Shoplifting and looting becoming more common

[+Link of Hyrule]

21 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That glosses over way too much in my view, that's like saying that football teams all have an offensive and defensive strategy and they all score touchdowns and from that point of view they are all equally good at it.  Just because everything is biased it does not follow that everything is biased to the same degree or equally, that so far is the flaw I see in your argument and seems to just be an assumption you are making.

To an extent I can see your point. In one sense you are right - some sources lean more left or right than other sources. MSNBC, for example, is even further left leaning than CNN. I am happy to concede this point. What I mean by "equally biased" is that they are all promoting their ideology, which is a clearly left wing ideology. Most media companies lean heavily left. This is partly on account that most mainstream media outlets require university degrees, and universities have leaned left for decades meaning that graduates from universities are more often than not going to lean left. That filters down to media companies leaning left.

If you have time, I highly recommend the following video - history of media and how bias in the media has changed. 

 

21 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That to me is a very skewed way to view these statistics, I think we've talked about this before.  I don't know how you are making these psychological assumptions about people based on a for instance 5% difference in the 'Distrust' levels between Fox and CNN.  If we agree that the 40% distrust of Fox qualifies it for 'biased right-wing' then it makes zero sense to me that a slight decrease to 35% distrust level is assumed to be 'the real news'. I have no idea where you're getting that, why isn't it 'slightly less biased left-wing news', why did you just totally ignore the distrust level of CNN like it's zero or something?  To elaborate on the flaw I mentioned above, show me your evidence that the distrust levels between CNN and Fox News do not actually perfectly represent the actual difference in bias between them.  To me, that seems like a very complicated and subjective question for laymen, do you go by strictly sheer amount of time on biased programming, do you provide a measure based on how biased it is and give that more weight, do you provide a measure for stories that 'should be' but are not covered?  You feel confident in your knowledge and experience to be able to determine and measure any of that?  If you've got some kind of study or something which shows or justifies your claim that every other mainstream network is viewed as 'real news' that would help.

5% difference is HUGE. Especially when this is also split by politics in many ways, meaning the 5% total is somewhat inaccurate - and it's fair to say an extra 5% of democrats (which probably makes the number closer to 8-9% difference among a particular demographic - see this article, for example - already added on to the shared distrust that Fox and CNN/MSNBC/NYT/etc have).

It's basic statistics, and it's a very significant increase. Perhaps an analogy will help. If 5% isn't that big, then give an extra 5% vote tally to the loser of the next election or the last election and see how the results turn out. In all honesty I find it hard to fathom that you cannot see how 5% is a huge difference when we're talking about entire country populations and trends. Either I'm significantly overvaluing statistics, or you're significantly undervaluing them. 

Edited August 14, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

To an extent I can see your point. In one sense you are right - some sources lean more left or right than other sources. MSNBC, for example, is even further left leaning than CNN. I am happy to concede this point. What I mean by "equally biased" is that they are all promoting their ideology, which is a clearly left wing ideology. Most media companies lean heavily left. This is partly on account that most mainstream media outlets require university degrees, and universities have leaned left for decades meaning that graduates from universities are more often than not going to lean left. That filters down to media companies leaning left.

That is not at all what 'equally biased' means to me.  There is a little racist and extremely racist, etc.  The above, 'they're all left', 'universities', etc, of course is all messaging from biased right-wing sources including untrustworthy Fox, in case you didn't know.

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

It's basic statistics, and it's a very significant increase. Perhaps an analogy will help. If 5% isn't that big, then give an extra 5% vote tally to the loser of the next election or the last election and see how the results turn out. In all honesty I find it hard to fathom that you cannot see how 5% is a huge difference when we're talking about entire country populations and trends. Either I'm significantly overvaluing statistics, or you're significantly undervaluing them. 

Whether 5% is significant or not depends entirely on the context.  Perhaps an example will help; a company that goes from a 5% profit to a 10% profit in a year is a significant increase, a company that goes from 150% to 155% not as much.  Regardless this isn't about statistics, it's about language.  Why you classify a news source that over 1/3 of people don't even trust as being misconstrued as 'the real news' looks like a pretty biased take.  You still have the glaring hole in your claim:  show what the distrust responses should be.  It's a subjective call, it doesn't mean that people who say that they don't distrust a news source believe every single thing that news source says.  Fox News is probably legitimately slightly more trustworthy if you avoid the prime-time propaganda shows and just watch more the 'newscast' stuff.  So much variation I don't see accounted for at all in your claim. 

If Fox News is the most extreme in its bias, which again is not all 'equal' among outlets, then depending on how you are translating these polls you should be more concerned about the 39% that trust Fox News, for all you know they are 10% more biased than CNN and logically, 'statistically', be more of a concern.  You instead are worried about too many people trusting other media, based purely on your imagination from what I can see, without showing or having any measure of how much they should trust those sources. 

What should have the results of the poll been, and what's your evidence and argument for it?  Should the distrust levels for CNN and Fox be equal?  Based on what?  This is off-topic obviously btw.

[+Link of Hyrule]

21 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That is not at all what 'equally biased' means to me.  There is a little racist and extremely racist, etc.  The above, 'they're all left', 'universities', etc, of course is all messaging from biased right-wing sources including untrustworthy Fox, in case you didn't know.

The mainstream media is hopelessly biased to the left. That's a fact of life. A far right news source and a centre right news source are both biased and they both have their narratives to push, as do far left and centre left sources. One may be "more left" or "more right" than another, but when it comes to information they are all fitting the data into their narratives and presenting it in a way that promotes their version of truth. That is equally biased regardless of the individual politics of each website. MSNBC is objectively more left wing than CNN, but both are equally biased in pushing their left wing narrative and will promote their side at the expense of the other - both are pro-democrat mouthpieces. Same goes for NBC, CNBC, NYT, CBS, ABC..... the further you go the more biased they become: Politico, Buzzfeed, Vox..... even worse than those already mentioned, they are all pro-democrat left-leaning outlets.

