Is Entertainment the New Motivation for Watching the News?

[Gokul43201]

Here's some examples of "Marxist" propaganda for you...

I believe you forgot to add the link to the source.

 

[lisab]

Please, now tell me you don't think that sounds like Marxist propaganda, "almost word for word".

No, that sounds like typical election-cycle babble. Calling it 'Marxist'...that does, too.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Sure, but I'm crunched for time right now. A short and very insufficient answer is that Marxists/socialists/Democrats all believe in using force against people to coerce them economically to serve their agenda, to shape/control society economically, while economic libertarians are against using force against people to shape, control, or "better" society. That single difference is the basis for the disagreement on each specific economic issue. And Marxists/socialists/Democrats all use propaganda that claims that they are "on the side" of working people, that working people have common political interests that are served by their agenda, while those who oppose their agenda, conversely, represent the interests of "the rich" against the working class.

When I have more time, I'll try to provide a better answer.

I understand that your examples below are short because of your time constraints; thanks for what you were able to provide.

Here's some examples of "Marxist" propaganda for you:Please, now tell me you don't think that sounds like Marxist propaganda, "almost word for word".

Well... not really, to be frank. For comparison, I looked through http://eng.plakaty.ru/posters?cid=1&full=1&thumbs=1 of Soviet and Russian propaganda posters. I did find a few similarities (the histrionic depiction of Уолл-стрит "Wall Street" for example), but for the most part they seemed dissimilar to me (except in both being advertising/propaganda).

This may be biased by my comparison to specifically propaganda posters, or perhaps by my lack of imagination/intelligence. Feel free to enlighten me further in any case.

 

[Al68]

Please, now tell me you don't think that sounds like Marxist propaganda, "almost word for word".

Seriously, it does not.

Well, that's funny, since I was quoting the official Communist Party USA's "http://www.cpusa.org/cpusa-convention-a-call-for-united-action/" of Soviet and Russian propaganda posters. I did find a few similarities (the histrionic depiction of Уолл-стрит "Wall Street" for example), but for the most part they seemed dissimilar to me (except in both being advertising/propaganda).

This may be biased by my comparison to specifically propaganda posters, or perhaps by my lack of imagination/intelligence. Feel free to enlighten me further in any case.[/QUOTE]I was actually quoting the http://www.cpusa.org/cpusa-convention-a-call-for-united-action" word for word referring to current events, so it wasn't just "similar to" Marxist propaganda, it was specifically Marxist propaganda, of the extreme full blown communist variety. Notice how people assumed I was quoting Democrats then denied it sounded Marxist. That pretty much says it all.

It does seem to make a difference to use modern quotes. Although it's obvious to me that the substance of the propaganda is the same either way, using a modern source results in the same context for comparison, obviously making it easier to see.

I believe you forgot to add the link to the source.

Oops. Sorry about that.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well played! I wish more people adopted Reagan's attitude with respect to trust.

Now, if I may resume the badgering, how about something factual to establish the truth about the claim regarding Dems? The above experiment only demonstrates the plausibility of your claim (but that's something I accepted even prior to the experiment).

 

[Al68]

Well played! I wish more people adopted Reagan's attitude with respect to trust.

Thank You. It's amazing what can result from accidentally neglecting to source a quote.

Now, if I may resume the badgering, how about something factual to establish the truth about the claim regarding Dems?

Well, if you remember, my original claim was that Dems engaged in Marxist propaganda, which was always obviously true. I also claimed that they shared the same worldview, and that claim cannot be proven directly without a mind reading machine, so is based on their propaganda as well. But I think their words make that obvious.

And I said that the specific agenda items were different, but similar. A full blown communist wants complete power over the economy, while Democrats demand power over the economy, but to a lesser extent. So they are somewhat Marxist/socialist in their specific agenda.

I apologize, but I lost track, can you be more specific about what claim you want substantiated? The Marxist nature of Democrats (and many daily posts on this forum) seems so obvious and self-evident that I may have forgotten a particular claim.

 

[OmCheeto]

Well, that's funny, since I was quoting the official Communist Party USA's "http://www.cpusa.org/cpusa-convention-a-call-for-united-action/" word for word referring to current events, so it wasn't just "similar to" Marxist propaganda, it was specifically Marxist propaganda, of the extreme full blown communist variety. Notice how people assumed I was quoting Democrats then denied it sounded Marxist. That pretty much says it all.

