Ukraine Riots

[Michchamp]

define working.

 

[KAWDUP]

define working.

I don't think there's anyway you can distinguish between the two groups of listeners. Walk up such people on the street and you will find them equally well-informed, thoughtful, and articulate.

No. I changed my opinion on everything yesterday.

I will categorically state for the record that I don't believe there are any broad regional or personal differences between the North and the South, or an average Northerner and average southerner, respectively.

Take the average Michigander: they match up against the average Georgian in every way, shape, and form.

I may have different views than the average southerner, but I harbor no beliefs that my views are any more well-founded or well-reasoned than them. No one could possibly argue that to begin with.

I am not personally making the claim that the avg. NPR listener is any more well-informed or cerebral than the avg. Rush Limbaugh listener. In fact, I would be just as surprised as you would be to learn that it was true! Though I haven't seen any evidence to back up the claim, and if there was some evidence, such as "average educational level achieved of each audience," that itself would not be dispositive of the issue, since we all know that the more education one receives, the more foolish they become, especially when they are being instructed by teachers or college professors, who are uniformly incompetent liberal elitist buffoons. As they say, those who cannot do, teach.

So these are not sarcastic in tone in any way? If you claim so I call BS!!

Rephrasing the question, do you think responding in this way, is advancing the discussion (even the hi-jacked portion between us) in any way?

I said they looked like angry responses, and may have been wrong, but in no way shape or form are they serious attempts to actually get me to engage in either in the discussion I started, or to participate in the same stereotyping that you do all the time.

That level of sarcasm doesn't refute anything. Was that your intent?

 

[Michchamp]

it was not intended to refute anything, merely to ridicule the insinuation that I - or rather David Foster Wallace, who I was discussing - was going out on a limb by alleging NPR listeners are more cerebral than Right-Wing talk radio listeners.

 

[Michchamp]

...sigh.

 

[KAWDUP]

it was not intended to refute anything, merely to ridicule the insinuation that I - or rather David Foster Wallace, who I was discussing - was going out on a limb by alleging NPR listeners are more cerebral than Right-Wing talk radio listeners.

Well there is the argument, it is not an insinuation - I am stating absolute fact that that alleged claim has no basis in reality. So ridicule it all you want, it isn't changing the fact that it is just more rhetoric with little factual information to back up such a claim.

It is about the same as making a claim that all liberals are really socialist free-loaders, based on what I experience in listening to what little lefty talk radio is out there . . .

You keep thinking you're taking some sort of high ground by saying you don't "necessarily" believe like he does, and I'll keep calling you out on such a post when it is painfully obvious exactly what you believe on the subject.

Do I really have it wrong concerning what you believe? . . . or are you going to continue posting your sarcastic attempts to ridicule it without owning up to it?

I won't be waiting for a real response.

 

[Michchamp]

Well . . . um no . . . that isn't the belief we were talking about. We were talking about who is more cerebral. That is the belief that I attribute to you.

...

also, the full quote from me you took issue with is below:

...
The article surmises that left-wing radio died off, or at least didn't blossom in the same way because lefties, being a bit more cerebral, and racially tolerant, aren't as easy to rile up and get tuned in. You actually need to research a piece... and that takes more time and effort (see, e.g. a typical NPR piece).

at least you're only arguing the cerebral part. presumably even you acknowledge the racially tolerant part then. It would be hard not to acknowledge, as I don't think anyone on NPR engages in race-baiting like certain right-wing hosts do.

in my opinion, you can't really be cerebral and racially intolerant, but maybe you know some people like that. I don't...

 

[Gulo Blue]

in my opinion, you can't really be cerebral and racially intolerant

Then you might want to touch up this wikipedia page a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

A hallmark of the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century, now generally associated with racist and nativist elements (as the movement was to some extent a reaction to a change in emigration from Europe) rather than scientific genetics, eugenics was considered a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups in the population.

 

[Gulo Blue]

...and I did not know this:

After the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals.[61] By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California's.[7]

 

[KAWDUP]

also, the full quote from me you took issue with is below:



at least you're only arguing the cerebral part. presumably even you acknowledge the racially tolerant part then. It would be hard not to acknowledge, as I don't think anyone on NPR engages in race-baiting like certain right-wing hosts do.

in my opinion, you can't really be cerebral and racially intolerant, but maybe you know some people like that. I don't...

