Media Bias

[Brian Peacock]

The facts don't care about your feelings, so they say. But their feelings sure care about the facts.

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's all about subtext: Leftist feelings are wrong and false while right-wing feelings are noble and true, and are indeed factual. The smarmy dingleberry who's most closely identified with that phrase shows us how it's done:

'These facts don't care about Ben Shapiro's feelings'

Ben Shapiro wants you to believe he isn't like the rest of the right.

The "conservative intellectual" is young, loves to debate, and -- unlike the professional trolls who embrace everything President Donald Trump does to own the libs -- eager for you to think he adheres to a strict code of principles, only saying what he really believes. After all, Shapiro frequently repeats this simple mantra:

"Facts don't care about your feelings."

But despite presenting himself as a voice of reason who stands up to the "MAGA movement,: Shapiro has a habit of contradicting statements he made before (and even after) Trump took office, and a long history of failing to follow his own advice.

[Cunt]

OK, so give us the detailed evidence to support your hints of bias against conservatives, with all necessary links and sources.

You know, just like Hermit or L'emmy would...

I agree, you haven't seen the bias against conservatives.

It's hard to see without strong empathy for the conservatives. You would have to test such an idea, to start, by agreeing on what some of the left/right disagreements are. It's tough, especially in a moderated forum. I've frankly given up. I mean, I know which way the bias goes (because I love some righties AND some lefies) but each side is chock full of people who think it doesn't happen to the other side.

Good luck working it out. I suggest find a friendly 'rightie', and explore it with them.

In other words, all your sly hints and insinuations that mainstream media/big government/big corporations demonstrate bias against conservative views remains utterly and completely unsupported. You've "given up" either because doing the requisite research is boring (or beyond your competence) or, more likely, because no such evidence exists.

You could expect people on the forum to respect a well put together argument, with supporting links to surveys etc. but don't expect us to trawl through vague podcasts that themselves are basically evidence free.

You could listen to righties who think so, if you wanted to understand their side. It's not like they are hidden from you.

You could also look to the Time article, about how the 'cabal of powerful' took the reins and got rid of Trump. Then you could listen to a right-wing perspective on the same article.

Trouble always comes back to trying to be empathetic to a rightie...I think it's especially dangerous (socially) to do that at all publicly, and I certainly don't know how to help you.

Crowder claims he 'posts receipts'. So does Dan Bongino. If you care to check things out, they might just satisfy. Also, Shapiro says he stick to verifiable claims. Of course, you could keep trying to insist that I should take up something, but why? You want better info than some careless Cunt, don't you?

[JimC]

So, I could listen to...

Whatever.

But you cannot, yourself, produce a competent summary, with supporting evidence, of your claims of conservatives being maligned/marginalised/censored.

Why not?

[Cunt]

So, I could listen to...

Whatever.

But you cannot, yourself, produce a competent summary, with supporting evidence, of your claims of conservatives being maligned/marginalised/censored.

Why not?

Because it's a tough subject, and I haven't found someone I would like to cooperate in exploring it with.

It would have to start with finding some sort of test, using clear left/right issues, and identifying which issues are left and right is the first stumbling block.

I think it's a bigger problem than I can solve. That doesn't mean I'm going to start thinking different, it just means that I understand that we disagree, and that all those who have been victims of 'cancel culture' could make the point for you better than I ever could.

[JimC]

I think it's a bigger problem than I can solve. That doesn't mean I'm going to start thinking different...

Of course not. You're not going to let a little thing like not being able to come up with any credible arguments for a position to alter your (totally unsupported) opinions on that position...

[Cunt]

Do you understand Crowders claims of (social) media bias he has experienced, as a very popular, conservative comedy/variety show?

[JimC]

Do you understand Crowders claims of (social) media bias he has experienced, as a very popular, conservative comedy/variety show?

I'm not going to muck around finding his claims. If you want people on the forum to understand your points, give us a useful summary of his claims.

[Cunt]

Do you understand Crowders claims of (social) media bias he has experienced, as a very popular, conservative comedy/variety show?

I'm not going to muck around finding his claims. If you want people on the forum to understand your points, give us a useful summary of his claims.

I don't. The only point I'm making is that his show is funny and course. His skits, guests and segments are enjoyable and his claims are not outrageous or significantly unbelievable.

Maybe you would enjoy fact-checking a comic, I wouldn't. I would rather laugh more, and enjoy other perspectives, independent of whether I think they are 'RIGHT' or not.

[JimC]

However, the point remains that your references to him, along with other podcasts, always involve insinuations of media/government bias or censorship against conservative views. You don't do it for shit and giggles, you are trying (although failing, of course) to make political points.

Much better to do so openly and honestly, with well-reasoned arguments and supporting evidence...

[Cunt]

However, the point remains that your references to him, along with other podcasts, always involve insinuations of media/government bias or censorship against conservative views. You don't do it for shit and giggles, you are trying (although failing, of course) to make political points.

Much better to do so openly and honestly, with well-reasoned arguments and supporting evidence...

I trust his perspective on his experiences navigating tech censorship more than I trust the perspective of folks who don't watch his show, follow the story (like the Vox ad-pocalypse and other chapters) or know anything about it.

As to whether I would provide arguments and everything, no. I might have my mind changed, but I don't bother trying here.

If you wanted to discuss an issue I'm on the fence about, pick someone opposing and go ahead. I'm not equipped here, and can find all the arguments I want to read, so don't need another.

[JimC]

As to whether I would provide arguments and everything, no.

Says it all, really...

Anyway, a useful admission. No one need take any of your positions seriously from now on. Not that we did much of that earlier...

[Cunt]

As to whether I would provide arguments and everything, no.

Says it all, really...

Anyway, a useful admission. No one need take any of your positions seriously from now on. Not that we did much of that earlier...

I'll gladly grant you the same courtesy.

[Brian Peacock]

I'm not going to bother with arguments now. I'm just going to say that you're all probably going to disagree with them and when you do you're all definitely wrong.

[Cunt]

In Andy Ngo's interview with Dave Rubin, he claims there is a media bias. His 'case study' is an interesting one, worth the time to listen to his interview. Didn't convince me to buy the book, but I still like Rubin, and hearing about Portland agitators trying to shut down sales of a book they disliked.

It's almost like they are working for him...