APP - Are Newsmax, OANN, and Fox Media threats to American Democracy?

[ThatOwlWoman]

It's not just "conservatives" since liberals are just as guilty about restricting what can be taught based upon political views, not practical views. All for the reasons you mentioned.

While you often love to attack "Xtians", the problem isn't restricted to one or more religions. It's a human trait to fear the future, to fear change. Some fear it too much and cause more harm than good. Some don't fear it at all, when they should exhibit more caution. The Goldilocks Theory should be applied.

Consider the demographic projection that "whites" will drop to 47% of the US population by 2050. Some will fear the future, others, usually through education, will realize that as the US becomes more blended, it will work better together.

Racial categories as shown in the chart are racist and based on archaic ideas of race since skin-tone is a very minor difference compared to cultural differences....and culture is taught.

IMO, the more indepth and factual a person's education, the better, more effective adult they'll grow to become.


https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005-2050/

Sorry, but pointing out the foibles in the dominant religion of one's country isn't "attacking." Don't be RB. lol

I think a huge amount of the anger and outrage exhibited by Trumpanzees is due to the scary, scary demographic projections in your chart. Even those who were taught and still believe the white-washed (clever of me, no? lol) version of American history know how the dominant race in America treated the minorities... and they fear a turn-about and loss of power. Every time I see someone write "the left wants ___" or I hear them say "the liberals want to ____," I know that I'm hearing or reading the voices of fear. What they really mean by "liberal" is black, Hispanic, Asian, indigenous, non-Xtian, non-white people. People not like us. Others.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Sorry, but pointing out the foibles in the dominant religion of one's country isn't "attacking." Don't be RB. lol

I think a huge amount of the anger and outrage exhibited by Trumpanzees is due to the scary, scary demographic projections in your chart. Even those who were taught and still believe the white-washed (clever of me, no? lol) version of American history know how the dominant race in America treated the minorities... and they fear a turn-about and loss of power. Every time I see someone write "the left wants ___" or I hear them say "the liberals want to ____," I know that I'm hearing or reading the voices of fear. What they really mean by "liberal" is black, Hispanic, Asian, indigenous, non-Xtian, non-white people. People not like us. Others.

It's as biased as volsrock pointing out every "foible" committed by a non-white person while completely disregarding the excesses of people matching his own views and skin-tone.

Anger and outrage are illogical; they're emotional. Yes, both "modern" conservatives and liberals are highly emotional. Both seek to deprive Americans of rights and impose their views upon others. I see little difference in their methods and their self-serving goals.

Fear-mongering is an effective tool against people. Intelligent, educated people quickly see through the fear-mongering but the lesser educated and lower IQ are more easily swayed by such tactics.

Liberals have created an emotional, fear-mongering package about "gun deaths", of which 2/3s are suicides, while, Conservatives have created an emotional, fear-mongering package about minorities/immigrants taking over. Both, IMO, are wrong to spread such fears and both, to a large extent, are lying to push an agenda.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Facts need no rebuttal, but opinions do. If people understand the difference between a fact and an opinion, then there'd be less confusion.

I'm sure you'll agree that that's one of our problems today -- many people do NOT understand the difference. Which is why I'd prefer a requirement pointing that out, esp. with on-air programming.

Is there any doubt that some news businesses are more factual than others? That some are more entertainment than news? More theatrics than education?

Anymore they all seem to be heading towards entertainment over reporting. I don't watch CNN's TV programming but I do often read stories on their website. Years ago the website transitioned from mostly news to more of a tabloid rag-mag sort of thing, with a gossipy and scandalous and lurid crimes type of focus. They have moved away from that to some extent but it is still evident on their main splash page. Now it seems to be located under the "news and buzz" heading. In addition, they label their articles as "opinion" or "analysis," which basically amount to the same thing. Too bad RW sites don't do that, eh? OANN just now:

Only people with critical thinking skills can tell the difference....and JPP is full of people who can't tell the difference.

Not just JPP but the entire United States.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'm sure you'll agree that that's one of our problems today -- many people do NOT understand the difference. Which is why I'd prefer a requirement pointing that out, esp. with on-air programming.