It does seem to make a difference to use modern quotes. Although it's obvious to me that the substance of the propaganda is the same either way, using a modern source results in the same context for comparison, obviously making it easier to see.Oops. Sorry about that.

I have to agree with Gokul. That was very well played.

It was almost as good as a Rush Limbaughism.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I was actually quoting the http://www.cpusa.org/cpusa-convention-a-call-for-united-action" word for word referring to current events, so it wasn't just "similar to" Marxist propaganda, it was specifically Marxist propaganda, of the extreme full blown communist variety. Notice how people assumed I was quoting Democrats then denied it sounded Marxist. That pretty much says it all.

It does seem to make a difference to use modern quotes. Although it's obvious to me that the substance of the propaganda is the same either way, using a modern source results in the same context for comparison, obviously making it easier to see.

Well played! Thanks for that.

I'm going to count my response as the best-informed-yet-entirely-wrong post of this thread.

 

[lisab]

Still sounds like typical election-cycle babble to me...change a few words around and it can come from left or right.

 

[Al68]

Still sounds like typical election-cycle babble to me...change a few words around and it can come from left or right.

Sure, it's typical election-cycle babble, but the difference between left and right is a difference in substance, while the difference between Democrats and communists/socialists is just a change in the exact words, no difference in substance.

And while there is propaganda from the right containing ad hominem attacks, the attack on motives used by the left, communists/socialists/Democrats as in my example, is not only consistent and persistent, as advocated by Marx, it's their bread and butter.

Where would the Democratic Party be if they pursued their same agenda, but refrained from ever using such Marxist propaganda to attack the motives of their opponents, but instead tried to rely completely on debating the issues on their merits alone?

They wouldn't just suffer election losses like the recent one, they would disappear completely. Their constituency exists primarily as a result of their Marxist ad hominem attacks, and they know it very well.

 

[CRGreathouse]

And while there is propaganda from the right containing ad hominem attacks, the attack on motives used by the left, communists/socialists/Democrats as in my example, is not only consistent and persistent. as advocated by Marx, it's their bread and butter.

Not that I doubt you, but would you give a source? I'm not too familiar with Marx; all I've read is his (joint) Communist Manifesto, and that not recently.

 

[Al68]

And while there is propaganda from the right containing ad hominem attacks, the attack on motives used by the left, communists/socialists/Democrats as in my example, is not only consistent and persistent, as advocated by Marx, it's their bread and butter.

Not that I doubt you, but would you give a source? I'm not too familiar with Marx; all I've read is his (joint) Communist Manifesto, and that not recently.

I'll assume you mean a source for Marx's advocating "consistent and persistent" propaganda? If so, it's a recurring theme in many of his writings, but since you mention http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch04.htm", I'll quote it:

"But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat..."

I suggest reading the whole thing for context, since it's only a few pages, but I would note that Marx refers to communists in the third party throughout The Communist Manifesto, since it was intended as a manifesto of communists in general, not of himself personally. That quote was referring specifically to communists in Germany in the mid 1800s.

If you're referring to attacks on the motives of those of us who disagree, I think you can pretty much pick a Marxist writing, by Marx or his past or current followers, at random and find plenty. But it's basically all throughout http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm".

 

[OmCheeto]

Sure, it's typical election-cycle babble, but the difference between left and right is a difference in substance, while the difference between Democrats and communists/socialists is just a change in the exact words, no difference in substance.

And while there is propaganda from the right containing ad hominem attacks, the attack on motives used by the left, communists/socialists/Democrats as in my example, is not only consistent and persistent, as advocated by Marx, it's their bread and butter.

Where would the Democratic Party be if they pursued their same agenda, but refrained from ever using such Marxist propaganda to attack the motives of their opponents, but instead tried to rely completely on debating the issues on their merits alone?

They wouldn't just suffer election losses like the recent one, they would disappear completely. Their constituency exists primarily as a result of their Marxist ad hominem attacks, and they know it very well.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make what will probably be interpreted as a personal attack. I suggest you stop watching the 23 hours of Fox which is not news, and get some sleep.

 

[CRGreathouse]

If you're referring to attacks on the motives of those of us who disagree, I think you can pretty much pick a Marxist writing, by Marx or his past or current followers, at random and find plenty. But it's basically all throughout http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm".

