Devastating billboard angers the MSM, other left

[Serapis Bey]

I really do think you and SB have narcissistic streaks that are disturbing (I first realized this when you were busy trying to convince me that pictures are foolish and pointless)

How would the lack of interest in photos and pictures be a mark of narcissism? I would think it would be quite the opposite, actually.

(RB, do you still hold that position, BTW?)

[Serapis Bey]

One is free of course to roar like a Lion while vanquishing Nits, but try not to get in the way of those who are busy slaying Dragons. K? K.

Otherwise you just stall the progress of good people.

The Perfect is the enemy of the Good.

The roaring like a lion was not in response to the OP. My response to the OP was measured and proportionate. It was a single comment.

It was the ensuing misrepresentation of the point I was making that caused the "roar" (if you can call it that).

Your comment here reminds me of this one instructive incident I had with TD. I had met this girl at the gym that was a nighttime news anchor, and I had never seen her on the news, so I decided that I would stay home that night and watch her on the news.

TD asked me after I I got back from the gym what I was going to do that night. I told him, "I'm going to stay home and catch <whoever> on the news.". About three hours later he asked me again what I was doing that night. I gave him the same answer - "I'm staying home to see <whoever> do her newscast tonight."

Then that night, he asked me again "What are you doing tonight?" and I told him "I'm going to stay here and watch <whoever> on the news tonight. He said "Damn, you're all about that, aren't you? You've been going on and on about it all day!"

hehe...

Anyway, yeah... roaring like a lion, eh? Sure man. Whatever you say.

Do you see that you didn't address the substance of my post?

This fits into MSK's observation that you are more focused on words instead of behavior and values.

My use of the phrase "roaring like a Lion" was poetic license meant to contrast with the relatively minor phenomenon of you picking nits over Jerry's words.

The main thrust of my post was that if someone is fighting for values you agree with (and I assume you believe in the 2nd amendment) then it can be counterproductive to make hay over minor details.

I believe the example I have used with you in the past is an individual on the Titanic yelling loudly about the elevator inspection cards being out of date while the whole freaking ship is sinking. No sense of perspective.

But whatever you think about my point, notice how all you focused on was my metaphor about "roaring" and how you felt the need to address that and defend yourself against such an "unfair" characterization.

Totally missing the point.

[Serapis Bey]

Kacy,

I think I get what polemic demagoguery means.

It's like when someone calls Sarah Palin a lunatic.

Right?

(Rhetorical excess cuts both ways, bro. Both can do it, or no one can. Otherwise, I would call it hypocrisy. Or, to be polite, semantics. )

Michael

I'm coining the phrase "Polemic demagoguery" as distinguished from just demagoguery.

Demagoguery is when you try to advance your cause through invoking substance-free emotion in your intended audience.

Polemic Demagoguery is when you try to advance your cause by projecting (or provoking) substance-free emotions onto/into your rivals, for the sake of scoring points with your intended audience.

Alright, I guess this thread is about as tired as I am.

I'm only quoting this response by Kacy because it is the last one.

I think most people reading can see the myopic focus on details that he is known for.

Oh yes, he is certainly an advocate of Reason.

He is quite logical.

And erudite.

So what's the problem?

I hope it's obvious.

It's the disconnect between logic and values.

I'm pretty sure Adam has disengaged because he has perceived that engaging Kacy would merely sanction Kacy's progressive tendencies in attacking Good Things.

I also happen to be in favor of Breitbart. (Of course, my favor is of the nuanced sort, as it is in all things. Not the regressive splitting RB mentioned earlier in his characterization of Kacy's behavior. I don't see people as all-good or all-bad)

(By the way Kacy, what exactly is your beef with Michelle Malkin? I know you consider Ann Coulter to be your enemy, like most Progressives. I happen to find value in some of Coulter's essays and feel she can be quite perceptive on certain issues. Though, I can see how you would have an issue with her since she can be...er....a meanie...and hurt little pussies feewings, but what has Malkin done to incur your ire?)

Anyway, as I was saying, we see in Kacy the disconnect between the dedication to """reason""", and the hostility to certain ethical and political values most individuals here are in favor of.

This should give pause to everyone reading.

