|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Feb 5, 2014 12:21:42 GMT
Nowadays it is not about whether the BBC is biased or not, or in what areas do they show their continuing agenda in defiance of their charter, but how blatant they are, lacking all pretence at balance.
Tube workers have gone on strike in London, negatively affecting millions of people trying to get to work and go about their day. Do you imagine for a moment that most people are in support of this strike?
Well if you follow the BBC you might think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by steevo on Feb 5, 2014 21:51:01 GMT
I've emphasized a point for years in the States. "Bias" should no longer be used to describe and define big media. I feel most conservative/libertarian grassroot types here know now it's willful manipulation and dismiss as increasingly insignificant partiality that prevents objectivity or any leftist self-delusion. You know I've emphasized this time and again here too and in past years, contrary to the present, argued the point to no clear cut avail. But I can still get frustrated with those who don't see logical deduction that should smack in the face especially now because the point is so very critical. It's still not palatable for them and by "them" I mean those on the right. They can feel it's too easily discredited, after all there are plenty of half-way informed public who may not be leftist but don't read between the lines nor understand a superficial smile and intent, i.e. Barack Obama. Or they simply don't wanna acknowledge a darker side of human nature with such power to deceive and direct our nation to future destruction. It's also frustrating for me to read people define the "progressive" Left as liberal. How out of whack is that, really! Anyway I hope to see the day where the term "bias" defining the left-wing media will be replaced with a readily accepted "agenda-driven". That's not to imply your site needs a name change  But ongoing implications can still be profoundly misleading affecting understanding of intent -something so very important if not necessary to actually establish a definition. A definition that defines, in fact, the enemy. |
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Feb 5, 2014 22:20:39 GMT
By coincidence I commented on an article today in the Commentator What motivates the Left: Envy or Greed?My comment went thus: I think LEFT should be separated into 2 distinct adherents.
Those who use supposed left-wing policies, stated as if it makes them appear caring or concerned, to achieve or increase power for themselves. Their insidious hypocrisy is usually easily evident.
For them LEFT = Lies Evading Factual Truths
Then there are those who believe adopting left-wing propaganda makes them caring and concerned. Clearly they have never really thought through the issues presented that they are quick to adopt.
For them: LEFT = Loving Everyone Forsaking ThoughtI think the biggest hurdle to many people actually realising just how twisted the BBC and the like are, is it makes their world more negative than they want to contemplate. They prefer the illusion to reality, and the BBC is happy to provide them with the delusion of reality. If its any consolation though, I believe that as people are being increasingly negatively affected by the changes being perpetrated around them, eventually it will be less negative to see what the BBC has really been doing. It's like somebody sailing the ocean with a small leak in their boat. They don't want to spoil the trip so they avoid dealing with it, pretending everything is okay. But as the water inside the boat rises higher and higher eventually they know they have to deal with the leak or they will be faced with a far worse reality. |
|
|
|
Post by steevo on Feb 6, 2014 10:34:55 GMT
I can relate but I'd angle or describe their influence different, I think living here may influence that. I can't help but emphaize the shallow symbolic ease and trendy acceptance on the one hand and just as significant, resentment and rejection of traditional moral/ethical standards on the other. They want what amounts to image legitimized in pervasive political correctness because they can't stand personal responsibility and accountability. They can truly hate the potential for judgment and guilt yet are all too willing to judge and project guilt upon the right.
And I would blend the 2 adherents because even though the second can easily apply to the common citizen, it also applies to those seeking power although they may indeed be more hypocritical with much less of conviction. But I can understand why you've separated the two, and distinction does bring clarity.
I find your final point, interesting and I say that with an affectionate smile this isn't the first time  I think there's a lot of truth there but I think there's also a difference between the two of us that's been discussed before. You see it all leading to an eventual positive conclusion. I don't have that confidence.
