Bigmouth

[Ogryn1313]

By that logic, in all due respect Tracy, I must say the same of the Democratic party.

Ok, I can concede Christianity has influence in the Republican party. I won't go more into it and about our history as nation as that's another discussion in itself. But I will say this: each side has sold out to some ideology or belief system.

So, to speak on the Democrats:

People like Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnel, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, others...are proof that the Democratic party has whored itself out to liberal or far left interests.

It goes both ways. Both parties are owned by some religious or ideological camp. I don't separate religion from ideology in this context. Because sometimes political ideology becomes a kind of religion. For the record, average liberals are ok. But you have the far left who stem from them. And extending further you have the dangerous secular progressives.

So, Tracy, with this said I now present you what the true problem is.

It's not the Reps or the Dems really. It's the fact that political affiliation is now entirely based on religious or ideological views. It's the fact that we are losing the classic and traditional Democrat and Republican. They are now becoming the Left Winger and Right Winger. People are letting ideology replace intelligent and independent thought in this nation and all over the world.

In all fairness...I have hope. For I feel that the "in the middle" types of liberals and conservatives both are the last honest to God free thinkers. Right wingers and left wingers and splinter groups are nothing more than ideological sheep being led by a shepherd.

But the, for lack of a better word, "good" liberal and "good conservative could turn it around. For these people bridge the party lines. They tend to be less partisan based on how they feel about specific issues. Whereas many others just swallow the party line. The Dems sold out to the far left. And there is much evidence to prove this just as there is that Republicans allow Christianity to influence them. Ever notice that the anti-religion crowd are found mostly in the Democratic left? Think about that.

So, I think people need to become free thinkers again and lose this "us versus them" thinking.

[TracyCoxx]

I would agree with what you said Ogryn1313 with the possible exception of:

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

Ever notice that the anti-religion crowd are found mostly in the Democratic left? Think about that.

I am atheist, but identify myself with the republican party - minus the conservative right. But I'm probably an exception to the rule though.

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

So, I think people need to become free thinkers again and lose this "us versus them" thinking.

Absolutely. It seems to be getting worse though.

[Ogryn1313]

I have no particular religious leanings. I don't go to church and the like. I see the flaws in Christianity and its effect on society. Likewise I see things negative in secularism and atheism. I'm a member of a website called Satanspace.com. It's full of religion haters. The intolerance and hatred is shocking. I'm not popular there because I don't condemn Christians and Jews. I'll defend them when appropriate.

And the irony is, I'm doing what a Christian might call God's work. But not out of religious regions but for social and ethical reasons. Like I said, I don't follow a religion but not reject them. Nor do I reject atheism provided it is tolerant, fair and not based on hatred. I'm able to find something valuable in both things and see no need to reject one or the other out of hand.

Now, your other statement.

"Absolutely. It seems to be getting worse though."

This is worth exploring. To that end I submit this too you:

The rise of the internet as a media tool contributes largely to less free thought. Initially it might have helped to foster more independent thinkers as it provided us with a fresh new source of media which was free of the bias of television news, talk radio and print media.

Somewhere along the way the internet became corrupted in this regard. And like its media counterparts it soon became a vehicle for people to push their ideology and agendas. I'll cite far left websites like Moveon.org, The Daily Kos, and that awful thing Arianna Huffington has. Clear agenda driven bias. Far right groups do this as well. The internet makes it possible for anyone to push their view out there whereas before the internet it was more controlled.

In time legions of people embraced this medium but lost sight of independent thought. Ever notice some brainiacs on online forums are always quick with cut and paste info, stats, articles to back up thier views? Many can find anything online that backs them up. And the internet lacks a certain professionalism and impartiality that traditional news had. Or should I say used to have? The internet is mostly biased information available in many sources and anyone can use it to back up their argument. Anything can be spun, twisted about, and not even verifiable in many cases. Most of it second hand info.

So with a generation turning this it is no wonder many people lack independent thinking. Humans don't like to make effort or work, they want it all handed to them. And this internet is good for handing us whatever we want.

It's to the point now an independent thinker has even more work ahead of them trying to decipher things and filter out biased information. For this, it is best they rely heavily upon experience, wisdom and logic. And a dose of common sense.

What do you think about this Tracy? Am I putting too much stock into it?