Isn't Rea$on supposed to lead everyone to the same set of values and politics?

Apparently not.

This should be obvious from the fact that the spergloid New Atheist community is overwhelmingly liberal.

If all these atheists who are dedicated to "free thinking" and "logic" and "reality" end up with very different notions of morality and politics than you Objectivists, how do you account for this?

Could it be that values are in fact not tied to logic and "reason"?

Perish the thought.

I'm beginning to come around to the point of view I once read in a blog comment which said (paraphrasing): "The libertarian/Objectivist conception of humanity and politics is an inherently unstable point of view. It is premised on an idealistic view of society which is only possible due to the luxury of a pre-existing social order -- a social order made possible by very UN-Objectivist people, philosophies and behaviors. Oists/libertarian are a self-selected group of middle to upper-middle class individuals of a certain time and place, mostly nerds and misfits, who are afforded the privacy and space to dream up beautiful theories which have no force in the real world. Such theories exist in a sort of eigenstate which must perforce collapse into either Progressive materialism, or traditionalistic Christianity."

Anyway.

Kacy is one possible result of unleashing "reason" on an unsophisticated populace.

I hope you're happy George H. Smith!!! It all started with you and your ATCAG book.

If you're reading, I know you have the good sense to understand the benefits Western Christianity has delivered to the modern world, historically.

Does this tension between your views ever cause you angst?

Furthermore, I have to ask: was your path to atheism solely the result of your dedication to logical thought and reason? Were you truly that much of a free thinker? If so, I tip my hat to you.

But I have to wonder if there were....influences....environmental factors....certain individuals or memes which had disruptive designs...antipathies to the Christian culture we had in the U.S.?

What was your formative influence?

[KacyRay]

I'll say it again: bias can be reflected just as much through omission and/or emphasis. Do you understand?

Sure I understand. That's why I already addressed the quantity issue. I demonstrated that, in terms of emphasis and quantity, there was no more of either placed in the billboard story than there has been in the Lindsey Lohan or Brenda Heist stories. Less, in fact, since they still have front-page coverage of Brenda Heist, for the 4th straight day.

I've demonstrated objectively that both of those stories are receiving more emphasis and attention than that of the billboard. Do you understand?

How would the lack of interest in photos and pictures be a mark of narcissism? I would think it would be quite the opposite, actually.

(RB, do you still hold that position, BTW?)

These are the most frustrating sorts of questions. Did I ever say that Dan's lack of interest in pictures was a mark of narcissism?

What I said was that I started to notice the narcissistic tendencies when we were having these conversations. As a refresher, here's roughly how the conversation went (paraphrased):

Dan: I think pictures are pointless. Why do people feel the need to look at themselves? They already know what they look like. ¹

Me: I believe people enjoy pictures for a variety of reasons. But most home photos are simply for capturing memories and moments.

Dan: Why do you need to capture a moment? You were there, you saw it happen. It's in your memory. Why do you need a picture of it? ²

Me: Well, not everyone remembers every moment. Plus, pictures allow you to share those moments with others.

Dan: Pictures are pointless. You were there. You saw it. What do you need to show others for? ³

It is the arguments he was using, not his position, that betrays the narcissistic tendency I frequently allude to. In the argument, we see (1) a tendency to assume that the only motive anyone could possibly have for doing something is whatever motive the narcissist might have assigned to it - as though no other motives could possibly exist. We see (2) a presumption that everyone's mind functions exactly as the narcissist's mind functions. We see (3) a presumption that everyone's context, needs, and desires are no different that of the narcissist. All of the elements are there.

If Dan would've said "Eh, I just don't really care for pictures too much. Don't see what the big deal is." then that would've indicated a simple preference - and we all have preferences.

When someone begins arguing that, because they don't appreciate something, that there can't be anything to appreciate about it - that is a pretty solid indication of narcissism.

And I've had many conversations with you in which I've seen those same indications.

Do you see that you didn't address the substance of my post?

This fits into MSK's observation that you are more focused on words instead of behavior and values.

My use of the phrase "roaring like a Lion" was poetic license meant to contrast with the relatively minor phenomenon of you picking nits over Jerry's words.

