How to Trash a Lib ‘Journalist’ Using Nothing but a Question

PC Water Torture:  Protecting The PC Narrative

MSNBC Anchor, Karen Finney, Refuses To Acknowledge Objective Reality

NOTE:  All posts in the “PC Water Torture” series are meant to illustrate the arguments presented in one of The OYL’s primary secondary topic series.  The “PC Water Torture” posts are intended to provide a constant drip of posts about related stories that – when taken individually – may not appear to indicate an agenda, but when taken collectively, over time, form a clear picture of an agenda.  It is hoped that, over time, the constant ‘dripping’ of these stories will make the point – much the same way the constant dripping in the proverbial Chinese water torture is intended to break the victims will to resist.  In this case, this post illustrates how the media deliberately uses a modern day form of McCarthyism against its political opponents by claiming they are modern day McCarthy’s.

Aside from the usual historic revisionism, one of the ways the media tries to protect its narrative is by refusing to acknowledge objective fact.  This is usually easy to spot.  If you are watching a supposed news piece or listening to a journalist in an interview where they are asked a direct question that they refuse to answer, or try to reframe then answer, the chances are you are watching a refusal to acknowledge an objective fact.  If the proof of this fact is presented to try and force an acknowledgment, the journalist will most often respond by denying the fact and the evidence that proves it.  It essence, these people play a child’s game of sticking their fingers in their ears, squeezing their eyes shut and screaming “I can’t hear you!”  What’s more, they do this until rational people realize they are dealing with a child in an adult’s body and give up.  Then the journalist puts on their happy face and starts pretending like they made their point and won the argument.  Any time you see this dance, you need to understand you are watching a person who has lost touch with the real world.  Here’s a perfect example:

Flustered MSNBC Anchor Hangs Up on Conservative Radio Host in the Middle of Explosive Debate: ‘I’m Not Doing This Game with You!’

Read the rest…

10 thoughts on “How to Trash a Lib ‘Journalist’ Using Nothing but a Question

  1. “I’m Not Doing This With You”: another typical liberal cop out when they have run out of one-ups or have nothing substantial to say on a subject. The discussion becomes a “game”. It’s all about how they are way to intellectual to cross wits with stupid thinkers from the opposing side. A cheap way of saving face and flaunting entitlement to the last word. Joe, your analogy couldn’t be more fitting.

    • Libercrite,

      Have you ever read Goldberg’s book, “Liberal Cliches?” In it, he argues that most rank-and-file Leftists have been taught to reason and argue using these cliches. So, when they run into a challenge, they search their memory bank for the appropriate response, spout it and then HONESTLY believe they just won and ended the argument. Sadly, these people do not realize or understand how/why they haven’t ended anything but the allowance that they may actually be properly educated and can think for themselves.

      This is why they get so frustrated when they are faced by someone who has the facts and refuses to let them reply with a cliche. They have no answer because, when they have to give a real response, cliches will not do — but cliches are all they have. The natural result is they get angry and lash out.

      This pattern is a sure sign of someone who has been indoctrinated. And we need to understand that a crucial part of any good indoctrination is to insulate the victim against any attempt to salvage them. This is why they must first be taught to hate their opposition: so they will reflexively reject anything they say — even their presence. And this is why we have such a difficult time reaching them. Karl and Melfamy are excellent examples of how this indoctrination manifests itself in real people.

      • I haven’t read that, Joe, but it sounds interesting. I’ll have to check that out.

        I recently broke out my textbook from critical thinking class that i took once upon a time. I like to skip around and to touch up on my fallacies and arguments. Doing this reminds me that the process of staying coherent when saying anything, let alone making an argument as a journalist (especially on inflammatory issues), can be a rigorous process. Just because you might research an issue and know all of the facts and figures, doesn’t mean that you are in the clear by any means. Then there is the whole process of forming an argument that is valid, sound or cogent depending on the argument, and not fallacious. The sad thing is, I had no training on reasoning or education on logic until I was well out of high school, and after this class, I still had to do a great deal of self educating (and still doing). I say all of that simply to say that engaging in a discussions that involve argumentation is a rigorous process that requires you to actually THINK, something these liberal journalists either don’t do or don’t demonstrate it very well.

        • Libercrite,

          Brother, you are preaching to the choir. My degree is in philosophy, which means that ALL we did was focus on making sound, valid and rational arguments and avoiding fallacies — even in our class discussion. I suspect you understand — better than most — why I can get frustrated with certain people here 😉

          • I understand completely, Joe. The problem with post-modern progressive thinking is that their seems to be this opinion that logical reasoning is relative (while ironically they see themselves as the great thinking intellectual elite). History’s great thinkers didn’t work hard to lay a foundation for us to build upon, just so that people could dismiss this stuff as mere “opinion”. For example, there is no black, grey, or white with logical fallacies. There is no left, right, or open to interpretation. There is no “logic is whatever you perceive it to be”. Formal fallacies are always formal fallacies, just like 3 X 4 ALWAYS equals 12 (not 11). Division and composition will always be errors in logic, regardless if you believe that the universe speaks to you or not. False cause fallacies will always be errors in logic regardless of what your opinion on Church/State issues are. The worst part is, the people who are the most aware of this, are the ones who are cast aside as over-analytical and paranoid.

