The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I don't consider myself a conservative, but I do agree with this assessment of the left. As much as I dislike religious and social conservatives and neocons, I find the tactics and methods of "debate" of the left much more distasteful.



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2564284?slideout=1

Just ask Brendan Eich.

Yes, we should never call anyone out for racist, homophobic, misogynistic viewpoints.  ::)

You only have to read the first paragraph to get the main idea. Your response suggests you did not even go that far:

Better hope you're right before you do it though.

I read the entire thing but wasn't commenting on the article at all.

Hard to not be right when his campaign donation is public record. That said, I was not part of the Mozilla boycott but calling for one on the record of Eich's campaign donations is their right.

Not whether or not he donated, but whether or not it constitutes homophobia. That's the central issue, and of course, as Obama has said, there are people of good will on both sides of the debate.

I don't think it's really a secret that the left has really rallied behind name calling to silence people in the last 8 years. You're  homophobic if you don't support same sex couples, you're intolerant if you don't want your money going to fund abortions, you are racist if you say anything negative about Obama or even misogynistic if you think it's alright for a woman to stay home and raise the kids. In fact being a card carrying Christian who believes the Bible and you'll be lumped in with pedophiles and sex offenders as being a freak of nature.

I said it before and I 'll say it again ... there is a reason why people typically become more conservative the older they get and not the other way around. Most people tend to learn from experiences and life lessons.

You have the freedom to start your own thread.

^^^ If I feel the need I will. I like it here right now though.

This illustrates the issue with the left.

If you oppose gay marriage you must be a homophobe!

But I hire people, whether they are gay or straight, I have gay friends, their lifestyle and what they do with their personal lives doesn't bother me in the least. I was simply raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

HOMEPHOBE!

Then I assume you won't have an issue if I start talking about red meat the next time you open a thread about shoes.

I was directly commenting on a post in this thread. Feel free to chime in to SC if you have a problem with my post since it was a response to him. His comment started it  ;D

Don't get your panties in a wad. Every post isn't going to be directed at you, no matter how much you want to be the center of this discussion. I had no idea everything we talk about has to be on that article which was beat to death last night on Fox news.

Black guy - I don't agree that we should blame white people for all of the issues in the black community. We need to own it, we need to pick ourselves up, we need to hold ourselves responsible.

Lefty - Uncle Tom! Oreo!

My fault. It wasn't clear to me that you were responding to another post. I didn't even see that post until now. You know, that quote feature can come in handy to avoid confusion...


Sorry, I don't watch Fox News so I wouldn't know. And I didn't post a thread about a liberal journalist calling out liberals on their crap so that we could discuss something other than that...

That would seem like a silly thing to do.

I don't think you are ever going to get either side to step away from labels. The issue I see it has to do with sweeping generalizations. For example, I've never referred to anyone as an Uncle Tom or Oreo. Yet this discussion is a sweeping generalization that this is a typical response from the liberal viewpoint.

Is it worse to call a specific person a name based on their viewpoint or to widely characterize an entire group into something they haven't expressed?

I feel dirty linking to a site called Christianity Today given my agnostic proclivities. But here goes:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/may-web-only/kirsten-powers-rise-of-intolerant-left.html?visit_source=twitter&start=1

An interview with Kristen Powers in regards to her book and how the left is becoming more and more intolerant of differing points of views despite claiming to the the champions of tolerance.

And as if almost on que... here is an Editor's Note from the Detroit News about how the left has targetted Ben Carson's race.


http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/nolan-finley/2015/05/12/ednote-left-targets-carson-race/27136377/

You mean like the GOP and conservatives have and still say such things as "you are with us or against us", or "you are not being patriotic", or my personal favorite, "if you don't like it, go find another country to live in."
So when it comes to stifling and silencing disagreements or opposing discourse, both sides of the aisles and their ardent supporters are equally guilty of engaging in these tactics.
No side has the moral high ground to call out the other side.

Politics as usual. Such a broken system with horrible people involved. :/

Kirsten Powers is a liberal, you guys!
On Fox News, I mean.  Kind of like Bob Beckel or Juan Williams; a "liberal" that's busy telling conservatives that they are actually correct the majority of the time.