Some smaller outlets are better than others, for example The Hill is one of the few publications I am more likely to believe at face value. As a prime example, they are one of the few outlets who accurately reported (link) on Tucker Carlson's court case. They reported this the same way they reported the Rachel Maddow court case - we've already had discussion about how the mainstream media took great pleasure in misrepresenting that story as "Tucker Carlson argues reasonable viewers don't turn to him for facts", so The Hill got a lot of respect for properly reporting on it; but the mere fact that I can only count on one hand the sources that accurately reported the Tucker Carlson court case speaks volumes about the trust in the media). 

 

21 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Whether 5% is significant or not depends entirely on the context.  Perhaps an example will help; a company that goes from a 5% profit to a 10% profit in a year is a significant increase, a company that goes from 150% to 155% not as much.  Regardless this isn't about statistics, it's about language.  Why you classify a news source that over 1/3 of people don't even trust as being misconstrued as 'the real news' looks like a pretty biased take.  You still have the glaring hole in your claim:  show what the distrust responses should be.  It's a subjective call, it doesn't mean that people who say that they don't distrust a news source believe every single thing that news source says.  Fox News is probably legitimately slightly more trustworthy if you avoid the prime-time propaganda shows and just watch more the 'newscast' stuff.  So much variation I don't see accounted for at all in your claim. 

If Fox News is the most extreme in its bias, which again is not all 'equal' among outlets, then depending on how you are translating these polls you should be more concerned about the 39% that trust Fox News, for all you know they are 10% more biased than CNN and logically, 'statistically', be more of a concern.  You instead are worried about too many people trusting other media, based purely on your imagination from what I can see, without showing or having any measure of how much they should trust those sources. 

What should have the results of the poll been, and what's your evidence and argument for it?  Should the distrust levels for CNN and Fox be equal?  Based on what?  This is off-topic obviously btw.

We're talking about percentages of a population, not profit increase. You cannot ever get higher than 100% of a population. And within that context, 5% is a huge number, no matter how you try and slice it.   

To answer your final paragraph, in my opinion the distrust should be equal among all mainstream outlets, as they are all as bad as each other. Even Fox. Fox are not an unbiased source, they have their own agenda, and will represent the news in a way that favours their own narrative. The fact that Fox has a significantly higher distrust than anyone else demonstrates just how brainwashed people are by the mainstream media!  

The media is not as unbiased as you think it is, LG. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

20 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The media is not as unbiased as you think it is, LG. 

According to you, I don't think I said it was unbiased.  I was objecting to you assuming without evidence that too many people believe 'the media' i.e, "the left-wing media", are 'the real news'.  Did you ever consider that maybe most people are just as observant as you are about the bias in media? And perhaps many are themselves less biased in their perspective than you?

23 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

One may be "more left" or "more right" than another, but when it comes to information they are all fitting the data into their narratives and presenting it in a way that promotes their version of truth. That is equally biased regardless of the individual politics of each website. MSNBC is objectively more left wing than CNN, but both are equally biased in pushing their left wing narrative and will promote their side at the expense of the other - both are pro-democrat mouthpieces.

'One may be more left or more right than another' means, unless this is some quirk of Australian English, that they are not 'equally' biased.  That they are fitting the data into narratives has nothing to do with the equality, one of them may be better at fitting more biased data into their biased narrative.  Try it this way, what would 'unequal bias' look like, since you are labeling this 'equal'?

[+Link of Hyrule]

25 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

According to you, I don't think I said it was unbiased.  I was objecting to you assuming without evidence that too many people believe 'the media' i.e, "the left-wing media", are 'the real news'.  Did you ever consider that maybe most people are just as observant as you are about the bias in media? And perhaps many are themselves less biased in their perspective than you?

Some people are aware. But I think you'd be surprised how many people don't even realise it's happening. 

 

25 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

'One may be more left or more right than another' means, unless this is some quirk of Australian English, that they are not 'equally' biased.  That they are fitting the data into narratives has nothing to do with the equality, one of them may be better at fitting more biased data into their biased narrative.  Try it this way, what would 'unequal bias' look like, since you are labeling this 'equal'?

I'll try to explain. It feels like you are arguing that the news is centrist by naturet, such as  "well the news is x" where x refers to an event. An event is apolitical and reporting solely on the facts should present a centrist understanding of the event. Therefore, if any bias is put onto that event, it shifts the bias to the left or right. A far right source is shifting bias further than a centre right story, as is a far left source pushing the story further left and centre left only slightly left. 

Instead of this, consider that it may just be that events are rarely centrist. Events happen at a political time in a political place. They become important to us as a result of the values we hold and the manner in which that event either upholds or undermines our values. An event that doesn't challenge our values isn't newsworthy. But by the same token not everyone has the same values, hence one story coming from a far left perspective and the same story coming from a centre right perspective are both equally biased. The media company is applying its values and vision to the event, if the story doesn't fit their values or their vision, they won't run the story. If the story can be changed or mangled to fit their values or their vision then it is changed to accommodate.   

 

If you watched the video I linked in my last post about bias in the media there's one section where the author is discussing McCarthyism and the impact that McCarthyism had on how the media reports on events, that segment broadly covers my views here. I do understand what you are saying, and maybe I'm not using the right language to get my point across. Maybe we can workshop a different term other than "equally biased" to describe this. I would love to have the language to explain myself better. I'm struggling to find a better term than the one I currently have. 

