http://www.bravenewfilms.org/outfoxed https://theconversation.com/the-one-roger-ailes-hire-that-changed-american-politics-forever-62883 http://www.newsweek.com/roger-ailes-television-revolution-and-his-decision-changed-american-politics-612176 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525 In America, liberals and conservatives have two fundamentally different viewpoints of empathy: liberals view "fairness" as compassion for everyone while conservatives view "fairness" as opportunity for everyone. A liberal is more likely to support social programs because they recognize that society is made up of everyone in it and when the least among us suffer, our society is unfair. A conservative is more likely to support minimal regulation and oversight because success is based on hard work and skill and if you aren't successful, it's because you didn't work hard and developed the wrong skills. It comes down to inequality: liberals view inequality as a problem for society to vanquish while conservatives view inequality as something individuals should be empowered to overcome. Unfortunately, American society has been engineered/evolved over the past hundred years to mask a lot of the latent inequalities and unfairness within the system, particularly from those who benefit the most. It's not at all uncommon for the incumbents in any society to view their position as hereditary and their status as an entitlement. It's just as common for anyone else attempting to gain their status to be viewed as upstarts and pretenders. And playing on those prejudices is nothing new. The Pulitzer Prize is named after the man who started the Spanish American War for, well, pageviews.
You know, I figured out why I'm so uncomfortable with you and goobster gleeing over Ailes' death. I have trouble comprehending that there are truly bad people in the world sometimes. Things, too. Not merely gray, but mostly dark, all the way to black. I think it clashes with my worldview in some ways. I think I couldn't have viewed Hitler as an abhorrent danger to humanity that he's presented as, had I lived through his war in Europe. He's still a person, you know. His actions were terrible and their results - astonishingly horrific, but he was still a human being. I feel like I have to have some compassion for him just for that.
I met my first "truly bad person" about ten years ago. He was the roommate of a friend of mine. In the brief time I knew him, he - - wrecked his car in a hit-and-run DUI - raped his girlfriend's little sister (and stood trial, and mistrialed) - stole his roommate/best friend's fiancee - erased his roommate/best friend's server just for laughs The roommate found out about this the night he threw a going-away party for his best bro. Dude timed his disclosures for maximum pain. Why? Because it amused him. I have great faith in the general humanity of humanity. I think all people are fundamentally good and that nearly everyone you meet would rather hurt you than help you. The entire study of behavioral economics bears this out, and the existence of civilization supports it. But there are people who are evil. There are psychopaths in the world, and some of them are not well-adjusted to pantomiming empathy. I do not think that Roger Ailes was a psychopath. I'll bet he loved his children and the people who surrounded him mattered. But I also think that Roger Ailes managed to circumscribe the definition of "person" in his head to exclude the majority of humanity. I think Roger Ailes managed to craft a personal universe in which a select few were people and the rest didn't matter. Hitler was a person. But he was an evil person. He believed that the most victorious race needed to exterminate all other races, and if the Germans weren't the most victorious, they deserved to be exterminated. I don't feel anyone deserves to be exterminated. I also feel that this maxim defines humanity and anybody who disagrees should be treated carefully.