            The class I took lacked that kind of discipline, Joe. It was more about self proclaimed Anarchist and Marxist students irrelevantly bashing Christianity and Capitalism while the instructor fed right into it. I don’t mind actual criticism of Christianity and/or Capitalism, as I’m not afraid to engage in discussion on these topics; the only problem was, these students demonstrated nothing provided in the course material. The other half of the problem was the instructor not using the irrelevant tangents as a teaching opportunity to apply the concepts of reasoning pragmatically. Instead, he ended up making all of the arguments for his all-star cast of social dissidents. I hope the conduct of that instructor is not representative of every philosophy instructor, in every philosophy department, in every university, across the nation. If that’s the case, I rather do the Good Will Hunting thing and educate myself at the cost of $2.50 worth of late fees from the public library.

            • Libercrite,

              I dual majored. My other discipline is sociology. I understand what you mean about biased professors. I had a LOT of them in my sociology classes. HOWEVER, they were not so pleased to have a philosophy student in their class as I applied disciplined logic to the material they taught. They also did not appreciate that I finished school when I was 27 and had already made Sgt in the USMC. My life experience tended to cause me to confront them — in class. My favorite was my sociology of race professor, Dr. Blake Turner.

              He once ‘proved’ to the class that we are a racist society because more blacks are on welfare than whites (this was 1993). The problem is, he got to this conclusion by comparing a percentage to a whole number. Having completed 3 1/2 years on a mechanical engineering program before switching majors, I saw the mistake right away and challenged him. He told me he was an ‘expert’ in epidemiology and I shouldn’t question him. I told him he was obviously over his head where math is concerned and I could prove it. The fool held out his chalk. 30 seconds later, the class was laughing at him because they even saw the mistake — once I showed it to them. As it turns out, at the time, using the numbers he gave us, 51% of those on welfare were WHITE! I got a 0 for class participation but still made a B in his class because he could not break the logic in my papers. Those could be taken to the dean.

              As for those who think they can prove evolution: I challenge them to read a single book and follow behind everything presented in it. That book is “A Case for the Creator” by Lee Strobel. That book is a series of interviews with HIGHLY accredited and some very accomplished scientists. The consensus is, modern science has clearly pointed to Intelligent Design of this universe. What most skeptics do not know and will refuse to acknowledge is that Darwinian evolution by natural selection has been utterly and totally discredited. At present, there is only one plausible theory of why we are here and how we got here: God. And God is reason — not post-modernism.

              The funny thing about the post modern types is they make their claims with such certainty, never understanding that their certainty contradicts their claim about not being able to be certain about anything. In other words, the post modernist claim is self-contradicting, and that is a fallacy 🙂

              • “The funny thing about the post modern types is they make their claims with such certainty, never understanding that their certainty contradicts their claim about not being able to be certain about anything. In other words, the post modernist claim is self-contradicting, and that is a fallacy”

                Now you’re preaching to the choir! Not a whole lot of post-modernism is actually logically consistent, partially because there is more of an emphasis on emotive reasoning than logical reasoning. Take moral relativity for example. A crowd favorite with post-modernists. I can’t think of a system of reasoning more circular than moral relativity. I can handle an argument like one of Karl’s, where an argument is made for the non-existence of morality, but relativity just baffles me. It actually makes my head want to explode.

                Lee Strobel puts out some great work. I was still in high school when I read “A Case For the Creator”, and it was the student edition that I read, so my memory is a little fuzzy on that at the moment. I have read “The Case For Christ”, “The Case For Faith”, and “The Case For the Real Jesus”. All great, solid works. “God According to God” by Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder is another good on. A little less apologetic than other works out there. “The Devil’s Delusion” by secular Jew, David Berlinski, is another one of my favorites. A purely scientific and somewhat philosophical criticism of Darwinian theory by somebody who claims that they “cannot have faith”. Berlinski is crazy. He has philosophy, microbiology, AND math degrees! I’am currently reading “The Language of God” by Francis S. Collins, which I just started, amongst other things. No book report on that yet!

                It’s too bad that more students don’t have the means to correct their instructors like that. It’s sad to think that our educators are education kids based off of illogical reasoning.

  2. Glad you put journalist in quotes. She is nothing but another Democratic operative that was given a show on the DNC’s cable network, MSNBC. According to Wikipedia:

    Finney served four years as the spokesperson and Director of Communications at the Democratic National Committee. She has also a written for The Hill,[1] is a commentator for Politico,[2] MSNBC and The Huffington Post.[3]
    Finney served as Press Secretary for Hillary Rodham Clinton.[4]
    On April 2, 2013, it was announced that Finney will host a weekend news program called Disrupt with Karen Finney on MSNBC.[5]

    But she is half-black just like the Lightbringer, so that makes her qualified.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.