While I am hypothetically open to a liberal making claims of liberal intolerance, here is who I am not open to it from: token "liberals" employed by Fox News.  These people profit directly from advancing the narrative that "liberal media" silences views.  Try asking them if Fox News advances a conservative viewpoint and they will protest vigorously.

This is no different than S.E. Cupp, self-proclaimed atheist (and Fox News employee), publishing a book saying that Christians are the downtrodden minority in America.  It's hard to take your words as cutting self-criticism of your own tribe when you are directly profiting from said criticism.

When longtime Republican Colin Powell accuses the GOP of racism (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/colin-powell-accuses-gop-of-racism-they-still-look-down-on-minorities/), Team Red laughs and waves him off as another one of the blacks in the tank for his own race.  And Powell is not even in politics any more.

tl;dr: Powers is not an actual liberal, as the positions she advocates are not those of a liberal.  She is paid by Fox News to play a "liberal" on TV, come on their shows, and agree with conservatives to provide cover.  And guess what this book does?

This is true. Both sides do it. In fact, the Democrats use the "patriotic" line when it benefits them as well.

However, this is different. We're talking about bigotry towards minorities that don't follow minority group think. We're talking about referring to a black man as an Uncle Tom if they aren't liberal or Democrat. We're talking about demeaning a Republican/conservative woman because she doesn't tow the standard feminist line.

It's the subversion of a difference of opinion by the so called ideology of tolerance.

She supports Obamacare and believes in Universal Healthcare, supports comprehensive immigration reform, she favors gun control, supports closing Guantanamo, opposed the Iraq War, opposed a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, opposes the death penalty.

On almost every political position on the checklist, she takes the liberal stance.

I think her position on gay marriage is a bit muddy.

She worked on the Clinton Gore campaign and in the Clinton Administration. She has also written articles for Salon, a liberal publication. Has worked for the New York Democrat party, was press secretary for Andrew Cuomo, and she has consulted for various left leaning non-profit organizations.

About the only "conservative position" she has is opposing abortions in the 3rd trimester.

Is that the only thing that distinguishes a liberal from everyone else? Supporting the abortion of a human that is a couple of months away from being born?

Your post is another example of how liberals are intolerant of any form of dissent. The minute they deviate on one minor position, they are no longer a true liberal.

If you don't support same sex rights, I consider you a bigot and I won't apologize for it.

So if someone supports a civil union so that gays can have all the same rights as a married couple, they just don't support the use of the word marriage, you consider them a bigot?

Uh, I'm less concerned about that, since I'm primarily concerned with the right, but the need to call it marriage is a way to make it "lesser" in their mind, so yes, I supposed it's rooted in bigotry.

What if we make mixed-race couples get "interracial unions" but they're the same rights as marriage?  Would that be bigoted?  Because I feel it's the same.

*Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of lying, name-calling and intimidation.

*Kirsten Powers was a liberal, until she agreed to sell out, for big bucks, to be the Fox News token liberal who could be easily bullied by conservatives to push their agenda.

*Not supporting same-sex marriages either means A) You're homophobic, or B) You care far more about blindly adhering to an antique and outdated work of fiction than you care about treating other human beings fairly.

I'm not aware of a major religion that defines marriage as the union between a man of the same race and a woman of the same race.

As for your point on making it lesser, I definitely see your point there.

I'd be careful about using the word bigotry as the definition of bigotry (I know you like to change the meaning of words) is intolerance towards those who hold a different opinion from them.

Hmm does that make the left a bunch of bigots?

Or she isn't intolerant of different view points, isn't dogmatic and can have listen to different ideas and consider them before deciding what her viewpoint is. I think that is called being open minded.

I am quite aware that she claims these things as her "position."  Then she punches her timecard, gets on a Fox News camera, and provides cover to those who oppose them.

Like I said, her current job is to play a liberal on TV, then validate conservative claims that liberals are mean and unfair.  Her book does exactly that.

