please check out the anti-mandate news »

« prev   random   next »

3
0

Liberal comes to recognize how tightly constrained the NPR bubble is

By Patrick follow Patrick   2021 Sep 20, 10:02am 270 views   21 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share      


https://spectatorworld.com/topic/worse-than-porn-liberal/


I grew up in a liberal home, surrounded by liberals in a liberal pocket of America. My exposure to differing political views was limited, and by the time I came to Los Angeles, listening to NPR was my personality. My parents were pro-choice and anti-gun. It was assumed that we were the good guys. My limited understanding of Republicans and conservatism was that they were evil racists, hellbent on keeping America stuck in the 1950s. They were all white and all rich. Every Republican was Mr Burns from The Simpsons — a cantankerous, greedy old fart who wanted to exploit the workers and either bomb the brown people or keep them out.

The first presidential election I was old enough to vote in was in 2000. I was just about to turn 20 years old. It was a big election and the first to which I paid any attention. In my periwinkle blue studio apartment in Santa Monica, I’d smoke weed and listen to the radio through my computer. I was too poor for a TV so I’d just turn KCRW on all day while I worked.

Listening to my steady diet of NPR and having dinners in Hollywood with successful creatives from all over the world, I got a real sense that this election was a battle between good and evil. It never occurred to me that anyone might have had a different opinion. Everyone spoke with the comfortable certainty that comes from groupthink. Only with hindsight can I see the elitism and the smug righteousness that oozed throughout the media I consumed and the conversations in which I was just a young fly-on-the-wall.

George W. Bush was the worst of America personified. A frat boy who failed up, buoyed by the success of his father. A redneck who only got into the Ivy League because of his pedigree. He represented guns, Texas and big oil. Worst of all, he was Christian. A simple man of faith. If Wubya won, we would end up destroying the environment, going to war and banning abortion. The stakes were high and I was terrified.

Al Gore cared about global warming and said we were all going to be underwater in a decade. And you know what’s funny? I have no idea what else he stood for as I sit here and write this. I’d have to google what platform he ran on. Which is hilarious, given the fact that I do remember wondering how anyone could look at these two options and pick George W. Bush over Al Gore. The truth is, I didn’t know jack squat about Gore or his policies.


So I smoked my weed, listened to my Elliott Smith and prattled on about how anyone who voted for Bush was a moron who didn’t know anything, when in fact I was projecting. Of course there were morons who didn’t know anything and voted for Bush, but I was just the other side of the coin: a moron who didn’t know anything voting for Gore. And lucky me, I didn’t have to know anything. No one was going to make me defend my ‘ideas’ which were just parroted talking points. No one questioned why I was voting for Gore.

By definition, I was a full-blown liberal through most of my twenties and well into my thirties. Although this pejorative is crude, it accurately describes the fact that the development of my political understanding was retarded: my worldview had never evolved past a certain point. That is, until I got sober, Trump was nominated, and the whole world collectively lost its mind.

My dad made me promise one thing before I set out to pursue my dreams of acting in Los Angeles. ‘Don’t do porn,’ he said. I laughed. He stared at me without smiling. Oh. He wasn’t joking.

Somehow, what I am now doing feels dirtier than porn. This is because I am a ‘media personality’ who occasionally opens my pie-hole on conservative media outlets. I’ve even appeared on Fox. This is worse than porn in my East Coast liberal family.

Fathers, be careful what you wish for.


I want to know at what point she became enlightened about the very narrow world view of most current Democrats, who seem to consistently fail to seek out new perspectives, or to challenge their own assumptions. I think this failure to think independently comes from the fear that independent reasoning might lead them to unacceptable conclusions. And then friends and perhaps relatives will reject them for heresy.

They say "A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." I wonder what event or events got her thinking outside of the Religion With No Name.

She certainly would not have run into many free thinkers in Hollywood.

I do think her listed stereotypes of George W. Bush are approximately true. Just because something is a stereotype does not automatically mean it's false. That's where independent thinking helps.
1   Ceffer   ignore (6)   2021 Sep 20, 11:19am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

You don't do porn because porn is all you can ever do again to make any kind of money. If you leave porn, then you are stuck in low wage low education positions. If you go back into porn, you have to pander, pimp and get into the exploitive aspects of production. Porn stars will do both gay and straight sex as prostitutes with bizarre clients. A few have been murdered turning tricks. Also, if you have any tendency at all for chemical dependency, you will become an addict in porn, an eventual death sentence for most which will also drain whatever money made. The successful escapes from porn into regular acting are extremely rare.

