Ed Right Wing Watch

[The Big Dog]

Maybe, maybe not. I'd hope you'd cite the source most accurate; after reading various sources, finding the descrepancies, checking their facts against other sources, etc. It's time-consuming, as I'm sure you know.

Well considering that the New York Times was the original source for the email scandal scoop, I think they are pretty reliable, don't you?

As for RIGHT WING WATCH's "scoop" on "Phil's Fantasy" I frankly could not care less, I was more interested in why people even bother reading such insignificant tripe and getting outraged about it.

 

[Praktik]

You shouldnt have to wonder anymore, people have been telling you why they read the site.

For me, its kind of the same reason why I read about anti vaxxers, or truthers - think it hits the same kind of buttons in me.

 

[Praktik]

Also have followed Dave Neiwert, the SPLC and Hatewatch Blog for a long time.

So Right Wing Watch is kind of the little leagues... when it comes to "Right Wing Nuttery"

 

[The Big Dog]

You shouldnt have to wonder anymore, people have been telling you why they read the site.

For me, its kind of the same reason why I read about anti vaxxers, or truthers - think it hits the same kind of buttons in me.

I've seen those posts, yet I still find it curious that some people take the time to post the ridiculously insignificant things they discover on RIGHT WING WATCH on websites such as this with what appears to be real concern.

Anti-vaxxers are an important issue, truthers are not totally insignificant, but what a reality show hack says at a prayer breakfast in Vero Beach?

 

[Butter!]

I've seen those posts, yet I still find it curious that some people take the time to post the ridiculously insignificant things they discover on RIGHT WING WATCH on websites such as this with what appears to be real concern.

Anti-vaxxers are an important issue, truthers are not totally insignificant, but what a reality show hack says at a prayer breakfast in Vero Beach?

Does everything people discuss that's related to politics have to be of a set level of value?

The man seems to be quite popular in certain circles. He has a lot of fans. When he speaks in this way, he is appealing to a mentality shared by many of these fans. I think that's worth commenting on. If you're not interested, no one is forcing you to join the discussion.

After all, a lot of the strongest anti-vax woo was promoted by a celebrity. Celebrity truthers also sway a lot of their more impressionable fans. They have fans, therefore they have a voice. Would you be this annoyed if the thread were commenting on something stupid Jenny McCarthy or Charlie Sheen said? In my view, it's the same kind of thing.

There's nuts on the left too. Plenty of 'em. Don't worry about it. People are just talking about the dumb stuff dumb famous people are saying.

 

[Praktik]

^^ Ya for sure.

I also enjoy mocking hipsters, hippies and "the granola way of life"

 

[dudalb]

Rather then bitching about Right Wing Watch,smart thing would be to have a Left Wing Watch,spotlighting all the stupidity and craziness on the political Left Wing...and there is plenty of it.

What amuses me is those who see the insanity of extremist on the other side of political specturm, but are blind to the insanity on THEIR side of the political spectrum.

The GOP's problem is they embraced a a number of extremists back in 2009 in a panic after the huge Democratic Victory in 2008,under the delusion they could use them and then control or discard them ,and now they are finding out controling fanatics is not that easy.

 

[Butter!]

^^ Ya for sure.

I also enjoy mocking hipsters, hippies and "the granola way of life"

Oh man, me too. I've heard dumber things come out of the mouths of freegan hippies and self-proclaimed "anarchists" than I've ever personally heard from a pulpit. (Not that I go to church any more! )

It's good old horseshoe theory in action. The extremes are funny and insane on both sides. It's enjoyable to mock their little figureheads. That's all. I don't go home and worry and toss and turn at night because Phil Robertson wants me to get raped and murdered so I'll believe in Jesus, or whatever the hell he's even on about.

I just say, "Hahaha, what a whacko" and then I watch Game of Thrones. I'd be surprised if a lot of visitors to that particular site didn't treat it in a quite similar way. It's just entertainment, really.

 

[dudalb]

I've seen those posts, yet I still find it curious that some people take the time to post the ridiculously insignificant things they discover on RIGHT WING WATCH on websites such as this with what appears to be real concern.

