You people always have an issue with any source that differs from the narrative you want to listen. If it’s Chinese news, it’s because it’s Chinese; if it’s Russian news it’s because it’s Russian; if it’s some African news it’s because Africa doesn’t like Europe; if it’s some Latinamerican news it’s because we’re poor and we don’t know better; if it’s some Usonian news it’s because they’re right wing or too moderate or the writer something. So basically the only not-biased-source™ is a very niche set of articles written by the Usonian/European center-left/left-wing neoliberals.
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.
of course they’re from wikipedia-- I even link there. it’s no secret, nor are you some great detective for pointing that out, lmao
and, obviously, I’m not going to engage in an argument that’s fallacious, giving it legitimacy. what’s amusing is that you - or anyone - takes offense to this.
Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is “A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong”.
Y’know, your insufferability, and your willful ignorance-- it reminds me of a certain DNC-paid twitter shill. BrooklynDadDefiant, is that you? I don’t acknowledge wikipedia link-dumping. Show the cold, hard, evidence of what you speak, or for the love of whatever settler-colonial god you worship, quit inconveniencing the electrons.
Or y’know what, don’t. I’m not wasting my time ‘debating’ some redditor pissant.
That’s a nonsensical statement. Every source has biased, so what you’re really saying is that you discard any information that doesn’t come from your own bubble. Pretty funny how you talk about wasting time, yet you took the time to write these content free comments here.
Nobody is putting words in your mouth. I’m just unpacking the implications of your statement. The facts are that you keep making content free comments that don’t contribute anything to the discussion.
when you “unpack” words i did not say, then yes you are putting words in my mouth. and whether they contribute to the conversation is not measured by how emotional or irrational you become in response.
No, that’s not what putting words in somebody’s mouth means, but of course it’s too much to expect you to understand the terms you throw around. Also, thank you for your psychoanalysis, that’s about the level or rationality I’ve come to expect from you.
fair question, but I’m sorry that I may disappoint you in saying that I doubt any news source is (or even could be) completely unbiased. major newswire sources do try by only reporting raw facts, but even they let bias slip in when editors choose which facts to report.
So what criteria do you use to decide which stories to believe and which to discard due to source bias? How can you have any valid criteria when all the information you have on any given subject is tainted with unavoidable bias?
I’ll start by addressing your second question first: bias isn’t a binary; it exists on a spectrum. there’s a difference between a tiny bit of bias and extreme bias. So, though previous research and experience, I have come to trust some sources more than others and come to expect certain sources to have more or less bias in one direction or another. that, combined with comparative analysis of multiple sources, one can come closer to factual reporting through one’s own critical analysis of the reporting itself-- however, depending on what’s reported and the sources available, sometimes… one can only be so certain that one is getting the truth.
it can be frustrating trying to find accurate reporting of a story, even from previously trusted sources. I encourage people to read their news from multiple sources whose backgrounds they’ve investigated and to critically analyze the facts presented, and that they apply their own critical analysis to try their best to arrive as close as they can to the facts. Also, to realize that, in the world of corporate media, that being certain that the news you’re consuming is 100% accurate my not be possible.
A tiny bit of bias relative to what; where is the zero-point on your bias spectrum? Objective truth? Even objective facts can be presented in a biased manner. You’re suggesting I can arrive closer to objective truth by comparing and analyzing data from various sources but also saying I should ignore this source because its biased. Would that not also bias my analysis?
as I said before, I don’t think there is a “zero point” of bias in news reporting. even the organization I cited, mediabiasfactcheck, only rates bias on a scale of “least biased” to “extremely biased”.
to be clear, I never said that WSJ should be ignored. I just quoted from the analysis of an independent organization which is dedicated to analyzing the bias in media/news sources-- which, I’ll point out, reports WSJ as having a high level of factual reporting. With regards to this specific article: it’s an opinion piece-- pieces which, by their nature, are almost always very biased. This one is also highly speculative, loaded with equivocation and hypotheticals which is clearly pushing an agenda more than attempting to inform. You’re free to disagree, but discussing the subject therein doesn’t interest me in the context of this article.