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

20 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

It feels like you are arguing that the news is centrist by naturet,

I have no idea why you would think this honestly but I'm not a perfect communicator.  A page ago though I specifically asked, and I'm still I think waiting for an answer to this question as it's at the core, "If we agree that the 40% distrust of Fox qualifies it for 'biased right-wing' then it makes zero sense to me that a slight decrease to 35% distrust level is assumed to be 'the real news'. I have no idea where you're getting that, why isn't it 'slightly less biased left-wing news', why did you just totally ignore the distrust level of CNN like it's zero or something?"  I'm still wondering about that, it seems crucial and the core assumption of your argument:  what is the evidence you have that people who watched biased left-wing news think they are watching unbiased 'real news' and not that they're watching 'biased left-wing news', where did you get this data concerning how biased they think left-wing news is?  The only thing I've seen is the poll you linked about trust/distrust levels and I hope you are not inferring from that, if so I don't understand your rationale and logic and it seems like a giant and very tenuous leap.

20 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

An event that doesn't challenge our values isn't newsworthy.

That's not true.  The death of Anne Heche was newsworthy, the abnormally high temperatures in regions of the US this summer is newsworthy, and neither challenged my values in the least.

20 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Maybe we can workshop a different term other than "equally biased" to describe this.

Yes, I think the word 'equally' needs to be totally abolished.  You haven't specified this but if I stick to just the poll and not to your opinions, I feel like you are ultimately trying to argue that, if we assume that Fox and CNN are actually equally biased, that there is a problem because 5% more people trust CNN than Fox.  But you haven't shown that they are 'equally biased', that again to me seems to be a complex and subjective question potentially, and requires a way to measure it.  And this I believe fits in with your other belief that it's the left-wing media that is really 'worse', that their propaganda is more dangerous because you feel that too many people trust it or something.  But that may be putting arguments in your mouth.

20 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

A far right source is shifting bias further than a centre right story, as is a far left source pushing the story further left and centre left only slightly left. 

Another way to say this is that they are not equally biased, I agree.  I would furthermore say that it is possible to make a general comparison across the aisle, a minimally left source is less biased than an extreme far right source; OAN is more biased than ABC news I think from what little I know.  But then you say 'But by the same token not everyone has the same values, hence one story coming from a far left perspective and the same story coming from a centre right perspective are both equally biased.'  and to me that just does not compute with what I've quoted from you above.  You introduce 'everyone's values' as if that is relevant but I'm not following; when you say they are both 'equally biased' are you just referring from some people's individual perspective, or instead that they are equally biased compared to reality.  If it's the latter, then why isn't a 'far left' more biased than a 'center right' simply by what 'far' and 'center' mean?

[+Link of Hyrule]

5 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I have no idea why you would think this honestly but I'm not a perfect communicator.  A page ago though I specifically asked, and I'm still I think waiting for an answer to this question as it's at the core, "If we agree that the 40% distrust of Fox qualifies it for 'biased right-wing' then it makes zero sense to me that a slight decrease to 35% distrust level is assumed to be 'the real news'. I have no idea where you're getting that, why isn't it 'slightly less biased left-wing news', why did you just totally ignore the distrust level of CNN like it's zero or something?"  I'm still wondering about that, it seems crucial and the core assumption of your argument:  what is the evidence you have that people who watched biased left-wing news think they are watching unbiased 'real news' and not that they're watching 'biased left-wing news', where did you get this data concerning how biased they think left-wing news is?  The only thing I've seen is the poll you linked about trust/distrust levels and I hope you are not inferring from that, if so I don't understand your rationale and logic and it seems like a giant and very tenuous leap.

CNN is at least as biased as Fox. That is evident just by reading CNN's articles. 

 

5 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That's not true.  The death of Anne Heche was newsworthy, the abnormally high temperatures in regions of the US this summer is newsworthy, and neither challenged my values in the least.

Fair call. Obituaries seem to sidestep politics. By the same token as Anne Heche's death, where would the committee hearings on Donald Trump fall? There is no way to discuss that without bringing politics into it, and your reaction and approach to the hearings will very much be skewed by your own political views. Is CNN's approach more or less biased than Fox News, or ABC or NYT? 

 

5 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Yes, I think the word 'equally' needs to be totally abolished.  You haven't specified this but if I stick to just the poll and not to your opinions, I feel like you are ultimately trying to argue that, if we assume that Fox and CNN are actually equally biased, that there is a problem because 5% more people trust CNN than Fox.  But you haven't shown that they are 'equally biased', that again to me seems to be a complex and subjective question potentially, and requires a way to measure it.  And this I believe fits in with your other belief that it's the left-wing media that is really 'worse', that their propaganda is more dangerous because you feel that too many people trust it or something.  But that may be putting arguments in your mouth.

Another way to say this is that they are not equally biased, I agree.  I would furthermore say that it is possible to make a general comparison across the aisle, a minimally left source is less biased than an extreme far right source; OAN is more biased than ABC news I think from what little I know.  But then you say 'But by the same token not everyone has the same values, hence one story coming from a far left perspective and the same story coming from a centre right perspective are both equally biased.'  and to me that just does not compute with what I've quoted from you above.  You introduce 'everyone's values' as if that is relevant but I'm not following; when you say they are both 'equally biased' are you just referring from some people's individual perspective, or instead that they are equally biased compared to reality.  If it's the latter, then why isn't a 'far left' more biased than a 'center right' simply by what 'far' and 'center' mean?

I wouldn't call OAN "mainstream media". I'd argue that by virtue of being created in 2013 they are the very definition of "alternative media", even though they use traditional broadcast methods. 

That said, I don't use OAN much as a source, I probably would avoid it due to claims of bias (political discussion is already divided enough without arguing about sources too). 

I think there's a disconnect in the way we are arguing right now because I don't think you see CNN/MSNBC/etc to be as biased as I think they are biased. Going back to the top of my post, I strongly argue that just by reading CNN one can determine that they are at least as untrustworthy as any of the major networks, including Fox. 

