Seceding and starting your own country doesn't strike me as a politically conservative act.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Would have Fox News been against the Civil Rights Movement?
- Thread starter Jason's Ultimatum
- Start date
- Status
Seceding and starting your own country doesn't strike me as a politically conservative act.
Hey look no one can provide an actual rebuttal so they *insert snide comment here_____*
It's funny when liberals decry our loss of freedoms and then demand a bigger overreaching goverment.
I ultimately relate more to liberals than neocons but both are inconsistent and dangerous.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Oh, people are conflating Republican/Democrat with conservative/liberal while ignoring historical context? Fuck it, I'm out.
theignoramus
Member
The way they treat Barak Obama now would be saintly compared to the way they would treat MLK, who was not only an anti-racist, but against the Vietnam War. They would have attacked him on both fronts, questioned his patriotism and accused him of being pro-Communist and pro Soviet.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
They'd frame it in the same way that Ron Paul supporters do. It's an attack on freedom and business.
theignoramus
Member
No. FoxNews and Roger Aisles just dont like black America. That trumps their support of the Republican party, it's a deep seeded contempt that goes deeper than political affiliation.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
This may be shocking to some people, and in fact I know it will be shocking to some people, but Martin Luther King Jr. was evil, and that is not hyperbole.
Just to get this out of the way, his fight against government segregation was a totally legitimate and morally praiseworthy fight. However, almost everything else he stood for, both concretely and philosophically, was totally corrupt.
First of all, let us be clear on what kind of morality MLK is talking about here. Do not delude yourself into making him a blank page on which to draw your own personal values. King was a socialist, avowedly, and certainly an anti-capitalist. He was pro-slavery at the most basic level, as evidenced by his attacking property rights as immoral.
We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
That quote is disgusting, but consider what he is actually saying, and what he actually marched for. King is not simply proselytizing leftist and religious anti-capitalist falderal in an attempt to convert you; he wants the government to threaten you with a gun and throw you in jail, something he endured, if you do not agree with him. If you are morally repugnant enough to want to discriminate based on race, King does not just want to change your mind; he wants to steal your property and dictate how you use it. He places needs above rights, which is the primary moral principle underlying Christianity, Socialism, and Communism. What exactly does he mean when he says people should take priority over property rights? He means slavery. He means that if some people are unhappy, your right to your property must go; you must toil while others reap the benefit of your work, the very definition of slavery.
After all, consider that the event in which King delivered the famous I Have a Dream speech was the also-famous March on Washington for Freedom. Oh, wait a minute, no it was not. It was actually called the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
Notice the corruption of the word freedom. Freedom means you have individual rights, which consist of freedom from force. What King wanted was self-contradictory. He wanted the government to force the provision of jobs through either outright threats or the expropriation of wealth, and freedom. Of course, what King really wanted was Orwellian freedom. Freedom is Slavery in the most literal sense for King. You are not free unless you have enslaved another man to provide your needs.
There is of course far more to his horrid beliefs, such as his sickening view of the Vietnam War and his absurd conviction and out-of-context negative appraisal of the idea that the U.S. was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world in 1967.
School children have been inculcated for generations with the Trojan Horse idea that he was a great man, and so when they get older they must concede a little bit more and a little bit more to the left and the nihilist egalitarians whenever they bring up MLK. Martin Luther King Jr. was revoltingly anti-American, and it is shameful that a federal holiday was made of him, and even more shameful that he is used, as is Mahatma Gandhi, as a tool by which people get the government to force universal adoration of a freedom-hating icon in order to weaken the position of the freedom-defenders and make them break down in contradiction when they find themselves caught between what they implicitly recognize as the truth and the positive psychological associations for a monster forced on them from childhood.
The only gap between our technological progress and morality is the one he served in large part to widen, though, to be fair, he also shortened that gap by legitimizing socialist policies and thereby greatly slowing the technological growth of the United States and the world. Congratulations Dr. King, in the race to catch up to technology, your morality is running the course backwards, but at least it can never get too far behind, because it is dragging the goal post right along with it.
