Are Folks Making America Hate Again?

[RileyG]

All one has to do is read the posts from many Christians on the USA right in this forum to see with their own eyes that the hatred is well and truly alive, flourishing and being fanned by the President and his elite buddies.

Disagreement with others is NOT hate.

 

[NxNW]

None. I worded it wrong.

Ok.

People should be hired based on being qualified, not because they’re a minority.

Nobody is saying otherwise. But for decades minorities have been oppressed and denied employment, as you seem to acknowledge.

If minorities are qualified, they should be equally represented. Are you saying they are not as qualified as whites? Or are you saying that 100% of employers hire based on qualifications 100% of the time?

 

[NxNW]

Disagreement with others is NOT hate.

Nobody is saying otherwise.

 

[stevil]

Disagreement with others is NOT hate.

Yes, correct, agreed. But, still there are many people on this forum posting very hateful comments.

 

[stevil]

Why do you think people disagreeing with you is "hate?"

Why did you phrase this sentence this way?

A more accurate question would have been
"What comments in particular do you think are hateful on this forum?"

By your definition, you and all liberals hate all men, whites, conservatives, and especially Christians. I assure you, I do not hate anyone.

What definition have I provided?
Why are you lumping me with all liberals?

Hate is a very expensive emotion, and to do it right, one must allow it to consume them.

Many people here are consumed by their hatred or so it seems from their posts.

They end up in cults or radical political ideologies that do not mind destroying lives with unfounded and haphazard accusations.

Yes, I see this going on in USA, I see it on Youtube, in Fox News, in CNN, in USA rightwing political commentators, and on this forum.

 

[doubtingmerle]

This whole thread is a stacked deck; regardless., it is not hatred to disagree with it.

Good point. We do need to distinguish healthy debate from hatred of those with whom one disagrees. However, I consider the reactions of many on the right to minorities, immigrants, government workers, and others to be hate.

I am no great advocate of coal but it still seems to be useful if it is in moderation.

Our world is built on coal and other fossil fuels. And as so much of civilization is good, then some of the consequence of burning that coal is good.

But unfortunately, it is also have devastating effect on our environment. And the cheapest supplies of coal are rapidly being depleted, leaving low-quality, hard to get stuff for the future. If we want civilization to continue--and I do--then we need alternatives.

Is criticizing Chinese policies part of the preemptive charge of being mean as insinuated in the thread?

No, it is fine to criticize other countries. My concern is with people who refuse to give aid like was done by USAID; who bring massive upset to world trade; who even threaten to annex other countries; and who favor hateful attacks against people in Ukraine or Palestine.

Then going back to solar “farms”, having to erect tons of high tension wires for electric needs is a good trade off?

Yes.

I’ll take solar parking lots any day over solar “farms”. What a name to begin with, it sounds like a con. Do I grow vegetables and raise livestock on a solar “farm”?

Solar "farm" does not mean it needs to be on an actual farm. It is a term for a wide expanse of solar cells collective gathering solar energy.

Small residential solar installations are hard to justify when you consider all the required installation and maintenance for a few watts. Massive installations do make sense from a power perspective, but unfortunately, can consume space that could be used for other purposes.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Look for middle ground
View attachment 364010

OK, but per your chart, "Ratings do not reflect accuracy or credibility". I thought the very issue was accuracy and credibility.

If there is an accurate report on the extreme end of issue X, and a blatant fabrication in the center, which should you trust? Sometimes the truth about issue X might be on one of the extremes. If the truth is at the extreme, then accurate reporting will side with the truth (while reporting also the case for other views).

For example, suppose the issue is the humanity of members of congress. Source 1 takes the side that those in congress are people. Source 2 takes the middle, siding equally with the side that says they are all lizards from outer space, and the side that says they are people. Which source would you consider to be more reliable?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Wait, what? We all go through life choosing one set of lies while our neighbors choose another set of lies? What could possibly go wrong?

If only we had organizations who were dedicated to finding out the truth and reporting it to us. Oh, wait, we do. Its the mainstream media. True, they are not perfect, but they sure are better than a host of sources that make no effort to stick to the truth.

The mainstream media doesn’t make any effort to stick to the truth.

 

[BNR32FAN]

First Amendment aside, those are the extremes. Plenty of accurate reporting in the middle.