[Myles]

San Francisco is trying to pull themselves out of the mess they put themselves into.  

 

 

. San Francisco Mayor London Breed was among the politicians in major cities that joined the chorus of leaders diverting funds from police that summer, only to reverse course the following year.  

"We will redirect $120 million from law enforcement to support these priorities over the next two years," Breed said in her announcement on July 31, 2020. "Let me repeat that. This is 120 million dollars."

The plan redirected $120 million in funds from both the police and sheriff’s departments in the city over two years to fund initiatives for Black Americans in the Golden City.

San Francisco was among cities across the country that saw some crimes increase in 2020 compared to 2019. Homicides increased by 20% that year compared to 2019, and by 17% in 2021 compared to 2020. While crimes such as rape and robbery decreased in 2020, burglaries increased by 47% in 2020 when compared to the three previous years, data complied by SFGate shows. 

The city was also rocked by smash-and-grab crimes last year, most notably during the holiday season, that carried into 2022; by a continued drug use epidemic that led to more accidental drug overdose deaths in the city in 2020 than the number of people who died from COVID-19 that same year; and by polls over the last two years showing residents becoming concerned with public safety and reporting that their quality of life has gotten worse. 

What followed the defund movement has been widespread reports of police departments being understaffed, struggling with low morale and facing a tough recruitment process to bolster the force. Police leaders have often pointed to the defund movement and anti-police rhetoric as being to blame for gutting morale. 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-defunded-police-reversing-course-next-year-calls-accountability

[Myles]

Speaking of San Fran.  

Four juveniles, whose ages range from 11 to 18 years old, have been arrested for violently robbing an elderly Asian woman in San Francisco, police said. 

The 70-year-old victim was beaten and robbed on July 31, an announcement on social media details. 

The victim told responding officers that she was standing in front of a building when she was approached by four juvenile suspects who began talking to her. 

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

13 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

CNN is at least as biased as Fox. That is evident just by reading CNN's articles. 

I entirely disagree that any one person/layman can possibly read enough articles and watch broadcasts from both of these outlets to determine which is more biased, I've brought up several times how complicated and potentially subjective this question is.  Since you apparently don't think it is let's start with the simplest of questions, how are you specifically measuring this bias?  Since you only mention that it 'is evident' I'm unfortunately assuming this is like one of your previous very questionable statements that 'everybody knows' Fox is biased.  Your whole theory from what I can tell is based on this measurement, if CNN is not actually as biased as Fox then there may not be anything wrong with the poll results, they may just reflect reality and the difference in actual trustworthiness levels of Fox vs CNN.  If you dispute that, you can show your work any time now.

13 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

There is no way to discuss that without bringing politics into it, and your reaction and approach to the hearings will very much be skewed by your own political views. Is CNN's approach more or less biased than Fox News, or ABC or NYT? 

I don't know, that is exactly the question I've been posing to you.  If you don't have a methodology for determining and comparing bias between these networks than why do you think reading some CNN articles clearly demonstrates they are at least or more biased than Fox?  

13 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I think there's a disconnect in the way we are arguing right now because I don't think you see CNN/MSNBC/etc to be as biased as I think they are biased. Going back to the top of my post, I strongly argue that just by reading CNN one can determine that they are at least as untrustworthy as any of the major networks, including Fox. 

When you say 'at least' then you are admitting there are different levels and degrees of bias, and thus hopefully understand now why it's so confusing when you kept trying to use the term 'equally biased' simultaneously.  Your argument isn't made 'strong' by how much you believe it or how forcibly you assert it, it's made strong by what you have to back it up; you used to strongly argue for the truth of Christianity also based on how much you believed it. Taking you literally there is a logical fail in your argument; you can't determine how untrustworthy CNN compared to others "just" by reading their articles, you have to analyze the output of Fox and all the other major networks too for comparison.  I wouldn't put it as I don't see CNN to be 'as' biased as you do, I'd put it as you are providing no reason or evidence to support your ideas of how viewers psychologically perceive CNN/left-wing media and most importantly how you are determining that one is in reality more biased than the other.  Why are you 'just' looking at articles, CNN has a 24/7 TV channel also?  The only methodology of yours I can glean so far I would refer to as 'winging it'.

Lastly, you are clearly and solidly on the right so why would you think your view is unbiased anyway?  You can just turn off the 'skewing by your own political views' that you just mentioned and become a completely unbiased evaluator of media bias?  I'll give you that your ideas may not be as over-the-top as the extreme right but I would still consider you pretty far right, after all you sure seem to be disproportionately into the media and politics and championing one political side of a country you don't even live in or vote in.

[+Link of Hyrule]

6 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I entirely disagree that any one person/layman can possibly read enough articles and watch broadcasts from both of these outlets to determine which is more biased, I've brought up several times how complicated and potentially subjective this question is.  Since you apparently don't think it is let's start with the simplest of questions, how are you specifically measuring this bias?  Since you only mention that it 'is evident' I'm unfortunately assuming this is like one of your previous very questionable statements that 'everybody knows' Fox is biased.  Your whole theory from what I can tell is based on this measurement, if CNN is not actually as biased as Fox then there may not be anything wrong with the poll results, they may just reflect reality and the difference in actual trustworthiness levels of Fox vs CNN.  If you dispute that, you can show your work any time now.

My theory is based on the fact that CNN is hopeless biased. Looking at the front page of CNN's website it's obvious to anyone who knows how to read between the lines. Even media bias websites are cluing in to the fact that CNN's opinions are not trustworthy. 

I don't have a way to empirically prove this. If you read CNN impartially you will arrive at the same conclusion I did, but that's a circular argument and I know it. 