Just to get this out of the way, his fight against government segregation was a totally legitimate and morally praiseworthy fight. However, almost everything else he stood for, both concretely and philosophically, was totally corrupt.
First of all, let us be clear on what kind of morality MLK is talking about here. Do not delude yourself into making him a blank page on which to draw your own personal values. King was a socialist, avowedly, and certainly an anti-capitalist. He was pro-slavery at the most basic level, as evidenced by his attacking property rights as immoral.
We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
That quote is disgusting, but consider what he is actually saying, and what he actually marched for. King is not simply proselytizing leftist and religious anti-capitalist falderal in an attempt to convert you; he wants the government to threaten you with a gun and throw you in jail, something he endured, if you do not agree with him. If you are morally repugnant enough to want to discriminate based on race, King does not just want to change your mind; he wants to steal your property and dictate how you use it. He places needs above rights, which is the primary moral principle underlying Christianity, Socialism, and Communism. What exactly does he mean when he says people should take priority over property rights? He means slavery. He means that if some people are unhappy, your right to your property must go; you must toil while others reap the benefit of your work, the very definition of slavery.
After all, consider that the event in which King delivered the famous I Have a Dream speech was the also-famous March on Washington for Freedom. Oh, wait a minute, no it was not. It was actually called the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
Notice the corruption of the word freedom. Freedom means you have individual rights, which consist of freedom from force. What King wanted was self-contradictory. He wanted the government to force the provision of jobs through either outright threats or the expropriation of wealth, and freedom. Of course, what King really wanted was Orwellian freedom. Freedom is Slavery in the most literal sense for King. You are not free unless you have enslaved another man to provide your needs.
There is of course far more to his horrid beliefs, such as his sickening view of the Vietnam War and his absurd conviction and out-of-context negative appraisal of the idea that the U.S. was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world in 1967.
School children have been inculcated for generations with the Trojan Horse idea that he was a great man, and so when they get older they must concede a little bit more and a little bit more to the left and the nihilist egalitarians whenever they bring up MLK. Martin Luther King Jr. was revoltingly anti-American, and it is shameful that a federal holiday was made of him, and even more shameful that he is used, as is Mahatma Gandhi, as a tool by which people get the government to force universal adoration of a freedom-hating icon in order to weaken the position of the freedom-defenders and make them break down in contradiction when they find themselves caught between what they implicitly recognize as the truth and the positive psychological associations for a monster forced on them from childhood.
The only gap between our technological progress and morality is the one he served in large part to widen, though, to be fair, he also shortened that gap by legitimizing socialist policies and thereby greatly slowing the technological growth of the United States and the world. Congratulations Dr. King, in the race to catch up to technology, your morality is running the course backwards, but at least it can never get too far behind, because it is dragging the goal post right along with it.
lol
ChiTownBuffalo
Either I made up lies about the Boston Bomber or I fell for someone else's crap. Either way, I have absolutely no credibility and you should never pay any attention to anything I say, no matter what the context. Perm me if I claim to be an insider
The Paulite concept of private property and the Civil Rights is ridiculous, that's why it goes straight to snide commentary.
Private residence is inherently difference than a business that serves the general public. The 4th Amendment provides you that privacy in your home to be as racist or non-racist as you want to be. A business that serves the general public is a different matter all together.
You cannot exclude a service to people based on intrinsic biology.
And I know Paulites will come with the free market argument that the market will eliminate businesses that discriminate. Uh...no. It won't. Jim Crow wasn't just a social system, it was also an economic system where discriminatory business owners colluded.
And I haven't even begun to touch on the Commerce Clause.
There is just some stuff where the government has the intervene. And the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a good example of such. You can't rely ona greater social movement to solve those evils. Look what happened in the south, institutional racism, terrorism, all the reinforce the status quo at the time. That type of Mississippi Burning behavior is what keep the market/local citizenry from being able to exert social pressure on businesses.
