Comments 1 - 21 of 21 Search these comments
Basically, a morals exclusion applies.
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).
Ceffer saysBasically, a morals exclusion applies.
Apparently this does not include Big Pharma whores.
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.
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.
Automan Empire saysThis 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.
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
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.
I used to listen to NPR until about 2008, and kind of enjoyed it.
NPR's Dead Hour every Sunday night
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.
Don't waste your time
richwicks saysDon'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.
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.
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.
The fact of the matter is that under Constitution our FIRST amendment exists.
These people train the next generation of lawyers (and judges). We should all be afraid. YMMV.
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.