Anymore they all seem to be heading towards entertainment over reporting. I don't watch CNN's TV programming but I do often read stories on their website. Years ago the website transitioned from mostly news to more of a tabloid rag-mag sort of thing, with a gossipy and scandalous and lurid crimes type of focus. They have moved away from that to some extent but it is still evident on their main splash page. Now it seems to be located under the "news and buzz" heading. In addition, they label their articles as "opinion" or "analysis," which basically amount to the same thing. Too bad RW sites don't do that, eh? OANN just now:

Not just JPP but the entire United States.

While I agree, notice that most of their stories are laced with facts. Did Rand Paul say he wouldn't get the vaccine? Yes. Do all of the other stories contain facts? Yes. How do we parse each line of each story and still maintain the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press?

 

[goat]

It can be. It's also objective. If my intent it to keep a certain segment of the population stupid, I'd ban educating them. Why do you think slave owners banned teaching slaves to read? Was that a subjective decision? Objective? Both?

TOW summed it up perfectly, critical thinking boils to question authority. Dissent is criminalized and locked away in a cage.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

While I agree, notice that most of their stories are laced with facts. Did Rand Paul say he wouldn't get the vaccine? Yes. Do all of the other stories contain facts? Yes. How do we parse each line of each story and still maintain the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press?

Most ppl who can read are smart enough to figure out an outright lie when they read/hear it, hence the way media carefully laces their agendas with just enough to make the story plausible. It takes something more to see the inherent bias. From what we've seen here on JPP, a lot of ppl lack that ability.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

TOW summed it up perfectly, critical thinking boils to question authority. Dissent is criminalized and locked away in a cage.

Disagreed that is all critical thinking is or boils down to. It's question everything, even oneself, not just authority.

OTOH, Professor Walter Kotschnig's advice to Holyoke College students to keep their minds open—”but not so open that your brains fall out” is always appropriate.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

TOW summed it up perfectly, critical thinking boils to question authority. Dissent is criminalized and locked away in a cage.

Yes. Here is a good example of that.

"White evangelicals have always been the core of Donald Trump’s support. Once they got over their unease with his fungible approach to morality, conservative Christians found in Trump the political warrior — or mega-bully — that they have long been seeking. The only thing they disliked about him was that he curses.

"After acting like a political party through the Trump presidency, it’s no surprise that evangelicals are now following the GOP’s template of purging their ranks of anyone who does not worship at Trump’s altar. The latest case in point: the departure of Russell Moore from the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).

"Moore held one of the top positions in evangelical Christianity. As head of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, he has been a fervent advocate for the denomination’s right-wing positions. He has been a staunch opponent of LGBTQ rights, especially marriage equality, and has pushed hard for religious liberty exemptions that would gut existing protections.

"However, Moore has never been a fan of Donald Trump. Unlike other prominent evangelicals, like Franklin Graham and Tony Perkins, Moore was unwilling to trade his religious beliefs for access to power and Supreme Court appointments."

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/05...rcing-followers-dont-pledge-allegiance-trump/

And yes, I did note the bias in this article.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Most ppl who can read are smart enough to figure out an outright lie when they read/hear it, hence the way media carefully laces their agendas with just enough to make the story plausible. It takes something more to see the inherent bias. From what we've seen here on JPP, a lot of ppl lack that ability.

Sorry, but if that were true, then there'd be no need to teach, or ban teaching, critical thinking in schools. While I think most Americans are of normal intelligence, I think too many of them lack a solid educational foundation to separate fact from opinion.

Agreed on media spin to make a story plausible. Politicians are very good at it. Part of the problem is we're living in an era of immediate gratification and sound bites. People get their news from two-three sentences on cable news instead of reading an in depth article about an issue from a reputable source.

Agreed a lot of people lack the ability. IMO, that's a reflection of our times and educational system.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes. Here is a good example of that.

"White evangelicals have always been the core of Donald Trump’s support. Once they got over their unease with his fungible approach to morality, conservative Christians found in Trump the political warrior — or mega-bully — that they have long been seeking. The only thing they disliked about him was that he curses.

"After acting like a political party through the Trump presidency, it’s no surprise that evangelicals are now following the GOP’s template of purging their ranks of anyone who does not worship at Trump’s altar. The latest case in point: the departure of Russell Moore from the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).