[sesame]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

The rise of the internet as a media tool contributes largely to less free thought. Initially it might have helped to foster more independent thinkers as it provided us with a fresh new source of media which was free of the bias of television news, talk radio and print media.
Somewhere along the way the internet became corrupted in this regard. And like its media counterparts it soon became a vehicle for people to push their ideology and agendas.

Yes, internet is a new medium and is more popular that any other. Thats because you can interact with it, you can answer back. TV or Radio are one way communication, you can only see and hear and keep your opinion to yourself.

Its freedom of speech in the internet. Nobody is going to show you red eyes or shut you up. People, insignificant nobodies, non-celebrities can make a stand here, get their voices heard, faces seen, opinions read. Of course its the best thing that has happened in a century.

I think that there is enough free thought, independant opinions, original ideas spread all over the internet. You just have to pick them up from the infinite clutter. Thats because all of the participants of the internet are not bright enough.

Do you think anybody can make his way on a TV show or radio talk? No. But in the internet you can. It goes without saying that TV and Radio are biased. Do you consider everything you see and hear in those media as original and unedited chunks of Truth, do you? The internet is a far more verifiable source of valid information. You have encyclopediae, databases, official websites at your fingertips. Its the most powerful Library of info in the world.

[Ogryn1313]

And yet, such an unprecedented amount of unimpaired freedom is being abused. Freedom of speech requires responsibility. And many idiots abuse this right. Take the Falwell example. He had a right to say those things he did. And so too did his haters have a right to say what they do about him. And then, before his body is laid to rest all over the internet ignorant and hateful so called intellectuals are celebrating his death and saying vile things. Yeah, we are free speak like this.

But should we? Is it responsible and ethical to say things, especially when his family is in mourning? Was it right for Churchill to condemn the victims of 9/11?

I'm all for free speech. And one can be controversial. But we should all be moral and ethical. And responsible. See, we no longer have civility in debates and discussions. This kind of thing fosters hate speech and intolerance, dillutes intelligent conversation and increases ignorance I think. I don't blame this on the net itself but rather the way people abuse it. It's the people's fault.

Freedom of speech no longer means what it says either. Ever notice a lot of minorities use groups like the ACLU to interfere with the rights of the groups they oppose for example?

So if the internet as media outlet continues to contribute to the decline of intelligent and responsible free speech, then, in my opinion completely worthless and has no redeeming value.

[Bionca]

Ogryn, it's interestng that you use these two examples. Jerry Falwell and Ward Churchill with 9/11 as a connection.

You know that days after the attack Mr Falwell, on the 700 Club (Right Wing Religious program for those who don't know) blamed gays, feminists, and non-christians for the attack. Stating that the US is losing it's divine protections because of liberal morality (paraphraising on my part, but the direct quote is easy to find) and the mentioned groups are the prime examples.

So, yes Mr. Churchill and his "Little Eichman" comment was horrific. The media roasting he got was earned. Mr Falwell didn't wait a week before putting out some blame that included a good number of people who died on that day. Where was HIS respect for the families who were in mourning? Jerry Falwell's words were and are used to justify bias and discrimination against women who look like me as well as gay men and lesbians. Jerry didn't let people's bodies even get found before his face was on TV getting an unchallenged venue dole out some sweet sweet blame.

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

And yet, such an unprecedented amount of unimpaired freedom is being abused. Freedom of speech requires responsibility. And many idiots abuse this right. Take the Falwell example. He had a right to say those things he did. And so too did his haters have a right to say what they do about him. And then, before his body is laid to rest all over the internet ignorant and hateful so called intellectuals are celebrating his death and saying vile things. Yeah, we are free speak like this.

But should we? Is it responsible and ethical to say things, especially when his family is in mourning? Was it right for Churchill to condemn the victims of 9/11?

I'm all for free speech. And one can be controversial. But we should all be moral and ethical. And responsible. See, we no longer have civility in debates and discussions. This kind of thing fosters hate speech and intolerance, dillutes intelligent conversation and increases ignorance I think. I don't blame this on the net itself but rather the way people abuse it. It's the people's fault.

Freedom of speech no longer means what it says either. Ever notice a lot of minorities use groups like the ACLU to interfere with the rights of the groups they oppose for example?

So if the internet as media outlet continues to contribute to the decline of intelligent and responsible free speech, then, in my opinion completely worthless and has no redeeming value.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by Bionca

Jerry Falwell's words were and are used to justify bias and discrimination against women who look like me as well as gay men and lesbians. Jerry didn't let people's bodies even get found before his face was on TV getting an unchallenged venue dole out some sweet sweet blame.

