pector@ihuxw.UUCP (Scott W. Pector) (10/20/83)
The flame is burning quite brightly. *CRACKLE* A friend of mine recently pointed out to me that if you look at any TV show, you will find that the liberal characters are sensitive, intelligent, attractive, clean individuals (the kind of people you want to go out to dinner with) while the conservative characters are insensitive, dumb (or just less intelligent), unattractive individuals. When I think about it, this was true for All in the Family, WKRP in Cincinnati, MASH, etc. My friend also noted that this also true for the show with Bill Bixby and ? who are co-anchorpeople at a Boston TV station. I saw the MacNeil-Lehrer show a couple of days ags and during the last 15 minutes, they had on two couples. One couple represented the Nuclear Freeze viewpoint, while the other represented the anti-Nuclear Freeze viewpoint. The former couple were intelligent, attractive, sensitive, etc. They were the ideal couple. The latter couple were relatively uninformed, paranoid, unattractive, nervous, defensive, etc. They were not the ideal couple. IS THIS REALITY? OR IS THE BOOB TUBE DISTORTING THINGS AGAIN? I suspect the latter. I don't want you to think I'm a TV addict whose mind has turned to mush. I hardly watch my TV anymore since the shows are typically disgusting. BUT, I do believe in fair play and representation. I do not subscribe to all liberal ideas and I do not subscribe to all conservative ideas. There are good ideas from both sides. Similarly, there are a lot of stupid ideas from both sides. Shouldn't both be treated equally? (Either both stupid or both intelligent or both equally stupid and intelligent.) AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...... Now I feel better. Turn the flame off. Scott Pector
jj@rabbit.UUCP (10/20/83)
Of course the news media distorts the image of conservatives. It's currently thought of as the "in" thing to do to knock conservative politics and politicians, so the news media, which after all, is nothing but another group that wants our attention and wil say the popular things to get the attention that makes them money, knocks the conservatives and boosts liberals because that's what they think will get them the most attention (and the most money). Sure that's dishonest. Welcome to the real world. -- O o From the pyrolagnic keyboard of ~ rabbit!jj -v-v- \^_^/ (pyrolagnic- from pyro<=>fire and lagnic<=>eating.)
shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs) (10/20/83)
>From personal experience, I find that the TV portrayal seems accurate (TV
accurate? must be something wrong). Conservatives *do* tend to be
narrow-minded, paranoid, etc. Some of those things are just part of
being conservative - of course, the conservatives use different words
to describe the same attitudes. Perhaps the paranoid stereotype originated
with SecDef Forrestal, who really did end up in a mental hospital.
My personal inclination is to view conservatism as resistance to new
things and reluctance to change, which is (literally!) subhuman behavior.
stan the l.h.
utah-cs!shebspollack@uicsl.UUCP (10/24/83)
#R:ihuxw:-53500:uicsl:16300023:000:2156 uicsl!pollack Oct 23 17:29:00 1983 Good flame!. I would point out, however, that this type of negative media portrayal does not only apply to conservatives. Feminists and environmentalists are also portrayed negatively. For example, although there are lots of good-looking, intelligent heterosexual feminists, the only ones brought forth by the media all act like Bella Abzug. For example, one time I was watching Johnny Carson introduce "an environmentalist." As the slightly built and extremely effeminate man talked about saving the whooping crane from extinction by artificial insemination, Carson cracked jokes about beastiality and insinuated that something was not right about the sexual preferences of "our environmentalist!" Your flame reminds me of something I've wanted to flame about, which is the "consistent idealogy" idea. Why does one need a consistent ideology of either "liberal or conservative" or "capitalist or socialist"? For example, Richard Viguerie has said that the abortion issue is the introductory issue for conservatism. "If a person thinks that abortion is murder," Viguerie (approximately) said, "we can convince them that the whole liberal program is wrong and that our program of a strong defense against communism, feminism and homosexuality is right." For example, I hate the colonial foreign policy of our country, whereby we seek, through multinational corporations and client regimes, to control the raw materials of other nations and use their citizens as cheap labor. But I still believe in individual enterprise and competition, and that anarchal capitalism is the best model for development and freedom. If Nicaragua were allowed to compete on the world market for coffee and bananas, and capitalized and mechanized its production, I'm sure it would outcompete the slave labor in Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Ecuador. Why does a socialist friend want to convince me that economic imperialism is a by-product of capitalism, that world monopolization and massive exploitation of all workers is the "goal" of capitalism? And now Reagan wants to send out "Capitalist Missionaries!" When does the brainwashing stop? Jordan Pollack
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (10/26/83)
From Stan the Lep Hacker:
>From personal experience, I find that the TV portrayal seems accurate
(TV accurate? must be something wrong). Conservatives *do* tend to be
narrow-minded, paranoid, etc. Some of those things are just part of
being conservative - of course, the conservatives use different words
to describe the same attitudes.
