Media Bias

[Svartalf]

Should be 'veritatum tendere' I think.

While Latin did favor puutting the verb at the end of the sentence, syntax is extremely fluid and can be manipulated however the locutor wishes.

[Brian Peacock]

You're not interested in media bias - you're mainly interested in political correctness.

You are having a rough day. You should go get some cardio, maybe do some pullups.

I've done 12.8km today, but my point still stands.

Political correctness does bother me a fair amount. Remember Mr. Ping saying it stood for 'pretentious cocksuckers'?

I do. It IS something that strikes me as damaging to communication.

But the media bias is much more than that. Of course, you won't see certain kinds of bias...

Ah, but the point is that you're not interested in media bias per se, but in flagging up media outlets and content which you feel do not reflect or represent the correct political outlook, which is, coincidentally, your political outlook.

If you were to look up the history of the term 'politically correct' you'd find that the idea has its roots in inter-war Germany were the rising fascist horde used the idea to brand objecting socialist, communists, religious and community leaders as 'politically incorrect' - as fundamentally wrong in their political outlook. And once one had been branded as opposing the 'correct' politics then... well... we know what happened after that don't we?

OK, so the term these days is almost exclusively applied by those on the Right to those on the Left who they feel are out of step with their values and/or are unduly controlling. "What? I'm not allowed to call a trans woman 'Mr' even though he's a man? It's political correctness gone mad!" But that's not what 'political correctness' is in the contemporary sense, that's merely a description of how the Right react to 'political correctness' and how they see it as irrational, and even certifiably crazy. What people think of as 'political correctness' is an often clumsy negotiation towards an more inclusive society, most commonly expressed in forms of inclusive language. OK, so that idea may throw up its own problems, but isn't it better than what went before? "What? I'm not allowed to call a Black guy 'Boy' even though he's a nigger? It's political correctness gone mad!"

However, that's not how I'm using the term here. I'm using 'political correctness' in its more formal sense as representing a conflict between asserted 'correct' and 'incorrect' politics. The charge of 'political correctness' is in fact a claim to one's own ownership of the 'correct' political outlook, which is to say that to charge someone with 'political correctness' is to brand their political outlook as fundamentally wrong - and thus, in the examples I've concocted, it then becomes 'correct' to call a trans woman 'Mr' or a Black guy 'Boy' etc.

To listen to you bleat on about bias here suggests that if, by some miracle, all media outlets started expressing and representing the 'correct' political outlook then all media bias would have simply blown away on the wind. People who think the world would necessarily be a better place if everyone just thought the same as they do never really stop to think what the world would actually be like if everyone did. Have you stopped to think about that - to think about what the world would be like if everyone you ever met, spoke to, or worked with, every news show, media report, social media post, every movie, every book, every shop, every business, every politician, every government, etc, saw things your way and agreed with you 100% of the time - and you with them? What would the World be like without 'incorrect politics'? Would it be Utopia?

[BarnettNewman]

Should be 'veritatum tendere' I think.

Depends if the english word Project parses at all.

[Cunt]

You can't see your bias as bias.

You probably don't see room for rational debate, by respectful people, on your pet subjects, so it's best not to bother.

You could find the discussions if you wanted. You won't. I'm not surprised.

Someone bigoted enough to call me 'white' isn't someone I would expect much from.

[JimC]

Brian, that was a fucking brilliant post!

[Brian Peacock]

You can't see your bias as bias.

You can't see that values which don't match your own ideals are not an unfair prejudice.

[Cunt]

You can't see your bias as bias.

You can't see that values which don't match your own ideals are not an unfair prejudice.

Of course I can. I just notice the bias you don't. Same way you likely notice bias that I don't.

When Trump called looters thugs, lots of people thought he was being uncouth.

If you did, just remember that Obama said the same thing, and examine how you feel about each.

The word is the same.

[Brian Peacock]

You can't see your bias as bias.

You can't see that values which don't match your own ideals are not an unfair prejudice.

Of course I can. I just notice the bias you don't. Same way you likely notice bias that I don't.

So it's you who can't see your bias as bias then.

[Cunt]

You can't see your bias as bias.

You can't see that values which don't match your own ideals are not an unfair prejudice.

Of course I can. I just notice the bias you don't. Same way you likely notice bias that I don't.

So it's you who can't see your bias as bias then.

Nah, it's BOTH of us.

If both of us can talk freely about our disagreements, we might learn from each other. If, however, one lives where it is illegal to talk about certain subjects openly, we can only heckle.

I suspect it is why the 'religion-mocking' stopped here...it's illegal in some UK jurisdictions, at least by the look of news reports.

[Brian Peacock]

Nonsense. And besides, you seem resistant to speaking freely about what you think and believe, that's why our 'conversations' are so one sided.

[Cunt]

Nonsense. And besides, you seem resistant to speaking freely about what you think and believe, that's why our 'conversations' are so one sided.

I certainly wouldn't disagree with you. You can go to places where freer speech is allowed, if you want freer speech.

Unless, of course, that is illegal in your region.

Meanwhile, if you think media bias isn't a thing, have you ever listened to Steven Crowder? Or considered his lawsuits, and what they indicate (if not media bias)?

[Seabass]

https://twitter.com/ComplexSports/statu ... 0074383361

[Brian Peacock]

Nonsense. And besides, you seem resistant to speaking freely about what you think and believe, that's why our 'conversations' are so one sided.

I certainly wouldn't disagree with you. You can go to places where freer speech is allowed, if you want freer speech.

Unless, of course, that is illegal in your region.

Meanwhile, if you think media bias isn't a thing, have you ever listened to Steven Crowder? Or considered his lawsuits, and what they indicate (if not media bias)?

You're still thinking of this in binary terms. I disagree with quite a bit of what you say, but that doesn't mean I think media bias isn't a thing. Now if you had some good reasons for saying that disagreeing with you did mean that I or anyone were denying the existence of media bias then you should be able to bring those reasons to the table. However, if you have reasons you don't bring them to the table - which looks exactly same as not having any reasons at all. The complaint that you're not free to bring reasons or express your thoughts and beliefs here is totally bogus as well btw.


I think media bias is a thing. I just don't think that it's the kind of thing you think it is.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Sometimes casting aspersions is simply not enough. To be limited to such indirect approaches can feel stifling when demeaning and denigrating comments are a significant part of your repertoire.

[Cunt]

I think media bias is a thing. I just don't think that it's the kind of thing you think it is.

Aren't you the guy who hurled the racist term at me, calling my 'white'?

Makes it tough to take you very seriously.