Yes I was -- sorry for not being clear.

I've seen many examples of this (and I think that's what you mean when you talk about choosing randomly). But is this espoused as a general principle, as for (e.g.) Scientology?

 

[Al68]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make what will probably be interpreted as a personal attack. I suggest you stop watching the 23 hours of Fox which is not news, and get some sleep.

I don't interpret it as a personal attack, but your post seems to have a false assumption. It would be impossible for me to watch Fox News any less, since I don't even have cable or satellite TV service. And while I sometimes watch local Fox network shows, I don't watch their news shows, either.

That's why I'm not really involved in the debates here about specific Fox News pundits: I don't even know who most of them are.

But none of my post had anything to do with Fox News, so I don't see the relevance, anyway.

 

[Al68]

I've seen many examples of this (and I think that's what you mean when you talk about choosing randomly). But is this espoused as a general principle, as for (e.g.) Scientology?

No, it's not a general principle of Marxist ideology itself, it's merely a political strategy. They know full well that "servitude to the rich" isn't the only possible motive that anyone could have to disagree with them.

If you notice in The Communist Manifesto, Marx never even acknowledges the point of view of libertarians in general, he instead addresses what he called "the bourgeois objections to Communism.", ie the objections of the rich and big business, and attacked their motives. His (false) implication was that there was no other reason for opposition.

 

[CRGreathouse]

If you notice in The Communist Manifesto, Marx never even acknowledges the point of view of libertarians in general, he instead addresses what he called "the bourgeois objections to Communism.", ie the objections of the rich and big business, and attacked their motives. His (false) implication was that there was no other reason for opposition.

I did notice that. Actually that bothered me less than his Freud-like tendency to make bold, unsupported assertions with no evidence.

 

[Al68]

I did notice that. Actually that bothered me less than his Freud-like tendency to make bold, unsupported assertions with no evidence.

Yeah, that's even more prevalent in Das Kapital, and common to his writings in general.

And those same bold, unsupported assumptions are common on this forum, often used as underlying assumptions instead of explicit claims, as if assuming instead of stating a claim to be true negates the necessity of supporting it.

 

[Gokul43201]

And those same bold, unsupported assumptions are common on this forum, often used as underlying assumptions instead of explicit claims, as if assuming instead of stating a claim to be true negates the necessity of supporting it.

I can't speak for the claims by Marx (having not read them), but it is my experience here that bold, unsupported claims are made by folks on all different sides of the political spectrum, and is hardly limited to those that promote Marx-like ideas. I don't discount the possibility that I may have engaged in this myself, though I do make a concerted effort not to.

 

[Al68]

I can't speak for the claims by Marx (having not read them), but it is my experience here that bold, unsupported claims are made by folks on all different sides of the political spectrum, and is hardly limited to those that promote Marx-like ideas. I don't discount the possibility that I may have engaged in this myself, though I do make a concerted effort not to.

Ditto for me. None of us are perfect.

 

[CRGreathouse]

And those same bold, unsupported assumptions are common on this forum, often used as underlying assumptions instead of explicit claims, as if assuming instead of stating a claim to be true negates the necessity of supporting it.

I find that this forum is excellent in terms of providing sourcing. I frequently ask people on PWA for information and they are almost always quite helpful. I learn a lot here.

 

[OmCheeto]

I don't interpret it as a personal attack, but your post seems to have a false assumption. It would be impossible for me to watch Fox News any less, since I don't even have cable or satellite TV service. And while I sometimes watch local Fox network shows, I don't watch their news shows, either.

That's why I'm not really involved in the debates here about specific Fox News pundits: I don't even know who most of them are.

But none of my post had anything to do with Fox News, so I don't see the relevance, anyway.

Skreeeeeeech!

Wait. You don't watch news? And you are commenting in the "News" for entertainment thread?

Rewind.

Ah! You're here solely to call me a delusional Marxist, because Democrats can't simply be called democrats, they have to be called Marxists because simply calling us Democrats isn't descriptive enough. Great! Thanks!

Hmmm... Anyone know where I can get a list of attributes for sociopaths and libertarians? I need to do a side by side comparison. Maybe if they have one thing in common, I can legitimately call you a sociopath(based on your; "if one toe fits in the shoe, then it's your shoe" logic) without getting banned for being rude.

