Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Weekly Stupid Episode 3!!!!

imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 5:38:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
TONIGHT!!! I summarize the presidential debate that happened on Wednesday, a new face challenges ScottyDouglas for the Best of the Best title, I introduce a new conservative cohost to the show, and I premiere the one version of Law and Order you probably have never seen!!!

Voting for Best of the Best:
http://poll.pollcode.com...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 5:59:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm really shocked that you did not include lannan's statement about cheating the lunch system. Please be sure to include it in the next episode.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 5:59:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh, and the reason that your doctor wanted you to get vaccinated is that he was worried that you would give me some Caucasian disease ;)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 6:01:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wait, so which vaccine were you missing? Was it the cocaine vaccine? If so, I'm glad that your doctor warned you that you didn't have the adequate vaccinations to date me. I don't like crackheads ;)
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 6:25:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 5:59:03 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I'm really shocked that you did not include lannan's statement about cheating the lunch system. Please be sure to include it in the next episode.

it seemed more like angry ranting then a consistent belief.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 6:44:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
man I ought to put you on the third page of google for what you said.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 6:45:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What did Lannan say?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 6:50:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I didnt really enjoy the plush doll thing, but other than that it was good. I'm surprised DanT's "Obama is a fascist" wasn't in there.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 6:52:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 6:50:30 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
I didnt really enjoy the plush doll thing,

Man I ought to shoot you to the third page ofgoogle for insulting mr muffins
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 6:53:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 6:50:30 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
I didnt really enjoy the plush doll thing, but other than that it was good. I'm surprised DanT's "Obama is a fascist" wasn't in there.

He said something similar last episode so it didn't count
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 7:48:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 6:45:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What did Lannan say?

Do you remember that school lunch comment about how the Dems are trying to control the lunch that he eats because he chooses to cheat the system and eat school lunches?
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 7:59:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 7:48:35 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/5/2012 6:45:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
What did Lannan say?

Do you remember that school lunch comment about how the Dems are trying to control the lunch that he eats because he chooses to cheat the system and eat school lunches?

http://www.debate.org...

somewhere in there
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 8:12:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Time for Imabench to eat massive crow

http://www.limitstogrowth.org...

If I was born in the 1400's............... Imabench you were born last night. That puts my wisdom centuries ahead of yours.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 8:33:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.limitstogrowth.org...

Lol. that article was pretty funny.

"it was not made for the sophisticated or the middle class." That's somehow proof that its for left propaganda? Oh no, they had Neil Patrick Harris on the show. My god what leftist nonsense is this.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 8:44:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I suppose this is how they should've treated Michelle Obama if they really wanted to not seem like a left indoctrination show.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 8:57:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 8:33:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
http://www.limitstogrowth.org...

Lol. that article was pretty funny.

"it was not made for the sophisticated or the middle class." That's somehow proof that its for left propaganda? Oh no, they had Neil Patrick Harris on the show. My god what leftist nonsense is this.

So direct on the record verifible and open admssion from the shows ceator is not good enough?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 9:01:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 8:57:14 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/5/2012 8:33:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
http://www.limitstogrowth.org...

Lol. that article was pretty funny.

"it was not made for the sophisticated or the middle class." That's somehow proof that its for left propaganda? Oh no, they had Neil Patrick Harris on the show. My god what leftist nonsense is this.

So direct on the record verifible and open admssion from the shows ceator is not good enough?

Where did the creator openly state it? I want the direct quote.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 9:05:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The truth is the truth deal with it. You can try to spin it an way you want and ridicule me, but it is still the truth and nothing but the truth. You can in no way say the executive producer and creator of sesame street did not say what they said, they are on record and openly admit to it. What more proof do you need.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 9:07:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 9:01:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/5/2012 8:57:14 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/5/2012 8:33:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
http://www.limitstogrowth.org...

Lol. that article was pretty funny.

