Political views and historical fact

[Punkus]

Lately I've noticed something going on that I have never witnessed before. Granted, I'm only 24 years old, but it's still something that makes me do a double take.

What I am referring to are things I have been hearing from the news, as well as family and friends, regarding the emergence of rather rigid political thinking in the minds of a lot of people. The event that got me to wondering seriously about this issue was something my brother, who is currently a junior in college, related to me recently.

My brother told me that a student in one of his sociology classes approached the professor recently and stated that he felt the material was being presented with too much liberal bias. Apparently the professor was a bit concerned about this student's comment, and at the beginning of the next lecture session he spent several minutes reiterating to the class that all they covered were historical facts.

It's true; the professor could have liberal bias. It's also true that I was not there. However, the class apparently does not focus very much on opinions, but on facts and figures. The incident cannot be discounted in my mind anyway, and I can recall a few things over the past year or two that ring of the same tune. My brother related to me another story about a year ago that one or more students at his highschool had once proclaimed C-SPAN had too much of that same liberal bias. Yes, C-SPAN: the channel that is basically a camera sitting in the House of Representatives. I've also heard odds and ends relating to the same kind of rough mentality, such as the story about a person being reported to police for having an anti-Bush bumper sticker. (Note the line that states the bumper sticker was not illegal)

Since there seem to be many intelligent and thoughtful people on these forums, I wanted to pose this peculiar quandry to you. What is happening to our socio-political culture? Is the way most people think really beginning to shift so dangerously away from reality? Are "facts" no longer what they should be? Is intolerance for anything remotely repugnant becoming the norm? Or is it just a strange semi-conspiratory coincidence that we are only now hearing about all the infractions against the lives we've grown fond of?

My conclusion is that people are simply becoming more closed-minded about a great many things. Associating "facts" with "liberal bias" bespeaks of something amiss in the mind of the person that chooses to think such. It seems what is happening is that we are moving from wanting to go forward as a society to wanting to stay where we are and close our eyes, culturally and ideologically speaking. This is not anything new, but historically progress has been made only when people wish to really scrutinize themselves as well as the world they live in, and accept facts which perhaps are not so appealing. And I'm all for progress.

I'm sure it's obvious which way I lean - but I want truth, not to pick a side.

So what does everyone else think?

[danzig]

Yes basically more people are becoming closed minded atleast in the US when it comes to political fence. The important thing to realize though and to keep in mind both sides do it. Also in regards to 'facts' alot of things are factually true but often facts are taken out of context of the broader picture, again something both sides are often guilty of. Just for example its factually true that at the begining of Bush term many jobs were lost but its also true that the recession is pegged/estimated to have started 3 months before Bush took office. The problem is people on both sides pick one side of the facts that backs their belief and flip reality to match what they believe rather then allowing themselves to believe what is real. We are becoming a society where what is real and true is simply a 'matter of opinion' which is highly dangerous imo since as the saying goes opinions are like :wub:s, everyone has them.


All you have to do is look at the intelligent design debate to see a prime example of this, people are pushing it be taugh along side evolution in science classes based on no evidence that it is true or that it will ever be provable while evolution is more or less complete opposite, there is evidence to back it up. ID supports basically use the argument that since you cant explain everything with evolution that it maybe false and since ID does explain it the 'holes' in evolution it deserves equal treatment along side of evolution. . What we *know* as people right now is evolution is how we are what we are, if some day we magically discover otherwise we'll no doubt change what we teach but you cant ignore reality and toss in every 'theory' people have on creation as equal with no facts to back it up. ID might or might not be true, I have no idea but there is no evidence to support it that is so it has no business in a science class if you want to teach it it belongs in Philosophy class. Got a bit off topic but trying to use it as an example of what the problem is that your post points at. Though I will say some teachers do let their political bias bleed thru, ran into it a bit in college and it was generally slanted towards the left. The problem is people cry wolf anytime they hear something they dont like that it HAS to be political bias sometimes it is sometimes it isnt sometimes you are simply wrong and just cant accept something is being said that you disagee with but is in fact correct. Both left and right do that obviously, easier for some to dimissed what they dont like as biased then actually think which just marginalizes the issue.

[Atheist Peace]

Yes basically more people are becoming closed minded atleast in the US when it comes to political fence. The important thing to realize though and to keep in mind both sides do it. Also in regards to 'facts' alot of things are factually true but often facts are taken out of context of the broader picture, again something both sides are often guilty of. Just for example its factually true that at the begining of Bush term many jobs were lost but its also true that the recession is pegged/estimated to have started 3 months before Bush took office. The problem is people on both sides pick one side of the facts that backs their belief and flip reality to match what they believe rather then allowing themselves to believe what is real. We are becoming a society where what is real and true is simply a 'matter of opinion' which is highly dangerous imo since as the saying goes opinions are like :wub:s, everyone has them.