Funny that you say that, because the Christians who opposed interracial marriage in the 1950s were fervently claiming that God made different races for different reasons and that the Bible specifically prohibits miscegenation... exactly like anti-gay bigots use the Bible as cover today.

This video covers it perfectly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois

The standard battle cry of the 21st-century conservative:

"Why are you liberals being so intolerant of my deeply-held beliefs of discrimination against gays?"

I wouldn't provide positions of intolerance with any more or less leniency because they come from a major religion.  Intolerance hiding behind the veil of religion is still intolerance.  I don't find ANY position to be more valid because it's a religious position.  All ideas and positions should be held up to the same level of scrutiny.

I'm only protective of religion in what you're allowed to personally believe, but not by what you allow the state to do towards other citizens who don't hold your same belief.  So, if you want to think that it's against God for two men to marry, go ahead.  I'll think you're a douche, but whatever....I think lots of people are douches.  But when you want to create different laws for different people based on sexual orientation, it's an affront to civil rights.

Her latest blog is titled "how Liberals have Ruined College"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/11/how-liberals-have-ruined-college.html


Look, it's a fallacy of appeal to authority to criticize/praise someone for who they are, instead of what they say, so I don't want to weigh this too heavily.  But if she wants to have the opinion that Liberals ruined college, fine -- but this woman makes a name for herself by calling herself a liberal so that it gives her more clout when she regularly "breaks rank".  Liberal bashing liberals sells.  Moderate bashing liberals doesn't.

The left has these, too.  MSNBC parades Michael Smerconish around as a Conservative, when he's more of a left-leaning Libertarian.

Exactly.  She puts food on the table by being a "liberal" who gives cover to conservatives.

Here's a fun thought experiment:
See how many discussion panels on Fox News have minority guest panel members when discussing topics that are not related to race (e.g. Clinton e-mails).
Then look at the composition of the discussion panels on race-related topics.  Instant diversity!  They specifically bring on black people for the explicit purpose of criticizing blacks.  (Similarly, you will notice that there will not be a discussion panel without a woman on it criticizing Hillary.)

The absolute best part of all of this hand wringing and pearl clutching is that if you ask the people cheering this book if conservatives lie and intimidate to silence the left, they will protest with great fury.  And yet the Republican Party, at the national level, makes it a policy to stamp out anyone who even identifies as a moderate!  The GOP is empirically less tolerant of dissenting views than the Democrats; there is no GOP equivalent of Blue Dog conservative Democrats.  But the left has the tolerance problem, guys!

Yet another classic case of projection by the right.

One more point I think is important:

Do I believe that liberals (actual liberals, not paid FNC shills) are attacked for deviating from conventional liberal positions?
Of course they are!  The internet exists.

However, writing a book to trumpet this factoid is a waste of time, because there is no group of people who are not savagely attacked by internet commenters for the most trivial of reasons.  People who post video game reviews on YouTube for a living are regularly advised to set themselves on fire and then shoot themselves in the head.  So the internet is mean, and this is well known.

Powers' book implies that conservatives who fail to follow conservative dogma are not demonized by the right.  Jon Huntsman and Charlie Crist might have something to say about that.

I'm reading this thread and I honestly have laughed loud with several snickers. It amazes me how people can't see the Forrest from the trees. "My way is right and if you don't believe it you are XYZ" but if the other side says the same thing in reverse it makes them Satan.

One of the best things I was ever taught is there is ALWAYS three sides to every story and perspective is everything. Good people have regrettably made some pretty horrible decisions because they were looking at things all wrong and didn't understand that until their perspective was changed through circumstance.   

You mean how Glenn Beck was moderate and a centrist when he was on CNN, but as soon as he went to Fox News, he suddenly became far right in his beliefs. So which Beck was real? Or is it safe to say that you cannot fully trust what a paid member of a politically driven show states as far as their "true" beliefs are?

