Friday, March 30, 2012

Adam Carolla on Media Bias

He makes a powerful point about the Tyler Clementi affair. Basically with a focus on the misreporting, the current legal state of the accused, etc.

Carolla pawns the entire thing off as 'media bias' and the need to sensationalize things, but I think he's missing some more proper targets. Absolutely there was a media bias and muckraking angle with the story, but it was built up in part by the LGBT groups themselves. There was a conscious decision to make Clementi a martyr, and for that to happen, Dharun Ravi had to be a villain. Not just "an asshole", but a full-fledged villain - some angry, hateful homophobe who was trying his best to mentally assault Clementi and drive him to suicide, subconsciously if not consciously.

As Mark Shea now and then suggests, homosexual acts are downright sacramental. It's not enough to tolerate - it has to be praised and fetishized. Carolla talks about how, in the future, if a real tragedy takes place, the misreporting in this case will make people less likely to believe it. That's possibly true. But the real hope is that people get the idea that anything they do or say which can be viewed as disapproval of a homosexual act may in turn ruin their life. What in any other situation would be viewed as the behavior of a jerk - even a momentary jerk - may well be trumped up into full-fledged evidence of monsterdom. Quite a number of people would love for that threat to be perpetually hanging in the air.

9 comments:

Ephram said...

It's not enough to tolerate - it has to be praised and fetishized.


And I've noticed that quite a number of the LGBT crowd nowadays will openly admit as much - that they do not want mere tolerance of their lifestyle, but a complete acceptance of it as being morally legitimate in all aspects. And I've noticed that often this demand is grounded in a firm belief that saying, "I will tolerate your gay lifestyle," is on a par with saying, "I will tolerate your being black." And dat just means you'z a hateful bigot, Crude, hence your argument izn't worth hearing cuz it be rooted in HATE!

Crude said...

That damn "hate" word. That's a whole conversation unto itself. It's such a worthy topic, and it's never really dug into at a proper angle.

The Phantom Blogger said...

"It's not enough to tolerate - it has to be praised and fetishized."


I think this can be applied to the views of liberals in relation to all forms of sex though. The difference between Liberals and Libertarians is usually that Libertarians defend the freedom to engage in an act while (at least in theory) being morally neutral to it, while Liberals defend the acts themselves. With prostitution for example the Libertarian would defend it from the perspective of personal freedom, where as the liberal would defend prostitution as an act and defend the morality of said act. They'd say its ok as long as its between consenting adults and would make arguments for it being empowering to women and say those who are against it are sexually repressed or even anti-sex.

One of the major aims of liberalism is to get everyone to accept and even adhere to there own view of sexual morality, that consists of little more than these two principles: Sexual acts are morally legitimate as long as no one gets hurt and as long as there between consenting adults.

The second principle about adults will probably be adjusted in the future, if it hasn't all ready been done in some nations, to justify sexual acts with children in there early teens.

People who refuse to accept these views of sexual morality are generally looked down upon and if there young they may even be mocked by there peers. Its essentially like the liberal equivalent of shaming, where the individual is made to accept there world view out of a sense of embarrassment and not wanting to be seen as different or be made a social outcast.

Crude said...

The second principle about adults will probably be adjusted in the future, if it hasn't all ready been done in some nations, to justify sexual acts with children in there early teens.

I've already said that I fully expect an eventual liberal retrospective on the priest abuse cases to involve angrily denouncing the Church and the public for persecuting young boys and mature men who were just expressing a healthy sexuality.

I think liberals are a bit more confused than that, however. There are liberals who of course think that any sexual act that doesn't involve a lack of consent, or a child (though with the age range of 'child' pretty reduced in scope) is praiseworthy. There are others who freak out at any kind of 'sexualization'. See feminists on porn.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

#NotTheOnion http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/29/un-planned-parenthood-push-sex-rights-for-ten-year-old-kids/

The Phantom Blogger said...

The interesting thing about the whole Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal is that I've always thought the problem is almost purely related to the fact that the Catholic Church allowed to many men with homosexual leanings to join the priesthood. The problem itself essentially stems from homosexuality, but the media has been intent on making it appear as if the problem stems from Catholic beliefs about celibacy and there "outdated" views on sexual morality, and has then been using this to push there own liberal views on sexuality.

About feminists on pornography. I think the anti-pornography feminists represent something of the old guard. Most of the modern feminists that I see in print tend to be both pro-pornography and pro-prostitution.

Crude said...

I've had conversations with liberal sorts who, when I point out the overwhelmingly homosexual nature of the priest "abuse" cases, honest to God seem stunned. Like, literally, they could not bring themselves to admit that a man sodomizing a 13 year old boy is a homosexual act, no matter how you slice it. I think the problem runs deeper than homosexuality, but holy crap, it certainly played a role.

Modern feminists are a mess, so don't expect them to be too consistent. Then again, I suppose the older feminists were inconsistent too. So, they've been consistent about that. ;)

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

In a similar vein, have you read about how the Zimmermann 911 dialogue was truncated by NBC? Truly deviant reporting.

Crude said...

Oh, the Zimmerman case is just illustrating a lot of what I've been trying to convey here recently. Not that I think Zimmerman is a saint - he seems to have been an idiot who made a mistake. But that doctored 911 dialogue was atrocious in particular.