I've mentioned before here a good book called Liberal Fascism. The subject easily applies here so I thought I'd post this fun link Who goes Nazi? |
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Feb 6, 2014 16:18:33 GMT
First off Steevo I want to say I think this is a valuable and important discussion on our part and may well help others to think about these dynamics to better consider and understand for themselves I don't see that we're too far apart on our perceptions, and I can definitely see quite a bit of common ground. Re: Speaking of the first group - they want power. They will not get power from keeping things as they were but only by seeing the change that they can then claim responsibility for, regardless of true 'value'. Psychologically, if we look at what type of being wants or needs power, then its fair to assume they have a low self esteem that they are trying to compensate for. For that reason it's not by chance we seem to have so many of these types in media. They actually don't do anything other than pontificate on the actions of others. As the saying goes: Those that can - do; Those that can't - teach; Those that can't teach - administrate; And those that can't do any of the preceding - are journalists. Now journalists find themselves in the position where they can sway huge proportions of public opinion - hard for them to resist, and make themselves feel like they serve a real value - way beyond just reporting the pertinent facts that allows anybody to think it through for themselves. I think it's fair to blend both types as you've indicated, inasmuch as they are both mentally challenged. They suffer from a poor self image because they are conscious of poor mental ability. Unable to really think something through, and consider the many dimensions surrounding any issue, they cling to what they consider 'safe' options that present themselves as moving forwards, yet is quite the opposite. The only difference between the two is one wants the power that this ideology brings, while the other wants to feel that they are progressive, and therefore must be advanced thinkers. I think too there is a definite parallel and great similarities between the LEFT and radical Islamists. We have the Imams and those using Islam to present themselves as all knowing, and those who follow it to be holier than thou. All the more extreme because they actually have little or nothing to show in the way of contributions to humanity, and are willing to destroy the world to pursue their ideology. Oh yes - all of those discussed would definitely go Nazi, and are in fact - going that way. Just another name for them. |
|
|
|
Post by steevo on Feb 6, 2014 20:15:49 GMT
I didn't comment on their desire for power because I was emphasizing difference in my perception. I agree with that emphasis in your first point of adherence. But I don't think many in high places here are necessarily motivated for change they can claim responsibility as if deriving a personal sense of accomplishment for the betterment of society. I'm that cynical which probably won't surprise you. There are some motivated by some sense of achievement they truly believe enlightened regardless of actual value but left-wing consequences can be seen for decades now and future results deduced and predicted. The raw power of control at the destructive expense of so very many is the ultimate objective and conclusion. That's so sinister, if not for anything but total self-centered superiority, it's hard for me to to believe they care about any kind of achievement except methods of deception, elimination of enemies etc. (think the rise of the Nazi party). In fact their only sense of achievement is the accomplishment of power itself, well not to mention enslavement so they can take and use at will.
When you say low self-esteem, that's another perception I won't disagree but wouldn't use to define. Psychologists and Sociologists use the term to define practically all inadequacies today but what is missing is the moral or true guilt. I know you're not excusing these people but the term for me and maybe it's because I have lived here doesn't properly address gut motivation and intent. I prefer to understand the Left how I do all of us, we are born selfish beings. There's propensity in all of us to control others for power. There's also the propensity to hate. Privilege, wealth, education, popularity... all factors that supposedly contribute to self-esteem can become meaningless when trying to understand... evil. In the examples you've used and intelligently so, for me there's the inference there's factors beyond the control of individuals to think and act according to their own will. Or, these people would be more fulfilled and truly happy if they were like you and me. But I don't believe that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Feb 6, 2014 23:24:43 GMT
As far as I can see we are in total agreement in your first paragraph. There are just a few points in the second that I just want to clarify. Yes absolutely, we are all born selfish. Anybody who believes they act selflessly is deluding themselves. There may be an initial propensity to control others for power, but anybody who thinks that through would realise that if one could really do that it would be hell. Any intelligent being would choose harmony and free will over power, which is why I say those that desire power act out of low self esteem. Otherwise they would have thought it through completely and would be on a different course. I see self esteem as something obtained through self knowledge and respect for ones own values, regardless of outer trappings that are normally associated with 'success'. For your final sentence I would use the example of a radical Islamist. They see anybody who doesn't think or accept the premises the way they do as worthy of death. For us this is insanity. Would they be more fulfilled and happy if they could really confront the real reasons they have gone down the path they have. and free themselves from that dynamic? Undoubtedly. If only we knew how to guide them. Great discussion |