You have no idea how much this frustrates me, sometimes I really can't tell what is true and what is not. I hate when facts are manipulated, as much if not more when it's people who I agree with. If only people would just admit it when they're wrong...but we both know that's not going to happen anytime soon. Spin, spin, spin...

[Ummon]

Two words: "Information society".

Now, information doesn't have to be necessarily true, sadly...

[1{H][NA]

american views have been distorted and i completely blame the media, both conserative and liberal. there is no more accountability in the media and people are able to spew out anything they want. remember when casualties in the NO was suppose to soar past 20,000? where i how they got tha number i dont know. no longer is the media the watchdog of the govt, but instead it has become a partisan weapon. the flood in NO was an excellent example.

and i think that most people today have become to self righteous and are quick to call attack opposing opinions before trying to understand them.

[danzig]

You have no idea how much this frustrates me, sometimes I really can't tell what is true and what is not. I hate when facts are manipulated, as much if not more when it's people who I agree with. If only people would just admit it when they're wrong...but we both know that's not going to happen anytime soon. Spin, spin, spin...

Plato's Euthydemus, debating/arguing with people like you describe is alot like that

Two words: "Information society".

Now, information doesn't have to be necessarily true, sadly...

More like information overload, so much noise (:wub:) that its nearly impossible to pick out the truth in the chaos. Kinda of sad the internet and its instant access to information at nearly any moment is a major reason of this, before in the past when rumor and accusations were let loose it was very tough for them to take hold and spread without some level of verification. Now a days of course all you have to do is start a blog get some people to read it and post any 'fact' and it takes off like wildfire, look at Katrina as a prime example of that. Huffington Post actually ran a blog article reporting that people had resorted to cannibalism inside the the Dome, no proof, no facts even ignoring the that it simply wasnt logical to assume given 3 days of chaos people would resort to such a basic animalistic nature so eagerly. Suddenly every household with electricity has the power of a radio,tv station and a printing press at their disposal and you'd think it would be good for society as a whole and its clearly not. Kinda of funny thinking instant access to knowledge and information would be a great, noble thing for mankind but the way we implement and use it its becoming a burden.

[Ummon]

Plato's Euthydemus, debating/arguing with people like you describe is alot like that

And though debate is the foundation of democracy. Infact, IMHO, we have the duty to debate (sometimes I do it even if I would have other, more pleasant things to do). This is what keeps democracy alive and efficient. Hopefully, offline (and online) debates will make us more like the ancient greeks on this aspect, (but without that horrible habit to feuding and transforming everything into a lawsuit).

[stop-3]

Fascism is a greatly misused word. Example - Socialists decry fascism as if were opposite to their beliefs, yet others (well, myself and others) see fascism as an evolution of socialism. Thus great confusion. See how usless human communication is! Pontificated thus, FASCISM (as defined by the red Musso) seems to be taking over all the world. This is of course very depressing.

[TheKwas]

More like information overload, so much noise (:wub:) that its nearly impossible to pick out the truth in the chaos.

True words have never been spoken, and you can see it every day being used by special interest groups. For example, Tobacco companies spend millions of dollars having "scientists" to "research" tabacco effects, of course, looking back on the issue, anyone can realize that these scientists were little more than information jammers. Their job was to merely push through complex, scientific sounding arguements into the mainstream that say tobacco is harmless and that you won't get lung cancer. The same sort of phenomenom can be seen in current similiar debates, such as Big sugar industy, where again, big sugar industries hire scientists to "research" effects of sugar on obsesity, and surprise, surprise the "scientists" declare that sugar doesn't cause fatness. They then make their arguement for sugar so complex and "scientifical" that it will go over the heads of the general masses and merely confuse them (while most people acually knowledgable on the issue and don't have any special interests as the "scientists" do can see through these claims with ease), so to create a state of affairs where the average person doesn't know what to think, and then merely goes about his normal buisness (which, if the industry is even successful before the big debate, will include consuming products by the industry in question).

The funny thing is that this is the second time Big Sugar has using this tactic. During the anti-slavary movement in britain, the Sugar industry was considered to be a supporter of it, and thus people were encouraged to abstain from sugar products for slavary reasons. What does Big sugar do? They create "scientifical" reasons as to why abstaining from sugar is extremely unhealthy (some "doctors" even claiming that one needs sugar to clean your teeth), and they create rumors about slaves in haiti and the dominican republic actually liking working as slaves for the sugar buisness. None of this information is really meant to be believed (although there are those that do believe it), it's meant to confuse the masses and make the debate to "complex" for them and to "depolicalize" them, limiting any real change in the status quo

Of course, the above examples are of ones that are already generally seen as absurd, but even know this tactic can have a massive effect on public opinion (or more generally, the lack of it) on issues such as Global warming, where the massive corperations that are the main beniefters from such pollution, will make the entire debate "muddy" with details and special interest "research". And of course the masses of people, not caring enough to find their way through the mud, don't even make an attempt at coming to a complete conclusion on the issue and just continue with the status quo (which is, of course, to continue to consume gas and energy).

