261–270 of 964 posts
> I would be shocked if 60+% of American film characters are identifiably Christian How often do you see Christmas used as a plot device? Or a church used as a setting? Or a priest character? I would be shocked if context didn't imply that > 95% of American film characters are Christian.
Christmas isn't Christian
https://i1.wp.com/craphound.com/images/gygax-xmas-s.jpg?w=97...
I tried this experiment: read nytimes, wapo, fox, national review and politico. I wanted to get different perspectives. However, I encountered a bunch of issues: They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives. This is the most common form of bias I've come across. In the rare case they do cover the same thing, many articles either simply do not…
I highly recommend the Economist . Their articles mostly follow a dialectical format -- thesis, antithesis, synthesis, with about a third of the article spent on each one. I don't know of any other publication whose house style is so rigorous in this. It's also highly editorialized, but very open and transparent about the positions it takes -- any bias they have is in the open, but is in the final synthesis after the…
The issues come weekly with really interesting topical stories, so I always add them to my reading todo list, but they just pile up so fast.
This past year and 1/2 of WFH life meant, I now have about 50 issues to go through LOL.
I tried this experiment: read nytimes, wapo, fox, national review and politico. I wanted to get different perspectives. However, I encountered a bunch of issues: They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives. This is the most common form of bias I've come across. In the rare case they do cover the same thing, many articles either simply do not…
> They dont talk about or even cover the same things Yeah, this is a key thing to realize. People seem to think that Fox News, for example, just trots out falsehoods all the time, but if you skim the news, I'd say very little is actually factually incorrect. It's more about the story selection, who they choose to interview to get the quote, how they contextualize (or don't) statistics, etc. But once you realize that,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think that people have a tendency to underestimate the degree of Christian influence on their way of life, One is not a Christian because Christianity influenced their culture. > and the vast majority of people who practice xmas are Christian The vast majority of people on the planet are also Christian. Does that make "humanity" a Christian institution?
> The vast majority of people on the planet are also Christian. Does that make "humanity" a Christian institution? The point is that Christianity has become so normalized to you that you don't recognize Christian celebration as religious. The fact that you incorrectly think that the "vast majority of people on the planet are also Christian" proves my point.
No, it means that I confused the terms "majority" and "plurality". If 75% of the world were Christian, it wouldn't make "being human" a Christian institution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, dude, that’s what it means to have a defacto state religion: it becomes the default thing. A classic characteristic of state religions is that even those who do not believe will institutionally practise. So, for instance, even Buddhists in Jordan must not eat in public during Ramadan. Considering everything I was told about America, I was surprised to see that it is a Christian nation (I expected it to not be b…
> the state has official holidays for Christian events. If that alarms you, definitely do not go to Europe! That America has some unimportant vestiges of Christianity doesn't make it "a Christian nation" for any useful purposes. Yes, Trump did a bit of pandering to Christians which fooled precisely no one, but in any matter of substance America is resolvedly secular. If you want an accurate and useful model, think of…
For other readers, you can model America as parent comment or you can model America as I have described it. I think you will get more accurate predictions from my model but if you don’t believe that, ask other outsiders who have moved to America (and made it their home, as I have). Or come here yourself.
Unfortunately, American identity is tied up in these things. The so-called separation of church and state is held up on as much of a pedestal as “freedom” with predictable effects: evidence contra these principles is ignored or considered a threat. But come here and see for yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem of course is that not every issue needs a "both sides" treatment. Exactly. Imagine saying that it's important to be able to make an impassioned argument for slavery? To make it contemporary: Should I be trying to get into the mind of a Q Conspiracy theorist? An Antivaxer? How many conspiracies do I need delve into and understand such that I can make a passionate argument for them?
> To make it contemporary: Should I be trying to get into the mind of a Q Conspiracy theorist? An Antivaxer? How many conspiracies do I need delve into and understand such that I can make a passionate argument for them? Yes and it's disturbing that you (and many others) have no interest in understanding other people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For example, you'll almost never see CNN write an article critical about Democrats, Not true at all. Here's one critical about Democrats as being too beholden to progressives: https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/11/opinions/democratic-party-pro... Here’s one critical about the current Democratic VP largely for being too concerned with (and ultimately ineffective at) undercutting Republican talking points. https://www.cnn.c…
CNN is a bad example of a left leaning news outlet. They're quite centrist. The reason mainstream media appears to be left biased is because people use the government's political center as their frame of reference rather than that of the populace. The media caters to political beliefs of actual average American. The federal government caters to the center of voting power, which is heavily skewed towards smaller state…
"Compared with 2002, the percentage of full-time U.S. journalists who claim to be Democrats has dropped 8 percentage points in 2013 to about 28 percent, moving this figure closer to the overall population percentage of 30 percent, according to a December 12-15, 2013, ABC News/Washington Post national poll of 1,005 adults. This is the lowest percentage of journalists saying they are Democrats since 1971. An even larger drop was observed among journalists who said they were Republicans in 2013 (7.1 percent) than in 2002 (18 percent), but the 2013 figure is still notably lower than the percentage of U.S. adults who identified with the Republican Party (24 percent according to the poll mentioned above)."
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/ju...)
"Some of the professional groups have clear liberal leanings. People who work in the news media are almost exclusively donors to liberal candidates:"
(https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-show-the-political-bi...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Xmas is most certainly Christian. The modern American form is a consumerist orgy owing more to Macy’s, Coca-Cola, and greeting card industry than Christianity, that has less in common with the Christian holiday some of whose elements it adapted than the Christian holiday has to do with Saturnalia.
There are Christian (and particularly protestant) cultural influences and vestiges all around us, in many of our attitudes towards things. The idea that the modern American lifestyle is completely divorced from Christianity is only possible because of the way in which our culture has become naturalized to you.
Sure, that doesn't contradict anything I said, which was restricted to a particular response about the modern American commercial festival of “Christmas".
> The idea that the modern American lifestyle is completely divorced from Christianity
...is not one I’ve expressed, so if you want to argue against it, go respond to someone actually making that argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's challenging to not identify with one "side" when the other side loudly and proudly support policies that directly harm (or would harm) many people you care about. It's natural to band together when under attack, and in fact it's really difficult not to.
It's fine to feel this way while acknowledging that the "other team" has gotten at least one or two issues right. For example, lots of left-leaning Asian Americans agree that race-based affirmative action is unconstitutional, which puts them at odds with many of the people they'll likely vote for.
I identify pretty closely with one side. But certainly there are Outrage Machines on both sides, a network of media and personalities hyping up the latest calumny that the other side committed, for views and clicks. These machines can't slow down -- even if the other side has been quiet lately, all those people need something to do and talk about. They'll find something.
Have you considered not “identifying”? Just choose your opinions on issues a la carte. Or even don’t have an opinion on a bunch of issues. I started doing that and now I’m kind of politically homeless but oh well. I do notice that I can talk to either side now which is cool and no one automatically puts up their defenses.
I mean sometimes I fit with the far left (for example, mother Jones had a great article on private prisons a while ago), but for the most part I'm a conservative.
Anyway, my friend pointed out it's disingenuous to basically always end up with conservative views and claim to be independent because you want the brownie points. And he's right.