|
|
|
Post by steevo on Feb 7, 2014 1:01:05 GMT
I'm glad you're responding too. We control others throughout our lives it's a matter of degrees. Mere conversation and the desire or hope to persuade can be control from indirect to direct. You define "intelligence" as requiring harmony and the lack of control or real power over others. That's what makes Teddy's intelligence and probably most today. I define those qualities as wisdom and humaneness, separate from intelligence which in and of itself is largely soulless. Mohammed's manipulative skills and ruthless opportunism made him intelligent. The difference, I believe, is yours is morally good intelligence and his, evil. You'll find many, many today who consider the ability and power to get what they want (ultimate power being control over others) even if by any means possible, Intelligent with a capital I. Yours is no more natural according to human nature, the history of the human race bearing witness. Democracy and free will has been a rather brief experiment and aberration in grand scheme of man's quest for power. The difference between us can be quite significant to me, there's been a number of examples and themes of interpretation posted I've only touched upon when responding with shall I say, a form of disagreement. At times our entire view of the Left's methods and reasoning can be different, as well as understanding consequences in broader context. I'd rather not get into that but just saying mate. But I do find these discussions help me understand you, and even myself? And for what it's worth, I wouldn't be here if I didn't find you as supremely noble as I know I am! |
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Feb 7, 2014 15:13:36 GMT
Thanks for that lovely sentiment Steevo - I'm really touched. Know that it's mutual.
It also seems to touch on the case in point. We have both seen that receiving and giving praise freely and deservedly is worth far more than forcing others to do it. It's another world that we determined long ago is the one we want to inhabit, and was worth far more than sheer power.
I see your distinction regarding 'intelligence'. There is that of the brain, and that of the mind. The former is as you say 'soulless'. The latter incorporates all of our considered values and visions, born out of stimulation and experience.
I try to understand the dynamics that make a being like Mohammed et al. Those that would choose dominance over harmony. It's what I see as derived from low self esteem - wherein they can only feel self worth by controlling others. The fact that they pursue this 'worth' to the exclusion of any other dynamic, shows the lack of balance within. I would guess that they must live in an inner hell, which is why they don't mind inflicting it on others. The more the merrier.
As far as our nature is concerned, then I would say in our evolution we have spent far more time working together, in the days of hunter gatherers, than apart. It's only fairly recently in human development, since salt was discovered to preserve meat, that we could develop as individuals, distinct from each other, with the real concept of self and selfish becoming prevalent. Perhaps therein lies the present problem for mankind - incorporating the values of the latter with those of the former.
|
|
|
|
Post by steevo on Feb 7, 2014 19:30:29 GMT
I try to keep in mind the fundamentalist argument the Left use to justify statist control. They can bypass the moral/ethical reasoning you and I believe justified, and also take it to man's origins or gut nature and the depths of our philosophical presumptions. They know we cannot live together and function as a society without order so they can exploit the need for control and 'care' that will be increasingly difficult to resist and/or even morally dispute as the theme will always be based or angled on basics of human nature and the ultimate motivation for us all: survival. While they do their best to to manipulate, delude and destroy all we know is good and necessary enabling us to survive, they are emboldened with their 'values' as necessary and even superior.
The difference between the two of us as time continues is I see the establishment of their plan becoming more difficult to resist as the individual becomes less empowered and more dependent. Because there will also be an increase in resistance with those who can remain capable, you see the eventual ability to defeat the enemy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Feb 7, 2014 20:29:10 GMT
I hope it's some consolation that history supports the view that ultimately tyrants meet their end, besides the inevitability of death for all of us.  Months before this picture was taken he was sitting on gold plated toilet seats. They sow the seeds of their own destruction. |
|
But ongoing implications can still be profoundly misleading affecting understanding of intent -something so very important if not necessary to actually establish a definition. A definition that defines, in fact, the enemy.
I think there's a lot of truth there but I think there's also a difference between the two of us that's been discussed before. You see it all leading to an eventual positive conclusion. I don't have that confidence.