"it was not made for the sophisticated or the middle class." That's somehow proof that its for left propaganda? Oh no, they had Neil Patrick Harris on the show. My god what leftist nonsense is this.

So direct on the record verifible and open admssion from the shows ceator is not good enough?

Where did the creator openly state it? I want the direct quote.

The article is about a book Shapiro"s new book, "Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV," . He got executives from some hollywood executives admitting liberal biases, but not specifically Sesame Street. The article's only quote as proof is:

"was not made for the sophisticated or the middle class."

"Sesame Street tried to tackle divorce, tackled "peaceful conflict resolution" in the aftermath of 9/11 and had [gay actor] Neil Patrick Harris on the show playing the subtly-named "fairy shoeperson","

Which is true. It was an educational program designed for urban and poor kids. I don't see how these messages are "Leftist Indoctrination".
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 9:10:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 9:01:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/5/2012 8:57:14 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/5/2012 8:33:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
http://www.limitstogrowth.org...

Lol. that article was pretty funny.

"it was not made for the sophisticated or the middle class." That's somehow proof that its for left propaganda? Oh no, they had Neil Patrick Harris on the show. My god what leftist nonsense is this.

So direct on the record verifible and open admssion from the shows ceator is not good enough?

Where did the creator openly state it? I want the direct quote.

The quote is in the book. It woud be liable if the author misquoted him. Now grab for straws.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 9:10:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 9:05:49 PM, sadolite wrote:
The truth is the truth deal with it. You can try to spin it an way you want and ridicule me, but it is still the truth and nothing but the truth. You can in no way say the executive producer and creator of sesame street did not say what they said, they are on record and openly admit to it. What more proof do you need.

So your not even going to find the quotes where the sesame street producers openly admit it. Just some article, with an incredible conservative slant which make Glenn Beck seem objective in comparison, tries to spin it so that the executives of Sesame Street did, even though it clearly didn't.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 9:11:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 9:10:02 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/5/2012 9:01:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/5/2012 8:57:14 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/5/2012 8:33:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
http://www.limitstogrowth.org...

Lol. that article was pretty funny.

"it was not made for the sophisticated or the middle class." That's somehow proof that its for left propaganda? Oh no, they had Neil Patrick Harris on the show. My god what leftist nonsense is this.

So direct on the record verifible and open admssion from the shows ceator is not good enough?

Where did the creator openly state it? I want the direct quote.

The quote is in the book. It woud be liable if the author misquoted him. Now grab for straws.

Where is the quote. I like to see it. Also, found an interesting review of the book:

This is a review of how well/poorly the book delivers on what it advertises itself to be. It is _not_ about politics, except as necessary for examples.
I picked up the book because I dislike much of what I see from Hollywood, both in terms of themes and portrayal of characters. I knew from the summaries that I would disagree with much of the author's politics -- I am 60 and grew up in a conservative rural village whose values differed from those of modern (post-Reaganite) conservatives -- but I didn't see that difference as a problem because I was interested in the observations, analysis and perspective of a critic from within Hollywood. My training in advocacy -- political and commercial marketing -- was to seek out and pay close attention to those with different perspectives, especially your critics, competitors, and opposition, because that was one of the best ways to find weaknesses in your ideas and in the presentation of those ideas and thereby improve your case (ideas and presentation).

The overriding problem with this book is that it has all the hallmarks of the author never having heard even the slightest challenges to what he is saying, and thus it is littered with silly, stupid and disingenuous statements, obvious contradictions and gross hypocrisies. For example, the book would have you believe that The Weather Channel, ESPN, Fox News... are part of a liberal conspiracy (explained below). If I hadn't felt so ill-served by the various reviews and recommendations, I would have simply stopped reading, but I felt I owed this review to other potential readers. Plus, the book quickly became a train wreck that was too hard to look away from.

What follows are examples of the failings of the various aspects of this book. However, if what you are looking for is a rant against liberals (rants of various flavors are a legit category of books), or you otherwise want to believe the book's thesis, I suggest that you skip to other reviews.