"Moore held one of the top positions in evangelical Christianity. As head of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, he has been a fervent advocate for the denomination’s right-wing positions. He has been a staunch opponent of LGBTQ rights, especially marriage equality, and has pushed hard for religious liberty exemptions that would gut existing protections.

"However, Moore has never been a fan of Donald Trump. Unlike other prominent evangelicals, like Franklin Graham and Tony Perkins, Moore was unwilling to trade his religious beliefs for access to power and Supreme Court appointments."

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/05...rcing-followers-dont-pledge-allegiance-trump/

And yes, I did note the bias in this article.

Evangelicals are narrowing themselves into the same wacky niche as Scientologists.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Sorry, but if that were true, then there'd be no need to teach, or ban teaching, critical thinking in schools. While I think most Americans are of normal intelligence, I think too many of them lack a solid educational foundation to separate fact from opinion.

Agreed on media spin to make a story plausible. Politicians are very good at it. Part of the problem is we're living in an era of immediate gratification and sound bites. People get their news from two-three sentences on cable news instead of reading an in depth article about an issue from a reputable source.

Agreed a lot of people lack the ability. IMO, that's a reflection of our times and educational system.

I was reading an article yesterday about how the Toadstool's blog and website are doing poorly, particularly when compared to his former popularity on FB and Twitter. I speculate that it's because his Cult doesn't care to read large blocks of text; they are almost all 130-character-limit folks. Absolutely perfect fodder for propagandists.

OANN's splash page was comical. Just a few actual stories; the rest of it was shameless pandering, begging for money, and whipping up the "it's us against the big bad tech- and lib-ruled world" schtick.

 

[goat]

Disagreed that is all critical thinking is or boils down to. It's question everything, even oneself, not just authority.

OTOH, Professor Walter Kotschnig's advice to Holyoke College students to keep their minds open—”but not so open that your brains fall out” is always appropriate.

Then we agree that corporate media and higher education are manufacturing consent. Those who realize this are not stupid or blind. There are a lot of people with an 80 IQ who have a better understanding of the world and a stronger moral compass than most doctors, lawyers, and university professors.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Evangelicals are narrowing themselves into the same wacky niche as Scientologists.

A lot of ppl do see them that way.

Here's an odd thing that I haven't parsed out yet. A good many of my friends/coworkers who are black are also evangelicals. Yet not a single one of them has fallen under the thrall of the #MangoMessiah; in fact, they detest him. They vote for (D) politicians. They support left/liberal/Democrat ideals for the most part. (Some are anti-abortion but remain anti-Trump.) They are also far less judgmental regarding other ppl's religions or lack of faith, other ppl's failings (sins), and in general although very open about their faith, not in-your-face or pushy about it.

Why are these two groups -- white evangelicals and black evangelicals -- so politically different?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I was reading an article yesterday about how the Toadstool's blog and website are doing poorly, particularly when compared to his former popularity on FB and Twitter. I speculate that it's because his Cult doesn't care to read large blocks of text; they are almost all 130-character-limit folks. Absolutely perfect fodder for propagandists.

OANN's splash page was comical. Just a few actual stories; the rest of it was shameless pandering, begging for money, and whipping up the "it's us against the big bad tech- and lib-ruled world" schtick.

It's all about the money. Ted Cruz sold out for money. Trump's primary focus on life is money. OANN, like all media, is a business. They have a niche catering to whack jobs, conspiracy buffs and sheeple....specifically MAGA-sheeple. Hundreds of MAGA-sheeple who Trump threw under the bus and now face prison, unemployment and financial destruction.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

A lot of ppl do see them that way.

Here's an odd thing that I haven't parsed out yet. A good many of my friends/coworkers who are black are also evangelicals. Yet not a single one of them has fallen under the thrall of the #MangoMessiah; in fact, they detest him. They vote for (D) politicians. They support left/liberal/Democrat ideals for the most part. (Some are anti-abortion but remain anti-Trump.) They are also far less judgmental regarding other ppl's religions or lack of faith, other ppl's failings (sins), and in general although very open about their faith, not in-your-face or pushy about it.

Why are these two groups -- white evangelicals and black evangelicals -- so politically different?