 

[Al68]

Wait. You don't watch news? And you are commenting in the "News" for entertainment thread?

I didn't say that. I said I didn't watch Fox News.

Ah! You're here solely to call me a delusional Marxist, because Democrats can't simply be called democrats, they have to be called Marxists because simply calling us Democrats isn't descriptive enough. Great! Thanks!

No, it's because I'm not talking about only self-described Democrats, I'm referring to an ideology/worldview. And I would gladly refer to that ideology a Democratic if there were no objections from people who are not a member of the party. I used the word "Marxist" because it's a generic description of an ideology, not a reference to any particular political party or group.

And I have asked repeatedly for an unobjectionable word that would describe that ideology/worldview, that (accurately) distinguishes it from mine (libertarian). Can you provide a description of the economic ideology/worldview of Democrats that distinguishes it from libertarianism, that nobody will object to?

Hmmm... Anyone know where I can get a list of attributes for sociopaths and libertarians? I need to do a side by side comparison. Maybe if they have one thing in common, I can legitimately call you a sociopath(based on your; "if one toe fits in the shoe, then it's your shoe" logic) without getting banned for being rude.

That's a faulty analogy. First because I was using the word "Marxist" to refer to an ideology, not a person.

Second, some of my beliefs could be called "Marxist", because the shoe fits. For example, if you referred to my view of women in the workforce as Marxist, I would say yes, that's right. Because I have no objections to women in the workforce, and have no reason to object that view being labeled as Marxist, because it is. I have no need to object to any true statement.

Third, the ideology I used the word "Marxist" to describe is not secondary, or incidental, like his approval of women in the workforce: It's what he was known for. He is known as the father of socialism and communism because they are based on Marxist ideology.

Fourth, the word "Marxist" is not an insult. Many people refer to themselves and their ideology as Marxist. How many people refer to themselves as "sociopaths"?

Fifth, Marxist ideology is the most favorable option possible to refer to the ideology of Democrats, in light of their agenda. It assumes compassion and noble motives. It's the exact opposite of an insult as an underlying reason for their agenda.

That's the exact opposite approach that Democrats take when describing their political opponents. They typically use the worst possible option: that bad motives and lack of compassion is the reason.

 

[CRGreathouse]

That's the exact opposite approach that Democrats take when describing their political opponents. They typically use the worst possible option: that bad motives and lack of compassion is the reason.

Of course this is by no means limited to Democrats; Republicans do the same. And really, so do LibDems, Labour, and the Torries...

 

[OmCheeto]

I didn't say that. I said I didn't watch Fox News.

You said you don't have cable or satellite TV. What do you watch your news on? A shoebox?

No, it's because I'm not talking about only self-described Democrats, I'm referring to an ideology/worldview. And I would gladly refer to that ideology a Democratic if there were no objections from people who are not a member of the party. I used the word "Marxist" because it's a generic description of an ideology, not a reference to any particular political party or group.

And I have asked repeatedly for an unobjectionable word that would describe that ideology/worldview, that (accurately) distinguishes it from mine (libertarian). Can you provide a description of the economic ideology/worldview of Democrats that distinguishes it from libertarianism, that nobody will object to?

Democrats?

That's a faulty analogy. First because I was using the word "Marxist" to refer to an ideology, not a person.

Second, some of my beliefs could be called "Marxist", because the shoe fits. For example, if you referred to my view of women in the workforce as Marxist, I would say yes, that's right. Because I have no objections to women in the workforce, and have no reason to object that view being labeled as Marxist, because it is. I have no need to object to any true statement.

Third, the ideology I used the word "Marxist" to describe is not secondary, or incidental, like his approval of women in the workforce: It's what he was known for. He is known as the father of socialism and communism because they are based on Marxist ideology.

Fourth, the word "Marxist" is not an insult. Many people refer to themselves and their ideology as Marxist. How many people refer to themselves as "sociopaths"?

Fifth, Marxist ideology is the most favorable option possible to refer to the ideology of Democrats, in light of their agenda. It assumes compassion and noble motives. It's the exact opposite of an insult as an underlying reason for their agenda.

That's the exact opposite approach that Democrats take when describing their political opponents. They typically use the worst possible option: that bad motives and lack of compassion is the reason.

So now you are a Marxist Libertarian?

But none of my post had anything to do with Fox News, so I don't see the relevance, anyway.

