Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "Hollywood Wants Your Money...and Your Mind | 5 Minute Videos" video.

He mentions the book for 2 reasons. 1. To show he has researched the topic and is not spewing "feelings" 2. So you can check his work.
13
" talk radio youtube internet fox News ect isn't the Republican agenda" 1. talk radio -more conservative than not 2. you tube restricts, demonetizes conservative content 3. google suppresses and downlists conservative content 4. the Internet itself is neutral, with a natural affinity for hits on material that is being filtered out elsewhere. That's the selling point of the Internet, the idealists used to say "The Internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it." We shall see. 5. Fox News is one of several cable news channels and cable news channels are not the only source of TV news. " the difference is I don't go crying about how muh safe space waaaaaaaah words and ideas I dont like waaaaaaaah" You are crying about Ben warning the viewer against bias and attempts at manipulation. That warning is not the same as a SJW silencing the opposition. You don't have a point.
6
+Optimally Odd " acknowledging that real people have children before marriage, etc is not "left wing." It's real life." Concealing the consequences of such arrangements is not real life, it is distorted life. It is laying a trap for your viewers for the convenience of your sexual mores.
5
"Show me where anything Prager University says is true?" Shapiro's book, mentioned here documents what he is saying. I don't have to pick and choose to find accuracy in Prager U vids. I can start here, and go to every one you can cite. If the leftists could refute his arguments, they would not have to restrict his content.
4
"Youtube is just as bad. This channel is brainwashing," "the internet is the same" Not the same thing at all, this channel advocates a position openly, and proves their points. Hollywood slips ideas into your head, and denies publicly that that is what they're doing. Prager argues. TV plays tricks on your head on purpose.
3
The point is that until you have researched his documentation, you don't know enough to criticize his reasoning or evidence. And you don't want to know. And how does you buying one book equate to me buying every book you can think of (not that leftists read)? If you live in a major city, it might be in the library. My original post was an answer to Ben Gerber, whose post was coherent, not to yours, which was not. What in the world did you mean by this: "Yup I agree with that sentiment 100% would love if this was the number one instead of people just going "well you too" and thinking that is an argument" All the words in this post are English, but it does not parse into a sentence, nor do the clauses have any connection to the thread, the video, or anything pertinent. It doesn't make any sense. It is not coherent enough to be false.
2
+derpion derpson Yes, Ben Shapiro's book may not be available in your country. I apologize if my assumptions were unfair to you on the basis of your nationality. Since this video is about the tendentiousness of the US media, I assumed you were someone who had a stake in the subject. But if you're not living in the US, you don't have much stake in whether the US media is fair, manipulative or whatever (or, for that matter much data upon which to base your opinion). You must understand, I get the leftist viewpoint and such "arguments" as they can muster crammed down my throat every time I watch TV or a movie, or do almost anything else. I don't have to track down books on the subject, it tracks me down. Not so for those on the other side. If they want to be able to form arguments or address our opinions, they have to seek out niche outlets like Prager U, or talk radio. They CAN live in an bubble insulated from opposition. I can't.
2
"thinking that someone from outside would understand less about America, what a joke." It goes without saying that someone from outside would understand less about America, and no you don't have THE SAME exposure to US movies and particularly TV as we do, moreover, you don't have the same experience of life in the US to serve as a control and context on your impression of US movies. US movies affect you, the whole of US media don't affect you AS MUCH.
2
+Andrew McConaughey said (block quote) It said "Friends" preached to accept illegitimate children", "Will and Grace preached to accept gay people", "OITNB preaches to accept transgender people". /end quote What you have in quotes are not quotes. If you meant that was the gist of it, the quotation marks are misleading. But, of course, misleading is the whole point of your phrasing. Saying that unmarried people should not have children is NOT the same as persecuting the children so made. Opposing gay marriage is not the same as rejecting people. The positive part is not what the shows promoted, nor what the "likes" are opposing. Straw man.
2
+Arthur Webber "Digital Nomad Would you rather go back to a time when people who had children before marriage were shunned from society and kicked into the gutter?" If you care about the children, then there is value in stigmatizing behavior which hurts the children, yes. The children's well being is the responsibility of the parents and absolutely trumps the parents "self esteem". Condemning the children to emotional and financial distress is not "moral" or "compassionate". It is "scratching itching ears", telling the oppressor what he wants to hear.
2
+Arthur Webber "John C. I can't find that survey, could you give me a link or something?" That is John C's typo for the Lichter Rothman report: https://books.google.com/books/about/The_media_elite.html?id=b-VoAAAAIAAJ https://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/exhibit-1-1-media-elite You can find it by typing "lichter rothman report" in the "Duck Duck Go" search engine. Google is more flaky, I got nothing until I spelled "lichter" right, DDG gave me the hits for "lictor rothman report" The original report on the survey reveals, for example, that more than 80% of the decision makers at network news programs executives, editors, reporters, anchors voted for Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential election, an election in which Ronald Reagan got 51% of the popular vote and Anderson, the independent got 7%. Rothman update to 1995: https://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/exhibit-1-8-media-elite-revisited "Do you have any sources for your other claims?" Leftward media bias is well documented: Ben Shapiro's book is documentation of this as well. https://www.amazon.com/Bias-Insider-Exposes-Media-Distort/dp/1621573117 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_Mass_Distortion https://www.amazon.com/Left-Turn-Liberal-Distorts-American/dp/1250002761 https://www.westernjournalism.com/top-50-examples-liberal-media-bias/ Slander by Ann Coulter
2
+Arthur Webber Your contention is empirically contradicted by the actual experience of US children. Regardless of your impressions of the intentions of the producers, illegitimacy has increased greatly, along with the negative consequences which are largely inherent rather than arbitrary. Making folks feel good about bad choices and hiding the cause-and-effect relationships that should shape wise choices is not wise or compassionate.