 

6 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I don't know, that is exactly the question I've been posing to you.  If you don't have a methodology for determining and comparing bias between these networks than why do you think reading some CNN articles clearly demonstrates they are at least or more biased than Fox?  

My point is that an issue like this cannot be separated from politics. It is inextricably tied up in our individual values. It is virtually impossible to report on the committee hearings without imposing a set of values on the events. Those values change depending on the publication doing the reporting. 

 

6 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

When you say 'at least' then you are admitting there are different levels and degrees of bias, and thus hopefully understand now why it's so confusing when you kept trying to use the term 'equally biased' simultaneously.  Your argument isn't made 'strong' by how much you believe it or how forcibly you assert it, it's made strong by what you have to back it up; you used to strongly argue for the truth of Christianity also based on how much you believed it. Taking you literally there is a logical fail in your argument; you can't determine how untrustworthy CNN compared to others "just" by reading their articles, you have to analyze the output of Fox and all the other major networks too for comparison.  I wouldn't put it as I don't see CNN to be 'as' biased as you do, I'd put it as you are providing no reason or evidence to support your ideas of how viewers psychologically perceive CNN/left-wing media and most importantly how you are determining that one is in reality more biased than the other.  Why are you 'just' looking at articles, CNN has a 24/7 TV channel also?  The only methodology of yours I can glean so far I would refer to as 'winging it'.

My arguments when I was a Christian were always faith-based. That's why I was happy to have disagreements, because faith cannot be proven. It doesn't take faith to denounce CNN, though. Just reading their articles is enough to demonstrate it  

That said, I am happy to use different terminologies to describe my views if we can find acceptable alternatives. 

 

6 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Lastly, you are clearly and solidly on the right so why would you think your view is unbiased anyway?  You can just turn off the 'skewing by your own political views' that you just mentioned and become a completely unbiased evaluator of media bias?  I'll give you that your ideas may not be as over-the-top as the extreme right but I would still consider you pretty far right, after all you sure seem to be disproportionately into the media and politics and championing one political side of a country you don't even live in or vote in.

 I never said I was unbiased, why would you think I saw myself that way? 

Believe it or not, I am not actually right wing in a lot of my beliefs. Especially in terms of social views - many of my beliefs fall squarely on the left side of politics. In fact, until 2018 I considered myself a "progressive". I left the left because I began to examine my beliefs and came to believe in the importance of free speech and individual responsibility. The conservatives are the only ones promoting free speech and individual responsibility right now, and therefore I cannot ever support a progressive politics, their beliefs and views are actively anti-free speech and anti-individual responsibility and that can only lead to the erosion of our rights. 

My social views have largely not changed. On all of the conservative pages I belong to and contribute to, none has ever banned me for expressing support for the LGBTQ+ community, or for my support for universal healthcare, or any other issue that is traditionally a "left wing" thing. But I have been banned from left wing pages for some pretty ridiculous reasons. One page I got banned from for saying that Kyle Rittenhouse should be found Not Guilty according to the law; another page banned me not for saying anything but simply "Liking" another post in which a female poster said that trans women (biological men transitioned into women) have a biological advantage over biological women (yeah, simply clicking "Like" on a post was enough to remove me from that Intersectional Feminists Facebook page. 

Diversity of thought only applies on the right of politics these days, the left is becoming more and more restrictive all the time. That is why I may come across as "right wing", but my values are very much more in line with the left. But unfortunately they don't believe in freedom the way that they need to in order to gain my support. 

[el midgetron]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by el midgetron

[el midgetron]

On July 9, police said that three teenagers approached 57-year-old Jill LeCroix – a grandmother of five – on a Queens bus, and allegedly made anti-white statements as they struck her in the head. LeCroix was left bloody and required three staples to close the wound…..

……“Before they hit me, the girl with the green hair said, ‘You probably like Trump! Don’t you?’ LeCroix told the outlet. “I said, ‘I love him.’ I didn’t see which one hit me first.”

“The one with the green hair, she was saying she hates white people, the way they talk, hates white skin, the way their skin cracks. Saying she was gangsta,” LeCroix added. “I was the only white person on the bus. By the time we started passing St. John’s Cemetery on Woodhaven, she started in on me, saying, ‘That’s where I’m going to bury you!’”….

…..The attack follows an increase in violent crime in New York City, with rape increasing 15% over the past year, robberies increasing 40%, and felony assaults increasing 20%, according to the Post. The state of New York has also seen a 76% increase in hate crimes during the same time period, CNN reported.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/third-teen-arrested-for-alleged-anti-white-hate-crime-on-queens-bus

[+Liquid Gardens]

22 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

My theory is based on the fact that CNN is hopeless biased.

I'm thinking you might be assuming something incorrectly about what I'm saying.  I'm not saying that you're wrong that CNN is equally or more biased than Fox because CNN is not biased, I never said or implied that. I've said repeatedly I think, and you've inadvertently semi-confirmed, that there's no way you could have much basis for your opinion.  If you can't provide reasons and evidence why you believe CNN to be equally or more biased then it might as well be faith.  I hope you clearly recognize that your belief that CNN is hopelessly biased does not provide justification at all for why Fox is not more biased, to compare two things you have to measure both of them.  I am not questioning your claim based on a pro-left-wing outlook or anything like that, I'm treating it with the same kind of skepticism that I treat most more UM-ish topics here.

23 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

My point is that an issue like this cannot be separated from politics.

23 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I never said I was unbiased, why would you think I saw myself that way? 

There is a difference between the statement 'CNN is more biased than Fox' and 'a right-wing person believes CNN is more biased than Fox', just like there's a difference between 'evolution is wrong' and 'a creationist believes evolution is wrong'.  If an issue like this cannot be separated from politics, and if you are biased, then how have you factored these facts into your conclusion?  So far you are basing your opinion on your own experience and impressions, which means you are the one evaluating whether something is biased or not, but how are you controlling for the fact that a hypothetical media that is in actuality straight down the center is going to look biased left to someone biased to the right like yourself, and vice versa.  Doesn't 'CNN is more biased than Fox' require 'separating from politics' which you just said could not be done?

