Tea Parties, Glenn Beck protest Muslim Family Day at Six Flags Great America

RatherGoodBear said:
Nowadays all these "news" networks provide little more than 24 hours of the same slant without the expression of any opposing viewpoint.

I think that's a poor generalization, but even if it were true, because of the billion channels on cable, plus the Internet, opposing views are readily available if one chooses to seek them out. That people don't is the issue. Whether or not "news" networks are actually adhering to any journalistic standard is another.

But to the point about the generalization, I've been sampling a lot of TV news since I moved, since the different national/world news programs are on at all kinds of weird times (not all at 6:30, as they were back east). I've found that the three major networks tend to be reasonably balanced (ABC, NBC and CBS), though their approaches are different. They don't bury negative news about one party or the other. For me that validates the research someone else had linked to, about bias perception, particularly how Fox is generally accepted to be way out there, while the rest tend to be more generally perceived as neutral.

CNN has become very tabloidish, unfortunately. I never really watch MSNBC, so I don't have an opinion about that.

And for the record, I doubt all Teabaggers are racist, but they tend to be stupid (yes, I know the source is a little wacky left). Being angry and loud is not an intellectual argument for anything.

Jeff said:
And for the record, I doubt all Teabaggers are racist, but they tend to be stupid (yes, I know the source is a little wacky left). Being angry and loud is not an intellectual argument for anything.

I'm pretty sure any of us could go out and spend a day filming just about any kind of march or protest and put together a similar 8 minute video.

It just depends on who you want to make look stupid, angry and loud.

Then perhaps some Tea Party group should prepare such a video, as I've yet to see anything that paints them in a generally "we know why we're angry" sort of light. The simple fact that the Tea Party movement only started now, and not sometime during the previous administration (when our government spent gads of money - which I understand as one of the TP's main concerns), doesn't do much to legitimize their "message".

For the record, I doubt all Muslims are terrorists, but they tend to be very hateful (yes, I know the source is the 1st thing that came up on google).

People upset at govt size/spending (when did the govt NOT spend gads of money?) didn't just materialize in 2009. They've been here for decades. They DID complain about all the spending under Bush, and abandoned him at the polls in 2006. Has the high spending from the Bush years gone away, or has it gone higher still? Might that be why the "smaller govt" people are upset?

Lankster said:
I doubt all Muslims are terrorists, but they tend to be very hateful

Making a generalization that Muslims tend to be very hateful based on extremist groups is incredibly short-sighted and unfair.

If I were to say that Christians tend to be very hateful based on this group of them would this be a reasonable thing to say?

I'm still finding it amusing that there are many people warning against making generalizations against an entire group, yet there are still statements that the entire Tea Party movement is racist, and all Tea Partiers are stupid.

I find it amusing that this was bumped back after a week when it had slid into 'silly nonsense', but whatever.

If Jeff thinks the whole of the Tea Party is racist and stupid, then that is generalizing an entire group as well. I personally haven't said anything that I recall saying one thing or the other. There have been comments from people that they don't think the entire Tea Party are a bunch of racist idiots, though.

Seems to me RGB has some political issues with Jeff, and that's fine, but like I said earlier, there was a discussion I listened to on XM Radio's Opie & Anthony where they talked to a Muslim on the phone. All 3 radio hosts stated they don't think the majority of Muslims are terrorists, but the problem they have is that the extremists are the loudest ones, and if the rest of the majority don't want to be lumped in with extremists, then they should speak a little louder. They weren't just directing that at Muslims, either, there were other groups they mentioned.

I tend to agree. If you don't want to be judged by the actions of the vocal minority, then be a vocal majority. If the Tea Party doesn't want to be judged by Palin and others, then the ones that aren't extremists need to speak a little louder.

Generalizations happen because people tend to judge a group on those who set them selves up to vocal leaders. If it looks like you're being led by someone who is spewing hatred, then you're going to get lumped in with that. It's sad, and it isn't right, but it happens. So be a vocal majority and stand up and be louder when saying "No! I don't believe this way, and I don't want to be judged on this person, but on my beliefs as they pertain to the entire group that aren't extremists".

Robotfactory: You need to ask Jeff your question, and pay better attention to the thread you respond to.

Tek: Tea Baggers? Really?

Lankster said:
For the record, I doubt all Muslims are terrorists, but they tend to be very hateful...

Holy moronic ignorance, Batman!

^Right back at you! Try reading the whole page of the thread, at least.

Perhaps I misunderstood...

I took this:

...I doubt all Muslims are terrorists, but they tend to be very hateful...

...to mean that you don't think all Muslims are terrorists, but you do think they tend to be very hateful.

If I misunderstood your point, I apologize, and would be happy to hear an explanation.

^ Look at Jeff's post at the top of this page, last paragraph. Look familiar?

Well then, I apologize. :)

However, comparing a fringe group of protesters with a religious group containing 1,400,000,000 people seems to be somewhat of a stretch, in my opinion. Especially when the former was just recently formed.

So if the group is "recently formed" it is ok to make negative generalizations about them?

Of course! Everyone knows that new groups have no credibility! ;)

I didn't follow the sarcasm in your post either, Lankster. Page breaks can occur differently for folks depending on whether they see ads or not. Jeff's post is not on this page for me. I think it's more effective to just explain your post if it seems people aren't following you.

I agree with the point that it seems the theme problem in this thread has been generalizations. Those against Muslims, those against the Tea Party, those against the media, those against "everyone" posting in this thread, etc.

Well, then. I guess it's my turn to apologize!

Lankster said:
So if the group is "recently formed" it is ok to make negative generalizations about them?

Not necessarily. But a generalization made about a group of, say, 100,000 very vocal people would be far easier, and perhaps more accurate, than one made about a group 14,000 times the former group's size.

No need... we're all a bunch of sorry people. ;)

Wow, I totally didn't mean to type out Tea Baggers, that was honestly a mistake!

To be fair to Lankster, Jeff's post was on the same page as Lankster's, so it was my fault for not recognizing the context. That said, yeah, a simple explanation would've been more helpful than the snarkiness.