the right-wing attack-dog philosophy


mabudon
Avatar
#1
pretty interesting article- it's short but I will only quote the opening paragraph here for smallness-of-copy/paste fans
Quote:

In his new book “Conservatives Without Conscience,” John Dean describes his journey to discover why some of today’s right-wingers have drifted so far astray from many of the classic notions of conservatism – limited government, limited executive power, reduced foreign entanglements, respect for individual rights, etc. What he found is rather alarming – he concludes that among many of today’s right-wing are streaks of both authoritarianism and a personality type described as “social dominance orientation.”

--
It mentions radio in the title, but it is pretty broad based and is almost a definitive checklist of control tactics commonly employed pretty much everywheres by the real hardline right-wingers. I am interested in seeing if anyone who objects to this can actually disprove any of it- I hope someone tries to, so as to stimulate discussion
 
tamarin
Conservative
#2
"Social dominance orientation": as soon as I see a term like this I know the con is on. Awkward phrasing always raises a red flag: put on your work pants, there's muck ahead!
 
Graeme
#3
That is quite the biased article (obviously)

it is completely hypocritical, it's whole purpose is to demonize the right.

The article authoritatively tells people to think of the right as being authoritative.

it is simply ridiculous.
 
Graeme
#4
not to mention the "godly" image it tries to make of those on the left.

Let me sum up that article for everyone:
"My morals are better than your morals."
 
BitWhys
#5
"biased"

what's that?

latin for "something I disagree with"?
 
iARTthere4iam
Avatar
#6
On the whole I actually agree with the sentiment about the talkshow hosts. I routinely listen to both Hannity and Limbaugh (Rush has a great sense of humour that is lost on most) and find them quite rude and authoritative. I also listen to CBC and NPR (especially Amy Goodman's (sp?) democracy Now!).
I don't think either extreme has it right, more often reality is complex and an honest assesment is difficult.
Impartial news is rare, I think that it is important to get your news from multiple sources.
I would not want to paint every conservative as authoritarian, more likely those that take jobs as media personalities like to spout their beliefs and would rather not hear what others think.
 
mabudon
Avatar
#7
Yeah, I didn't post this to insult anyone, I was most interested in the segment dealing with how the left-wing radio types can't use the same style and the reasons (well, possible explanations) behind the phenomenon.
it's just an article,tho, not like I'm tryin to start a f-ing religion or anything
 
missile
Conservative
Avatar
#8
It's strange that the Right wingers are always totally right,no matter what logic dictates, and everybody else is [insert the usual uncomplimentary remarks and name calling here!] Loud mouthed,know it all blowhards
 
s_lone
Avatar
#9
I find it sad when either side (left ot right) starts using insults and demonizing techniques to get their point across. Always ends up giving stupid and useless debates in which no common ground can be reached.

For these type of people, debating is only a way to boost their big fat and ugly ego.
 
Caleb-Dain Matton
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

I find it sad when either side (left ot right) starts using insults and demonizing techniques to get their point across. Always ends up giving stupid and useless debates in which no common ground can be reached.

see ann coulter.
 
Logic 7
Avatar
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by iARTthere4iam

On the whole I actually agree with the sentiment about the talkshow hosts. I routinely listen to both Hannity and Limbaugh (Rush has a great sense of humour that is lost on most) and find them quite rude and authoritative. I also listen to CBC and NPR (especially Amy Goodman's (sp?) democracy Now!).
I don't think either extreme has it right, more often reality is complex and an honest assesment is difficult.
Impartial news is rare, I think that it is important to get your news from multiple sources.
I would not want to paint every conservative as authoritarian, more likely those that take jobs as media personalities like to spout their beliefs and would rather not hear what others think.


I don't know much about rush, but hannity and oreilly are quite hard to beat, the way you describes hannity is really soft from you, from my point of view, there is no word to describes their behavior, they insulted the americans on air before the war in iraq by saying"we expect every american to shut up , and support the troops", it was kind of funny, but at the same time, you ask yourself , what push those guys to say such thing on air?
 
Logic 7
Avatar
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Caleb-Dain Matton

Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

I find it sad when either side (left ot right) starts using insults and demonizing techniques to get their point across. Always ends up giving stupid and useless debates in which no common ground can be reached.

see ann coulter.


There is no doubt,before, ann coulter was a man . there is full evidence.
 