My guess is that you are seeing the difference between the collective view of a group versus the individual views of people. Individuals are not so easily pigeon-holed when it comes to views, beliefs and goals. Evangelicals, as a religious subset, are the largest religious group in the US and are a quarter of the population; about 82M Americans. That's a lot of people to pigeonhole.

Add to this fact, as individuals, their beliefs and views run along a scale much grayer than simply 2-color palettes of B&W. Therefore, different points of view are to be expected. Why one main group favors Trump is, IMO, a means to an end.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism
In 2016, there were an estimated 619 million evangelicals in the world, meaning that one in four Christians would be classified as evangelical.[9] The United States has the largest proportion of evangelicals in the world.[10] American evangelicals are a quarter of that nation's population and its single largest religious group.[11][12] As a trans-denominational coalition, evangelicals can be found in nearly every Protestant denomination and tradition, particularly within the Reformed (Calvinist), Baptist, Methodist (Wesleyan-Arminian), Pentecostal and charismatic churches.[13][14]

 

[Cypress]

A lot of ppl do see them that way.

Here's an odd thing that I haven't parsed out yet. A good many of my friends/coworkers who are black are also evangelicals. Yet not a single one of them has fallen under the thrall of the #MangoMessiah; in fact, they detest him. They vote for (D) politicians. They support left/liberal/Democrat ideals for the most part. (Some are anti-abortion but remain anti-Trump.) They are also far less judgmental regarding other ppl's religions or lack of faith, other ppl's failings (sins), and in general although very open about their faith, not in-your-face or pushy about it.

Why are these two groups -- white evangelicals and black evangelicals -- so politically different?

My two cents: authentic religion and politics really actually have little to do with each other.

A large proportion of white evangelicals are ethnic and cultural nationalists. That is a political, socio-economic choice which have nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth.

White Christian nationalism obviously has little appeal to people of African origin. In my opinion, White Christian nationalism is the modern echo, the relict vestiges of slavery, European Colonialism, imperialism, Anglo-Saxon ethinic and economic hegemony.

Those are generally foreign concepts, even an anathema to people of African descent who have a shared communal experience both through African cultural heritage and their experience as a minority in white America.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

My guess is that you are seeing the difference between the collective view of a group versus the individual views of people. Individuals are not so easily pigeon-holed when it comes to views, beliefs and goals. Evangelicals, as a religious subset, are the largest religious group in the US and are a quarter of the population; about 82M Americans. That's a lot of people to pigeonhole.

I know probably twice as many evangelical whites as I know evangelical blacks. The whites are 100% Trumpanzee; not a single one of the blacks is. Yes, it's a small statistical sampling yet there is no denying it. Can you think of a single white evangelical that you know IRL who isn't politically to the right or the far right?

I think Cypress's reply on this issue says it all -- one group calls themselves Christian while the other actually practices it for the most part.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

My two cents: authentic religion and politics really actually have little to do with each other.

A large proportion of white evangelicals are ethnic and cultural nationalists. That is a political, socio-economic choice which have nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth.

White Christian nationalism obviously has little appeal to people of African origin. In my opinion, White Christian nationalism is the modern echo, the relict vestiges of slavery, European Colonialism, imperialism, Anglo-Saxon ethinic and economic hegemony.

Those are generally foreign concepts, even an anathema to people of African descent who have a shared communal experience both through African cultural heritage and their experience as a minority in white America.

This is an excellent summary of the situation.

 

[Cypress]

I know probably twice as many evangelical whites as I know evangelical blacks. The whites are 100% Trumpanzee; not a single one of the blacks is. Yes, it's a small statistical sampling yet there is no denying it. Can you think of a single white evangelical that you know IRL who isn't politically to the right or the far right?

I think Cypress's reply on this issue says it all -- one group calls themselves Christian while the other actually practices it for the most part.

It is a shame what white nationalist Trumpanzees have done to the reputation of Evangelical (as opposed to fundamentalist) Christianity. At one time, Evangelicals were at the forefront of slavery abolition, and the tip of the spear of many of the social justice and economic justice movements of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

 

[midcan5]

....Why are these two groups -- white evangelicals and black evangelicals -- so politically different?

Thanks for your input in this thread. To answer your question simply, they live in very separate worlds.

Cypress nailed it above.