced.

What about free will then?

what does free will have to do with anything?

I never said there was anything wrong with choosing an ideology, I said choosing it for other people by forcing it down peoples' throats is wrong, I think everyone should choose their ideologies rather than being forced.

I agree. And I think most of those "liberals" you were going on about would agree. Unfortunately, many people - particularly those in the radical right - seem to think that "Don't shove your ideas down our throats!" is the exact same thing as, "Believe what we do or else!" It's a matter of projection, really. The radical right is trying so hard to force everyone to believe just as they do, they feel persecuted when they're told that they can shove it and assume (for some unknown reason) that being told to shove it equates to being told to change their own ideas.

Besides, that wouldn't be the left so much as post-modernists, and increasingly we don't serve their kind around here.

pretty hardcore pomo, too. i mean, it isn't even about differing discourses and subjective perspective and whatnot for the conservative making the argument. for them it's straight on to extreme ontological relativism.

what does free will have to do with anything?

Being able to choose one's ideology. So far this thread is bashing conservatives for believing what they believe. You guys are acting like conservatives making threads for other conservatives is a travesty even though the liberals do it all the time. If you can do it they can too and the only reason why I could understand why you are knocking them because of this is because you don't want any trace of conservatism on the web whatsoever. The two posts I quoted support my theory that the left only cares about making everyone like them no matter the cost and this thread is another example of left wing intellectual imperialism.

The radical right is trying so hard to force everyone to believe just as they do, they feel persecuted when they're told that they can shove it and assume (for some unknown reason) that being told to shove it equates to being told to change their own ideas.

well, in a sense telling them to fuck off is telling them to change their ideas, because the forcing everyone to fit their structure is the central component of their ideas. so telling them that they can't is telling them that they must either change themselves or change the rules so they can. and we won't let them change the rules...

Being able to choose one's ideology. So far this thread is bashing conservatives for believing what they believe. You guys are acting like conservatives making threads for other conservatives is a travesty even though the liberals do it all the time. If you can do it they can too and the only reason why I could understand why you are knocking them because of this is because you don't want any trace of conservatism on the web whatsoever. The two posts I quoted support my theory that the left only cares about making everyone like them no matter the cost and this thread is another example of left wing intellectual imperialism.

you can choose any ideology you like. when it is fucktardedly stupid, we will say so and refuse to let you have any access to power if we can. having free will does not mean that you get to do whatever happens to strike your fancy. and it certainly doesn't mean that we have to let you do so. or have you forgotten the theological importance of free will?

Being able to choose one's ideology. So far this thread is bashing conservatives for believing what they believe. You guys are acting like conservatives making threads for other conservatives is a travesty even though the liberals do it all the time. If you can do it they can too and the only reason why I could understand why you are knocking them because of this is because you don't want any trace of conservatism on the web whatsoever. The two posts I quoted support my theory that the left only cares about making everyone like them no matter the cost and this thread is another example of left wing intellectual imperialism.

LOL.

You completely misunderstand the concept of the marketplace of ideas. People are welcome to entertain stupid ideas and we evil liberals are free to point out the ideas are stupid.

Defending your ideas is not "intellectual imperialism." It is called debate.

Being able to choose one's ideology. So far this thread is bashing conservatives for believing what they believe. You guys are acting like conservatives making threads for other conservatives is a travesty even though the liberals do it all the time. If you can do it they can too and the only reason why I could understand why you are knocking them because of this is because you don't want any trace of conservatism on the web whatsoever. The two posts I quoted support my theory that the left only cares about making everyone like them no matter the cost and this thread is another example of left wing intellectual imperialism.

I have yet to see a forum or a news channel or a "youtube" made expressly for liberals. I have yet to see a "liberalapedia" that IP bans people for posting facts and removing obvious bias from the articles.

Conservatives aren't being bashed for believing what they believe. Particular conservatives are being bashed for their attempts to spread lies and their unwillingness to even think about the idea that others might disagree with them. These people only seem to be able to hold on to their beliefs if they never see anything that might challenge it - whether the challenge is deliberate or not.

Personally, I lean towards being conservative. Many people have labeled me as such. But I don't see the need for a website full of lies to back up my positions. In fact, I try very hard not to ignore facts in forming my opinions.