Yeah but only when they’re not talking about politics.

 

[BCP1928]

...you and all liberals hate all men, whites, conservatives, and especially Christians.

A perfect example of a hateful statement, a hateful lie, in fact.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

OK, but per your chart, "Ratings do not reflect accuracy or credibility". I thought the very issue was accuracy and credibility.

If there is an accurate report on the extreme end of issue X, and a blatant fabrication in the center, which should you trust? Sometimes the truth about issue X might be on one of the extremes. If the truth is at the extreme, then accurate reporting will side with the truth (while reporting also the case for other views).

For example, suppose the issue is the humanity of members of congress. Source 1 takes the side that those in congress are people. Source 2 takes the middle, siding equally with the side that says they are all lizards from outer space, and the side that says they are people. Which source would you consider to be more reliable?

Unless you have additional information there is no way to tell. One must consider the history and evidence of bias, accuracy and credibility.
I think the chart has sorted left, middle, right pretty well. I think it is imprudent to regard the middle as less accurate and credible than the far left and right. Don't you?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

A perfect example of a hateful statement, a hateful lie, in fact.

And this is a perfect example of assigning "hate" when there is none! You have made my point exactly!

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Why do you think people disagreeing with you is "hate?"

"Hate" is indeed an emotion of the heart. We cannot see it. We can only infer it from actions and words.

 

[BCP1928]

And this is a perfect example of assigning "hate" when there is none! You have made my point exactly!

What other reason would there be for making such a hateful statement?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

What other reason would there be for making such a hateful statement?

You are being silly now? Right?

 

[BCP1928]

You are being silly now? Right?

No, just looking for an honest answer.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The mainstream media doesn’t make any effort to stick to the truth.

How do you know the mainstream media makes no effort to stick to the truth? Did you just make that up?

Pointing out instances where media was wrong would not prove they made no effort to stick with the truth. To prove they made no effort, you would need to prove, uh, that they made no effort. Can you do that?

The Associated Press, for instance, details how they seek the truth and the commitment they make to the truth. See Telling the Story | The Associated Press . Are you saying that everything they say here is a lie, that they don't actually make any effort?

The truth is out there. One helpful source to find out who is telling the truth is A Vital Primer on Media Literacy • Richard Carrier Blogs.

 

[BNR32FAN]

How do you know the mainstream media makes no effort to stick to the truth? Did you just make that up?

Pointing out instances where media was wrong would not prove they made no effort to stick with the truth. To prove they made no effort, you would need to prove, uh, that they made no effort. Can you do that?

The Associated Press, for instance, details how they seek the truth and the commitment they make to the truth. See Telling the Story | The Associated Press . Are you saying that everything they say here is a lie, that they don't actually make any effort?

The truth is out there. One helpful source to find out who is telling the truth is A Vital Primer on Media Literacy • Richard Carrier Blogs.

If you can’t see it you’re blind.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

If you can’t see it you’re blind.

I was blinded by the light reflected from Trump's gold toilet. A lot of people were.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If you can’t see it you’re blind.

LOL! That is your evidence? All you can do is attack the senses of people who disagree with you? You have nothing better than an ad hominem response?

Suppose for a minute that what you say is true, that, "The mainstream media doesn’t make any effort to stick to the truth." If that is true, how would you possibly know it? You are cutting off the branch you are sitting on. For if you cannot believe the reports you hear from the world, how can you prove those reports are wrong without using some other report you hear from the world? How do you know your source is true?

And, if you tell me "Ben Shapiro says so," or you quote whomever it is that you trust, that doesn't answer the question. If all of mainstream media doesn't even make an attempt to stick with the truth, how do you know that your source attempts to stick to the truth?

Saying, "But my source agrees with my worldview," is not an answer. How do you know that your worldview is not built on lies?

How can we know if an article we read is true? I gave you one good source: A Vital Primer on Media Literacy • Richard Carrier Blogs. If you don't like that source, can you give me a link that you think tells us how to know the truth, or can you explain it in your own words?

If all that anybody can do is find "news" that they like, while downplaying any "news" they dislike, we end up with everybody thinking something different represents the real planet. How can any real society exist like that?

Image by author using ChatGPT Sora