2
+Burg Skeletal In a two sentence post contradicts his first sentence with his second. "Earth Smythe The thing about morals is that everyone has a different view." Thus morality is relative and there is no absolute "right" or "wrong" "The Muslims in The Middle East are a perfect example of why your way of thinking is flawed." Except the Muslims in the Middle East are absolutely wrong? "Entertainment is boring when it emulates real life" Claiming that the media elites are just giving the people what they want. Box office receipts disagree. Wholesome fare outsells garbage, but they keep churning out and promoting garbage. Tons of cynical anti-military movies are made and promoted at great expense depicting the war effort as evil and soldiers as monsters, they all bomb at the box office. Clint Eastwood makes American Sniper, and it kills at the box office. War Room beat out the much more heavily promoted Straight Outta Compton. They are so determined to cram propaganda down our throats that they knowingly loose money to do so. +Captain Beefheart "Ben doesn't believe this. He's forming weak minds." He wrote a book documenting it. +MountainDew7 "Some morals are objective, like murder and theft being wrong." By what standard? Much is made of the differences between the moral standards of different cultures. But if you look at them objectively, what strikes you is how much they are alike. (Read the appendix on the Tao in C. S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man".) Christianity really didn't invent a new morality, Christianity just claims to help you to live up to the same morality that most people at most times have endorsed. It also grounds morality objectively in the Ground of Being, a standard both inside and outside not this or that "local" standard, but all alike. All "new moralities" are made by taking what a particular biased self-appointed "authority" happens to want or like from the actual Tao. But any moral validity his truncated "morality" has, it borrows from the Tao which also says the things the self-appointed "authority" does not like.
1
He is summarizing the conclusions of what he documented in his book, referenced in the vid. If you doubt his conclusions, read the book.
1
Read the book.
1
I have already addressed that in my post above , the one that starts with "Yes". You CAN ignore arguments that oppose your view, and obviously have chosen to. I CAN'T. I don't have the option.
1
+killercaos123 "What about radio? the internet?" Not as monolithic in outlook as TV and movies, and thanks for asking!
1
+David Roldan The legal framework of net neutrality legislation allowed the FCC to regulate content in the manner of the old "fairness doctrine". That is the really fearsome prospect, the government effectively censoring the Internet for free. There is a great deal more political money in play on the left than the right. When is the last time the Republican presidential campaign outspent the Democrat presidential campaign? Look it up. All that money is outweighed by the profits the providers get for giving their customers the whole Internet. If the Republicans owned the whole Internet, it would only partly compensate for the Democrat control of movies and TV. "Censoring a different ideology Reminds me of communism" By this standard, Google and You Tube are communist, and they censor the right, not the left. Censoring a different ideology is something the Republicans and conservatives are not doing, have never proposed doing, and the left does every time they get the power (Hollywood, academe, public broadcasting, Google, etc.) The right get called unfair every time they express their opinion or make an argument. Having your say is not the same as shutting the other guy up.
1
I confront you with facts and you call me names. I never said that Republicans wouldn't promote their views. I said that they would not try to silence the opposition, like your side does. And you don't have an answer to this. Are you trying to claim that J. Edgar Hoover tried to silence those he disagreed with? And TV is not balanced, or even anywhere close. If you want documentation of this, read Shapiro's book. "Just look harder." And don't stop looking until I agree with you eh?
1
+David Roldan "for life!" So you're pro-life!
1
"there's also people who believe that there's no real bias except corporate in the majority of news. FAIR did a study into the supposed liberal bias and find that only a minority were actively liberal." These are subjective statements. My documentation is based on surveys and statistics and comparison with meaningful control groups, as in my first example TV newcritters vs. the US electorate. "Rupert Murdoch makes sure all his news carries his conservative agenda. " RM does not own the major TV networks, most of the cable news networks, and Hollywood. "The main danger comes from companies, who make sure to only sponsor safe, simplified news which isn't disparaging of what they do. They don't want to get involved with controversial topics like abortion or divorce, that would inevitably annoy some people enough to stop watching." The main danger comes from our sue-happy climate, which stifles free expression. We need loser pays tort reform, to thaw the "chilling effect". "What are the inherent negative consequences?" Of effectively insulating a political movement from criticism and mainstreaming slander of the other? Movement toward authoritarianism. Intellectual impoverishment. The corruption of the favored party by power unchecked by criticism. (I might also personally add the negative consequences of holding many US cities in a death spiral of progressive politics, wasted resources, declining educational scores, poverty and violence, among other effects, but I am a conservative, the consequences before the parentheses don't depend on the minor premise of conservative principles being true.)
1