If you are making the statement that there are more racially intolerant people on the right, than on the left, I can see the case being made - the evidence is definitely on the side of the NPR listeners. I would like to think that I am not a racially intolerant listener, and I know many others like me, but to argue with that statement would be doing exactly what you did with cerebral, and I am pretty sure I would let that statement slide under normal circumstances. . . . but I also listen to all forms of news and news media when I can so I may not be typical either.

Well . . . sigh . . . I know how you love when I resort to semantics, so this probably doesn't help in any way, but here is the definition of cerebral - "involving intelligence rather than emotions or instinct". I believe that neither side has a claim to being more cerebral than the other. You can argue intelligent people should believe like you do, and have no room for intolerance, but there are gradations to everything. Think how many intelligent people believe in God. :*)

<ducks and runs, while I can>

You can have the last word, I have to hit the road. Leaving at 5:45, means I will get home around 715-7:30. Yuk!

Have I mentioned lately how much I just love Atlanta traffic?

 

[Michchamp]

Then you might want to touch up this wikipedia page a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

so... the eugenics movement of the late 19th century proves 21st century NPR listeners are as racially intolerant as right wing talk radio listeners? golly that's amazing.

 

[Michchamp]

...and I did not know this:

so it seems NPR listeners are really Nazis.

 

[Michchamp]

...

Have I mentioned lately how much I just love Atlanta traffic?

sounds like you should consider moving to an area with effective mass transit. maybe SF, NYC, or Chicago. and maybe join an environmental group that advocates for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels in general and cars in particular.

 

[Gulo Blue]

so it seems NPR listeners are really Nazis.

Well, you can't tell that either way from what I posted. What you can tell is that it is possible to be cerebral and racially intolerant, contrary to your claim.

 

[Gulo Blue]

so... the eugenics movement of the late 19th century proves 21st century NPR listeners are as racially intolerant as right wing talk radio listeners? golly that's amazing.

Nope. You're twisting the words. See above post.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Sorry, contrary to your opinion.

 

[Michchamp]

Well, you can't tell that either way from what I posted. What you can tell is that it is possible to be cerebral and racially intolerant, contrary to your claim.

yes. I was going to edit it simply to read "ah touche" but you posted before me

 

[Gulo Blue]

Speaking of who's a Nazi, Hilary Clinton said Russia was acting like 1930's Germany with regard to Ukraine while Putin has said neo-Nazis are part of the anti-Russia side.

 

[Michchamp]

Nope. You're twisting the words. See above post.

anyway, I guess I could get into it over whether anyone who subscribes to such views is "cerebral" but then we'd be getting into semantics, and with you and KAWDUP here, that will suck.

hope we get some good news from Ukraine soon...

 

[Gulo Blue]

anyway, I guess I could get into it over whether anyone who subscribes to such views is "cerebral" but then we'd be getting into semantics, and with you and KAWDUP here, that will suck.

hope we get some good news from Ukraine soon...

You could call it semantics, but you'd have to argue that none of those university-employed researchers qualified as cerebral. That they were wrong is irrelevant. I'd put that homeopathy movement of the 1800's and some of the past research into the paranormal in the same boat. Sure they were wrong, but they were living the life of the mind. Scientists are wrong sometimes.

I'm starting to think that we will ultimately get good news from Ukraine. If so, this is really great news. Military movement sways opinion, but I think it's mostly for show and not aimed at swaying leaders. The big deal here is that western leaders know that deep-down, Putin isn't actually crazy. So they're willing to genuinely threaten economic warfare, which they would win. Maybe that read is too optimistic, but that's what I'm starting to think.

 

[KAWDUP]

sounds like you should consider moving to an area with effective mass transit. maybe SF, NYC, or Chicago. and maybe join an environmental group that advocates for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels in general and cars in particular.

Flippant answer:
You go where the job is - at least once you've decided a job change is necessary.

Reality:
I really wasn't given much choice - my wife said I was getting too old for the 70-80 hour work weeks and 24/7 customer support (or she was getting sick of it - take your pick), and I couldn't disagree, but after that my input was rather minimal as to city destination, as the in-laws were either already located in Atlanta, or moving there themselves.

Do you use the L or other mass transit to get to work? (but then you aren't whining about the traffic - so it may not really matter in the discussion)

I seriously doubt joining such an environmental group that you mention will do anything to change traffic in Atlanta in my lifetime, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good suggestion.