Anti-vaxxers are an important issue, truthers are not totally insignificant, but what a reality show hack says at a prayer breakfast in Vero Beach?

Point is a few years ago he would have been denounced by mainstream conservatives, but now they seem afraid to denounce him.

 

[Butter!]

Point is a few years ago he would have been denounced by mainstream conservatives, but now they seem afraid to denounce him.

Hmmm, I hadn't thought of that angle. I suppose that's disturbing.

Still not as interesting as the politics of Westeros though!

 

[The Big Dog]

Point is a few years ago he would have been denounced by mainstream conservatives, but now they seem afraid to denounce him.

I can hardly imagine that "mainstream conservatives" would have given a hot damn then or now.

 

[trustbutverify]

I'm not, Right wing watch is infamous for cherry picking nonsense and presenting it without context for the sole purpose of stirring up the internet outrage machine, and this is another classic example, taken (of course) to the next level by an incendiary headline about "fantasizing" about rape and murder.

OK. I like RWW, MEMRI, UN watch, etc... The entire point of these sites is to cherry pick particularly egregious examples of thinking and themes the operators believe are common in the group being focusing on, but whose members are usually savvy enough to avoid or dance around.

However, I understand your point. The same "...watch" strategy gets used to demonize Jews, Muslims, women, blacks, feminists, Zionists and so forth. So, even if the operators do a great job on context, translation etc..., justifying the approach is always going to be a subjective matter.

 

[Praktik]

Point is a few years ago he would have been denounced by mainstream conservatives, but now they seem afraid to denounce him.

THis is important point - and why I think in many ways its appropriate to discuss them on a skeptics board, I dont see how this homogenization of thinking is any different from what happens in other "movements" where self-identity is more important than fact and lining up is more important than sticking out.

Witness the fracturing in Truther movements as people toss "disinfo" back and forth as people fail this or that litmus test.

Why is "disinfo" all that much different than "RINO"? They are epithets of a type, from movements of a type.

 

[The Big Dog]

THis is important point - and why I think in many ways its appropriate to discuss them on a skeptics board....

One would think that one would start with it being true... although perhaps that is a subject for the other thread, while the point of this thread is related to partisan websites that seem designed to whip up the base into outrage.

 

[Praktik]

Perhaps your characterization of these sites is overly partisan itself, and rather cartoonish - and this also follows to your conception of people who read these sites.

 

[Butter!]

One would think that one would start with it being true... although perhaps that is a subject for the other thread, while the point of this thread is related to partisan websites that seem designed to whip up the base into outrage.

Whaaaaat?

It is true. He said it.

So what? Of course he doesn't speak for all conservatives. Hard Green loons like Pentti Linkola don't speak for the left either. Doesn't mean we can't discuss their inane comments in the context of political inclinations.

 

[The Big Dog]

Perhaps your characterization of these sites is overly partisan itself, and rather cartoonish - and this also follows to your conception of people who read these sites.

You think that pointing out that RIGHT WING WATCH is partisan is partisan, and even cartoonish? That, is.... well that sure is something there, i can tell you.

Wait until you hear my controversial opinions about the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee being slightly biased in favor of democrats!

 

[DavidJames]

Personally I can fully understand why someone would be so embarrassed by their peers and prefer to focus the discussion elsewhere. In this case on the messenger. Yes, pay no attention to the message, kill the messenger.

 

[The Big Dog]

Whaaaaat?

It is true. He said it.

So what? Of course he doesn't speak for all conservatives. Hard Green loons like Pentti Linkola don't speak for the left either. Doesn't mean we can't discuss their inane comments in the context of political inclinations.

I was referring to the claim that "Point is a few years ago he would have been denounced by mainstream conservatives, but now they seem afraid to denounce him."

 

[The Big Dog]

Personally I can fully understand why someone would be so embarrassed by their peers and prefer to focus the discussion elsewhere. In this case on the messenger. Yes, pay no attention to the message, kill the messenger.

Thanks, DavidJames. Another rock solid addressing the arguer and not the argument.