I believe one good example, as brought up by David Suzuki, is the current large amounts and quality of hurricanes in the Gulf. Many of those who are disbelievers in Global warming started to push into the mainstream media these declaration that the hurricanes are a natural fluctionuation of the weather in the gulf, and that global warming has nothing to do with the hurricanes. When David Suzuki was interviewed on the issue, he only responsed with "Who said it was global warming? That has never been a claim made by the enviromentalist community" he then went on about how the entire blitz of anti-global warming hurricane information implied that the enviromentalists actually ever blamed global warming for the hurricanes, and thus, dirtied their reputation.


Either way, I'm just ranting now. I'll be quiet.

[Guderian]

Agreed in all points. Take the coverage if the Iraqi war...it was like watching a movie, the media wasn't trying to bring us the facts as it should've been, but instead entertaining us with military supplied footage of explosions and guided bombs. All i can say is thank god for the internet where people can post anything, if not for this source im afriad society will be completely brainwashed by government, corporate and special interest propaganda like it was in the past.

On another note i think many groups are trying to merge thier political policies with social etiquette (i cant think of a better word) for example:

1) To question the motives of the president is wrong in American society.
2) To try and understand terrorism is unpatriotic and dishonours the dead.

etc

[danzig]

Agreed in all points. Take the coverage if the Iraqi war...it was like watching a movie, the media wasn't trying to bring us the facts as it should've been, but instead entertaining us with military supplied footage of explosions and guided bombs. All i can say is thank god for the internet where people can post anything, if not for this source im afriad society will be completely brainwashed by government, corporate and special interest propaganda like it was in the past.

Yeah my main objection to media with Iraq is they were *so* eager to get juicy embedded assignments so they can get their 'cool' war footage but after the easy part with all the big explosions were done they THEN turned on the war and suddenly they are attempt to sell themselves as the source of truth. The media wanted the war more then anyone can accuse Rumsfeld and Cheney of wanting it, it was a great news story and you saw very few members of the media question the war until after they got live from the front lines footage. Its all fun and games when it looks like a videogame on the television but when it gets gritty, nasty, disturbing and personal in your face blood and gore its like oh no this is wrong. Too little too late media, honestly I hold media companies in as much distrust and distain as some people hold oil companies. Media whether its Fox, CNN, blogs etc are all out for the money what better way to get flashy headlines and breaking news intros then helping to create them yourself. The media machine must be fed.

I wouldnt thank god for the internet though, the internet if anything has magified the problem where any moron with a keyboard can play journalist. All they do is add to the news, some sites are respectable a hell of alot arent and are little more then rumor mills that feed nonsense and bs to the gulliable. Take a look at Jihadunspun sometime for a perfect example of it, posing as the 'truth' in news on the war on terror. What worries me is how many people buy into this because it tells them what they want to hear.

"Who said it was global warming? That has never been a claim made by the enviromentalist community"

True cant really remember any enviromentalist group make that claim but it has been said by politicans both in Europe and here in the US. Which is another problem today, grouping of people in an effort to dismiss them. Speak out in defense of Bush in anyway you are instantly a jesus freak right wing fundie sheep, attack the President's policy intelligently and you are a left wing nutcase. Few people are interested in debating an issue anymore because it means they are going to have to accept they are wrong on somethings since no one is right on everything (well except for me! ).

[Guderian]

I wouldnt thank god for the internet though, the internet if anything has magified the problem where any moron with a keyboard can play journalist. All they do is add to the news, some sites are respectable a hell of alot arent and are little more then rumor mills that feed nonsense and bs to the gulliable. Take a look at Jihadunspun sometime for a perfect example of it, posing as the 'truth' in news on the war on terror. What worries me is how many people buy into this because it tells them what they want to hear.

Mabye i should rephrase that to thank god for the internet and it's many sources so that any intelligent person can have a look at both sides of the issue and choose for themselves. It's still better then the media's one sided conservative or liberal fantasy entertainment that they pass off as the news.

[danzig]

Mabye i should rephrase that to thank god for the internet and it's many sources so that any intelligent person can have a look at both sides of the issue and choose for themselves. It's still better then the media's one sided conservative or liberal fantasy entertainment that they pass off as the news.

