[003]
Jordan
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yeah, I know you can\'t resist a chance to bash liberals. I think that pundits should arguably stay, but not politicians- because politicians who are liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats don\'t \
to:
I think that pundits should arguably stay, but not politicians- because politicians who are liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats don\\\'t \\\"exist to be proven wrong\\\", which is an important part of the original Fox News Liberal definition (there might be some definition drift here). \\\"DINO\\\" and \\\"RINO\\\" politicians typically represent/come from constituencies who share those views, and when they are praised by the other party, it\\\'s more in terms of them being a \\\"Token Good\\\" example of the party.
Re the definition of the trope, I kind of think there is some definition drift. Colmes\\\' notoriety was sort of as someone who was weak willed and there to be shouted down/proven wrong. Besides the weak willed part, I guess Pat Buchanan would probably be the closest MSNBC equivalent. But liberal Republicans who talk on MSNBC and conservative Democrats who talk on Fox wouldn\\\'t fit the trope (IMO) unless MSNBC was calling those Republicans conservatives and Fox was calling those Democrats liberals
Tl; dr, the original meaning of the trope has a lot to do with someone set up as purposely weak opposition (that was the accusation against Colmes), but shouldn\\\'t be applicable to someone looked at positively from the other side of the political spectrum. Now granted, I know that some of the fictional examples are about someone supposedly on the other side who always agrees with the opposite one, but I\\\'d give more leeway to fiction, since fictional characters are actually created by an author to serve a purpose.
Re the definition of the trope, I kind of think there is some definition drift. Colmes\\\' notoriety was sort of as someone who was weak willed and there to be shouted down/proven wrong. Besides the weak willed part, I guess Pat Buchanan would probably be the closest MSNBC equivalent. But liberal Republicans who talk on MSNBC and conservative Democrats who talk on Fox wouldn\\\'t fit the trope (IMO) unless MSNBC was calling those Republicans conservatives and Fox was calling those Democrats liberals
Tl; dr, the original meaning of the trope has a lot to do with someone set up as purposely weak opposition (that was the accusation against Colmes), but shouldn\\\'t be applicable to someone looked at positively from the other side of the political spectrum. Now granted, I know that some of the fictional examples are about someone supposedly on the other side who always agrees with the opposite one, but I\\\'d give more leeway to fiction, since fictional characters are actually created by an author to serve a purpose.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yeah, I know you can\'t resist a chance to bash liberals. I think that pundits should arguably stay, but not politicians- because politicians who are liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats don\'t \
to:
Yeah, I know you can\\\'t resist a chance to bash liberals. I think that pundits should arguably stay, but not politicians- because politicians who are liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats don\\\'t \\\"exist to be proven wrong\\\", which is an important part of the original Fox News Liberal definition (there might be some definition drift here). \\\"DINO\\\" and \\\"RINO\\\" politicians typically represent/come from constituencies who share those views, and when they are praised by the other party, it\\\'s more in terms of them being a \\\"Token Good\\\" example of the party.
Re the definition of the trope, I kind of think there is some definition drift. Colmes\\\' notoriety was sort of as someone who was weak willed and there to be shouted down/proven wrong. Besides the weak willed part, I guess Pat Buchanan would probably be the closest MSNBC equivalent. But liberal Republicans who talk on MSNBC and conservative Democrats who talk on Fox wouldn\\\'t fit the trope (IMO) unless MSNBC was calling those Republicans conservatives and Fox was calling those Democrats liberals
Tl; dr, the original meaning of the trope has a lot to do with someone set up as purposely weak opposition (that was the accusation against Colmes), but shouldn\\\'t be applicable to someone looked at positively from the other side of the political spectrum. Now granted, I know that some of the fictional examples are about someone supposedly on the other side who always agrees with the opposite one, but I\\\'d give more leeway to fiction, since fictional characters are actually created by an author to serve a purpose.
Re the definition of the trope, I kind of think there is some definition drift. Colmes\\\' notoriety was sort of as someone who was weak willed and there to be shouted down/proven wrong. Besides the weak willed part, I guess Pat Buchanan would probably be the closest MSNBC equivalent. But liberal Republicans who talk on MSNBC and conservative Democrats who talk on Fox wouldn\\\'t fit the trope (IMO) unless MSNBC was calling those Republicans conservatives and Fox was calling those Democrats liberals
Tl; dr, the original meaning of the trope has a lot to do with someone set up as purposely weak opposition (that was the accusation against Colmes), but shouldn\\\'t be applicable to someone looked at positively from the other side of the political spectrum. Now granted, I know that some of the fictional examples are about someone supposedly on the other side who always agrees with the opposite one, but I\\\'d give more leeway to fiction, since fictional characters are actually created by an author to serve a purpose.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yeah, I know you can\'t resist a chance to bash liberals. I think that pundits should arguably stay, but not politicians- because politicians who are liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats don\'t \
to:
Yeah, I know you can\\\'t resist a chance to bash liberals. I think that pundits should arguably stay, but not politicians- because politicians who are liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats don\\\'t \\\"exist to be proven wrong\\\", which is an important part of the original Fox News Liberal definition (there might be some definition drift here). \\\"DINO\\\" and \\\"RINO\\\" politicians typically represent/come from constituencies who share those views, and when they are praised by the other party, it\\\'s more in terms of them being a \\\"Token Good\\\" example of the party.
Re the definition of the trope, I kind of think there is some definition drift. Colmes\\\' notoriety was sort of as someone who was weak willed and there to be shouted down/proven wrong. Besides the weak willed part, I guess Pat Buchanan would probably be the closest MSNBC equivalent. But liberal Republicans who talk on MSNBC and conservative Democrats who talk on Fox wouldn\\\'t fit the trope (IMO) unless MSNBC was calling those Republicans conservatives and Fox was calling those Democrats liberals
Tl; dr, the original meaning of the trope has a lot to do with someone set up as purposely weak opposition (that was the accusation against Colmes), but shouldn\\\'t be applicable to someone looked at positively from the other side of the political spectrum.
Re the definition of the trope, I kind of think there is some definition drift. Colmes\\\' notoriety was sort of as someone who was weak willed and there to be shouted down/proven wrong. Besides the weak willed part, I guess Pat Buchanan would probably be the closest MSNBC equivalent. But liberal Republicans who talk on MSNBC and conservative Democrats who talk on Fox wouldn\\\'t fit the trope (IMO) unless MSNBC was calling those Republicans conservatives and Fox was calling those Democrats liberals
Tl; dr, the original meaning of the trope has a lot to do with someone set up as purposely weak opposition (that was the accusation against Colmes), but shouldn\\\'t be applicable to someone looked at positively from the other side of the political spectrum.