I'd dare add for all of you Tranny lover "fags," that Jerry Falwell would include YOU in the list of despicable people that God hates. Don't even begin to quote right-wingers if you've ever logged onto this site.

[Ogryn1313]

Originally Posted by Bionca

Ogryn, it's interestng that you use these two examples. Jerry Falwell and Ward Churchill with 9/11 as a connection.

You know that days after the attack Mr Falwell, on the 700 Club (Right Wing Religious program for those who don't know) blamed gays, feminists, and non-christians for the attack. Stating that the US is losing it's divine protections because of liberal morality (paraphraising on my part, but the direct quote is easy to find) and the mentioned groups are the prime examples.

So, yes Mr. Churchill and his "Little Eichman" comment was horrific. The media roasting he got was earned. Mr Falwell didn't wait a week before putting out some blame that included a good number of people who died on that day. Where was HIS respect for the families who were in mourning? Jerry Falwell's words were and are used to justify bias and discrimination against women who look like me as well as gay men and lesbians. Jerry didn't let people's bodies even get found before his face was on TV getting an unchallenged venue dole out some sweet sweet blame.

Bionca, I feel the point I was trying to make might not have been adequately articulated on my part and thus you misunderstood me. In your reply there you seem to be drawing a moral equivalency between the two men. I'm not interested in which one is the worst person. That's a whole other issue.

The point of my post was to illustrate how people are abusing freedom of speech and being irresponsible in their application of it. I only cited those two as examples. In this case the hate thrown at Falwell after his death as an example of the hatred and irresponsible free speech of one group of people. In the case of Churchill the nature of one man using free speech for promoting himself at the expense of the victims.

The thrust of my point, which I failed to convey, is that free speech is being used as a blanket to condone irresponsibility and hate speech. I never defended Falwell nor attacked Churchill. I am simply trying to show that freedom of speech is a precious gift we shouldn't abuse and use to spout hate speech.

And part of my point is an attempt to show the nature of some liberals and most of the far left are being hypocrites. These are the main bunch who champion free speech and yet look how many (mostly in the left not the libs) use it for hate speech. I know the right does it too. But the right doesn't present itself to Americans as the intellectual elite who wish to save the nation. The far right, in general, shows an ugly face to Americans.

I'm sorry I couldn't articulate this better. And I've probably not done any better this time. But to try to make comparisons on who is the worst (Falwell or Chruchill) is getting off course and away from what I intended to point out.

Originally Posted by sesame

Its freedom of speech in the internet. Nobody is going to show you red eyes or shut you up.

Sure...not until any of these moronic factions decide to pressure ISPs into applying hefty fees to the submission of so much as a YouTube comment, so only the ultrawealthy, be they left- or right-wing, can afford to put their opinions online for everyone else to see (and grumble at their helplessness to offer any response). Sometime after that, the right-wingers (who've actually put in the time and money to execute their master plan[s]) will take over the last bastion of free, unbiased information by force.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

What do you think about this Tracy? Am I putting too much stock into it?

I think you're right about the effect of the internet. I also think it's so easy to find information - whether it's true or BS that people think they are instant experts on a subject without, as you say, thinking things though.

[sesame]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I think you're right about the effect of the internet. I also think it's so easy to find information - whether it's true or BS that people think they are instant experts on a subject without, as you say, thinking things though.

Ogryn1313 and Tracy, you two are only considering the downside of the internet. You are only thinking of those phony gurus. But isnt it great that you can access information from any search engine instantly? You can find anything on any subject, whenever you need!

Also, its another excuse to socialize. Think of the numerous chatrooms, forums, newsgroup acquaintances, friends you would miss out without the internet. You are meeting people and making friends from all over the world!

Or you just dont wanna admit the benefits and find imaginary faults? There will always be some people who abuse the internet. Its true for all new technologies. So dont zoom in on the bottom-feeders and blame the whole system.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by sesame

Ogryn1313 and Tracy, you two are only considering the downside of the internet. You are only thinking of those phony gurus. But isnt it great that you can access information from any search engine instantly? You can find anything on any subject, whenever you need!

Well of course being able to do that is great. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of people out there who misuse information they find.

[Ogryn1313]

I'm skeptical of any information found online. Like Wikepedia. Too easily manipulated and edited.

[hankhavelock]

How hillarious... isn't she the one they like to put forward as a Republican strategist on the tabloid style right radical station Fox News?