The main thrust of my post was that if someone is fighting for values you agree with (and I assume you believe in the 2nd amendment) then it can be counterproductive to make hay over minor details.

I believe the example I have used with you in the past is an individual on the Titanic yelling loudly about the elevator inspection cards being out of date while the whole freaking ship is sinking. No sense of perspective.

But whatever you think about my point, notice how all you focused on was my metaphor about "roaring" and how you felt the need to address that and defend yourself against such an "unfair" characterization.

Totally missing the point.

Oh, I see... okay, I'm supposed to focus on what you're saying while ignoring all those words. Got it.

So, when you said "roaring"... you didn't mean to imply at all that I was being overly loud or anything. It was just an arbitrary word you picked. Got it. I must've just read that into your statement. Silly me.

Anyway, I did address your point. Hard to imagine that you've missed it. I very clearly said

Now, why did I hone in on Jerry’s OP in the first place? Because the tactic of projecting emotion onto someone else, for reasons I’ve described in other comments, is a particularly irritating tactic, and I think folks who use it do disservice to the discourse. And I’ve found that a lot of guys have internalized that behavior – and as we’ve seen with Mr. Biggers, he has no problem characterizing others as “angry”. He did it to me in comment #32. He did it to the MSM in the OP. Both were without any evidence at all. And for reasons I’ve described, it’s an infuriating tactic because it serves only to provoke the reaction that the accuser wants.

This manufacturing, projection, and (sometimes) provocation of emotion qualifies this tactic as polemic demagoguery^™.

I made a case that one is not doing "good work" when one engages in polemic demagoguery. That's what I did. Do you understand?

Anyway, as I was saying, we see in Kacy the disconnect between the dedication to """reason""", and the hostility to certain ethical and political values most individuals here are in favor of.

Oh really? Exactly what values that most folks here are in favor of do I seem hostile toward?

Because, as I see it, the discussions here have been more about the right way to implement values that we all seem to share. We've also had disagreements on who best represents those values and who does not. But the values themselves seem pretty consistent.

I've named those values I hold already, so I need not do it again here. Selene seems to have disengaged over a difference in opinion of a person, not a value. Dennis May and I had a lengthy conversation about Glenn Beck and whether his movement is consistent with or antithetical to our values, but I do not recall a disagreement over the values themselves.

So, for the sake of your own credibility here, please enlighten me. Exactly what values and ethics do you feel I'm hostile toward?

(By the way Kacy, what exactly is your beef with Michelle Malkin? I know you consider Ann Coulter to be your enemy, like most Progressives. I happen to find value in some of Coulter's essays and feel she can be quite perceptive on certain issues. Though, I can see how you would have an issue with her since she can be...er....a meanie...and hurt little pussies feewings, but what has Malkin done to incur your ire?)

I'm going to assume that when you say "Progressive" you are using it in the same context the MSK described it - a progressive movement toward larger government. I have clearly stated my opposition to this idea, so if you continue to call me a progressive, in that context, you know where that is headed. I have no time for ad homs, and you're at the end of my patience with this. If you think taunting is going to serve you well, go right ahead and find out.

And as one who is constantly complaining about the "hate filled left", you're hardly in a position to talk about people having their feelings hurt. My problem with Malkin is that she's dishonest.

Isn't Rea$on supposed to lead everyone to the same set of values and politics? Apparently not

No. I don't really believe this anymore.

If all these atheists who are dedicated to "free thinking" and "logic" and "reality" end up with very different notions of morality and politics than you Objectivists, how do you account for this? Could it be that values are in fact not tied to logic and "reason"?

I'm really beginning to question your ability to absorb information. I've stated with the utmost of clarity that I favor small government. I mean real small government - the kind that stays out of your wallet and your bedroom. The kind that stays out of your coffee shop. The kind that stays out of your body. The kind that stays out of your medical decisions. The kind that lends no undue weight to one party over another. The kind that stays out of other countries.

So exactly what notion of morality and politics that I hold is so radically different than that which the others hold? Please, name it.

And if you bleat like a goddamn sheep "Well, uh... yer a liberul!!" then we can all know with finality that ad homs are all you have left.