One of the primary _advertised_ features of this book are the interviews with major Hollywood insiders. It would have been fascinating to read what those people said, and avoided saying, in response to probing questions from a conservative (or other person from an dissimilar viewpoint). Unfortunately, those _interviews_ are nowhere to be found in this book. What you do encounter are scattered short quotes that are indistinguishable from those he excerpted from what he had read. I quickly came to discount the quotes: Many didn't support the claims he made of them and there was a rhetorical pattern of small, often fragmentary, quoting that is a strong indicator that the quotes were carefully selected and massaged to fit the preconceived thesis rather than having had any role in the development of that thesis. Since the author went to Harvard Law School, I am presuming that he is well-aware of basic rhetorical tactics and tricks (both detecting and using) and that their occurrences in this book are largely intentional. Additionally, when the background and perspective of the author and interviewees are as different as here, my experience is that I should expect to "hear" decidedly different "voices" in their quotes, as well as differences between the various interviewees. And that difference should be still be present even when the author paraphrases their comments. There was so little of this in this book that it raised humongous red flags about the representations of what was said.

The author doesn't let facts, or ignorance of facts, get in the way of his thesis. Crucial to his explanation of how the Left controls Hollywood is that the advertisers have been duped by the networks about what shows to sponsor, sometimes with complicity of those in the ad agencies doing media buys (ad placement). He claims that the corporations (retailers and manufacturers) don't know who is buying their products or how customers make buying decisions. He claims that there has been scant research in this area, and dismisses that research as tainted by methodological problems and the Leftist connections of the researchers. In the book's presentation of this topic, you won't find a mention of the corporations' marketing departments or of the portions of advertising agencies that develop campaigns, or ... (pp 10,...)

The author totally discredits himself on his secondary thesis: That there is pervasive discrimination against conservatives in Hollywood. Note: I have no basis to judge whether or not this is true, I am simply saying that the book fails miserably in making this case.
- The book's primary example of this discrimination is Michael Moriarty for being fired from "Law & Order". The book presents only his self-serving explanation -- one that doesn't pass a basic "smell test". A quick check on the web finds both an alternate explanation ("erratic behavior") plus various pieces of evidence providing credence to that explanation (example: his overblown ego seems competitive with that of Charlie Sheen and Donald Trump). If political beliefs was the reason, why did L&O later hire Angie Harmon, someone who routinely appears on lists of prominent Hollywood conservatives?
- The author's secondary example is himself (pp xvi-xvii). He recounts how he was supported by a top Hollywood producer (Goldberg), had his work actively shopped around by three agents, had support from an entertainment attorney whom he identified as a liberal, but that "a producer on one of the shows" said that he wouldn't work with the author (After reading this book, I too would refuse to work with the author, and it has nothing to do with politics). From this one person among many, in an extreme example of confirmation bias, the author decides that "liberals employ a mirror form of McCarthyism on a large scale." (pg xvi)
- His third example is Patricia Heaton who says she is having difficulty with work because she is a conservative. Since she is currently starring in "The Middle" and formerly starred in "Everybody Loves Raymond", a detailed explanation is called for, but not even a hint is given. Neither is her situation compared and contrasted to prominent conservatives who seem not to have problems. While Heaton isn't in the top tier (eg Tom Selleck, Kelsey Grammer), she seems comparable to Angie Harmon who seems to have had consistent work (see her IMDB profile) and to have had no problem being hired by liberals since most of that work has been in what the author categorizes as part of the liberal agenda, for example "feminist legitimization".
- The author also cites similar claims from unnamed conservatives, but he states he is unsure of the validity because "many of those that complain that they can't get work _can't_ make the grade." (pg xvi, emphasis in book)
- Although the book mentions writer-producer Donald Bellisario (NCIS, JAG, Quantum Leap, Magnum PI, Airwolf,...) who is a highly visible conservative, there is no discussion of the success of people like him.