There was a You Tube video by Brea Olsen, a porn star, who was crying because she wanted to leave porn and become a nurse. She discovered that anybody who does porn can no longer have a license from the California licensing boards for nursing, pharm, dentistry, medicine, teaching, law etc. etc. Basically, a morals exclusion applies.

If you think nobody will find out, apparently every porn personality is eventually doxxed by somebody who recognizes them and spouts off. Porn stars who really leave sometimes find real estate jobs in states that don't stop them from getting a license. LOL! Somehow porn stars as Realtors makes sense.
2   Karloff   ignore (0)   2021 Sep 20, 11:32am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ceffer says
Basically, a morals exclusion applies.

Apparently this does not include Big Pharma whores.
3   Eric Holder   ignore (0)   2021 Sep 20, 11:36am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        


NPR-American
A class of US citizen that receives all their news from the National Public Radio, or NPR, and no other sources. See: shit-lib, NPC, or SWPL (white educated liberal bohemian).


https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=NPR-American
4   Ceffer   ignore (6)   2021 Sep 20, 11:37am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Karloff says
Ceffer says
Basically, a morals exclusion applies.

Apparently this does not include Big Pharma whores.




That would be the Rockefeller Immorals Inclusion.
5   richwicks   ignore (3)   2021 Sep 20, 11:44am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
I want to know at what point she became enlightened about the very narrow world view of most current Democrats, who seem to consistently fail to seek out new perspectives, or to challenge their own assumptions. I think this failure to think independently comes from the fear that independent reasoning might lead them to unacceptable conclusions. And then friends and perhaps relatives will reject them for heresy.


One hypothesis I've heard is that human beings are institutionally tribal herd animals so when they are presented with a false dichotomy like "left versus right" they chose one of them. From that point forward, you follow orders so if the liberals who were once anti-war peaceniks now want to bomb Libya and blow up Syria (for good reasons of course!) liberals will go along with it. Likewise, if the conservatives now want to spend 2 trillion dollars for some war on the other side of the planet, that's OK.

Parties follow no principles, so the adherents to the parties also have no principles.
6   Robert Sproul   ignore (0)   2021 Sep 20, 11:50am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Bridget. No good excuse. I am a visual guy.
7   Automan Empire   ignore (1)   2021 Sep 20, 11:57am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Automan Empire says
This article is nothing but porn for right wingers who sincerely think EVERYONE not registered GOP actually only ever listens to NPR for 100% of their political and personal identity like the woman in the article.
8   richwicks   ignore (3)   2021 Sep 20, 12:55pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Automan Empire says
Automan Empire says
This article is nothing but porn for right wingers who sincerely think EVERYONE not registered GOP actually only ever listens to NPR for 100% of their political and personal identity like the woman in the article.


In the 1990's I discovered NPR. I grew up in a conservative household, and it was nice to be able to listen to something that appeared to be "news" that wasn't constantly talking about irrelevant bullshit all the time. My main complaint of news back then wasn't their projected opinion, but what was covered and especially what wasn't covered.

NPR and PBS commented on more important topics than television news or the local newspaper did. They actually discussed the ramifications of Operation Desert Storm. They SEEMED to be covering the Bosnia, Herzegovina, etc. On "Fox" it was just that "muslims bad" was the extent of it, and on other stations it was "muslims victim".

It took me another 15 years or so to realize that what is called "news" is just different levels of propaganda. First you start out with television news, then you think you're smarter and start to read newspapers because you can skip ahead and ignore sections. Then you think you're smarter, and get a different set of propaganda. For example, if you read the Economist, the US is at war in Syria because the entire world was BEGGING us to stop that civil war there, and it has nothing to do with oil pipelines of Russian military bases.

People who listen to NPR DO tend to look down on people that listen to television "news". But its just different propaganda.
9   EBGuy   ignore (0)   2021 Sep 20, 1:12pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

This discussion by led by the folks at FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) scared the crap out of me. What are the people who are programming NPR thinking?
Matt Taibbi, Nadine Strossen, and Amna Khalid respond to ‘On the Media’ free speech critiques
10   richwicks   ignore (3)   2021 Sep 20, 1:29pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

EBGuy says
This discussion by led by the folks at FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) scared the crap out of me. What are the people who are programming NPR thinking?
Matt Taibbi, Nadine Strossen, and Amna Khalid respond to ‘On the Media’ free speech critiques


Don't waste your time



If you cannot comment on it, you're reading propaganda. If comments are turned off, just skip it.
11   Bd6r   ignore (1)   2021 Sep 20, 1:33pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I used to listen to NPR until about 2008, and kind of enjoyed it. They had critical analysis of Iraq and Afghanistan debacles, up to point where Obama became President. They had car show and a few other shows that were enjoyable to listen in background while drinking morning coffee.