23 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Even media bias websites are cluing in to the fact that CNN's opinions are not trustworthy. 

I'm not sure what you mean by being 'clued in', you make it sound like this is some new recognition of CNN's bias or something.  Your media bias link, which largely seems to be the work of one person, does at least have a general methodology.  And lo they have CNN close to 'left' but on the 'left-center' side and Fox close to 'right' but on the 'extreme' side.  Why I'd guesstimate that the difference in their distance from the center point is about 5%, which just happens to be our trust differential.  Thanks for the evidence for my point?

23 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

(yeah, simply clicking "Like" on a post was enough to remove me from that Intersectional Feminists Facebook page. 

That's not 'anti free speech' that is pro-right to free association; getting to choose who we want to hang out with necessarily entails rejecting others.  Can't talk about holocaust denial nor even the effects of certain drugs here at UM, also 'anti-free speech'? I don't think so.  Most of the complaints about anti-free-speech I see hypocritically ignore or squash other basic rights people have.  Based on your example it appears that you are making the mistake of thinking that every conversation you see on the internet is by default supposed to be this wholly open pure free speech forum or something, which is absurd.  The mere fact that you are on something as specific as the "Intersectional Feminists Facebook page" should eliminate any expectation you should have of something like that.

[Golden Duck]

I've watched more CNNNN than CNN.

Only an Aussie would know.

[+Link of Hyrule]

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm thinking you might be assuming something incorrectly about what I'm saying.  I'm not saying that you're wrong that CNN is equally or more biased than Fox because CNN is not biased, I never said or implied that. I've said repeatedly I think, and you've inadvertently semi-confirmed, that there's no way you could have much basis for your opinion.  If you can't provide reasons and evidence why you believe CNN to be equally or more biased then it might as well be faith.  I hope you clearly recognize that your belief that CNN is hopelessly biased does not provide justification at all for why Fox is not more biased, to compare two things you have to measure both of them.  I am not questioning your claim based on a pro-left-wing outlook or anything like that, I'm treating it with the same kind of skepticism that I treat most more UM-ish topics here.

I read Fox and I read CNN, both come across as extremely biased to me. Unless you read both and arrive at your own conclusions, there is no way for me to empirically show this to you. 

 

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

There is a difference between the statement 'CNN is more biased than Fox' and 'a right-wing person believes CNN is more biased than Fox', just like there's a difference between 'evolution is wrong' and 'a creationist believes evolution is wrong'.  If an issue like this cannot be separated from politics, and if you are biased, then how have you factored these facts into your conclusion?  So far you are basing your opinion on your own experience and impressions, which means you are the one evaluating whether something is biased or not, but how are you controlling for the fact that a hypothetical media that is in actuality straight down the center is going to look biased left to someone biased to the right like yourself, and vice versa.  Doesn't 'CNN is more biased than Fox' require 'separating from politics' which you just said could not be done?

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. Let's just say we have a difference of opinion, and we can both move on  

 

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm not sure what you mean by being 'clued in', you make it sound like this is some new recognition of CNN's bias or something.  Your media bias link, which largely seems to be the work of one person, does at least have a general methodology.  And lo they have CNN close to 'left' but on the 'left-center' side and Fox close to 'right' but on the 'extreme' side.  Why I'd guesstimate that the difference in their distance from the center point is about 5%, which just happens to be our trust differential.  Thanks for the evidence for my point?

I don't know how to search for archived pages, maybe someone else does and can check, but that particular media bias fact check page is one of the more common used, and until recently I'm 99.99% sure that the Rating on CNN was listed as "Mostly Factual" instead of "Mixed". I could be wrong, but without checking the archived pages I cannot say for 100% certain, I still have that 0.01% doubt. 

Hence the reason I described it as them "cluing in". 

 

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That's not 'anti free speech' that is pro-right to free association; getting to choose who we want to hang out with necessarily entails rejecting others.  Can't talk about holocaust denial nor even the effects of certain drugs here at UM, also 'anti-free speech'? I don't think so.  Most of the complaints about anti-free-speech I see hypocritically ignore or squash other basic rights people have.  Based on your example it appears that you are making the mistake of thinking that every conversation you see on the internet is by default supposed to be this wholly open pure free speech forum or something, which is absurd.  The mere fact that you are on something as specific as the "Intersectional Feminists Facebook page" should eliminate any expectation you should have of something like that.

Am I to gather from this that conservatives are just naturally more open and welcoming to diverse points of view (eg, to quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall's famous line, "I do not agree with what you say but will fight to the death for your right to say it" - this appears to be a belief that is championed only by conservatives these days - differences of opinions are not welcome on the political left, and when such differences arise those who hold it are cast out from the internet)?

I've never been banned from a conservative website for sharing progressive views, and only rarely do I even get someone being unpleasant about it, but I have been banned from multiple progressive pages for sharing conservative views. Consider the following article which was written by a gay conservative and argues that his coming out as gay to his conservative friends was easier and less hurtful than him coming out as conservative to his progressive friends (it's a common view among gay conservatives - if you join a conservative web page you might meet some of these gay folks - that society accepts their homosexuality but society doesn't accept their conservatism). 

And while I was on those leftist pages such as the Intersectional Feminists page, one of the most common things I saw from those who were on those pages, was their desire for instituting their brand of silencing people right across the internet . The ones who banned me for "liking" a post would, if they could, ban me from every other website out there. No conservative page I have ever joined has been that rabidly against the other side of politics (and that's not even considering the sanctioned silencing of views on social media - eg, in 2020 it was "misinformation" and did end in bans for people who argued that the coronavirus originated in a Wuhan lab, but in 2021 as soon as Trump was out of office and Biden was in, it became a salient talking point). 

