Do conservatives not realize they look absolutely ridiculous with their conspiracy theories?

[woolfe9998]

A point of clarification about anti-vax, since some in this thread seem to be pitching it as a creature of the left. There are several polls which show this belief to be about equal between libs and cons, with cons being slightly more likely to be anti-vax.

http://prospect.org/article/vaccine-fear-mongers-are-wrong-theyre-not-ideological

Also, the anti-vax "movement" goes all the way back the 18th century, from the earliest days of vaccinations. Allegations of a more recent origin are incorrect.

 

[vi edit]

Honestly, what else do you expect? They come in, shit some opinions that they believe are equal to actual facts, refuse to post any evidence to support their positions, cry about no one respects them or their facts opinions, then tap dance around, plucking out a word to focus upon in an attempt to divert from the actual subject of the discussion.....

And yes, conservatives seem to live in a very black and white world without a damn shade of grey anywhere, although for rational people, the world's entirely shades of grey with idiocy at the extremes.....

It's definitely a very binary thought process. Good/Bad. With us or against us. This or that. When you watch things like that NRA propaganda rally yesterday at the CPAC it's clear that nearly every sentence they say is meant to trigger that rigid field of view.

 

[woolfe9998]

He is quite literally a political commentator as exemplified by his radio show. Why do you think he is not a political commentator?

Alex Jones is not a politician, and what he does cannot be called a news outlet, but he is a political commentator in my view.

You're entitled to that opinion. I've wasted a fair amount of time actually listening to him, mainly between 2006 and 2010. He mainly discusses politics when it intersects with his conspiracy theories, which is another way of saying that many CT's are political by nature, yet they are still CT's. The fact that he does at times mix in right wing political commentary with his CT's actually makes his CT's more influential to people on the right, not less. Caveat: I haven't listened to him in the past couple years. If he's more about right wing politics and less about CT's these days, fine.

 

[Amused]

He is quite literally a political commentator as exemplified by his radio show. Why do you think he is not a political commentator?

Alex Jones is not a politician, and what he does cannot be called a news outlet, but he is a political commentator in my view.

He is an environmental activist and his radio show is an extension of that.

Meanwhile, his anti-vax views have been denounced, not embraced by the mainstream left media and pundits. He's FRINGE. An activist with a radio show. None of his talking points are approved by any major left wing politician or pundit.

Meanwhile, Infowars literally calls itself "News" and presents itself in a news format.

 

[realibrad]

You're entitled to that opinion. I've wasted a fair amount of time actually listening to him, mainly between 2006 and 2010. He mainly discusses politics when it intersects with his conspiracy theories, which is another way of saying that many CT's are political by nature, yet they are still CT's. The fact that he does at times mix in right wing political commentary with his CT's actually makes his CT's more influential to people on the right, not less. Caveat: I haven't listened to him in the past couple years. If he's more about right wing politics and less about CT's these days, fine.

People are complex and he seems like he is not stupid. He is surly involved in politics, but not only politics.

Do you see the issue here though? Everyone is taking everything said differently. I find all of that interesting so I am responding to everyone. I'm not trying to push anything here. It does mean that I will post a lot though.

 

[realibrad]

He is an environmental activist and his radio show is an extension of that.

Meanwhile, his anti-vax views have been denounced, not embraced by the mainstream left media and pundits. He's FRINGE. An activist with a radio show. None of his talking points are approved by any major left wing politician or pundit.

Meanwhile, Infowars literally calls itself "News" and presents itself in a news format.

Fox calls itself news, yet also says its entertainment. People lie eh?

 

[brycejones]

Fox calls itself news, yet also says its entertainment. People lie eh?

Again, with the oddest hills to die on.....

 

[Amused]

Fox calls itself news, yet also says its entertainment. People lie eh?

Your sauce man, it's weak.

 

[Starbuck1975]

He is an environmental activist and his radio show is an extension of that.

Meanwhile, his anti-vax views have been denounced, not embraced by the mainstream left media and pundits. He's FRINGE. An activist with a radio show. None of his talking points are approved by any major left wing politician or pundit.

Meanwhile, Infowars literally calls itself "News" and presents itself in a news format.