Continued:
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 9:13:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And in all his interviews, the author apparently never thought to ask how liberals rationalized the claimed freezing out of conservatives.

The primary thesis of liberal propaganda is pure conspiracy logic: If the author judges person A to be part of the conspiracy, then everyone who simply worked with A is probably part of the conspiracy, as is everyone who worked with them, ad infinitum. Am I overreacting to mere hyperbole? In the Prologue (pg xii), he states that Hollywood is "a carefully constructed mechanism designed by television's honchos to blow a hole in the dike of American culture. Television's best and brightest wanted to set American sliding down the slippery slope away from its Judeo-Christian heritage...And they succeeded. ... planned ... coordinated ... implemented by a vast group of like-minded politically motivated people..." And when TV executives are quoted as wanting TV to be about "more than just ratings", the author interprets this as a desire to destroy American culture (What else could that phrase possibly mean?).

The author seems to treat his proffered quotes with absolute credulity, not considering possibilities such as self-aggrandizement. Nor does he consider whether what the person reports happening did actually happen. And most importantly, he doesn't even think to ask whether the message that these people thought they were sending was the message being received. The book's description of various shows, most significantly "All in the Family" and "Family Ties", have only a passing resemblance to what I saw in first run and how people around me reacted to them.

The "begats" occupy a large portion of the book, but you might not want to skip them because intermixed in are analyses of TV shows that are hilarious for anyone not drinking the book's Cool-aid. For example, "Charlie's Angels" was part of the Leftist conspiracy to destroy America's values because "Women were doing what men traditionally did and doing it well." (producer Goldberg, pg 179). If you take this quote seriously -- although you shouldn't because the show was universally described at the time as "T&A" -- ask "Why this show rather than the earlier 'Police Woman' (Angie Dickinson, 1974-78)?"

Basic human psychology is to try to impose an order on events even where there is none. Conservatives, with their belief in a simple, authoritative, powerful hierarchy, exacerbate this trait. Consequently, "disorderly" explanations -- involving statistics, game theory... -- tend to be rejected in favor of determinism via a hidden hand or conspiracy. This book treats what seem to be normal business decisions, both good and bad, as a result of the liberal conspiracy. Most notably he has a section "Liberalism for Sweeps Week" (pg 198) where his argument seems to rest on having causality reversed: He seems to assume that Sweeps Weeks _inherently_ have large audiences, thus the appearance of salacious and controversial material during those periods must be part of the liberal agenda to push that material at those large audiences, whereas the conventional explanation is that such material is emphasized during those periods to _draw_ large audiences because those ratings set advertising rates. His discussion of business and economics is a painful example of how badly our elite schools are failing to educate students.

The overall writing style is vague and non-specific, making it virtually impossible to refute individual sections with facts or logic (because his defenders can easily claim that that is not what he meant). Instead there is a stream of assertions that will convince those already predisposed to believe, and probably no one else. Fortunately, it is not laden with the impenetrable terminology that emanates from Leftist echo chambers. Some of the contradictions appear to be strategic, for example, despite the book claiming a vast monolithic Left-wing conspiracy, he has a brief passage on pg 13 saying that "most" and "many" Hollywood liberals do not engage in this conduct. And in his final chapter, he presents himself as a reasonable constructive commentator, in stark contrast to what has come before.

Over the years, there has been extensive discussion of how the aptitudes needed for various segments of the entertainment industry skew toward those that tend to be found in liberals/not found in conservatives. For example, most successful comics are disrespectful of authority and the status quo. Although the book makes a few brief mentions of fragments of these ideas, it isn't enough to help the reader think about how much of the liberal-conservative imbalance is due to natural selection vs discrimination and conspiracy. And much of the entertainment industry is based on satisfying the human appetite to be stimulated by the new and different, yet the author seems to label any of this of which he disapproves as part of the conspiracy.

Many of the contradictions appear to arise simply from him wanting to blame everything on the liberal conspiracy. For example, narrow-casting "inherently leads to liberalism" by dividing us and hence liberals are behind destroying the broad-casting model (pg 10) but subsequently claims are that liberals are pushing broad-casting to reach large audiences.