In one sense, you are absolutely right about their right to police their own webpage however they like. But the fact is that they WANT this all across the internet. And the conservatives simply don't silence progressives the way that progressives are silencing conservatives. The conclusion is that conservatives are, on the whole, more welcoming and open to diverse opinions than progressives are. 

Edited August 18, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[Myles]

19 hours ago, el midgetron said:

On July 9, police said that three teenagers approached 57-year-old Jill LeCroix – a grandmother of five – on a Queens bus, and allegedly made anti-white statements as they struck her in the head. LeCroix was left bloody and required three staples to close the wound…..

……“Before they hit me, the girl with the green hair said, ‘You probably like Trump! Don’t you?’ LeCroix told the outlet. “I said, ‘I love him.’ I didn’t see which one hit me first.”

“The one with the green hair, she was saying she hates white people, the way they talk, hates white skin, the way their skin cracks. Saying she was gangsta,” LeCroix added. “I was the only white person on the bus. By the time we started passing St. John’s Cemetery on Woodhaven, she started in on me, saying, ‘That’s where I’m going to bury you!’”….

…..The attack follows an increase in violent crime in New York City, with rape increasing 15% over the past year, robberies increasing 40%, and felony assaults increasing 20%, according to the Post. The state of New York has also seen a 76% increase in hate crimes during the same time period, CNN reported.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/third-teen-arrested-for-alleged-anti-white-hate-crime-on-queens-bus

I hope they hang them by their toes, but it is NYC, they will probably let them off.

[+Liquid Gardens]

13 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I read Fox and I read CNN, both come across as extremely biased to me. Unless you read both and arrive at your own conclusions, there is no way for me to empirically show this to you. 

Thanks, I wish I would have known earlier that you have no empirical data to back up your claim, and that the only evidence you did eventually provide refuted it.

13 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Am I to gather from this that conservatives are just naturally more open and welcoming to diverse points of view (eg, to quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall's famous line, "I do not agree with what you say but will fight to the death for your right to say it" - this appears to be a belief that is championed only by conservatives these days - differences of opinions are not welcome on the political left, and when such differences arise those who hold it are cast out from the internet)?

Given the mistaken assumption I was making that when you seemingly have a strong opinion that there's something to back it up other than your own impressions and insufficient analysis, I'm not sure anymore what you should gather.  Hall's line refers to a scenario where a writer was threatened by government and religious leaders in the 18th century, including the labelling of his book as 'heresy'; just a slightly bigger concern than persecution a la internet comment moderation.  As far as your biased marketing of conservatives' concern about free speech, I'll see your 'random tales from my personal experience on various internet boards' and raise you DeSantis and Kaepernick.

13 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

that society accepts their homosexuality but society doesn't accept their conservatism

Speaking of yet more marketing.  Typically when we refer to 'society' we are referring to a large majority of society.  Since a very large number of Americans are conservative, to the extent that not that long ago the presidency and both chambers of Congress were majority Republican, no it's not true that 'society' doesn't accept their conservatism. 

You make this same mistake over and over, it's a common one and a lot of people do it and a lot of right-wing outlets feed it constantly.  You don't back up statements about 'progressives' or 'leftists' by referring to single experiences you've personally had or read, because you are making a statement about millions of people based on your experience with a tiny few.  By the same token/logic, conservatives must be bigots because for every singleton example you can bring up of a progressive 'silencing' speech, it is effortless for someone to bring up singleton examples of conservatives being bigoted.  I know you can spot the flaw in that latter argument, why can't you spot it in your own?

[Trelane]

"Shoplifting and looting becoming more common"

 

Good, I need some new shoes.

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, Trelane said:

"Shoplifting and looting becoming more common"

 

Good, I need some new shoes.

Maybe you could just walk out of the store with them and say, "They are not theirs, they are mine."  That will excuse it.

[+Link of Hyrule]

  

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Thanks, I wish I would have known earlier that you have no empirical data to back up your claim, and that the only evidence you did eventually provide refuted it.

Given the mistaken assumption I was making that when you seemingly have a strong opinion that there's something to back it up other than your own impressions and insufficient analysis, I'm not sure anymore what you should gather. 

I said this at least once already within this very thread. In a reply to you, no less   

 

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Hall's line refers to a scenario where a writer was threatened by government and religious leaders in the 18th century, including the labelling of his book as 'heresy'; just a slightly bigger concern than persecution a la internet comment moderation.  As far as your biased marketing of conservatives' concern about free speech, I'll see your 'random tales from my personal experience on various internet boards' and raise you DeSantis and Kaepernick.

Maybe you'd feel differently about it if it was your beliefs and values being silenced! 

 

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Speaking of yet more marketing.  Typically when we refer to 'society' we are referring to a large majority of society.  Since a very large number of Americans are conservative, to the extent that not that long ago the presidency and both chambers of Congress were majority Republican, no it's not true that 'society' doesn't accept their conservatism. 

You make this same mistake over and over, it's a common one and a lot of people do it and a lot of right-wing outlets feed it constantly.  You don't back up statements about 'progressives' or 'leftists' by referring to single experiences you've personally had or read, because you are making a statement about millions of people based on your experience with a tiny few.  By the same token/logic, conservatives must be bigots because for every singleton example you can bring up of a progressive 'silencing' speech, it is effortless for someone to bring up singleton examples of conservatives being bigoted.  I know you can spot the flaw in that latter argument, why can't you spot it in your own?