And regardless of the subject or the source, just because of the fact that you are human, of course your analysis would be biased towards your own interests and beliefs. So would anyone’s. If everyone was impartial and free of bias, there would never be any conflict, war, or argument. Everyone would agree on everything.
You say there’s no zero point but at least theoretically there must be if one source can be “less biased” than another. Even if in reality it can only asymptotically approach zero there still must be a zero to approach.
I agree that it’s important to recognize one cannot be unbiased which is why it’s useful to examine one’s biases and challenge them through analysis of media that may not confirm those biases. You’re telling me that you’re not trying to dismiss this source due to bias but also that you don’t want to engage in a good faith analysis of the claims within. Rather than trying to debunk the claims you’re simply taking a shortcut to arrive at a conclusion that confirms your own biases.
You say there’s no zero point but at least theoretically there must be if one source can be “less biased” than another. Even if in reality it can only asymptotically approach zero there still must be a zero to approach.
you’re welcome to that opinion. I’ve explained my position.
I agree that it’s important to recognize one cannot be unbiased which is why it’s useful to examine one’s biases and challenge them through analysis of media that may not confirm those biases. You’re telling me that you’re not trying to dismiss this source due to bias but also that you don’t want to engage in a good faith analysis of the claims within.
that’s not what I said.
Rather than trying to debunk the claims you’re simply taking a shortcut to arrive at a conclusion that confirms your own biases.
incorrect. I urge you to re-read what I’ve said rather than see what you wish to. I find it curious that you accuse me of applying my biases when you have, in fact, twisted my words so badly to only hear what you wish and conclude something quite different that what I’ve expressed.
and, perhaps more sophisticated than most, in retrospect, this was a clear attempt at
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”, and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki, which The Independent called “the most apt description of Twitter you’ll ever see”.
i prefer not to waste my time on speculation from biased sources.
You people always have an issue with any source that differs from the narrative you want to listen. If it’s Chinese news, it’s because it’s Chinese; if it’s Russian news it’s because it’s Russian; if it’s some African news it’s because Africa doesn’t like Europe; if it’s some Latinamerican news it’s because we’re poor and we don’t know better; if it’s some Usonian news it’s because they’re right wing or too moderate or the writer something. So basically the only not-biased-source™ is a very niche set of articles written by the Usonian/European center-left/left-wing neoliberals.
that which is demonstrably false is just that, your personal offense notwithstanding. the facts do not care about your feelings.
Then demonstrate it, with evidence, not with third-party opinion columns. Or are you just going off your feelings about WSJ to back up your hot air?
Moving the Goalposts
deleted by creator
of course they’re from wikipedia-- I even link there. it’s no secret, nor are you some great detective for pointing that out, lmao
and, obviously, I’m not going to engage in an argument that’s fallacious, giving it legitimacy. what’s amusing is that you - or anyone - takes offense to this.
do better.
deleted by creator
“I know you are but what am I” is not an effective form of debate. nor is:
Ad hominem
Y’know, your insufferability, and your willful ignorance-- it reminds me of a certain DNC-paid twitter shill. BrooklynDadDefiant, is that you? I don’t acknowledge wikipedia link-dumping. Show the cold, hard, evidence of what you speak, or for the love of whatever settler-colonial god you worship, quit inconveniencing the electrons.
Or y’know what, don’t. I’m not wasting my time ‘debating’ some redditor pissant.
deleted by creator
and yet you keep coming back.
That’s a nonsensical statement. Every source has biased, so what you’re really saying is that you discard any information that doesn’t come from your own bubble. Pretty funny how you talk about wasting time, yet you took the time to write these content free comments here.
if you have to put words in my mouth to feel better, I can’t stop you. but it doesn’t change the facts.
Nobody is putting words in your mouth. I’m just unpacking the implications of your statement. The facts are that you keep making content free comments that don’t contribute anything to the discussion.
when you “unpack” words i did not say, then yes you are putting words in my mouth. and whether they contribute to the conversation is not measured by how emotional or irrational you become in response.