This is literally the only issue I have with Ron Paul and his son.
kame-sennin
Member
The "democrats were against civil rights and the republicans were for it" argument is a pretty cheap trick used by people who think their audience is be too dumb to catch on.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Ghost_Protocol
Member
Considering they rally against civil rights today, why not?
Trent Strong
Banned
You're happy with MSNBCs handling of the case? The guys who altered that 911 call?
empty vessel
Member
The Republican party was taken over by the political faction that most strenuously opposed integration and civil rights: southern conservatives. So, yes, obviously. Some Republicans expressly oppose civil rights for African-Americans still today.
kame-sennin
Member
The argument for states rights has often been used in the defense of discriminatory practices, as it is in your post.
From the link:
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
CHEEZMO;36783269 said:
*Applause*
Fun fact: A vast majority of the racist (and conservative) Democrats who hated the CRA jumped ship to the Republican Party after it was passed, resulting in the sane and tolerant GOP we all know and love today.
Dude Abides
Banned
CHEEZMO;36783269 said:
You forgot to mention that he was in Memphis to support striking sanitation workers. AKA parasites.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
It doesn't make economic sense to turn away customers for one thing. It has a mutliplier effect.
I see this has become the new "Bill Maher said bad words to Sarah Palin one time!" right wing debate trump card.
Trent Strong
Banned
I don't see how those two things are really comparable. Besides, the OP specifically talks about "the dichotomy between MSNBC and Fox News handling of the Martin case". I don't watch fox news, so I have no idea how they are handling the case, but MSNBCs handling of it is clearly reprehensible.
speculawyer
Member
Of course. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. r
evil solrac v3.0
Member
CHEEZMO;36783269 said:
who wrote this? this is.... profound. or disturbing.
LOL. wow.
Looks like a comment someone left on a Gizmodo blog entry.
http://gizmodo.com/5734598/a-few-wo...rtin-luther-king-jr?comment=35574027#comments
http://gizmodo.com/5734598/a-few-wo...rtin-luther-king-jr?comment=35574027#comments
Wait, what? How is MSNBC being reprehensible with this?
Trent Strong
Banned
MSNBC = NBC
Oh you meant the editing thing. Yes, I think we all agree that they shouldn't have done that, and it IS reprehensible. But my point was that it was a one time thing where the guy in question got punished and it was done with. It's a little bit different from Fox race baiting pretty much every single day they're on the air.
Trent Strong
Banned
Maybe it's a one time thing, but who knows? Maybe they falsify stuff all the time and just never get caught. (Probably not.) They have a narrative that they want to push, and who knows how far they'll go to push it.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'm sorry but the thread premise is idiotic. Fox News is a far right conservative media outlet. More than 80% of republicans in the house and senate voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, compared to about 64-65% of the democrat party; and even that percentage was a struggle to achieve as LBJ had to threaten and cajole quite a few votes from southern democrats.
The republican party supported abolishing slavery, voting rights for blacks, and the early tenets of the Civil Rights movement. It serves no purpose to demonize one side or another based on today's republican or democrat parties. The dixiecrats who dominated the democrat party largely switched to the republican party after the 1964 vote, and LBJ famously lamented he signed away the south by passing the bill.
As the Civil Rights movement became more violent and controversial (note: I am not blaming this on the protestors), many on the far right became more suspicious and hostile towards it, culminating in Nixon's southern strategy for "law abiding Americans" ie white people in 1968 and 1972. Meanwhile the democrat party became more liberal on Civil Rights, and blacks who had once been republicans became lifelong democrats - a trend that lasts to this day.
Just as asking whether today's democrats and liberal news outlets would have supported slavery would be out of bounds, so is this thread. Things change.
The republican party supported abolishing slavery, voting rights for blacks, and the early tenets of the Civil Rights movement. It serves no purpose to demonize one side or another based on today's republican or democrat parties. The dixiecrats who dominated the democrat party largely switched to the republican party after the 1964 vote, and LBJ famously lamented he signed away the south by passing the bill.