There are three tiers of news:

Unbiased and reputable: NY Times, WAPO, NPR, CNN

Biased (more editorial but anchored to facts): Fox News, Slate, Salon, Vox, HuffPo, Daily Kos, Young Turks, MSNBC

Fringe (editorial and divorced from fact): Brietbart, Infowars, US Uncut, Occupy Democrats, Alex Jones, Mike Malloy, Robert Kennedy Jr, Rush Limbaugh

 

[Starbuck1975]

He was concurring with Someonesmind, that America's "left" is just as susceptible to crazed conspiracies as Republicans. So I asked him to tell me the equivalent to Alex Jones.

So far, nothing but weaseling and slime.

That’s because you are fixated entirely on Alex Jones, and defining him by subjective criteria. The only objective criteria are audience size and market reach.

The point, which @woolfe9998 nicely summarized in post 164, is one of influence.

I’ve already acknowledged several times that Trump is the first President to legitimize the fringe. That point I won’t dispute. If that is the point you are trying to make, we are in violent agreement.

I will dispute the claim that left leaning politicians are immune to the fringe. Both Obama and Clinton are on record making dangerous anti-vaccine statements at a time when the science was clear. Pundits, like Robert Kenedy Jr., were providing a platform to junk science beliefs, with political polling superseding science because certain demographics embraced it.

Everything else is a game of subjective semantics.

 

[MajinCry]

That’s because you are fixated entirely on Alex Jones, and defining him by subjective criteria. The only objective criteria are audience size and market reach.

The point, which @woolfe9998 nicely summarized in post 164, is one of influence.

I’ve already acknowledged several times that Trump is the first President to legitimize the fringe. That point I won’t dispute. If that is the point you are trying to make, we are in violent agreement.

I will dispute the claim that left leaning politicians are immune to the fringe. Both Obama and Clinton are on record making dangerous anti-vaccine statements at a time when the science was clear. Pundits, like Robert Kenedy Jr., were providing a platform to junk science beliefs, with political polling superseding science because certain demographics embraced it.

Everything else is a game of subjective semantics.

Still waiting for that Alex Jones equivalent.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Still waiting for that Alex Jones equivalent.

Still waiting on objective criteria

 

[HomerJS]

There are four tiers of news:

Unbiased and reputable: NY Times, WAPO, NPR, CNN

Biased (more editorial but anchored to facts): Slate, Salon, Vox, HuffPo, Daily Kos, Young Turks, MSNBC

Biased and sometimes anchored to facts: Fox News

Fringe (editorial and divorced from fact): Brietbart, Infowars, US Uncut, Occupy Democrats, Alex Jones, Mike Malloy, Robert Kennedy Jr, Rush Limbaugh

FTFY

 

[Starbuck1975]

FTFY

Fair edit. No dispute

 

[vi edit]

That’s because you are fixated entirely on Alex Jones, and defining him by subjective criteria. The only objective criteria are audience size and market reach.

The point, which @woolfe9998 nicely summarized in post 164, is one of influence.

I’ve already acknowledged several times that Trump is the first President to legitimize the fringe. That point I won’t dispute. If that is the point you are trying to make, we are in violent agreement.

I will dispute the claim that left leaning politicians are immune to the fringe. Both Obama and Clinton are on record making dangerous anti-vaccine statements at a time when the science was clear. Pundits, like Robert Kenedy Jr., were providing a platform to junk science beliefs, with political polling superseding science because certain demographics embraced it.

Everything else is a game of subjective semantics.

This is the only statement I found regarding Obama and vaccines. And it's vague at best. It really sounds like he is saying that there just needs to be more research into why autism rates are increasing. Or if they really are the same and we are just diagnosing more frequently now. I would hardly qualify it as anti-vaccine.

"We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Nobody knows exactly why. There are some people who are suspicious that it’s connected to vaccines and triggers, but -- this person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it. Part of the reason I think it's very important to research it is those vaccines are also preventing huge numbers of deaths among children and preventing debilitating illnesses like polio. And so we can't afford to junk our vaccine system. We've got to figure out why is it that this is happening so that we are starting to see a more normal, what was a normal, rate of autism. Because if we keep on seeing increases at the rate we're seeing we're never going to have enough money to provide all the special needs, special education funding that's going to be necessary."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-Barack-Obama-said-about-autism-and-vaccines/

 

[Phokus]

That’s because you are fixated entirely on Alex Jones, and defining him by subjective criteria. The only objective criteria are audience size and market reach.

The point, which @woolfe9998 nicely summarized in post 164, is one of influence.

I’ve already acknowledged several times that Trump is the first President to legitimize the fringe. That point I won’t dispute. If that is the point you are trying to make, we are in violent agreement.