[KacyRay]

Dan,

Since I've characterized a discussion you and I were having years ago and paraphrased it rather than citing your exact words, feel free to chime in if I've misrepresented your position. I've restated it here to the best of my memory.

[Robert Baratheon]

How would the lack of interest in photos and pictures be a mark of narcissism? I would think it would be quite the opposite, actually.

(RB, do you still hold that position, BTW?)

These are the most frustrating sorts of questions. Did I ever say that Dan's lack of interest in pictures was a mark of narcissism?

What I said was that I started to notice the narcissistic tendencies when we were having these conversations. As a refresher, here's roughly how the conversation went (paraphrased):

Dan: I think pictures are pointless. Why do people feel the need to look at themselves? They already know what they look like. ¹

Me: I believe people enjoy pictures for a variety of reasons. But most home photos are simply for capturing memories and moments.

Dan: Why do you need to capture a moment? You were there, you saw it happen. It's in your memory. Why do you need a picture of it? ²

Me: Well, not everyone remembers every moment. Plus, pictures allow you to share those moments with others.

Dan: Pictures are pointless. You were there. You saw it. What do you need to show others for? ³

It is the arguments he was using, not his position, that betrays the narcissistic tendency I frequently allude to. In the argument, we see (1) a tendency to assume that the only motive anyone could possibly have for doing something is whatever motive the narcissist might have assigned to it - as though no other motives could possibly exist. We see (2) a presumption that everyone's mind functions exactly as the narcissist's mind functions. We see (3) a presumption that everyone's context, needs, and desires are no different that of the narcissist. All of the elements are there.

If Dan would've said "Eh, I just don't really care for pictures too much. Don't see what the big deal is." then that would've indicated a simple preference - and we all have preferences.

When someone begins arguing that, because they don't appreciate something, that there can't be anything to appreciate about it - that is a pretty solid indication of narcissism.

And I've had many conversations with you in which I've seen those same indications.

I don't dispute any of the substance of the paraphrased text. I still don't see the purpose in having lots of pictures of yourself and family around your home - you won't find any in mine, and I do consider that behavior to be a bit narcissistic, now that we mention it. I use the camera function on my phone quite a bit, but it's usually for utilitarian purposes. Like today I took a picture of a plant in my garden and asked the gardener if it's dying (it isn't - just seasonal). I have some photos on my Facebook page, but those are meant for others, not for me.

I don't think any of the above is an indication of narcissism. None of it advances a position holding myself as more important than others. It could indicate a lack of open-mindedness or emotional intelligence - maybe - but that's not the same as being narcissistic If you're really straining to make a connection, I suppose failure to consider differences of opinion in general could be a sign of narcissism, but that argument requires a lot of backfilling.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Polemic Demagoguery^™ is when you try to advance your cause by projecting (or provoking) substance-free emotions onto/into your rivals, for the sake of scoring points with your intended audience.

Kacy,

Now you've really confused me.

I can agree or disagree with Jerry--and appreciate or dislike his emotional expression--but I have no idea what points he would ever want to score or with whom. I've known him for several years and I have never observed that kind of behaviour from him.

Anyway, let's see if I correctly identify what you mean. According to your meaning:

Polemic Demagoguery is if you say the mainstream media was screaming about the gun control billboard with the Indians; and

Plain old garden variety Demagoguery is if you say Sarah Palin is a lunatic.

Did I get that right?

Michael

[Serapis Bey]

Did I get that right?

[KacyRay]

Nah, saying Sarah Palin is a lunatic is hyperbole. (Did I ever call her that? I don't remember doing that, but who knows.)

Saying that she's a half-term, non-committal demagogue that quit on her constituents in order to become the J-Lo of politics, complete with her own reality show, because being governor simply wasn't lucrative or glamorous enough... I think that would be cold fact.

She's not a lunatic. Not by any stretch. She know what she wants and she went out and got it. She went out and became one of the most popular, most well-paid political divas on the scene. And all that without even knowing which news sources she gets her information from.

[BaalChatzaf]

Nah, saying Sarah Palin is a lunatic is hyperbole. (Did I ever call her that? I don't remember doing that, but who knows.)

Saying that she's a half-term, non-committal demagogue that quit on her constituents in order to become the J-Lo of politics, complete with her own reality show, because being governor simply wasn't lucrative or glamorous enough... I think that would be cold fact.

She's not a lunatic. Not by any stretch. She know what she wants and she went out and got it. She went out and became one of the most popular, most well-paid political divas on the scene. And all that without even knowing which news sources she gets her information from.

She was also the Republican Babe. There were all these Republicans, Old White Guys anyone of whom could be the poster boy for Erectile Dysfunction Monthly. When Sara of the Frozen North lifted here skirt and drew a Magnum 44 from a holster wrapped around her creamy white thigh, these Republican Geezers got the first wood they had in 20 years.

Sara of the Frozen North. The Fantasy Girl of Old White Republicans.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[KacyRay]

You'll get no argument from me on that. She's a hottie.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I like how the fact gets ignored that Sarah was being bankrupted by frivolous lawsuits she had to pay for while governor due to a weird provision in Alaskan law (which now has been changed).

in essence, her bill was about a half-a-million and growing when she resigned. She and her family were being ruined financially.

I don't know of any other politician this has happened to in America. And I don't know of any politician on earth who has no wealth, but would agree to a personal debt so large it would not be payable in order to hold office, unless he was corrupt and planning on digging in when he gets in front of the public treasury trough.

Note that the barrage of lawsuits started when she was nominated for Vice President. And note that not one lawsuit won.

Not one.

Now the left calls her a quitter and gold-digger because the public adores her.

Friggen' double-standard.

This is typical propaganda with dirty pool added for spice.

I think her image scares the shit out of lefties. Women to them are supposed to be exploited victims, not strong and conservative at the same time. The only strong women to them have to be class-identified feminists, otherwise they go nuts and their integrity takes a hike.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Nah, saying Sarah Palin is a lunatic is hyperbole. (Did I ever call her that? I don't remember doing that, but who knows.)

SB - if you're point is that, despite their lunacy, Beck and Palin are somehow doing us a favor because they're on an anti-big-government crusade...

Helpfully,

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dayaamm!

I keep having to correct myself.

Let's see if I get it right this time:

Polemic Demagoguery is if you say the mainstream media was screaming about the gun control billboard with the Indians; and

Hyperbole is if you say Sarah Palin is a lunatic.

Now did I get that right?

Michael

[KacyRay]

Now the left calls her a quitter and gold-digger because the public adores her.

Eh, no. That's not why people call her a quitter. And I don't know of anyone who calls her a gold digger. What I call her is a junior-varisty political diva whose current status in politics is congruous with her relevance.

I wonder if the public would've been as enamored with her if she was a short, squat, dark-skinned guy. I suspect that the public would've been a lot less forgiving if a governor who fit that description couldn't name a single source from which they get their political information.

And i can already hear you rolling your eyes at the fact that I would bring up something like that over and over. But to me - nothing more need be mentioned. All credibility was lost at that moment.

You can't answer the most basic question so you get... nothing! You lose! Good day madam!

[KacyRay]

I spoke of Beck and Palin's lunacy, yes.

I'd say Beck is more on the lunacy end. Palin... she was just out of her depth.

Polemic Demagoguery^™ - an attempt to advance your cause by projecting (or provoking) substance-free emotions onto/into your rivals, for the sake of scoring points with your intended audience.

Hey now... it's my term. I get to make the definition.

Yes, accusing someone of being FURIOUS, ENRAGED, ARC-WELDER-ON-THE-NUTSACK-FIRED-UP, HIGH DUDGEON, WAILING, TEETH-GNASHING, ALEX-JONES-LEVEL-PANICED just for reporting a 3rd-page story about some mundane event does qualify.

Speaking of Palin lunacy.... yes, that's hyperbole.

See? You're getting the hang of it!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Polemic Demagoguery^™ - an attempt to advance your cause by projecting (or provoking) substance-free emotions onto/into your rivals, for the sake of scoring points with your intended audience.

Kacy,

Let's see if I get it this time.

You mean like projecting substance-free emotions onto a rival of being callously non-committal, power-lusting as in demagogue and desiring the fame of a J-Lo, maybe with strongly implied greed and cowardice? Substance-free emotions like that? Like your recent portrayal of Sarah Palin?

So the anti-Palin audience can snigger?

Would that be a good example of Polemic Demagoguery?

(I could dig for more, but maybe you see what I mean? )

Michael

EDIT: btw - Glenn Beck is now waging a small campaign to legalize drugs--all drugs. And he preaches non-violence Gandhi-style. Are those examples of his lunacy?

[Brant Gaede]

Polemic Demagoguery^™ - an attempt to advance your cause by projecting (or provoking) substance-free emotions onto/into your rivals, for the sake of scoring points with your intended audience.

Kacy,

Let's see if I get it this time.

You mean like projecting substance-free emotions onto a rival of being callously non-committal, power-lusting as in demagogue and desiring the fame of a J-Lo, maybe with strongly implied greed and cowardice? Substance-free emotions like that? Like your recent portrayal of Sarah Palin?

So the anti-Palin audience can snigger?

Would that be a good example of Polemic Demagoguery?

(I could dig for more, but maybe you see what I mean? )

Michael

EDIT: btw - Glenn Beck is now waging a small campaign to legalize drugs--all drugs. And he preaches non-violence Gandhi-style. Are those examples of his lunacy?

"She's a hottie"?

That seems to be full of substance.

--Brant

please don't drive yet another poster away

edit: joke, joke, joke!

Edited May 9, 2013 by Brant Gaede

[KacyRay]

Polemic Demagoguery^™ - an attempt to advance your cause by projecting (or provoking) substance-free emotions onto/into your rivals, for the sake of scoring points with your intended audience.

Kacy,

Let's see if I get it this time.

You mean like projecting substance-free emotions onto a rival of being callously non-committal, power-lusting as in demagogue and desiring the fame of a J-Lo, maybe with strongly implied greed and cowardice? Substance-free emotions like that? Like your recent portrayal of Sarah Palin?

So the anti-Palin audience can snigger?

Would that be a good example of Polemic Demagoguery?

(I could dig for more, but maybe you see what I mean? )

Michael

Nah. I didn't project any emotions onto Palin. I merely commented on what she has done, not speculations on her emotional state while she was doing it.

Speculating on someone's motives is not the same as speculating on their emotional state. PD^TM is specifically in reference to the latter. But good effort!

EDIT: btw - Glenn Beck is now waging a small campaign to legalize drugs--all drugs. And he preaches non-violence Gandhi-style. Are those examples of his lunacy?

Nope. Those are not examples of his lunacy. And kudos to him for his efforts.

[KacyRay]

"She's a hottie"?

That seems to be full of substance.

--Brant

please don't drive yet another poster away

Hey... that was a statement about MY emotions... not someone elses!

I don't need to substantiate statements about my own emotions, eh?

Anyway, she is/was. But then again, so was Casey Anthony. Doesn't mean I have to like her.

<I'm anticipating a specific response to that... don't let me down!>

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Nah. I didn't project any emotions onto Palin. I merely commented on what she has done, not speculations on her emotional state while she was doing it.

Speculating on someone's motives is not the same as speculating on their emotional state. PD^TM is specifically in reference to the latter. But good effort!

Kacy,

Bull,

You didn't tell what she did. You spun what she did.

And, anyway, how can anyone have motives without emotion? That's more spin.

Round and round and round she goes...

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Kacy,

I checked the Google search in one of Jerry's search terms (American Indian gun rights billboard) and got surprised, It is very difficult on a web search to see the first page of SERPS (search engine results pages) only feature MSM news sites. You get that on Google News, but rarely on a normal search.

With the exception of Indianz, that's what this term does. To wit:

Denver Post

Fox News

Washington Post‎

cnsnews.com

www.gopusa.com

www.foxnews.com

ABC News

www.indianz.com

usnews.nbcnews.com

www.examiner.com

www.upi.com

www.nydailynews.com

The second page continues more of the same, except some blogs start appearing. Ditto third page and so on.

The hysteria basically starts on the second page and increases as it goes along, but I'm only talking about headlines. I didn't look at the articles.

That result is pretty compelling. There's a strong churn going on.

This suggests to me that if you did not find this story when you visited your MSM sources, maybe you didn't look very hard. It was definitely there.