Now, of course, it is insufferably bad. No jokes are left, other than OrangeManBad types; no real critical analysis, just streams of PC garbage.
12   Automan Empire   ignore (1)   2021 Sep 20, 1:53pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Bd6r says
I used to listen to NPR until about 2008, and kind of enjoyed it. They had critical analysis of Iraq and Afghanistan debacles, up to point where Obama became President. They had car show and a few other shows that were enjoyable to listen in background while drinking morning coffee.

Now, of course, it is insufferably bad. No jokes are left, other than OrangeManBad types; no real critical analysis, just streams of PC garbage.


Long ago I had a roommate that regularly listened to NPR's Dead Hour every Sunday night. He was often stoned and asleep when the next show came on, which was about books and authors, so I'd hear that come on every week. The show had this AWESOME canned introductory piece that was an aural equivalent to the carefully crafted entry hall to Space Mountain, but once that ended the show itself sounded painfully dry and dull to have to listen to for a very long hour. I think like twice they had authors I was interested in thus found the show worth listening to.

One problem leading to the landscape of all "stupid" choices in media. People don't WANT to listen to honest debates, seriously consider all issues and angles, and weigh difficult compromises and intractable problems. The majority want to hear a 30 second piece on a topic, consider that a wrap, then go on to the next topic to superficially engage. The world is a busy and complicated place, and individual humans don't have limitless time to engage the topics that directly affect them PERSONALLY with sufficient time and effort.

I remember in the 90s, either Mondo2000 or Wired magazine predicting that in the future, NEWS FILTERS would emerge to help individuals manage the Bitsunami of data available in a fully interconnected world. It was seen as a plus that would help break down entrenched institutional information channels like the TV networks and news bureaus. What they did NOT predict was that once freed to choose their news sources, people would self-select that which presented the biases that confirmed their preconceived notions, and instead of 2 parties and 4 TV networks dominating, information and political alliances are balkanized into thousands of competing entities, that still somehow fell onto a strange attractor consisting of 2 parties and about 4 main sources of mainstream news.
13   Shaman   ignore (2)   2021 Sep 20, 2:01pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Bd6r says
I used to listen to NPR until about 2008, and kind of enjoyed it.


That’s about the same year I stopped listening to NPR. I enjoyed it up until about then. But then it sort of got gross and super judgy about other points of view. I stopped. Every once in a while I’ll turn it on again, listen for a few minutes, and find that it’s only grown worse. It’s utter propaganda now, and the Leftward slant is more of a cliff than a gentle slope.
14   Bd6r   ignore (1)   2021 Sep 20, 2:04pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Automan Empire says
NPR's Dead Hour every Sunday night

Another program we used to listen on Sunday mornings was Wait wait don't tell, and there was another one where people with unusual life experiences were describing their lives (such as having parents who lived in forest somewhere on West coast growing marijuana). I am kind of sad that the current atmosphere in media killed off our Sunday morning ritual or routine of listening to these programs. We did it from late 90's up to may be 2008 or 2009.
Automan Empire says
One problem leading to the landscape of all "stupid" choices in media. People don't WANT to listen to honest debates, seriously consider all issues and angles, and weigh difficult compromises and intractable problems. The majority want to hear a 30 second piece on a topic, consider that a wrap, then go on to the next topic to superficially engage. The world is a busy and complicated place, and individual humans don't have limitless time to engage the topics that directly affect them PERSONALLY with sufficient time and effort.

That is probably only half of the problem. The other half is oligopoly of news sources, where the two or three big companies own nearly all of our "diverse" news sources, and follow the interests of their owners, which largely overlap. Some people think that Fox is different, but other than Tucker Carlson it is just as insufferable, or may be even more insufferable, than MSNPC. Listening to Hannity is just as offensive to anyone's intelligence as listening to Rachel Maddow.
15   EBGuy   ignore (0)   2021 Sep 20, 2:24pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

richwicks says
Don't waste your time

At this point FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) is the premier organization protecting free speech in the United States. The video is most definitely worth your time. Nadine Strossen is old school ACLU.