As the Civil Rights movement became more violent and controversial (note: I am not blaming this on the protestors), many on the far right became more suspicious and hostile towards it, culminating in Nixon's southern strategy for "law abiding Americans" ie white people in 1968 and 1972. Meanwhile the democrat party became more liberal on Civil Rights, and blacks who had once been republicans became lifelong democrats - a trend that lasts to this day.
Just as asking whether today's democrats and liberal news outlets would have supported slavery would be out of bounds, so is this thread. Things change.
Face it Tiger..
Banned
Fox News is against the Gay Rights Movement? :/
It's complicated. Not as much as people in here might suppose. It's an interesting dynamic that goes on behind the scenes.
Honestly, it was almost worse in the original version.
SouthernDragon
Member
CHEEZMO;36781739 said:
Sounds like an awesome band.
Megadragon15
Member
I don't think Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation was owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp in the 1950s-1960s so I don't know what political affiliation Fox had during that era.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Great post PD.
To figure this out, we'd have to know if Fox News allegiance lies with either the GOP or conservatism.
Although today the two go hand in hand, it wasn't the case a decade or so before Fox News even premiered.
Rupert Murdoch (who founded the channel) was a huge fan of Ronald Reagan, and since he was both a Republican and somewhat conservative, the channel took that influence to it's content.
If we say Fox News would go with the Republican party, then they would have been a liberal network back during the Civil Rights era, since the party hadn't shifted to the southern evangelical conservative base they have now (back then that was the Democrat base).
This would have the most precedent, since Fox News went from hating the government during the Clinton years, to being it's biggest defender during the Bush years, and went back to hating it during Obama. Back during the Bush years they treated anti-government rallies to be "traitors", while they now consider those same rallies to be "patriots".
However, if they instead sided with conservatives, then they would obviously have always been a conservative network no matter what political party was in power. In this case, they would have been against the Civil Rights Movement and sided with the Democrats. Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat, so there's that going for it.
It could also help if we look at Rupert Murdoch's political positions were back then. From his Wikipedia page:
As we see here, Murdoch was very liberal back then. He supported universal free health care, free education, recognition of China, and more. As he got older he became friends with people that were conservative, and wanting to support them, he used his newspapers to promote conservative views in Britain.
So if we go by following Murdoch's tastes, Fox News would have been very liberal at first, but slowly evolve into a conservative network into what we have today.
Although today the two go hand in hand, it wasn't the case a decade or so before Fox News even premiered.
Rupert Murdoch (who founded the channel) was a huge fan of Ronald Reagan, and since he was both a Republican and somewhat conservative, the channel took that influence to it's content.
If we say Fox News would go with the Republican party, then they would have been a liberal network back during the Civil Rights era, since the party hadn't shifted to the southern evangelical conservative base they have now (back then that was the Democrat base).
This would have the most precedent, since Fox News went from hating the government during the Clinton years, to being it's biggest defender during the Bush years, and went back to hating it during Obama. Back during the Bush years they treated anti-government rallies to be "traitors", while they now consider those same rallies to be "patriots".
However, if they instead sided with conservatives, then they would obviously have always been a conservative network no matter what political party was in power. In this case, they would have been against the Civil Rights Movement and sided with the Democrats. Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat, so there's that going for it.
It could also help if we look at Rupert Murdoch's political positions were back then. From his Wikipedia page:
As we see here, Murdoch was very liberal back then. He supported universal free health care, free education, recognition of China, and more. As he got older he became friends with people that were conservative, and wanting to support them, he used his newspapers to promote conservative views in Britain.
So if we go by following Murdoch's tastes, Fox News would have been very liberal at first, but slowly evolve into a conservative network into what we have today.
Huh? He contradicts himself.
I think his post was very revealing. He's a partisan hack. He doesn't give a shit about values or ideology. All he cares about is his "team".
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
As I've said in an earlier post, during the Nixon Administration, RogerAiles wanted to create a conservative media outlet.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Great post Willy105
- Status