Why all the hate directed at Glenn Beck?

[Josie]

I honestly am having trouble understanding the level of hate directed at Glenn Beck. I can understand not really liking him, but the HATE toward this man is incredible. Where is that coming from? What has he done or what is he doing that causes you to have such strong emotions about him?

 

[tacomancer]

The reason I dislike the guy is that he presents a version of history, that may have some basis in fact but is wildly out there in interpretation and meaning (or as it is said, the best lies have a core of truth). Making it basically propaganda instead of it being the search for truth and meaning in our history and current events.

However, one thing I am beginning to notice from this site and chatting with people of different ideologies is that it is challenging my previous assumption that "normal" or "neutral" in terms of general ideas about things is basically the same for everyone. I am finding that it is not true and some people just simply see the world differently and their view seems normal to them, even though to me, my view is one of common sense and basic understanding of the nature of the world and people. So, I wonder if Beck's wild distortions actually might be normal to him.

 

[Your Star]

The reason I dislike the guy is that he presents a version of history, that may have some basis in fact but is wildly out there in interpretation and meaning (or as it is said, the best lies have a core of truth). Making it basically propaganda instead of it being the search for truth and meaning in our history and current events.

This. The way he presents history just makes my stomach turn.

 

[Tashah]

Moderator's Warning:

Not *Breaking News*. Thread moved to a more appropriate forum.

 

[Josie]

Can you give an example of how he presents history that you believe is either incorrect or deceiving?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I don't like him because he's a crying fear mongering demagogue.

 

[Your Star]

Can you give an example of how he presents history that you believe is either incorrect or deceiving?

For example, Woodrow Wilson was a racist, and a bigot. But he presents those facts without context, he presents it in the way that we would think about a person with those views today. He fails to mention that those views were common during that time period, and that even though those views are wrong, it's not something that calls for the outrage that he has for the man.

 

[spud_meister]

people who blindly hate him need a life, as do people who blindly follow him, like all political creatures, he bull****s and spins to achieve his own ends.

 

[Redress]

I don't hate him, but I do not care for any propagandist, and that is what Beck is. On the other hand, for the most part I am indifferent to him, in the same way I am indifferent to reality TV. Both are part of what's wrong with America, and both can be easily avoided.

 

[Josie]

For example, Woodrow Wilson was a racist, and a bigot. But he presents those facts without context, he presents it in the way that we would think about a person with those views today. He fails to mention that those views were common during that time period, and that even though those views are wrong, it's not something that calls for the outrage that he has for the man.

Well, he was a racist and a bigot. He resegregated the military. I think we all know that those views were common during that day. Who doesn't know that?

 

[Catz Part Deux]

I honestly am having trouble understanding the level of hate directed at Glenn Beck. I can understand not really liking him, but the HATE toward this man is incredible. Where is that coming from? What has he done or what is he doing that causes you to have such strong emotions about him?

I don't hate him. I do disdain him because I find him (and his little disciples) to be pretty moronic. And, I think that people in this country are getting dumber, and he's part of the reason.

 

[Harshaw]

For example, Woodrow Wilson was a racist, and a bigot. But he presents those facts without context, he presents it in the way that we would think about a person with those views today. He fails to mention that those views were common during that time period, and that even though those views are wrong, it's not something that calls for the outrage that he has for the man.

I find this interesting.

Do you hold the same views of, say, Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott, in terms of needing to understand them in the context of their day, and that they don't call for outrage?

 

[Your Star]

Well, he was a racist and a bigot. He resegregated the military. I think we all know that those views were common during that day. Who doesn't know that?

My problem with him(which like others have said, isn't hate) is that he doesn't provide context, while presenting history. He looks at it with the mindset of someone living in this day and time, without taking the time period into consideration.

Oh, and more people than you would think don't probably know stuff like that. Education in this country is mostly crap.

 

[Josie]

My problem with him(which like others have said, isn't hate) is that he doesn't provide context, while presenting history. He looks at it with the mindset of someone living in this day and time, without taking the time period into consideration.

Oh, and more people than you would think don't probably know stuff like that. Education in this country is mostly crap.

How does he present it as it would be today? Who doesn't know that racism was rampant back then? Did you listen to him talk about Woodrow Wilson and assume that Wilson was in the small minority back then (as racists are in the minority today)? Of course you didn't. You know based on your background knowledge that racism was all over the place then. So....who is it that doesn't understand that?

 

[Your Star]

I find this interesting.

Do you hold the same views of, say, Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott, in terms of needing to understand them in the context of their day, and that they don't call for outrage?

Obviously those decisions were wrong, and horrible. But it's not hard to fathom that those decisions were made during their time.

 

[tacomancer]

How does he present it as it would be today? Who doesn't know that racism was rampant back then? Did you listen to him talk about Woodrow Wilson and assume that Wilson was in the small minority back then (as racists are in the minority today)? Of course you didn't. You know based on your background knowledge that racism was all over the place then. So....who is it that doesn't understand that?

It ignores the fact that progress is a process and it has to come from somewhere or some place that is even further from the present ideal.

 

[Redress]

I find this interesting.

Do you hold the same views of, say, Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott, in terms of needing to understand them in the context of their day, and that they don't call for outrage?

Context is important in any understanding of history. Do you need other obvious facts pointed out too?

 

[Redress]

I have a related question to the OP: Why is there so much blind reverence for Glenn Beck?

 

[Gardener]

Seems a pretty straightforward case of cause and effect to me.

If you are in the business of dispensing something, you shouldn't bee to surprised when it is returned to you.

 

[pbrauer]

I have a related question to the OP: Why is there so much blind reverence for Glenn Beck?

That's a very good question.

Here is Lewis Black's take on Glenn Beck:

Back in Black - Glenn Beck's Nazi Tourette's - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 05/12/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[Harshaw]

Context is important in any understanding of history. Do you need other obvious facts pointed out too?

That's hardly the point. Some things are incandescently wrong in any context. Do you not agree?

 

[Josie]

I have a related question to the OP: Why is there so much blind reverence for Glenn Beck?

Do you believe anyone who watches and listens to Glenn and agrees with him is blind?

 

[tacomancer]

That's hardly the point. Some things are incandescently wrong in any context. Do you not agree?

I guarentee that in 100 years time, stuff that seemed normal and right to you will be looked on with disdain.

 

[Your Star]

How does he present it as it would be today? Who doesn't know that racism was rampant back then? Did you listen to him talk about Woodrow Wilson and assume that Wilson was in the small minority back then (as racists are in the minority today)? Of course you didn't. You know based on your background knowledge that racism was all over the place then. So....who is it that doesn't understand that?

No, I listened to him talk about Wilson, and the way he sensationalized his beliefs, and used them as one of the main focal points to attack him is just not something a historian would do. They would address the issue, and obviously say that those views are wrong, and deplorable, but wouldn't do it in the way Beck does it.
Especially when he doesn't demonize the Founding Fathers for owning slaves.

 

[tacomancer]

Especially when he doesn't demonize the Founding Fathers for owning slaves.

rof: the found fathers are the adopted children of Jesus.