Caleb-Dain Matton
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Logic 7

Quote: Originally Posted by Caleb-Dain Matton

Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

I find it sad when either side (left ot right) starts using insults and demonizing techniques to get their point across. Always ends up giving stupid and useless debates in which no common ground can be reached.

see ann coulter.


There is no doubt,before, ann coulter was a man . there is full evidence.

That would help explain her/his Adam's apple.
 
jimmoyer
Avatar
#14
All I ask is that everyone leaves Santa Claus out of
these sticky partisan discussions
 
cortex
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Logic 7

Quote: Originally Posted by Caleb-Dain Matton

Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

I find it sad when either side (left ot right) starts using insults and demonizing techniques to get their point across. Always ends up giving stupid and useless debates in which no common ground can be reached.

see ann coulter.


There is no doubt,before, ann coulter was a man . there is full evidence.

i dont think she was a man, but changed radically after her female circumsicion!
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#16
Hatemonger Michael Savage called for the extermination of 100 million Muslims but the right wingers did not bother to trouble themselves to criticize him. When it comes to hate, the right wingers always have a field day in their hatred for everyone they don't like.
 
agentkgb
#17
I think it's the same basic idea as neoconservatism.
 
athabaska
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

I find it sad when either side (left ot right) starts using insults and demonizing techniques to get their point across. Always ends up giving stupid and useless debates in which no common ground can be reached.

For these type of people, debating is only a way to boost their big fat and ugly ego.

Good point. Most western democracies have pluralistic societies in which the left and right, conservative and liberal, social democrat and free enterprise, etc. aren't all that far apart in philosophy. More of variations within a range of thinking. Populations usually split at no more than 60-40 or 55-45 splits in elections.

"Do you want vanilla or chocolate ice cream?"

"Chocolate, please"

"Chocolate! don't you know Hitler liked chocolate ice cream!"
 
agentkgb
Avatar
#19
This is kind of random but relates to athabaska's post. A bunch of politicians call themselves members of one party or the other but vote with the other party most of the time when they're in office.
 
BitWhys
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by agentkgb

This is kind of random but relates to athabaska's post. A bunch of politicians call themselves members of one party or the other but vote with the other party most of the time when they're in office.

-- - Arundhati Roy
 
BitWhys
#21
attack dog:

--
Quote:

The Hezbocrats, a roaming band of militant guerrillas seeking their party’s 2008 nomination for president, have most recently lobbed their rhetorical bombs at Wal-Mart, that cruel capitalist occupying corporation. The most recent base of Hezbocrat activity was Iowa, the state whose January 2008 party caucuses are the nation’s first measure of presidential preference. The Hezbocrats, armed with nothing more than Katyusha-grade class warfare rhetoric, descended upon Iowa earlier this month determined to take down Wal-Mart, a company they consider the nation’s largest capitalistic oppressor of the proletariat.
Leading Hezbocrats, including Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), attended rallies in Des Moines to slam Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer. Wal-Mart’s crime? According to the Hezbocrats, Wal-Mart has abandoned the middle class by not paying what they consider a “living wage” or providing its employees free healthcare coverage.
At one rally, Sen. Biden stated, “My problem with Wal-Mart is that I don’t see any indication that they care about the fate of middle-class people.” Sen. Bayh added, “Wal-Mart has become emblematic of the anxiety around the country, and the middle-class squeeze.”
These are spurious charges, considering the fact that Wal-Mart’s average full-time hourly wage is $10.11. Wal-Mart also announced this month that it is raising wages by an average of six...

Quote has been trimmed
 
jimmoyer
Avatar
#22
r-R--R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-RRRRRRRRRUFFF !!

ruff

RUFF !!!

R-R-R-RRRRRRRRRRR

GRRRR

RUFF !!!
 
mabudon
Avatar
#23
How dare they deny poor folks low-paying, no health insurance mc-jobs ? Why, that's the starting stpe of the American Dream, right??

That's a funny article, too bad there's folks out there who would take it as "hard hitting truth"
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#24
Gopher wrote:
Quote:

When it comes to hate, the right wingers always have a field day in their hatred for everyone they don't like.

How do they manage in their hatred for everyone they do like? :P
 
Curiosity
Avatar
#25
All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

— ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)
 

Similar Threads

4
The philosophy of Income Tax
by at-1 | Apr 26th, 2007
2
Philosophy
by Colpy | Feb 19th, 2006
23
Philosophy Question
by Jo Canadian | Dec 27th, 2005
no new posts