So what accounts for the seemingly welcoming attitudes in conservative pages and the intolerance in progressive pages? Am I just the luckiest/unluckiest bloke on the internet to only happen to join left wing sites that are intolerant, and I only manage to join the most tolerant and accepting of right wing pages? There are always extreme examples on the fringes. Sure, I can find a single example of conservatives being bigoted. But they are far fewer and hidden, and they are only a tiny fraction of a conservative page's total numbers. They certainly aren't popular enough to become admins of Facebook groups in which they impose their values on everyone else the way that.... say, Intersectional Feminists are overrun by activists wanting to impose their beliefs on the rest of the world. 

I belong to a Facebook page for conservative Star Trek fans. I also belong to non-conservative Star Trek pages. One of those non-conservative pages recently changed their entry questions to include the following: "Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future is: a- Capitalist; b- Socialist; c- I'm a Trump-loving moron". Not even a political page, the name of the page is "Star Trek Forever". But no such discrimination in Conservative Trekdom.... why? 

Considering that geography is a semi-decent predictor of political views (democrats are increasingly living with other democrats and republicans are living in republican areas) and more people living urban areas than rural (and urban areas tend to lean progressive, the bigger the city the more democrat it leans) it's fair to say that if you are a gay conservative living in the city, you're going to be ostracised for your beliefs and values. 

Quote

Stop Flaunting Your Conservatism

When I was out in high school and complained about bullying, taunting, and rejection from my peers, I was repeatedly told that I should stop “flaunting” my sexuality in front of people. My grandmother would often ask why I felt the need to shout from the rooftops that I was gay. My dad often asked me to tone down my gayness to avoid embarrassment and confrontation.

I did not find my personal expression that outrageous or provocative, but I became far more self-conscious of what I said and how. The complaint was that, by being openly gay, I was provoking people who were happier not being confronted with something uncomfortable to them. Today I hear the same things when I see conservatives express concern over censorship and the left dismisses us as hateful bigots upset that our intolerant worldview is disappearing from society.

Even to bring up the subject is to invite taunting and disdain from the very people we attempt, in vain, to reach out to. While I always hoped that I could break through to a person who saw me as a sinner, I find today that it is impossible to even hold a conversation with someone who sees me as a bigot. Our concerns are mocked and our moments of frustration are viewed as weakness. We find no compassion from our adversaries. In fact, we see them champion silencing us permanently.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/12/11/stigma-conservative-politics-worse-stigma-gay/

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[Zebra3]

I guess if you can get away with this, I'm gonna start shoplifting. Gotta love NY.

EXCLUSIVE: NYC thug, 55, who put on gloves to knock out diner in unprovoked attack is FREED after being arrested for attempted murder as DA charges him with misdemeanor : Left victim in a coma with fractured skull three years after leaving prison for rape

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11124859/NYC-sex-offender-WALKS-FREE-attempted-murder-charges-downgraded-misdemeanor.html

[Tatetopa]

54 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

So what accounts for the seemingly welcoming attitudes in conservative pages and the intolerance in progressive pages?

That may be a subjective observation.  Is it possible that your posts and ideas had more affinity for conservative pages?   

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

t's fair to say that if you are a gay conservative living in the city, you're going to be ostracised for your beliefs and values. 

It may not be fair to say that.  Texas Republicans kicked out the conservative Log Cabin Republicans, not because they are conservative but because they are gay.  

[+Liquid Gardens]

50 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I said this at least once already within this very thread. In a reply to you, no less   

The phrase you used was that you cannot 'empirically prove' it.  I disregarded this because no one asked you to 'prove' anything, just support with something.

50 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Maybe you'd feel differently about it if it was your beliefs and values being silenced! 

Yes, the horror. How can your beliefs and values be 'silenced' when you have provided numerous long posts just on this site containing them?  You are telling your stories hear right now of being 'silenced' on other sites and mentioning the same points that were banned there so your points aren't silenced at all; why do you think you get to make your statements anywhere you want to or it's an attack on free speech?    Explain why you have a right to someone else's stage, microphone or audience.  A lot of people when they refer to 'free speech' are talking about being able to speak freely without being persecuted, mainly by the government.  

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

So what accounts for the seemingly welcoming attitudes in conservative pages and the intolerance in progressive pages?

I have no idea, I wasn't there and the only information I have on it is through the lens of someone who is biased and IMO waaay to into social media.  Besides your stories just seem spun.  Usually sites have some kind of declaration of purpose or rules or what-not, do the left-wing sites specifically say it's an open forum and all commentary is welcome?  Do they say that discussion of conservative viewpoints are welcome?  Would you understand that a facebook group of rock guitar players may ban or moderate someone who wants to talk about jazz guitar, you'd agree that in that scenario that complaints about free speech are ridiculous?  If so, what's the evidence that this same reasoning doesn't apply to you?  I don't agree with the arguments but there may be some point to the idea that certain sites are so large that they should in effect be treated as a public forum, but that obviously doesn't apply to liberal Trekkies and intersectional feminist groups.  It is entirely reasonable for a politically left site to ban conservative commentary and vice versa and no that is not 'silencing' that is content control.  Especially since in absolutely zero way is there any shortage of easy access to plentiful conservative commentary on every topic.

 

[el midgetron]

Sex fiend who nearly killed NYC man with sucker punch freed without bail

….Bui Van Phu, 55, was instead charged by the Bronx District Attorney’s Office with assault and harassment, both misdemeanors, for the brutal knockout punch last Friday that left the 52-year-old victim unconscious on the street, according to a criminal complaint.

He required brain surgery and is now in a medically induced coma, authorities said.

The new charges against Phu are not bail eligible, and a Bronx judge cut Phu loose on supervised release at his arraignment Thursday, a spokesperson for the Bronx DA’s office said.

https://nypost.com/2022/08/18/sex-offender-accused-of-nearly-killing-man-with-punch-freed-without-bail-after-charges-reduced/