I will dispute the claim that left leaning politicians are immune to the fringe. Both Obama and Clinton are on record making dangerous anti-vaccine statements at a time when the science was clear. Pundits, like Robert Kenedy Jr., were providing a platform to junk science beliefs, with political polling superseding science because certain demographics embraced it.

Everything else is a game of subjective semantics.

I like how you completely ignored my post about how Alex Jones has Donald Trump's ear and has him on his program/calls him/has white house press credentials, etc. Inconvenient facts?

 

[MajinCry]

Still waiting on objective criteria

Third time. Unhinged, red in the face, and shouts about conspiracy theories.

 

[realibrad]

Again, with the oddest hills to die on.....

What hill is that?

 

[Starbuck1975]

This is the only statement I found regarding Obama and vaccines. And it's vague at best. It really sounds like he is saying that there just needs to be more research into why autism rates are increasing. Or if they really are the same and we are just diagnosing more frequently now. I would hardly qualify it as anti-vaccine.

"We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Nobody knows exactly why. There are some people who are suspicious that it’s connected to vaccines and triggers, but -- this person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it. Part of the reason I think it's very important to research it is those vaccines are also preventing huge numbers of deaths among children and preventing debilitating illnesses like polio. And so we can't afford to junk our vaccine system. We've got to figure out why is it that this is happening so that we are starting to see a more normal, what was a normal, rate of autism. Because if we keep on seeing increases at the rate we're seeing we're never going to have enough money to provide all the special needs, special education funding that's going to be necessary."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-Barack-Obama-said-about-autism-and-vaccines/

That is the quote and you have to put it in the context of when it was made. He made that statement in Blue Pell, PA on 4/21/2008. He didn’t secure the nomination until 6/3/2008. At the time, Clinton was making a strategic play for the white women demographic, for which the anti-vaccine message was resonating stongly complements of the national stage Oprah gave to the movement when Jenny McCarthy appeared in 2007. Obama made a strategic play to acknowedge junk science in response to an electorate made irrational by irresponsible pundits.

It is also worth noting that Oprah also spawned other junk pseudo-science quacks like Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil.

 

[realibrad]

Your sauce man, it's weak.

So Alex Jones is news because he says he is. Ring of Fire is mainly about political issues, but it is not political and its commentators are not political commentators?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Third time. Unhinged, red in the face, and shouts about conspiracy theories.

If those are your criteria, no commentators on the left that I am aware of meet all of them.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I like how you completely ignored my post about how Alex Jones has Donald Trump's ear and has him on his program/calls him/has white house press credentials, etc. Inconvenient facts?

I acknowledged your point, I just never responded directly to you.

Trump is the first President to legitimize the fringe. That is not open to debate.

 

[vi edit]

That is the quote and you have to put it in the context of when it was made. He made that statement in Blue Pell, PA on 4/21/2008. He didn’t secure the nomination until 6/3/2008. At the time, Clinton was making a strategic play for the white women demographic, for which the anti-vaccine message was resonating stongly complements of the national stage Oprah gave to the movement when Jenny McCarthy appeared in 2007. Obama made a strategic play to acknowedge junk science in response to an electorate made irrational by irresponsible pundits.

It is also worth noting that Oprah also spawned other junk pseudo-science quacks like Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil.

I still don't see what about that quote is actually anti-vax. The only real thing that can be taken weird out of context is the "this person included" which sounds like he is talking about himself in transcript, but was actually pointing at someone in the crowd when it was said.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I still don't see what about that quote is actually anti-vax. The only real thing that can be taken weird out of context is the "this person included" which sounds like he is talking about himself in transcript, but was actually pointing at someone in the crowd when it was said.

He is making a deliberately vague association between autism and vaccines. Don’t take my word for it. Vox, NPR and health officials all criticized Obama, Clinton and McCain for doing this dance on the campaign trail. Specific to Obama, Vox retracted the “this person included” aspect of the criticism after video emerged that gave the comment better context, but still asserted intent in how he framed it.

 

[realibrad]

I still don't see what about that quote is actually anti-vax. The only real thing that can be taken weird out of context is the "this person included" which sounds like he is talking about himself in transcript, but was actually pointing at someone in the crowd when it was said.

The science on the link between autism and vax was not inconclusive. If someone thinks that him saying "We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate" somehow means the science is unclear if autism is skyrocketing is somehow valid then they are stupid.

He at best misspoke but it sure seems like he is trying to not take a stance that would push out those people.