My personal inclination is to veiw conservatism as resistance to new
things and reluctance to change, which is (literally!) subhuman
behavior.
What we have hear is the acknowledgement that some people are narrow-minded
and paranoid. I agree. But why call these people conservative? I know
some people who consider themselves prime examples of liberals -- they
are fighting for women to have the right to have an abortion, which is
one of the things which is being opposed by the "conservatives" -- whoever
they are. Yet some of these people cannot believe that some women may not
want to have an abortion, not because they have been brainwashed by the
Catholic Church or the Right-to-Lifers, but because they actually think
that an abortion is wrong. And some of these people are on the lookout
for spies that might get the records of people they are counselling and
go out and preach abortion is wrong to them -- they are literally looking
for Catholic right-to-lifer's behind every bush. Seems to me that the
conservatives have not cornered the market on either of those traits.
What I think that this means is that if you want change and find that
someone does not want it, you get insensed and call him narrow-minded.
If he gets worried that you might do something to him in order to
further your ends, you call him paranoid. And now that conservative
is a dirty word, you can call him that as well.
I must say the word is getting over-used, for everyone is somebody's
idea of a conservative. A few weeks ago I was getting hate mail from
people who read net.women who were calling me a conservative for not
supporting their language reforms, and at the same time net.flame readers
were calling me everything from a "fascist commie bastard" to a
"damned irresposible bleeding heart liberal". okay folks -- what am I?
Maybe we should set up net.maledicta. I have much better and less worn
insults than those. These are getting boring. If even the NEWS MEDIA
knows them and salts their daily pronouncements with these insults it
is time we got new words. (though liberal and conservative will last
a long time in Canada, given that they are the names of our 2 largest
government parties, which are about as different as the republicans and
the democrats, at least nationally...)
And as for resistance to change being a subhuman behaviour -- hasn't it
occurred to you that it makes a big difference what change is being
proposed? Not all change is a good idea! By that definition I am rather
happy to be subhuman -- being human strikes me as a terribly amoral
thing to be.
Laura Creighton
utcsstat!lauraeich@uiuccsb.UUCP (10/27/83)
#R:ihuxw:-53500:uiuccsb:11000029:000:573 uiuccsb!eich Oct 24 17:18:00 1983 For an interesting view of the new class types who (yes, I'm generalizing) produce, write, and direct television programs, see `The View from Sunset Boulevard' by Ben Stein. I recommend it especially to the last respondent because it should forever disabuse him of the notion that the right has a monopoly on paranoia, small-mindedness, resistance to change in favor or fashion-cleaving, physical unattractiveness, etcetera. Meta Rosenberg [Producer of `The Rockford Files', on the subject of Middle America]: My God, they did vote for Nixon, didn't they? How chic!
holt@parsec.UUCP (11/01/83)
#R:ihuxw:-53500:parsec:40500009:000:74
parsec!holt Oct 31 10:07:00 1983
Bravo, davidl!!!!!
Dave Holt
{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs}!parsec!holtneal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (11/07/83)
>My personal inclination is to view conservatism as resistance to new >things and reluctance to change, which is (literally!) subhuman behavior. Oh come on now! If the comparison is between reluctance to change vs. eagerness to change--without evaluating the particular change in question--then it seems obvious that the conservative has it all over the liberal. If a particular solution to a problem has worked in the past, the it has a better chance of working in the future than one that's never been tried. If you imply that only liberals are willing and/or able to evaluate any given change, then that's a degree of chauvinism that you need to mention and preferably defend. Incidentally, I do align with the liberals on most issues. It's just that I am also aware of a need not to throw out several thousand years of accumulated experience every time an opportunity to change comes up. Regards, Neal Weidenhofer Denelcor, Inc. <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
rigney@uokvax.UUCP (11/09/83)
#R:ihuxw:-53500:uokvax:5000003:000:330 uokvax!rigney Oct 30 13:14:00 1983 I support the creation of net.maledicta (net.persondicta:-) for the advancement of the insult as an art form, and for people to flame away at each other with no thought for any form of reason or logic. The only problem is that it might get confused with net.maleficia, discussions of harmful magic. :-) Carl Rigney uokvax!rigney