I only skimmed the article, but in my estimation, dailykos is the liberal equivalent of free republic - they're both full of loons who automatically side with one side before they even know what the issue on the table is. I think you're relatively okay with the articles if you approach them with the appropriate skepticism, but some of the discussion threads can get a little out there. dailykos is a bit more tame though...not as many calls for detaining or killing people just because they're on the other side of an issue.
I'm not interested in Daily Kos's discussion threads, or automatic pro-Democrat cheerleading. I haven't linked to that, I linked to a specific opinion on a specific topic.
I wasn't arguing for or against anything stated in the article. I was just saying the site in general is far from a beacon of unbiased reasoning. I even said, "I think you're relatively okay with the articles". It was a somewhat off-topic comment...no need to get defensive.
I'm just (perhaps unreasonably) wary of any thing that leads down the road of criticizing motives of speakers/writers instead of dealing directly with the ideas they present. Especially when, after attributing bias to everyone, the conclusion is that both "sides" are about equally valid. You may or may not have being going down this road, in your comments here or in your own personal thinking, but for now I don't think there's any reason for either of us to care.
So do you have any thoughts on the specific topic, or is it implied that you agree with the thoughts but don't want to appear to endorse a source that you've had issue with in the past?
I agree with the ideas, but I don't think much of the presentation. The situation is disgusting enough that a writer should be able to come up with something compelling without a bunch of name-calling. I'm not so much bothered by the terms "farcical bit of legislation" and "kangaroo commissions" as I am by referring to the president as "Dubyanocchio". Not that I have any respect for the president, it just makes the piece come off as, as you put it, democratic cheerleading. I realize that little bit of nit-picking doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the arguments, but it makes the non-logical parts of my brain want to stop paying attention or at least wish for a few more facts and a few less anecdotes. That reaction isn't logical, but I at least recognize it as not being logical, which is why I didn't particularly want to comment on the article itself.
There's an emotional component here, but I don't see how this is "Democratic cheerleading" at all. It takes a stand against what is going on down in Gitmo, and it isn't respectful of Bush, but that doesn't mean it is pro-Democrat.
I'm sure you know that and were just typing quickly.
"I'm sure you know that and were just typing quickly."
Ever the master of the backhanded complement.
I meant what I said. I said that it came off as cheerleading, not that it was. Since I had that pre-formed opinion, I didn't want to comment on the article, since I knew I had a bias against it.
7 comments:
I only skimmed the article, but in my estimation, dailykos is the liberal equivalent of free republic - they're both full of loons who automatically side with one side before they even know what the issue on the table is. I think you're relatively okay with the articles if you approach them with the appropriate skepticism, but some of the discussion threads can get a little out there. dailykos is a bit more tame though...not as many calls for detaining or killing people just because they're on the other side of an issue.
I'm not interested in Daily Kos's discussion threads, or automatic pro-Democrat cheerleading. I haven't linked to that, I linked to a specific opinion on a specific topic.
I wasn't arguing for or against anything stated in the article. I was just saying the site in general is far from a beacon of unbiased reasoning. I even said, "I think you're relatively okay with the articles". It was a somewhat off-topic comment...no need to get defensive.
I'm just (perhaps unreasonably) wary of any thing that leads down the road of criticizing motives of speakers/writers instead of dealing directly with the ideas they present. Especially when, after attributing bias to everyone, the conclusion is that both "sides" are about equally valid. You may or may not have being going down this road, in your comments here or in your own personal thinking, but for now I don't think there's any reason for either of us to care.
So do you have any thoughts on the specific topic, or is it implied that you agree with the thoughts but don't want to appear to endorse a source that you've had issue with in the past?
I agree with the ideas, but I don't think much of the presentation. The situation is disgusting enough that a writer should be able to come up with something compelling without a bunch of name-calling. I'm not so much bothered by the terms "farcical bit of legislation" and "kangaroo commissions" as I am by referring to the president as "Dubyanocchio". Not that I have any respect for the president, it just makes the piece come off as, as you put it, democratic cheerleading. I realize that little bit of nit-picking doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the arguments, but it makes the non-logical parts of my brain want to stop paying attention or at least wish for a few more facts and a few less anecdotes. That reaction isn't logical, but I at least recognize it as not being logical, which is why I didn't particularly want to comment on the article itself.
There's an emotional component here, but I don't see how this is "Democratic cheerleading" at all. It takes a stand against what is going on down in Gitmo, and it isn't respectful of Bush, but that doesn't mean it is pro-Democrat.
I'm sure you know that and were just typing quickly.
"I'm sure you know that and were just typing quickly."
Ever the master of the backhanded complement.
I meant what I said. I said that it came off as cheerleading, not that it was. Since I had that pre-formed opinion, I didn't want to comment on the article, since I knew I had a bias against it.
Post a Comment