And I don't see the relevance of anything you've said above regarding the thread topic, nor even a point to your argument, other than to rename a shoe a glove.

 

[Al68]

You said you don't have cable or satellite TV. What do you watch your news on? A shoebox?

Yep. Since a shoebox is the only alternative to cable and satellite TV.

Democrats?

Do you think no one would object to that? Why do you think I stopped using the word Democrat for that purpose? Most of the posts I referred to were by people who specifically claim not to be Democrats. "Democrat" is a party affiliation, not a belief system/ideology/worldview.

So now you are a Marxist Libertarian?

What? How do you get that? I only said my view on women in the workplace was Marxist, not my main economic ideology. Why on Earth is this so difficult to comprehend?

And I don't see the relevance of anything you've said above regarding the thread topic, nor even a point to your argument, other than to rename a shoe a glove.

It's relevant to the objections to my use of the word "Marxist". And my point is obvious: I was not using the word "Marxist" as an insult, and I'm unaware of any way to describe the ideology/worldview of Democrats that no one will object to. I wonder why that is?

 

[Al68]

That's the exact opposite approach that Democrats take when describing their political opponents. They typically use the worst possible option: that bad motives and lack of compassion is the reason.

Of course this is by no means limited to Democrats; Republicans do the same. And really, so do LibDems, Labour, and the Torries...

Sure, but for Democrats, it's their bread and butter. How often do you hear a Democrat refer to people who disagree with them on economic issues without doing that? Ad hominem attacks on peoples' motives seems to make up the bulk of their message on economic issues. And those attacks on their opponents' motives are almost entirely responsible for them being elected to office. And they obviously know it.

 

[turbo]

Sure, but for Democrats, it's their bread and butter. How often do you hear a Democrat refer to people who disagree with them on economic issues without doing that? Ad hominem attacks on peoples' motives seems to make up the bulk of their message on economic issues. And those attacks on their opponents' motives are almost entirely responsible for them being elected to office. And they obviously know it.

Can you possibly substantiate any of that rubbish? "Ad hominem" "economonic issues" and "obviously know it". Somehow, you can sling about claims and political slurs with no repercussions. Why? What indemnifies you from the expectation of decent intercourse on this board? Can you be decent? Can you discuss political disagreements without casting aspersions on others?

 

[OmCheeto]

Over the last few years, a number of discussions have brought the following to light. While it is no secret that many or most alleged news agencies have discovered that entertainment is far more profitable than good reporting, what I didn't realize is that, based on my own interactions with people across the political spectrum, the motivations for watching the news have changed as well.

As I have stated many times, I am a PBS man.

I've had PBS on all day. I love pledge week.

But did you also notice how the vernacular of "Enterdnews"* kind of creeps into peoples vocabularies in a very annoying way, almost to the point of obsession?

* 'd' as kind of the German pronunciation kind of cross-lingual pun kind of 'd'. Not to be confused over how to pronounce 'w' or 'v' in German, which Andre and I will one day decide with fists, blood, and I'm sure, lots of spitting...

 

[Al68]

Can you possibly substantiate any of that rubbish? "Ad hominem" "economonic issues" and "obviously know it". Somehow, you can sling about claims and political slurs with no repercussions. Why? What indemnifies you from the expectation of decent intercourse on this board? Can you be decent? Can you discuss political disagreements without casting aspersions on others?

Are you freakin' kidding with this? That's just bizarre. You can throw around hateful, insulting, and derogatory phrases like "slave to moneyed interests" and "servitude to the wealthy" and even dare to mention "decent discourse" and "casting aspersions"? And want me to "substantiate" the claim that Democrats use ad hominem attacks on the motives of Republicans routinely? Hell no! Why should I repeatedly jump through hoops to substantiate the plainly obvious, just so you can demand substantiation for the same obvious facts over and over, while you routinely make absurd, preposterous hateful assertions with no attempt at substantiation?

Then you yourself refer to social security and other countries' health care programs as "socialist", then object to me using the word "Marxist" to describe the economic ideology of Democrats? Are you as confused about what the words "socialist" and "Marxist" mean as much as you are about "conservative" and "neo-con"?

You have yet to explain how my use of the word "Marxist" is indecent in any way, much less a "political slur", while your posts are consistently hateful and insulting and derogatory in a self-evident and obvious way.

Seriously, dude, this is bizarre.