The author cites the comedic meme of mocking fathers as dating back to the ancient Greeks and Romans (Aristophanes and Plautus pg 88) and yet he subsequently attacks writers working in this tradition for trying to destroy traditional values. While I would agree that this meme is badly overused, laziness and incompetence seem to be a better explanation than conspiracy (to paraphrase a traditional admonition).

The book is advertised as providing an interesting conservative perspective on various classic TV series, but it is slight and shallow and often focuses on one or two specific offenses to conservatism. For example, in several places the book classifies "The Dick Van Dyke Show" as a very conservative show but also places it in the liberal "vanguard" (pg 94) because an episode that involved a mistaken case of mistaken identity was resolved when the other couple was discovered to be Black. Since this was part of the book's criticism of "realism", was the unforgivable offense simply the very brief appearance of a Black couple onscreen? The author denounces a variety of shows for the "realism" of including members of minorities and other groups, and then turns around and criticizes "Law & Order" for including too few minorities for "realism" (pg 202).

This attack on L&O has long been shown to be disingenuous: L&O focuses on complex cases, often involving power, wealth and unusual intersections of law and morality. These cases don't have the same ethnic patterns as the vast majority of crimes (burglary, robbery, low-level drug dealing,...), contrary to the standard conservative attack on L&O. I am not arguing that L&O doesn't have a decided liberal viewpoint, but rather pointing out that the _book's_ portrayal and argument are dishonest.

The author well knows that scripts for episodes may come from a writer with no previous or future association with the series (he describes shopping such a script in the Prologue). Yet his analyses of series repeatedly use isolated episodes that are not representative of how I remember those series. This is confirmation bias/cherry-picking to the extreme.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 9:13:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The author's criteria for a show being part of the liberal conspiracy often seems to be that it isn't 100% what he regards as "conservative". For example, while acknowledging that "The Simpsons" targets everyone, the book classifies it as "liberal nihilism" because _some_ of those targets are conservatives. And in the Prologue (pg xi), he misrepresents the episode "Something About Marrying" (Season 16, Episode 345, 20 February 2005) as "propaganda for liberal values" because "the City of Springfield was legalizing gay marriage". However, if one were to actually watch the episode, or read a summary from the Web, you would find that legalization was a cynical mercenary ploy to bring in tourist dollars, that is, it was not support of gay marriage but exploitation of an underserved market. For show after show, the author equates a show's _mentioning_ a topic with promoting and propagandizing for the Leftist position on it.

Similarly for people: Ted Turner is classified as part of the liberal campaign (pg 61) primarily for being a pioneer of cable channels (narrow-casting), but also mentioned are instances where he deviates slightly from modern conservatism, for example protecting habitat even though it is through a buffalo ranching business. However, not Rupert Murdoch, whose Fox News is based on narrow-casting and whose Fox Network is denounced in this book as having a much larger role in the liberal conspiracy (by coarsening the culture). Go figure.

"Happy Days" earns its spot in the liberal takeover of Hollywood on the basis of a couple lines of peripheral, seemingly innocuous dialogue in a single (unspecified) episode (out of 255). This is attributed to one of the writers unsuccessfully attempting to introduce the subtext of a foreshadowing of Vietnam into the series (pg 116). So on one hand we are told of a lone writer unsuccessfully attempting to sneak liberal propaganda onto TV against the vision of the producer and the network executives (that the show be "innocent") and on the other hand we are told that all those people were part of a pervasive conspiracy. And since when is foreshadowing regarded as liberal propaganda? It is a basic story-telling technique, for example, it appeared in Homer's "Iliad". Author Shapiro points out that this attempt went undetected by everyone and thus is proof of how effective liberal propaganda is. Hold it: Its total ineffectiveness proves it was effective? By this point in the book you shouldn't be surprised that failure "proves" success, that an individual's isolated action "proves" conspiracy and that apolitical is political.

