US Conservatives to purge the Holy Bible of Liberal Bias, will stress Free Markets.

Remove all ads!

How about a headline like "GOP Senators Oppose Healthcare Plan"? Would you assume that's 3 of them, or 30? In my mind, that indicates more of the 30 range.

You realize you just agreed with me, in point at least? Greenpeace are liberals, right? I mean, sure, they're extremists of a particular bend, and run-of-the-mill liberals look at them as nuts, but then guess how we run-of-the-mill conservatives look at Conservipedia? It's the exact same thing. Arguing that there's a better term for the people involved (which should be used instead) is exactly what I'm doing.

 

Greenpeace is a Canadian organization that is now international in scope. Their ideas are of such a broad nature that they really don't fit anywhere in the American political spectrum of "liberals," and can't be defined as "US liberals." They certainly have an agenda in the US, as many international organizations do and I'm sure that liberals like myself can find points of agreement, and some points that we don't agree on. Since it's not really native to the US it's a bad example.

You may want to try an American political organization like the Green Party. I used to be a member but they are no longer a political force to speak of, especially since Ralph Nader has left them. Like many liberals and progressives, I am now an Independent and don't like to be defined by any one political party (because it's just not accurate). I think there have been a few good leaders in both major parties, besides Mr. Nader, and there are some good men and women in public service. But most of the rank-and-file politicians are just self-serving corporate lackies and are of little use to the country or the American people. But a lot of them are very good at taking care of themselves.

 

Chandos took the Greenpeace part of your post. I'll take this part, because this is also a poor example. Anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the last six months would assume a headline "GOP Senators Oppose Healthcare Plan" would mean at least 39 of the 40 GOP Senators. The Democrats might get Olympia Snowe to vote for it, and that's it. Anyone who is even slightly connected with current events or occassionally watches the news knows that the GOP overwhelmingly oppose the Democrats' plans to reform health care, so of course you'd assume the headline implied the majority of them.

 

I actually didn't know they were Canadian. I tried looking around, but could only find references to nations they operated in, not where they were based.

In the US, though, the environmental activists are generally of the liberal persuasion, as has been noted in other threads. Perhaps refering to Sea Shepherd Conservation Society would be better, as they have confirmed US members and a US base of operations (though they also have an Australian one, and the founder is Canadian).

Again, a good point, so how about a different take:
"US Congressmen oppose (or support if you like) Jail Reform"
Do you take that as a minority movement, or as the bulk of Congress? Not being an issue currently on the hot-plate, and one that's more central in nature (members of both parties feel both ways), I don't think it'll have the same bias.

 

How did this thread go from being about a bible re-write to a lesson in grammar? (And I fully realize that my 2 contributions up to this point have been solely in the latter category.)

 

Guess:
Because NOG still feels the need to persuade himself that the way he is (mis)reading headlines is not far out of the general understanding but perfectly reasonable - as in why calling conservatives conservatives does conservatives injustice. Because that's not an easy case to make his post are long and difficult to understand. That, and I might well err, boldly does assume doubt.

 

Ragusa, you could have avoided all such arguments by choosing your words more carefully. You're an attorney, you understand the power in proper phrasing -- you knew what you were getting yourself into when you chose the title.

There are ways to phrase things which provoke discussion and ways which will provoke anger -- your pitch landed "juuust a bit outside." [Baseball term there and movie quote, it is the playoffs.]

 

I don't have a problem with that statement. And if it was the topic of a thread, I would not be offended by anyone claiming that they were liberals. The environment is a core issue for liberals, so I don't see why you would think it's a problem for us.

 

T2,
if one puts his mind to it one can always find possible alternative interpretations. Some interpretations one reads wilfully, or chooses. NOG wouldn't have read it the way he read it without a certain ... let's just call it expectation. A majority without that expectation understood the headline perfectly well. And then there was the post itself.

The problem here appears to be one of mindset and not of wording. I don't accept that that puts a burden on me.

That said, yes, of course I could have averted it, had I foreseen it, but the point is kinda moot now, isn't it?

 

To make a point (albeit off topic) -- effective communication is only acheived if the listener understands the speaker. It is up to the communicator to ensure he or she is properly understood by a given audience. If your audience does not understand you it is not the fault of your audience. You could substitute "audience" with "jury" to shift the point slightly. 'Mindset' is a part of your audience (or jury) and must be overcome to have effective communication.

I personally found the headline a bit odd, but not offensive. Had the thread been in AoDA, I wouldn't have found anything wrong with it at all. But with the placement in AoLS the title took on other connotations which I thought would cause a bit of contention (which would be/have been counter-productive with the topic). However, I generally try to give anyone whose native language is not English a bit more leeway -- there are nuances which are difficult to pick up on unless you are immersed in the language (even then it's difficult; I have a Vietnamese co-worker who thought "going down on" was the same as "going off on" -- down and off are used interchangably in many parts of speech, but I had to correct her when she was talking about "going down on" a male subordinate she was upset with).

I agree it is moot for this thread.

 

That is correct T2 and Ragusa did achieve this goal. If you expect him to reach everyone on all levels, well, that is expecting the impossible. Just about everyone who chimed in on this one can read between the lines and understand where Rags was coming from. It's really just NOG who refuses to understand or maybe he actually doesn't understand where Rags was coming from.

 

I find that offensive. The rest of us don't need a lecture on communication from you, T2. What's up with this crap?

 

Oh, it's not me I'm persuading. Go ahead, guess again.

The issue isn't calling conservatives conservatives, and you know it. Try another strawman, why don't you.

The issue is calling conservative nuts conservatives without clarification. And, as I've been trying to show, I think you liberals would respond the same if someone were to refer to the violently vegan, the nudists, or the other wack-jobs of the liberal persuasion as just 'liberals'.

The issue is presenting the violent and borderline terrorist environmental organizations as 'just another group of liberals'. I doubt you'd object to me painting a group of environmental activists as just a bunch of liberals, but when the Sea Shepherd's assaults on whaling vessels on the high seas are presented as 'Liberals revealing their true colors", I think you'd object.

I understand what Ragusa intended, I'm just saying he was careless with his choosing of words (and I suspect intentionally so).

 

Speaking of lectures, I had a professor once who taught a really boring subject, but kept it interesting through the use of humour.

I liked that prof. Does anyone else like profs with a sense of humour?

 

You knew exactly what Ragusa meant. You just didn't like it much.

I'll be honest: I don't give a flip what you think about them or "liberals" in general.

Sounds like you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence, NOG.

I get your point completely, Splunge. I'm just not up to anymore "hand-holding" or pity parties this morning. I already have three kids.

 

Just speaking for myself here, I still want to complete Chandos' argument: You then played dumb and claimed that you misunderstood it, because you could misunderstand it. I guess you were out for some deniable mischief?

I think Chandos is perfectly right when he said that you understood it perfectly well, but chose to play a conservative deeply hurt by such gross, just gross, generalisation. That would be plausible only if you really were that dense.

 

Just to be clear, Chandos - my comment wasn't directed at you specifically. I just figured that, if we were going to have a completely off-topic discussion here (which is what this has been ever since post #7), then I might as well try to take it in another direction, and saw your post as an opening.

 

Ah yes, wasn't post #7 about when this thread started to go downhill?

 

Ah yes, sorry, I should have said "starting with" rather than "ever since".

Funny how I can say something and have it mis-interpreted.