Judge Rules ‘Choose Life’ Plates Unconstitutional »« ‘Pro-life’ Ads on Coat Hangers? Yep

Comments

  1. roggg says

    I blame Neil Patrick Harris. He’s so freakin’ awesome that prohibition against gay marriage is the only thing keeping heterosexuality alive at all. You know I’m right.

  2. Moggie says

    If marriage is “the very essence of our society”, where does that leave unmarried citizens? Are they not real Americans?

  3. baal says

    I’m somewhat interested in a larger question. Given that the WND creates an atmosphere of normalcy for wrong ideas (my marriage isn’t shiny if gays (thoooooose people) can do it too); is there an effective strategy for limiting the pollution? Clearly blogging here and elsewhere means that at least part of the population is ‘innoculated.’ I get the impression, however, that we’re not quite enough. At the very least, the right wing bias in polling organizations (gallup seems to be the goto one for regular media) seems to be the default and with the polls ‘blessing’ the MSM are happy enough to use the biased numbers. Maddow does bring some of this out and MediaMatters.org’s entire raison d’etre is exposing the bias. Are there other effective routes for limiting the harms of these lies?

  4. jba55 says

    @3 Too true.

    @4 Now that’s just going too far! Unless you replace it with brunch. Mmm, bacon and mimosas.

    As to the post, I thought that the rule of law was the essence of society. I mean, without that it’s just chaos. And I’m talking actual chaos not “some people are doing things I don’t like” chaos.

  5. Ichthyic says

    Are there other effective routes for limiting the harms of these lies?

    no, and here’s why:

    -you’ve probably noticed that evidentiary argument does little to sway those who already posses irrational ideas (you can’t use reason to argue someone out of a position that reason did not get them into). Ever tried arguing with a creationist?

    -most people who buy into the arguments of places like WND, have already been convinced of these arguments by “trusted sources” of information, usually pastors or direct peers, and those “trusted sources” have also told them which “news” feeds that they can “trust”.

    so, what to do?

    swallow the bullet. you will NOT change the positions these people have without first changing the messages their trusted authorities give them. That means BUYING their loyalty to the message you want them to give out.

    you want real change in America? you have to buy these sources just like the Koch Brothers, just like Rupert Murdoch, and control the message that goes out.

    IMO, Altemeyer was exactly right in his observations that a large percentage of all populations possess authoritarian personalities, and since this group are the ones typically directly influenced by “trusted authorities”, and typically vote as a single power block, all you have to do to create change is the same thing the Neocons did starting with Nixon’s Southern Strategy, but simply change the message to a ‘safe and sane’ one instead.

    sorry, but even if it sounds slimy and underhanded, I see no other way.

Leave a Reply