No, that’s not what putting words in somebody’s mouth means, but of course it’s too much to expect you to understand the terms you throw around. Also, thank you for your psychoanalysis, that’s about the level or rationality I’ve come to expect from you.
moving goalposts and “i know you are but what am I?” is not much of an argument.
You’re right it wouldn’t be if I actually did did either of those things. 😂
“nuh-uh!” isn’t much of an argument, either
you know that people can see your comment history, right?
I’m not discussing the veracity of the claims made by the article, but what do you consider to be unbiased news sources?
fair question, but I’m sorry that I may disappoint you in saying that I doubt any news source is (or even could be) completely unbiased. major newswire sources do try by only reporting raw facts, but even they let bias slip in when editors choose which facts to report.
So what criteria do you use to decide which stories to believe and which to discard due to source bias? How can you have any valid criteria when all the information you have on any given subject is tainted with unavoidable bias?
I’ll start by addressing your second question first: bias isn’t a binary; it exists on a spectrum. there’s a difference between a tiny bit of bias and extreme bias. So, though previous research and experience, I have come to trust some sources more than others and come to expect certain sources to have more or less bias in one direction or another. that, combined with comparative analysis of multiple sources, one can come closer to factual reporting through one’s own critical analysis of the reporting itself-- however, depending on what’s reported and the sources available, sometimes… one can only be so certain that one is getting the truth.
it can be frustrating trying to find accurate reporting of a story, even from previously trusted sources. I encourage people to read their news from multiple sources whose backgrounds they’ve investigated and to critically analyze the facts presented, and that they apply their own critical analysis to try their best to arrive as close as they can to the facts. Also, to realize that, in the world of corporate media, that being certain that the news you’re consuming is 100% accurate my not be possible.
A tiny bit of bias relative to what; where is the zero-point on your bias spectrum? Objective truth? Even objective facts can be presented in a biased manner. You’re suggesting I can arrive closer to objective truth by comparing and analyzing data from various sources but also saying I should ignore this source because its biased. Would that not also bias my analysis?
as I said before, I don’t think there is a “zero point” of bias in news reporting. even the organization I cited, mediabiasfactcheck, only rates bias on a scale of “least biased” to “extremely biased”.
to be clear, I never said that WSJ should be ignored. I just quoted from the analysis of an independent organization which is dedicated to analyzing the bias in media/news sources-- which, I’ll point out, reports WSJ as having a high level of factual reporting. With regards to this specific article: it’s an opinion piece-- pieces which, by their nature, are almost always very biased. This one is also highly speculative, loaded with equivocation and hypotheticals which is clearly pushing an agenda more than attempting to inform. You’re free to disagree, but discussing the subject therein doesn’t interest me in the context of this article.
And regardless of the subject or the source, just because of the fact that you are human, of course your analysis would be biased towards your own interests and beliefs. So would anyone’s. If everyone was impartial and free of bias, there would never be any conflict, war, or argument. Everyone would agree on everything.
You say there’s no zero point but at least theoretically there must be if one source can be “less biased” than another. Even if in reality it can only asymptotically approach zero there still must be a zero to approach.
I agree that it’s important to recognize one cannot be unbiased which is why it’s useful to examine one’s biases and challenge them through analysis of media that may not confirm those biases. You’re telling me that you’re not trying to dismiss this source due to bias but also that you don’t want to engage in a good faith analysis of the claims within. Rather than trying to debunk the claims you’re simply taking a shortcut to arrive at a conclusion that confirms your own biases.
you’re welcome to that opinion. I’ve explained my position.
that’s not what I said.
incorrect. I urge you to re-read what I’ve said rather than see what you wish to. I find it curious that you accuse me of applying my biases when you have, in fact, twisted my words so badly to only hear what you wish and conclude something quite different that what I’ve expressed.
and, perhaps more sophisticated than most, in retrospect, this was a clear attempt at
Sealioning
have a good night.
It just sounds like you don’t believe anyone or anything which feels bizarre.