Maybe but Im too worried too many people will choose to believe stuff like this http://www.halturnershow.com/DiversF...turedLevy.html
Internet worries me alot lately since for every good source there are 10 bad ones and I think it has a real chance to be dangerous and damaging long term with no accountabilty. Not many people actively seek out sources that are in direct opposition to their views to get the other side of a story. So you get people who have right wing beliefs going off to Little Green Footballs for news and left wing people going to say Democratic Underground, that is the danger imo that we'll all have our nice customized news to our political beliefs and not expose ourselves to different views and the internet only makes that alot easier to do. Alot of people and Ill guess its the majority dont like to have their views challenged so while its a great source to those people who DO its a possible danger because so many dont. When news is starting to be tailored to specific audiences it should raise alot of red flags, somewhere we've lost the line between news and commentary and end up confusing the two alot.

[Muizer]

friends, regarding the emergence of rather rigid political thinking in the minds of a lot of people.

Perhaps globalization has a part in it too. Consider this: in a small closed community, interaction in everyday life would act as a barrier against ideological/religious etc. fragmentation. These days, you can pretty much choose what "world" you want to belong to, by selecting information sources that reinforce your views. Problem is that when you get to interact with people in everyday life, including the classroom, you're bound to run into some whose beliefs differ vastly from your own.

The world of Science in contrast is one where you're not supposed to "pick and choose" facts. If results are verifiable for everyone, you have to accept them and, if necessary, adjust your theories accordingly.

An interesting question to ask is what the origin of the "liberal bias" would be. I can Imagine it could go like this: progressives enlist science on their side because it allows them to challenge the status quo. The opposite, conservative, stance is to dismiss science as a basis for policy for that same reason and emphasize ethics instead. Result: progressives are free to shop selectively amongst scientific findings. Put a conservative in University and he'll find there a lot of ideas he thinks of as "progressive", but he won't recognize criticism of these ideas because it isn't of the conservative type.

Muizer

[Bwaho]

It's true; the professor could have liberal bias

That's nothing, one of my teachers used to preach socialism during his lessons... he always managed to squeeze something in

[Punkus]

I suppose what bothers me is that I wonder if my own bias is skewing my interpretation of the facts. After all, spin goes both ways. Regardless, it seems rather obvious to me that the freedom of information seems to be getting the boot, regardless of my personal views. It's very easy to say a certain statement has liberal, conservative, or *any* kind, of bias, but is it really so hard nowadays to establish the truth of rather obvious facts?

If you ask me, an inherent distrust in all public sources of information(save a select few) is being bred. It isn't pandemic; in fact, it's rather tame compared to the rest of human history. But a step backwards is still a step in the wrong direction.

[danzig]

If you ask me, an inherent distrust in all public sources of information(save a select few) is being bred. It isn't pandemic; in fact, it's rather tame compared to the rest of human history. But a step backwards is still a step in the wrong direction.

Its tame currently but its probably going to get worse. Look at the impact media can have when it is sloppy, the news report on korans being flushed down the toilet in Gitmo for example without really enough solid evidence to run with the story and of course the truth turned out to be alot less then the article stated but the damage had already done. Now toss in political bias into that same type of reporting and you are probably going to eventually get people killed. We've gone from a society that use to think of everything in terms of black and white, right and wrong then we slowly moved towards well its not that clear cut which is where we should be but now we've moved or rather moving into an era where there is absolutely NO right or wrong, just opinion. Take today's media and put it back in 1940s and you'd have someone at BBC or NY Times justifying German's conquest of europe, well you know they suffered alot under Versailles and then the depression and really they were given a raw deal by the French, Brits and America so it stands to reason they reached a point of enough is enough.

[The Knight 2100]

The problem today is that everyone thinks they're an expert on everything. They think that if they watch CNN for a few hours, they're suddenly an expert on the state of world affairs. I highly doubt that somebody who lives on the other side of the world from Iraq and just watches CNN or FOX or goes to blogs on the internet REALLY knows about what's going on in Iraq. They may talk like they do, but they're only just recycling what they've been told by the media. So all they really know is what the media wants them to know. And the scary thing is that a few individuals in the media decide what people are going to know.

It is human nature to overindulge. In situations where factors like time, cost, effort, energy, restrictions, the threat of punishment are negligable or non-existent, people will gorge themselves. Since someone can go to whatever source they want with ease, they will simply listen to the side they agree with the most, and then entrench themselves in that side's view points.

But really, I think that most people are fairly open to the other side. There are many people who may be socially conservative but politically liberal, or vice versa. I think that it's pretty rare to find people who will completely agree 100% with what is "conservative" or "liberal". Most people seem to be capable of agreeing with both sides depending on the issue.

[Big War Bird]

I am reminded of the old say that there are three types of lies - lies. damned lies and statistics.

Bending the facts to political ends is as old as politics itself.