Of the four major religions, Christianity and Islam share the same roots, so their stance is the same. However same sex marriage was legal in the Roman Empire until 342AD when the Pope decided to redefine marriage.
Hinduism does not speak to seam sex marriage directly, and neither does Buddhism.
It is humorous to hear Christians talk about how bad it is to redefine marriage, yet that is exactly what the Church did almost 1700 years ago.

I didn't mention Glenn Beck anywhere in my posts. Not sure how Glenn Beck is relevant.

I'll point you back to an earlier post outlining where Kirsten Powers stands on the issues.

Ok, I was talking about interracial marriage in what you quoted above...

It is funny to see the reaction from the liberals in this thread.

Not a one directly addressed the points Kirsten Powers is making. Instead, you all moved to discredit her. If this thread goes any further, by the time we're done you will be arguing that Kirsten Powers is to the right of Ted Cruz.

I guess the approach is.... when ya got nothing, shoot the messenger.

I thought the approach was "When the message is comedy, enjoy the laugh!"

Oh, I'm enjoying all the "sheez nawt a reel liburelz" comedy...  :D

Interesting that the rest of the room is laughing at the comic on the stage (Kirsten Powers), but you're cracking up over the way people are laughing at her. I guess that as long as everyone's getting proper entertainment out of it, your original post has some value.

I directly addressed the points she made: every political group attacks dissenters, so singling out liberals for it is like saying "the left uses negative ads in campaigns!"

However, the fact that Powers directly profits from advancing the narrative that she is hitting back at her own team is not some sort of minor nitpick.  For example, Powers is happy to claim that MSNBC is an arm of the Democratic Party (https://twitter.com/KirstenPowers/status/295911081782673408), but bristles at the idea of Fox News being called an arm of the Republican Party, complaining (https://twitter.com/KirstenPowers/status/295909083083595776) that Obama is "smearing great journalists."

So no, the message is not really "she's secretly a hard right conservative" as much as it is "she is making a content-free statement that applies to all political groups in America" and "she's a paid shill who has a track record of selective outrage that just happens to dovetail with her own pocketbook."

For all I know, Powers might actually be a liberal.  But she receives a regular paycheck to come on TV and discredit liberalism.  So you'll forgive me if I have some skepticism about her biting criticism of the left.

I understand where you're coming from, but from my perspective, the author is relevant to this particular editorial.  She's claiming to be a liberal who is persecuted by her own by breaking rank. 

I think the point is that she is a token who is parading herself as a persecuted liberal specifically so she can take these counter positions to give herself legitimacy, where she wouldn't otherwise have it.

Attacking the messenger in this case is needed, because the message itself is about the messenger.

Yeah, I wouldn't call it laughing. I would call it denial.

That's not directly addressing the points. I think you've missed the point.

Uh... that's not the message she is sending.

Wow. Where's the headslap emoticon?

So you've seen all of the interviews she's done on Fox News?

I don't think her disdain for the far left wing of the Democrat Party comes because she is a paid contributor on Fox News (she is also a paid contributor on left leaning publications). I think her disdain for the left comes from how she perceives Hillary Clinton was treated by the left wing of the Democrat Party in the 2008 primaries. She's not a big fan of Obama, she is an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter as she worked for the Clintons. While working for the Clintons she was one of the more "radical" members of the administration. She was very vocal in supporting gay rights, more than anyone else. She thought Don't Ask Don't Tell was a half measure.

There was a lot of residual animosity between the Clinton wing and the Obama wing of the Democrat Party after the 2008 primaries and Kristen Powers is one of those Clintonites that has not let that go. So I think her perception is more formed from the behavior she saw from the left during those primaries.

Granted she supports a woman who was a terrible political candidate (and early signs for the 2016 election seem to indicate more of the same) that was soundly defeated by a guy who was an exceptional candidate in 2008, but that's besides the point.

And I am sorry but I agree. In most of my interactions with liberals, progressives or whatever the leftists call themselves, I have experienced exactly what she is talking about. Granted, I have had somewhat similar experiences with SOME religious conservatives/evangelicals, social conservatives and neocons, but they aren't going around preaching tolerance. So that is what stands out to me about the left, that they preach tolerance, inclusion etc etc... but the minute you give an opinion that even slightly differs from them, you need to shut up, you aren't going to be tolerated. I would say I experience that in about 85% of my interactions with liberals. I think liberalism has become very dogmatic and rigid in preaching tolerance and being intolerant of even the slightest deviation from their opinion. It sort of reminds me of the book Animal Farm...

