Drunkard's Walk Forums

Full Version: Too Funny to Not Share...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
.... But also just political enough to warrant it being posted here.

Daughters Don’t Let Their Mothers Watch Fox News

How to use “parental lock” to prevent your parents from tuning in to cable news.


A woman got fed up with her mom watching Fox News, so she locked her out of that channel.  HAH!  Big Grin
Funny as it may be, censorship is still bad. I can sympathize with being sick of constantly having to debunk stupid bullshit (or ignore it in the name of keeping peace in the house) but it's still a dickish thing to do.
Yeah, but Fox News is a known vector of Politics-Related Memetic Disorder.
Sadly true, but that doesn't make it any less their right to broadcast, or anyone's right to watch. You just have to hope that people are aware enough to understand that (for example) Steven Colbert is a comedian doing a far-right routine, if less so now than The Colbert Report used to be but still like The Daily Show does a left-leaning humorous take. News Entertainment is an insidious thing if you take it completely seriously, but damn funny with a metaphorical salt shaker at hand.
I dunno. Some of the shit that Fox News spews is so bad that one might think it to be legitimately harmful and that their reporting poses a risk to public safety.

Cry all you want about 1st Amendment, it only grants you the right to say whatever you like, and grants NO protections against the repercussions of what you say.

On the other hand, I think it's god damnably hilarious that the viewers of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver are considered to be among the most well informed regarding matters on Capitol Hill.
A couple of thoughts... which don't play well together:

1) Someone else's desire to exercise their freedom of speech puts no burden on me to provide them with a platform upon which to exercise their right.

2) It's easy to support free speech when we agree with what's being said.

I've been known to say each of these on occasion.
Quote: 1) Someone else's desire to exercise their freedom of speech puts no burden on me to provide them with a platform upon which to exercise their right.
That is true, but neither should they be obstructed as such - it's not free speech if you're only allowed to do it where no one can hear. BA has more of a point with the idea that some of Fox News' material might, from less Right angles, be considered harmful, but there's a high bar to pass in terms of proving it.
On the one hand, trumps propaganda network that has been spewing lies, hate and fear for decades. On the other hand, the question of free speech and the right to make your own decisions. On the other other hand, ideological fanatics that decry anything that differs from Glorious Leaders BS, up to and including reality, as 'fake news'. On the other other other hand...

I could go on like this for a looong time, and I admit, I'm not entirely sure where I stand.
Karl Popper Wrote:In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.
or in more detail...
Karl Popper Wrote:Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
In the United States, we have this society where "free speech" must be protected always always always, except if that speech is perjury, fraud, false advertising, conspiracy to commit a crime, tax evasion, reckless endangerment, falsification of records, obstruction of justice, underage sexting, espionage, stalking, incitement to violence, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, obscenity, insider trading, or potentially anything said by a minor in a public school classroom.
I think an argument could be made that by engaging the parental controls to block Fox News she is protecting her mother’s mental health from harmful propaganda.