Chavez versus FOX News reporter
tags:
Stumble ThisFrom FOX's youtube channel. Chavez charges that FOX hides criminal facts from the public.
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
FOX,FAUX,Chavez,rant,Iraq,Iran,holocaust,Ahmadinejad,allegations,what a guy Chavez versus FOX News reporter
Comments  who voted for this video EndAll
- enoch
- BoneRemake
- captmorgano
- BreaksTheEarth
- acidSpine
- demon_ix
- Kurtz007
- nomino
- blankfist
- enon
- gargoyle
- BoneyD
- aspartam
- Lumm
- Enzoblue
- mkone
- chilaxe
- Fade
- RhesusMonk
- paganif1
- NetRunner
- griefer_queafer
- JonnyK
- kymbos
- IAmTheBlurr
- dystopianfuturetoday
- PunkJay
- gwiz665
- lampishthing
- LightningOfGods
- longde
- Kevlar
- Lodurr
- brycewi19
- Ornthoron
- Throbbin
- KnivesOut
- Drax
- guitarwolf
- Almanildo
- rubadub
- krazyety
- vaporlock
- notarobot
- RedSky
- Raigen
- Lendl
- Razor
- Shepppard
- Arg
- Avokineok
who has this post bookmarked chilaxe
Chavez Versus FOX News Reporter Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote                Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 8. lore_weaver
(234 votes) 14. erikwdavis
(181 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments          | ||||||||||||||
Chavez' argument has 2 parts:
1. Fox News is intellectually illegitimate because they criticize X (Ahmadinejad) but refuse to criticize Y (Bush), which is of the same type as X. (A fair argument, depending on your perspective.)
2. I, Chavez, am noble because I criticize Y, but refuse to criticize X, which is of the same type as Y. (Not a fair argument from any perspective.)
Haha. Intellectualism Fail.
Chavez' argument has 2 parts:
1. Fox News is intellectually illegitimate because they criticize X (Ahmadinejad) but refuse to criticize Y (Bush), which is of the same type as X. (A fair argument, depending on your perspective.)
2. I, Chavez, am noble because I criticize Y, but refuse to criticize X, which is of the same type as Y. (Not a fair argument from any perspective.)
Umm... huh? Good work on pointing out that criticising X should be equivalent to criticising Y, but why is one approach only fair "depending on your perspective" and the other "Not a fair argument from any perspective?" Your logic is a little faulty here. Sure, accuse Chavez of being a hypocrite (i.e. "intellectually illegitimate"), if you want, but this must also apply to Fox News and others, surely?
The arguments are:
1) If you criticise X you should criticise Y, else you are a hypocrite.
2) Fox News criticises X but does not criticise Y.
therefore, 3) Fox News is a hypocrite.
and
1) If you criticise Y you should criticise X, else you are a hypocrite.
2) Chavez criticises Y but does not criticise X.
therefore, 3) Chavez is a hypocrite.
He never attempts to justify his own actions, he just more or less declares that they have insufficient humanity to ask him questions, since they're obviously subhuman worms.
I kinda like that strategy for responding to Fox, personally.
*worldaffairs
*controversy
Here's his argument (which I support) against Fox News: If you criticize dictators, criticize even those who are politically inconvenient to criticize.
There's nothing consistent with progressivism about giving holocaust-deniers your blanket support
Re:"they have insufficient humanity to ask him questions, since they're obviously subhuman worms."
Netrunner, did you really write that? Bronze age liberalism is beneath you. You should be a leader of progressivism instead of someone who drags it into filth.
My first vow is that I have to oppose all anti-intellectualism. When a figure admonishes his enemies and then breaks his own advice within 10 seconds, that's anti-intellectualism to me.
Perhaps I'm missing the point. Perhaps liberalism is supposed to be anti-intellectual, because that's what we want. If that's the case, then I'm not a liberal.
Why does anyone care about Amadinejads opinions on the matter of the holocaust, it's completely irrelevant. It's nothing more than a soundbite to be used against a dictator that's in a very important region and out of our control which is unacceptable.
Chavez may be a bit of a hypocrite but by how much? Do we want to compare George Bushes crimes with Amadinejads? It might actually be quite revealing...except the part where we find out how culpable we are.
a) Talking shit on FOX news.
b) Building rapport based on mutual respect.
Intellectualism doesn't require world leaders to answer disingenuous questions from ethically challenged news channels.
I believe diplomacy and respect is the way to encourage this, not by fear and the threat of violence.
I never understood how Holocaust Denial hurts anyone.
Whether he believes the holocaust actually happened or not, many in the middle east see it as an excuse to create a arbitrary nation with "stolen" land. They do not see it as a good enough reason to partition the land for the surviving victims of genocide. The actual creation of Israel is a bit more complex, but attitudes do not always share the subtleties of the issues involved.
People care what Ahmadinejad thinks because he controls very real military and political power, so his view of the legitimacy of Israel is a big issue. He sees the Jews as foreign occupiers operating under the guise of victimization, so he and many others would love to remove them by force. If he publicly claims that the holocaust never happened, without anyone contradicting him, then more people in that region may believe it and feel even more animosity towards Israel.
The goal, at least for the western powers, is to defuse the tensions between Israel and Arabs so they can coexist without war. Having a leader from one of the Arab countries going around claiming the Jews were never victimized only inflames the situation and makes conflict more likely.
Btw, please help get this sifted: http://www.videosift.com/video/USrael-The-Influence-of-the-Israel-Lobby
>> ^Yogi:
I never understood how Holocaust Denial hurts anyone.
Whether he believes the holocaust actually happened or not, many in the middle east see it as an excuse to create a arbitrary nation with "stolen" land. They do not see it as a good enough reason to partition the land for the surviving victims of genocide. The actual creation of Israel is a bit more complex, but attitudes do not always share the subtleties of the issues involved.
People care what Ahmadinejad thinks because he controls very real military and political power, so his view of the legitimacy of Israel is a big issue. He sees the Jews as foreign occupiers operating under the guise of victimization, so he and many others would love to remove them by force. If he publicly claims that the holocaust never happened, without anyone contradicting him, then more people in that region may believe it and feel even more animosity towards Israel.
The goal, at least for the western powers, is to defuse the tensions between Israel and Arabs so they can coexist without war. Having a leader from one of the Arab countries going around claiming the Jews were never victimized only inflames the situation and makes conflict more likely.
So the short version of that answer is No Holocaust Denial hurts nobody.
Also the goal of Western Powers (US, Britain) has never been to defuse tensions or create an enduring peace between Israel and Arabs. It's been to block any sort of peace for the past 35 years. That's why it's called a Peace Process, because it's what we're engaged in, and it's never ending.
If they want to defuse tensions between Israel and Arab nations, they should tell Israel to GTFO already. But that won't happen. The US and Israel have been in bed together for a long while, and if the US support Israel, well, the rest of the Western world can't really do much about it.
Btw, please help get this sifted: http://www.videosift.com/video/USrael-The-Influence-of-the-Israel-Lobby
The Israel lobby has very little influence in US Policy. Why would they listen to a little country like Israel anyways? It's makes more sense and has been proven time and time again that the Lobby and US Interests have coincided. Chomsky has a very good debate with a professor about this...I'll try finding it.
>> ^EndAll:
If they want to defuse tensions between Israel and Arab nations, they should tell Israel to GTFO already. But that won't happen. The US and Israel have been in bed together for a long while, and if the US support Israel, well, the rest of the Western world can't really do much about it.
Btw, please help get this sifted: http://www.videosift.com/video/USrael-The-Influence-of-the-Israel-Lobby
The Israel lobby has very little influence in US Policy. Why would they listen to a little country like Israel anyways? It's makes more sense and has been proven time and time again that the Lobby and US Interests have coincided. Chomsky has a very good debate with a professor about this...I'll try finding it.
I don't believe that's true. Did you view the video I linked to?
Re:"they have insufficient humanity to ask him questions, since they're obviously subhuman worms."
Netrunner, did you really write that? Bronze age liberalism is beneath you. You should be a leader of progressivism instead of someone who drags it into filth.
I was paraphrasing Chavez's attitude. Politics is as much about anti-intellectual arguments as anything, and I think this may be partially a cultural difference between our politics and the politics in Latin America. I didn't see Chavez defend himself to Fox, I saw him say "you're dishonest, and evil, and so I'm not going to tolerate you questioning me or my behavior" and walking away. I got the distinct feeling he wanted to use words more along the lines of what I said, since they're more colorful and striking.
I kinda empathize with that position, even if I think Chavez isn't exactly the most fine upstanding guy in the world himself.
Talk and listen and translate and repeat.
I can hardly do that with my own thoughts.