Please Attempt to Interpret This Visual Argument

[Singularity]

I thought it was fairly clear, but my prof didn't quite get it, so I'm wondering if it's just him or if it really isn't clear enough.

[AZRogue]

Seems pretty clear to me. I think. ;) Seems you're asking if a person believes in lies, witch hunts, or if they believe in freedom, equality, and the the search for truth.

[Name Lips]

I don't recognize the two at the top, but it still seems fairly obvious to me. Icons of justice and civil rights on the right, and abusers of justice and civil rights on the left.

[azrael]

first thing I saw was are you commie or cowardly, but I read the words first, and those are the first two things I kinda think of with red and yellow

[Singularity]

I don't recognize the two at the top, but it still seems fairly obvious to me. Icons of justice and civil rights on the right, and abusers of justice and civil rights on the left.

It makes me sad that you don't recognize them. The one on the left is Senator Joe McCarthy (tailgunner Joe) and the one on the right is Edward. R. Murrow, one of my personal heroes.

[Singularity]

first thing I saw was are you commie or cowardly, but I read the words first, and those are the first two things I kinda think of with red and yellow

The red and yellow are only there for contrast. Remember that Abe Lincoln was a Republican.

[Utrecht]

The colors threw me off as well.

Yellow = cowardly and red = communism (especially when coupled with McCarthy)

[FeatsofClay]

Red is an action color. One of anger.

Yellow is effeminate and a color of cowards.

Perhaps if you had chosen different colors and then chaged their hue down the page as each example was stronger. The color was a terible choice. Maybe black to white across? Could have been much stronger without the visual confusion.

[PWD]

The colors threw me off as well.

Yellow = cowardly and red = communism (especially when coupled with McCarthy)

Yellow = Cowardly (which is what each of those on the left side would claim of those opposing them. Red is the color of the republicans and what they wrap themselves in when not busy coopting the flag.

But then I have an axe to grind, so my perception may be getting intentionally played here.

[Utrecht]

Yellow = Cowardly (which is what each of those on the left side would claim of those opposing them. Red is the color of the republicans and what they wrap themselves in when not busy coopting the flag.

But then I have an axe to grind, so my perception may be getting intentionally played here.


:rolleyes: yes, and you have been grinding it everywhere - whether it is warrnted or not.


Singlular - thinking about this more - if had not refered to the colors, you would be better - even saying something as simple as "what side are you on?" would work better.

By referring to the colors directly, you bring the preconcieved notions of what they represent into the discussion.

[Harry]

The message was mixed badly, and the red and yellow??? Completely unclear to me. I recognized all the pictures, Murrow and Salem, too, but the message? Muddy.

[Singularity]

OK, I agree, different colors should have been used.

Fortunately this was just an attempt at a visual argument and not anything I'm being graded on. The red and the yellow could work in the context that the guys on the left would be calling the guys on the right cowards in all cases, but cowardice wasn't something I intended to be brought into the discussion.

Pretend the colors aren't there.

[azrael]

The red and yellow are only there for contrast. Remember that Abe Lincoln was a Republican.
yeah, I recognized all the people and settings...


without the colors involved, I think it's a pretty decent visual arguement, but as has been said, the colors make me think too much

[The Winslow]

My first interpretation of the picture, before looking at the people in the photos, was that it had something to do with Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg).

[PWD]

:rolleyes: yes, and you have been grinding it everywhere - whether it is warrnted or not.

You sir, are no authority on biases. Not until you can face your own which you have staunchly failed to do for years.

[Utrecht]

You sir, are no authority on biases. Not until you can face your own which you have staunchly failed to do for years.

what???? Because I won't acknowledge Rush Limbaugh (et all) are news instead of entertainment or that I am right leaning????

Of course I have biases, never stated otherwise - Not even sure what you are getting at here.

[PWD]

what???? Because I won't acknowledge Rush Limbaugh (et all) are news instead of entertainment or that I am right leaning????

Of course I have biases, never stated otherwise - Not even sure what you are getting at here.

Oh, you don't get off that easy. It doesn't begin and end at Limbaugh et al.

If conservatives are telling you you're letting your conservatism bias your view of things, it's time to self-reflect. AZR tried to make the same point to you that I did and you rebuffed it, secure in your belief that liberal leaning media was the beginning and end of the story.

I tried to make you see how conservatives carrying a chip on their shoulder factored into the equation too, and you didn't find that reasonable at all. Clearly it was all liberal media bias, there was no culture of victimization at play whatsoever.

You took it personal, like it was a failing of you alone being called out. It's not, it's somewhat pervasive, particularly among folks who listen to the rabble-rousers beating their drums about oppression by the MSM.

My argument all along is that there's room to find bias on both sides, both in the media, and in the people complaining about the media. It's an eminently reasonable and logical position. You didn't like it one bit.

[Utrecht]

Oh, you don't get off that easy. It doesn't begin and end at Limbaugh et al.

If conservatives are telling you you're letting your conservatism bias your view of things, it's time to self-reflect. AZR tried to make the same point to you that I did and you rebuffed it, secure in your belief that liberal leaning media was the beginning and end of the story.


Dude, you need to lay off what you are smoking - unless I am completely missing something - AZ never commented on my posts.

Further, look at the wording you are using - things like DISTINCT Liberal Bias and any one one disagrees with a conservative is exhibiting bias (paraphrasing on that one) - as I said before, I can't and will not agree to that black and white distinction.