16   richwicks   ignore (3)   2021 Sep 20, 2:39pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

EBGuy says
richwicks says
Don't waste your time

At this point FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) is the premier organization protecting free speech in the United States. The video is most definitely worth your time. Nadine Strossen is old school ACLU.


Why is it worth my time? What's it about?

Is it about that our "news" media is garbage and has been acting as a de-facto propaganda outlet for our government for at least 20 years?

Or is about how the "news" media has to be "reformed"? Because it can't be reformed.

Not too long ago, all "news" media had commenting sections on them. In it, were a bunch of sincere, and gullible people (and I was one of them) trying to point out "errors" in the articles, mistakes, misstatements, and with links and information about why the author made a legitimate error. Well, they aren't making legitimate errors, they are lying.

After a point, I realized it was a waste of my time to read the article at all, and went straight to comments section.

When comment sections went away, I didn't see any reason to waste any time at all reading something from a "journalist" who NEVER corrected themselves ever in 10 years of people trying to correct them.

You say that video is worth watching. I'm telling you it isn't. Feedback is more important than what some supposed "experts" are saying. Nothing more ironic than an ACLU lawyer showing up to discuss free speech and not allow any feedback.
17   EBGuy   ignore (0)   2021 Sep 20, 3:56pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

richwicks says
Feedback is more important than what some supposed "experts" are saying. Nothing more ironic than an ACLU lawyer showing up to discuss free speech and not allow any feedback.

I'd have a hard time arguing with your algorithm (because quite frankly, for the most part, I agree with it). At the same time, there are voices on patnet I've learned to trust over a decade and a half.
NPR's On The Media assembled a panel of experts to critique "free speech absolutists". The FIRE panel is issuing a rebuttal. As such, they are literally defending deplorable speech, so you can see why they disabled comments. YMMV.
18   richwicks   ignore (3)   2021 Sep 20, 4:10pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

EBGuy says
NPR's On The Media assembled a panel of experts to critique "free speech absolutists". The FIRE panel is issuing a rebuttal. As such, they are literally defending deplorable speech, so you can see why they disabled comments. YMMV.


Oh, it doesn't matter what a "panel" of experts says. The fact of the matter is that under Constitution our FIRST amendment exists.

Now companies can go ahead and push censorship if they want, even under direct government control, but it just creates opportunity for other corporations. If all companies are purchased and bought out in the United States, they will go to Russia instead.

What ultimately did in the Soviets in the Eastern Bloc then in Russia itself, was the United States just broadcast the truth about the governments there. Helped they had inside intelligence from spies on those governments. This is why our oligarchs are screaming "Russian Propaganda" because the Russian people and government are doing to us, what our government once did to them, when they were FAR more corrupt.
19   EBGuy   ignore (0)   2021 Sep 20, 4:27pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

richwicks says
The fact of the matter is that under Constitution our FIRST amendment exists.

The fact of the matter is that unless you have organizations like FIRE (and historically, the ACLU) filing lawsuits to defend and encourage free and open discourse (which is essential to our democracy), the first amendment, in practice, won't exist. One of the On the Media (NPR) panel experts was John Powell, a UC Berkeley law professor. He was making arguments for limiting speech based on psychological harm. These people train the next generation of lawyers (and judges). We should all be afraid. YMMV.
20   richwicks   ignore (3)   2021 Sep 20, 4:37pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

EBGuy says
These people train the next generation of lawyers (and judges). We should all be afraid. YMMV.


Look, these people are nobody. Freedom of speech isn't protected by lawyers, and judges, and lawsuits. They are protected by you, and me, a a few other million people.

If we had a judicial system worth a damned, there would be no federal drug policies other than interstate commerce of the drugs. It's clearly defined in the Constitution. The excuse of this enforcement is "to protect people from harm". If the 1st amendment fails, then the only fallback is the 2nd amendment.

The federal government now openly violates the Constitution. This document is the contract between the governed and governors. Since they freely disregard and violate it, we don't have a legitimate government anymore. We haven't for a good long time, and people are SLOWLY waking up to that fact, but it's a fact.
21   Robert Sproul   ignore (0)   2021 Sep 21, 11:52am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Bridget Phetasy
@BridgetPhetasy
·
17h
Because I've done hard drugs off the back of toilets in public restrooms and it would be pretty hilarious to start acting like "my body is a temple" now. I've accepted I'm a guinea pig for science and I'm cool with that. That being said it should be everyone's choice.
Quote Tweet

James Dimas
@JamesDimasWKYZ
· Sep 20
Why did you choose to be Vaccinated?

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions