I guess God doesnt really have a sense of humor. But then again, he doesnt really exist, so you cant blame him.
http://videosift.com/video/Hitchens-vs-Sean-Hannity-on-the-existence-of-God

The Fine Art of Walking Out
"A former Senate candidate in the second-smallest state in the country talking to a CNN host who's losing in the ratings to Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow and sometimes Dr. Drew wasn't going to create a huge splash — absent that walk-out.... It's hard to imagine that anything could have happened to Piers Morgan more fabulous than being walked out on by Christine O'Donnell."

>> ^chilaxe:

So you're arguing against markets (meritocracy)

Markets aren't meritocracy.
>> ^chilaxe:

and in favor of collectivism & experientialism ('feel good' degrees paid for by somebody else)

Honestly, I don't really know what I'm in favor of. Given all the discussions I have here, I'm pretty sure your conception of "collectivism" differs from mine, and I only have a vague notion of what you're trying to say when you refer to "experientialism." It doesn't matter though, because your parenthetical ascribes a position to me that I have already explicitly disavowed (along with the premise it's based on).
>> ^chilaxe:
It does seem relevant then whether or not meritocracy causes greater contributions to humankind

It's no more relevant than talking about the ecological impact of unicorn migration, seeing how meritocracy doesn't exist.
>> ^chilaxe:
(it appears to, if we compare my outcomes to those of my lazy collectivist friends)

Anecdotes aren't data. Especially considering the cognitive biases of the source.
>> ^chilaxe:
"Would you really stop working on it if you got paid less, or if everyone got paid the same no matter what they did?"
Yes I would, and that's one of the reasons I stopped working in academia early on.
I'm asking you to respond to a hypothetical, specifically what would you do if material wealth wasn't connected to how you spent your time? Would you just become a couch potato? Or would you still feel driven to do something worthwhile, because being idle doesn't appeal to you?

I think if you are who you say you are, you'd still choose to do things that are useful and meaningful to society in such a situation. I know I would.

>> ^chilaxe:
I realized most human problems are self-caused and aren't relevant to rationalists (same as the make-believe problem of student loans).

Too bad you aren't a rationalist, then.
>> ^chilaxe:
But fortunately it's not generally necessary to make the choice between passion and career... individuals have general interests, and they can follow the most socioeconomically valued paths within those interests.

Sure it is. Who becomes a janitor because it was their passion? Lots of people get channeled into jobs that don't align with their passions, largely for reasons beyond their control.

As for "socioeconomically valued paths" my point is that that's a pretty strong external constraint on your ability to choose how to live your life, and that "freedom" doesn't entail making those constraints and pressures stronger.

One can make the argument that a society with that level of paternalism is more beneficial for everyone (I sometimes even believe that myself), but one can't seriously contend that such pressures constitute the very definition of freedom.

But if your goal for society is to promote rationality, markets aren't your mechanism.

Bill Nye doesn't get paid more than Sean Hannity, and Judge Judy gets paid more than the entire Supreme Court. There is no meritocracy, and there is no connection between rational behavior and their reward. Hannity and Judge Judy both would probably lose their jobs if they started publicly promoting rationality instead of inanity. Not to mention, Paris Hilton can probably buy and sell them all.

One can play a certain shell game with this, and say that it's rational for the producers to pay Hannity to be publicly inane because it's going to make them money, but this just further amplifies my point -- markets give rational people incentive to do irrational and destructive things, like give Sean Hannity a TV show, or try to rig the real-estate market, or to base a business on encouraging young women to become prostitutes.

People make a big deal about Glenn Beck...but I've always thought Sean Hannity is worse. He's smart and he seems sane...which makes him slip under the radar too often.

Look, the problem is not that there is a different opinion out there, the problem is that FOX is not, as it were just a different opinion, its a network of dishonesty. Its lying and distorting facts, it denies and undercuts reality itself, All while claiming to be the "fair and balanced" alternative.

This kind of opinion can only be aimed at the FOX commentary side of the equation such as Beck, Hannity, et al. It does not apply to the "news" side. Most cable news programs have a distinct division between "News" (updates of current events) and "Commentary" (talking head opinion programs). I have seen nothing in FOX News' "news" that in any way is described by your litany of grievances. The only stuff that fits your description is the "commentary" side.

But talking about OPINION programs as "dishonesty, distortion, denial, undercutting reality", belies the nature of what you are implying. You are implying their NEWS lies, distorts, denies - when in reality you are grumping at COMMENTARY that (based on your bias) you interpret as lies, distorts, and denies. Must you not freely acknowledge that MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, AP, USA Today, and innumerable other news outlets are equal violators in that regard? How is the foaming commentary of Chris Matthews any better than Sean Hannity? How are the inane distortions and exaggerations of Beck any different than Maddow's?

FOX didn't start the birther movement. That started because Obama first refused to release his birth certificate, and then Hawaii refused to release it, and then they released a digitized copy, and finally released a document that does not necessarily rule out the possibility of being foreign born. FOX News didn't do all that. And the whole East Anglia corruption scandal is not FOX News' fault. Again, I only see this as you complaining that an critical voice is applying some strict standards of accountability to an organization that your personal bias prefers being given a free pass to lie. It isn't dishonesty - it is a rare application of journalistic standars to an otherwise unaccountable group caught red-handed cooking their books.

Try finding comparable examples on Olberman or Maddow, you wont. Because while they are opinionated, biased and crtical, they also care about the facts

Bullcrap. Madddow & Olbermann prove they are only interested in left-leaning slant every time they open their mouths and flap their yaps. Someone with a right-leaning slant will say the exact thing about Beck or Hannity and you cannot argue the point because they are using your same logic. They can say that Beck 'cares about facts' too - as long as they reinforce his position. Maddow cares about facts - if they make her opinions look good. Neither of them tell the whole story, and both of them deliberately hide facts that contradict their narratives.

>> ^Yogi:

I would've taken the tennis ball and thrown it as far as I could...then I would've taken the basketball and kicked it as far as I could. Then I would've asked the guy "Hey buddy! Will you help me stop womens suffrage?!"


Then you would've been invited on Sean Hannity to be hailed as a Great American.

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The function of over-the-top personalities like Coulter and Limbaugh is to make the slightly less over-the-top rhetoric of FOX seem more objective and reasonable. I wonder if liberals would do better if they had their own Coulters, Becks and Limbaughs? Probably not. Air America (a liberal analog to right wing talk radio) did not attract enough liberal listeners to stay afloat. As phony as Air America was, it didn't approach the level of dishonesty you find in right wing talk radio or on FOX news. I think liberals prefer more intellectual sources of information, like NPR, PBS and print media.


Air America sucked because it just wasn't funny or fun to listen to. No Rush Limbaugh isn't that funny really...he's more annoying. Sean Hannity though...he's damn good at what he does and he's funny, I could have a genuine funny conversation with him without stabbing him in the eyes. I tried with Air America...Liberals aren't funny when they're scolding people.

I was wondering how long it would take before the false equivalence fallacy entered the discussion.

The left has been taking flak for the rather obvious hypocrisy. It is no surprise that thinking orders have gone out to give the faithful masses a thought to grasp for when confronted by reason...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/9/934662/-This-is-the-problem-with-the-promotion-of-false-equivalencies

"The problem with false equivalencies is that while there is overblown rhetoric on both sides, the amount and intensity is much worse on the right than the left. To indicate otherwise is not only disingenuous but it is dishonest and harmful."

I shall venture a guess that the above quote waxes eloquent in the ears of the average neolib. The statement is easy to make, but as with many baseless accusations it lacks substance and proof. I will then formally make the request for fair, scholarly evidence to support this argument. If the right is indeed far greater in "amount and intensity" compared to the left, then there must be some sort of dataset that proves the assertion in a neutral, non-partisan way.

But I'll save you the time, because no such research exists. Instead, what we have are laundry lists of isolated examples - extremes on both sides - which in no way represent the thought or speech of the majority. There is no proof that the right is greater in "amount and intensity" while the left meekly suffers in quietude. I've seen pages as long as my right arm of examples of 'right wing hate'. I've also seen pages as long as my left arm with examples of 'left wing hate'. Any perception of truth to the argument is based entirely on OPINIONS - not facts. The argument is patently false, and the fallacy exists because of personal bias alone.

What I think we are seeing is a case of mass hypersensitivity to opposing bias. People love to find isolated, eggregious cases and pretend that they are typical of entire groups. The left's hate of the Tea party is a good example. Bias magnifies the words you hate, and muffles the stuff you like.

So when people on the left hear Bush, Cheney, Bachman, Palin, Rush, Beck, Hannity, or Fox say something stupid it is instantly trumpeted as 'hate filled rhetoric' that is 'dominating the political discourse'. It isn't really, but they think it is because they disagree with it.

The very same people are able to blythely gloss over the exact same kind of rhetoric coming from ABC, CBS, NBC, AP, Rueters, NYT, CDS, USA Today, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, KOS, Beast, HuffPo, Maher, Olbermann, Kurtz, Maddow, Obama, Pelosi, Frank, Greyson, Sharpton, and MANY others. How are they able to achieve such staggeringly obvious cognitive dissonance? Easy. They AGREE with them. A nice thick layer of bias makes it all better.

The Videosift itself 10 to 1 favors left leaning links over right. All the above resources are filled to the literal brim with examples of 'left wing hate'. Just like the examples on the right of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, or Sean Hannity are filled with examples of 'right wing hate'. There is no difference in quantity or intensity. The only difference exists in the minds of people too blinkered by their own bias to see or hear accurately.

So I reject your inaccurate usage of the False equivalance fallacy. Such fallacies only exist when there is not actual equivalence. The angry rhetoric of the right that is being bemoaned is factually being duplicated on the left. Actual equivalence. And I - unlike others - am not attempting to use the existence of offensive rhetoric on one side as a club to censor the opinions of another.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Stephen Colbert, Newsweek, Sean Hannity, randy, inexperienced, syphilus' to 'Stephen Colbert, Newsweek, Sean Hannity, randy, inexperienced, syphilis' - edited by thinker247

Lyrics:

What if the tea party was black
Holding guns like the Black Panther Party was back
If Al was Rush Limbaugh and Jesse was Sean Hannity
And Tavis was Glenn Beck would they harm they families
If Sarah Palin was suddenly Sistah Soaljah
Would they leave it with the votes or go and get the soldiers
Yall know if the tea party was black
The government would have been had the army attack

What if Michael Baisden was on ya FM dial
For 3 hours every day calling the president foul
Would they say free speech or find evidence how
To charge him with treason like see he’s unamerican now
What if Minister Farrakhan prayed for the death
Of the commander in chief that he be laid to rest
Would they treat it as the gravest threat or never make an arrest
Even today he’s still hated for less
What if President Obama would have lost the election
Quit his job so he could go talk to the left and
Bash the government for being off of direction
Fraught with deception
And told black people they want all of our weapons
And we want our own country and called for secession
Would he be arrested and tossed in corrections
For trying to foster aggression
Against the people’s lawful selection
Our questions

What if the tea party was black
Holding guns like the Black Panther Party was back
If Al was Rush Limbaugh and Jesse was Sean Hannity
And Tavis was Glenn Beck would they harm they families
If Sarah Palin was suddenly Sistah Soaljah
Would they leave it with the votes or go and get the soldiers
Yall know if the tea party was black
The government would have been had the army attack

What If black people went on Facebook and made a page
That for the death if the president elect we prayed
Would the creators be tazed and thrown in a cage
We know the page wouldn’t have been displayed all these days
What if Jeremiah Wright said that everybody white
Wasn’t a real America would you feel scared of him
If he had a militia with pictures that depict the president as Hitler
They would kill and bury that
Wait
What if Cynthia McKinney lamented the winning of the new president
And hinted he wasn’t really a true resident
With no proof or evidence
Would the media treat it like a huge press event
They would have attacked whatever group she represents
They would have called her a kook on precedent
And any network that gave her due preference
Would be the laughing stock of the news so our question is

What if the tea party was black
Holding guns like the Black Panther Party was back
If Al was Rush Limbaugh and Jesse was Sean Hannity
And Tavis was Glenn Beck would they harm they families
If Sarah Palin was suddenly Sistah Soaljah
Would they leave it with the votes or go and get the soldiers
Yall know if the tea party was black
The government would have been had the army attack

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Tymbrwulf.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by burdturgler. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Boring....yet informative. Like to see Sean Hannity even look at the information before just saying whatever he feels like saying.

>> ^gwiz665:
To be fair, a brick wall could out-think Sean Hannity.


An empty glass bottle with a stiff wind blowing of the tip would win a debate against him...