I have stated that there was a slight liberal bias - and provided cites for it (something you have neglected to do) - I have also stated that it has gotten better sincer the beginning of the decade. I fail to see how this matches "your belief that liberal leaning media was the beginning and end of the story"



I tried to make you see how conservatives carrying a chip on their shoulder factored into the equation too, and you didn't find that reasonable at all. Clearly it was all liberal media bias, there was no culture of victimization at play whatsoever.


Carrying a chip on their shoulder is different than viewing disagreement as bias - yes are they many conservatives who have chips on their shoulders and see bias when there is none. But as I stated above, I simply cannot accept the (what I see) your black and white view of this.


You took it personal, like it was a failing of you alone being called out. It's not, it's somewhat pervasive, particularly among folks who listen to the rabble-rousers beating their drums about oppression by the MSM.

Not seeing this - I take nothing personal on this board - it is just not worth it - so if you could let me know what is causing you to think this, then we can work to correct it.


My argument all along is that there's room to find bias on both sides, both in the media, The issue here PWD - is that I provided cites on studies showing that there is a liberal media bias - I am not just spouting my personal impressions.

and in the people complaining about the media.

Oh, there is no doubt on this one - I indicated several times in my responses that conservatives use this a rallying cry when there is nothing to support it. I will not agree that this is the case all the times, which is what you imply, because as I have shown (again backed up by studies) it does exist..

It's an eminently reasonable and logical position. You didn't like it one bit.

Except that it is all your opinion (stating there is no liberal bias) which is simply not backed up by the facts.

Hopefully, this response makes things much clearer - and it certainly is much more thought-out than your republican dissing thread crap was (which you do admit your bias - but it had nothing to do with the topic at hand)

[PWD]

Hopefully, this response makes things much clearer - and it certainly is much more thought-out than your republican dissing thread crap was (which you do admit your bias - but it had nothing to do with the topic at hand)

It wasn't a threadcrap. It was admitting my bias up front so that the opinion attached to it could be freely disregarded if you or others so chose. That's called honesty, try it some time where your own biases are concerned. :)

Overall though, I do appreciate the response. I'll point out that what I was in effect doing was mirroring the quote in the OP, providing something akin to the liberal view of what Conservatives are doing wrong.

While you found no reason to complain about the OP quote even where other conservatives could admit it was problematic, you went off when the medicine was applied to your side. You might want to think about why that is. At no point did I state it was fact (nor did I mean to), only that it was the impression.

You wonder why conservative cries of favoritism gain no traction - you've admitted it yourself, it's a rallying cry and a talking point. Factor in how these things get conservatives perceived, and it's just as unfair a generalization as the nonsense coming from the other side.

A conservative lecturing down to liberals from on high was what the OP provided. I returned the favor. Pointed experiment, demonstrated what I was aiming for. I wasn't trying to piss you off, so apologies for that, but it was interesting.

[Sobek]

The message was mixed badly, and the red and yellow??? Completely unclear to me. I recognized all the pictures, Murrow and Salem, too, but the message? Muddy.
This. The line is pretty obvious. I'm assuming you're trying to get people to think about some things.

I might have avoided using the sitting President, unless that's your specific point, because that's too charged right now. A more subtle referrence might have played better and been more likely to get conservatives to follow a trail from one objectionable thing back to Bush without setting them on the defensive right away. In that case, using the color red for that side might have had a subconscious push, but only if you didn't use blue for the other (which you didn't).

Is that enough babble?

[Singularity]

This. The line is pretty obvious. I'm assuming you're trying to get people to think about some things.

I might have avoided using the sitting President, unless that's your specific point, because that's too charged right now. A more subtle referrence might have played better and been more likely to get conservatives to follow a trail from one objectionable thing back to Bush without setting them on the defensive right away. In that case, using the color red for that side might have had a subconscious push, but only if you didn't use blue for the other (which you didn't).

Is that enough babble?

Well, including Bush was kind of the point of the argument. The idea was to place him with his historical contemporaries. Witch/communist/terrorist hunting is really just subtle nuances of the same type of persecution. Most of the people who have been dragged down from within this country in all three of these cases didn't deserve what happened to them. Unfortunately, the only solid example of someone from outside the system who actually challenged this sort of thing publicly and got away with it was Murrow. If there were more examples, I would have used them, so instead I went with Martin Luther King Jr., who himself stood against institutionalized racism, and of course Lincoln, who stood against slavery.

[Sobek]

Well, including Bush was kind of the point of the argument.
I did mension that possibility in my argument. I wasn't completely sure which side of the art/rhetoric line you were aiming for. If this was a Poli Sci prof, then, yeah, it's pretty obvious.

[FeatsofClay]

Well, including Bush was kind of the point of the argument. The idea was to place him with his historical contemporaries. Witch/communist/terrorist hunting is really just subtle nuances of the same type of persecution. Most of the people who have been dragged down from within this country in all three of these cases didn't deserve what happened to them. Unfortunately, the only solid example of someone from outside the system who actually challenged this sort of thing publicly and got away with it was Murrow. If there were more examples, I would have used them, so instead I went with Martin Luther King Jr., who himself stood against institutionalized racism, and of course Lincoln, who stood against slavery.

It looks like matched opposition. If the focus was Bush he should not be part of the symmetry. Put 3 on one side and 3 on the other him as the background.

[Sobek]

It looks like matched opposition. If the focus was Bush he should not be part of the symmetry. Put 3 on one side and 3 on the other him as the background.
Oh, I like that. It makes the focus obvious, but doesn't hit you over the head with the message. It allows you to decide what you think -- even if it's a heavily weighted question, so to speak.