So why are "The Weather Channel", ESPN, Fox News... subversive? In flailing about to create a vast Leftist conspiracy, the author includes cable channels / narrow-casting (above), not thinking through the implications. This is a mistake he would not have made if he had made even the slightest attempt to be honest about this development. The conventional history is that cable TV systems arose to simply distribute broadcast TV in areas where reception was poor. In the mid-1970s, the technology and economics made possible distribution of additional content to fill the vast amount of unused bandwidth on the cable systems. The cable company owners found it highly profitable to include these additional channels, and corporations and entrepreneurs found it highly profitable to create channels for underserved markets. While the author cites valid observations about _some_ negative social and political effects of this change, attributing it to a liberal conspiracy is indicative of the author's mindset.

The book lists the top 15 current shows for Republicans (pg 255), but makes no attempt to reconcile these entries with previous criticism, for example "Desperate Housewives" (#10) which he had classified as having "deep political content" (pg 53). Similarly for "Two and a Half Men" (#15).

Similarly for the author's "The Best Conservative Shows in Television History":
#6: "Gunsmoke": Miss Kitty, one of the four main characters, is a career woman and business owner: a prostitute who became a madam (acknowledged within the show). And the show clearly implies a long-term sexual relationship (more than 20 years) with Marshall Dillon without the benefit of marriage. Yet "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" is condemned for "feminist legitimization" (pg 36) because Mary has a career in traditional "women's work" (subordinate, supportive of male characters) while (unsuccessfully) seeking a husband.
#3: "Magnum PI": Magnum lives like an indulged "trust-fund baby" -- lots of luxuries, negligible responsibilities -- in adolescent revolt against the authority/surrogate-father figure (Higgins). The author likes the show because Magnum is presented as former military. But Magnum has neither military bearing nor attitudes: He is immature, undisciplined, dishonest, sloppy, imprecise, avoiding accountability. Boyish charm may cover a multitude of sins in Hollywood, but not in the military.
#1: "24": Jack rejects the Rule of Law and traditional ethics for "The ends justify the means" (which may not qualify as even situational ethics). He has contempt for authority and the hierarchy. The show trashes the notion of "Character counts" by having anyone be trivially corrupted by the bad guys. The "plots" reject the belief in an orderly world, instead depending on a constant stream of deus ex machina. There are career women in the workplace doing traditional men's work, and not only is Chloe far superior to the men in tech, women are among the front-line warriors, shooting and killing terrorists! The horror; the horror! And while the author has the violence here as cathartic, very similar violence in "The Untouchables" had been denounced as part of the liberal conspiracy.

If you are seeking the unchallenging comfort of being deep inside an echo chamber, this book may fill that need. However, if you are a critical reader or intellectually curious, this book will be an offense (whatever your politics).

http://www.amazon.com...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 9:14:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 8:12:16 PM, sadolite wrote:
Time for Imabench to eat massive crow

http://www.limitstogrowth.org...

In case you havent figured it out yet sadolite, a website that claims that
"Nearly All Rapes in Norway Are Committed by Non-Western Men"
http://www.limitstogrowth.org...

and also has articles claiming "Coptic Bishop Warns Germans (and Everyone Else) about Islam"
http://www.limitstogrowth.org...

along with "Obama Punts Hispandering to Congress"
http://www.limitstogrowth.org...

Is a website that shouldnt be taken seriously. If this is where you get your news from it explains a lot about your personality and how easily you can be tricked into thinking anything.

If I was born in the 1400's............... Imabench you were born last night. That puts my wisdom centuries ahead of yours.

Typical for a fossil to be mad at a younger person for poking fun at his age.... Come on old timer, its time for your 6:30 nap otherwise youll get cranky and have a shotty bladder in the morning.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 9:51:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How can you be a christian if you believe the bible has numerous failed prophecies. Are you trying to troll when you list your religion as christianity?