Anyway, I say this for accuracy. Back to the bicker...

Michael

Within a day or two after the billboard story went national, I watched discussions of it on two MSNBC talking-head programs. There were the predictable PC charges of racism, etc. Getting worked up over a clever ad on solitary billboard located in Podunk, U.S.A., indicated that some liberal feathers had been ruffled.

I suppose Kacy will now correct me by pointing out that liberals don't have feathers, so no feathers were ruffled. 8-)

Ghs

[KacyRay]

Kacy,

I checked the Google search in one of Jerry's search terms (American Indian gun rights billboard) and got surprised, It is very difficult on a web search to see the first page of SERPS (search engine results pages) only feature MSM news sites. You get that on Google News, but rarely on a normal search.

With the exception of Indianz, that's what this term does. To wit:

Denver Post

Fox News

Washington Post‎

cnsnews.com

www.gopusa.com

www.foxnews.com

ABC News

www.indianz.com

usnews.nbcnews.com

www.examiner.com

www.upi.com

www.nydailynews.com

The second page continues more of the same, except some blogs start appearing. Ditto third page and so on.

The hysteria basically starts on the second page and increases as it goes along, but I'm only talking about headlines. I didn't look at the articles.

That result is pretty compelling. There's a strong churn going on.

This suggests to me that if you did not find this story when you visited your MSM sources, maybe you didn't look very hard. It was definitely there.

Anyway, I say this for accuracy. Back to the bicker...

Michael

Within a day or two after the billboard story went national, I watched discussions of it on two MSNBC talking-head programs. There were the predictable PC charges of racism, etc. Getting worked up over a clever ad on solitary billboard located in Podunk, U.S.A., indicated that some liberal feathers had been ruffled.

I suppose Kacy will now correct me by pointing out that liberals don't have feathers, so no feathers were ruffled. 8-)

Ghs

Heh... George, you know that only radcons have feathers. Correct yourself!

All joking aside - I would point out that I never claimed that no feathers were ruffled. Obviously some folks were... and that's what got reported.

That was my point - the title of the OP claims that the MSM was all butt-hurt about the billboard. I demonstrated that the MSM was merely reporting that people were butt-hurt about it.

And last I checked... that's what media does. They report stuff.

"Devastating Billboard angers MSM".... and as evidence, he offers up the fact that many media outlets reported it.

Like i said - by that standard, the MSM is angry about a lot of things. They must be REALLY angry about those 3 kidnapped girls that were found alive... I mean gosh, they're reporting the hell outta that one, right?

[Selene]

I demonstrated that the MSM was merely reporting that people were butt-hurt about it.

Really?

And last I checked... that's what media does. They report stuff.

Define "report" and "stuff."

Like i said - by that standard, the MSM is angry about a lot of things. They must be REALLY angry about those 3 kidnapped girls that were found alive... I mean gosh, they're reporting the hell outta that one, right?

I would never allow my students to ever advance this sentence to prove a point.

A...

[Serapis Bey]

Heh... George, you know that only radcons have feathers. Correct yourself!

All joking aside - I would point out that I never claimed that no feathers were ruffled. Obviously some folks were... and that's what got reported.

That was my point - the title of the OP claims that the MSM was all butt-hurt about the billboard. I demonstrated that the MSM was merely reporting that people were butt-hurt about it.

And last I checked... that's what media does. They report stuff.

"Devastating Billboard angers MSM".... and as evidence, he offers up the fact that many media outlets reported it.

Like i said - by that standard, the MSM is angry about a lot of things. They must be REALLY angry about those 3 kidnapped girls that were found alive... I mean gosh, they're reporting the hell outta that one, right?

Tell me if I have this right:

You have acknowledged in this thread that the MSM is indeed liberal-biased.

You are also an advocate of the 2nd amendment (with qualifications).

Jerry was making a point about the reaction in the media towards an enjoyable bit of trolling in the form of a billboard.

In spite of all this, your primary focus is on the fact that it wasn't the MSM per se that was outraged, but the people the MSM was reporting on.

Okay. I know you are not a troll, but can you not see how your behavior here is considered by some as trolling?

And not even the good kind of trolling?