That is what Kirsten Powers is saying in her book and to take it a step further, some will levy racist attacks at minorities, sexist attacks at women and even homophobic attacks at gays who do not prescribe exactly to what they (the liberals) believe is right. Saying that she is criticizing the left for doing what everyone else does misses the point. Everyone else isn't fighting for the tolerance of people while simultaneously becoming intolerant of people. Tolerance isn't a staple of conservatism, it is a staple of liberalism. So liberals should be consistent in their tolerance and tolerate opposing view points rather than try to shout them down with ridicule and insults (oh the irony...).

Precisely.

To wit: if Kirsten Powers is not a "self-proclaimed liberal," this book is totally pointless; a conservative complaining about liberal attacks is not a noteworthy observation.  The significance of her book is derived entirely from her purported position as a "liberal;" she is criticizing her own, which is supposed to lend weight to her argument.

...except that her professional day job is ALREADY to criticize "her own" at a network built around criticizing liberals.  The foundation of her supposed objectivity (i.e. even as a non-conservative, she agrees with the conservative viewpoint on this matter) is fatally undermined.

While on the subject of irony:

You just said that tolerance is not a staple of conservatism.
Yet conservatives are perfectly happy to criticize liberals for their... lack of tolerance?

If we're going to start playing the irony card, conservatives complain all the time about political correctness and liberal victim culture, yet are happy to start cheering people like Kirsten Powers when they claim victim status, and are filled with indignant outrage over politically incorrect comments when directed towards conservatives (e.g. Sarah Palin's "retarded" son).

So for all the conservative talk about how liberals should be more tolerant, the right openly argues against excessive tolerance while claiming victim-of-intolerance status whenever it's convenient.  Hence, my previous "why are you so intolerant of my bigotry?" comment.

You can call dog poop a sausage, but I don't recommend you putting it on a bun.

The Bible was used to deny interracial marriage, just as it is being used to deny same sex marriage currently. There are multiple passages in the Bible that anti-miscegenationists used.

I would like to add that for all the complaining about "why are you attacking the messenger?", look at the title of this thread:

Confession: Liberal columnist says left lies, intimidates to silence right

Remove the word "liberal" from the title and this thread (and the book it's based on) immediately loses all value;  it's trivial to find many examples of "columnists" that say much worse about the left.

All of the impact of this book is derived from Powers' status as a self-proclaimed liberal; without it, she's just another Ann Coulter or Dinesh D'Souza preaching to the choir.  So attacking the messenger is not only valid, but completely relevant.

I feel like I gave you a reasoned response.  You can laugh me out of the conversation if you'd like.  But I feel that the heart of the story, as it's presented is that the message is valid because of who is sending the message.

just to derail ..

this guy is a douche .. and should be in prison

Here's a thought experiment:

Imagine a conservative Republican who worked in the GHW Bush administration.
Now imagine this conservative comes out as gay and goes to work for MSNBC.
Then imagine that this conservative writes a book decrying the bigotry of the right ("his own team").
The right would dismiss said book out of hand in ten different ways.

This is Kirsten Powers.  She worked for the Clinton administration, she became a born-again evangelical Christian, she went to work for Fox News, and now suddenly she has had two separate awakenings:

1) Christians are persecuted in America, especially by Obama
2) Liberals are intolerant of dissent (particularly dissent founded in evangelical Christianity, I imagine)

Have to admit that I had never heard of the guy before your post, but got a good laugh when I read about the sentence handed down when he was found guilty for illegal campaign contributions. According to the article, D'Souza must attend weekly therapeutic counseling sessions.  I have to wonder what sort of therapeutic counseling you give to corrupt financiers?

"I know I shouldn't have used straw donors to give money to that candidate...would someone please give me a hug?"