Objectivity and bias in media

If you address the point with support, I’ll gladly engage you on the topics. I’m not sure why I’d apologize if you start engaging with support - again, not that clear the point you’re making. Please clarify what you’d like an apology for. I have no issues apologizing when wrong, but I’m not even sure what proposal you’re making.

As for being farthest 4 left… If that’s true, that would speak to how far right this place is. I’ve always been a registered independent that’s historically voted a mixed ticket, unapologetically work in the military industrial complex, have been to the sand box as a military contractor, and at core, don’t give a fuck about shit like universal healthcare as a core issue (pragmatically, I support it because it’d be lower cost), and make a very healthy salary (around a quarter mil) that I’d like to see lower taxes on. Based on the Republicans historic platform, I should be a lock for them - but given their recent* embrace of seemingly all things anti science, anti education, religious zealout, and now, anti fair election positions, it’s going to be a loooong time before I vote republican. If that makes me far left, well, fuck, Republicans are TRULY fucked.

*depends how old you are whether you consider this recent I suppose

1 Like

well, that’s because you aren’t sure what you are arguing against. would you like to check again why i chose that time stamp in the first place, the actual point i was making?

I was a progressive leftist before i started my phd, now i am apparently far right. this is the problem.

if i am far right, democrats are the same

I still respect you. I’m not sure what your complaint is with me because I only came in to say @mups was being silly with the toupee. we have rabbit holed to this point, shall we shake hands or shall we continue?

1 Like

See bud,.instead of talking in circles over many posts,.just make your point, clearly. Even if you have to repeat it once or twice. It’d be easier than making references to wrong brothers and timestamps and muddying the waters,.right?

You said:

And I’m telling you flat out that I don’t even know the point you’re making at this point with regards to the timestamp because the conversation has meandered so much, with so much muddiness (again, see brothers and 555 timestamp for examples), nor do I know what you’re proposing an apology for, so for gods sake, just spell it out.

1 Like

I’m doing my best, while trying to stay within community standards. To be honest, I find this condescending. We can all be more clear, and I don’t think I’m going in circles, just that we think differently and it isn’t easy for us to follow each other.

I think your ungenerous attitude here is at least part of the problem. I have admitted some mistakes but if there is no humility on the other side it doesn’t necessarily mean the fault is all on one side.

I don’t deliberately make mistakes to muddy the waters, again an ungenerous assumption. What happened to that hand shake I offered?

So, toupee or not toupee?

Well, if you don’t know what you’re arguing about, and you won’t go back and check, and you don’t express any humility, can you understand why I might not be interested in connecting the dots for you?

I’m trying to be generous here

It seems kinda weird that anyone who spends a good deal of their time living in paranoid fear of a supposed agenda coming from a loosely-knit band of far-left academic journal publishers… could miss a pretty obvious corporatist agenda from students bankrolled to the tune of millions by the Koch Brothers.

I’ll bet whoever thinks along these lines probably denied climate change with the same tone of indignance for decades.

1 Like

@Poundsand, this is your company right now

edit: i don’t think this is who you are

That’s the thing bro - I KNOW what I WAS arguing about - what you posted. That you then said wasn’t what you actually wanted to argue about, and was a mistake, and you’d like me to address that other thing which I wasn’t arguing about. Ok, then I did that, and you ignored it, and then you still have some issues with something that I’m apparently not addressing, but won’t say, specifically, what, despite me explicitly asking because I don’t know what else you want to address, and I should go back and check. Dude.

I am NOT arguing anything now - which might be what’s causing you confusion now if you think I don’t know what I’m arguing - I ASKED you explicitly to clarify, which you still refuse to do, then you claim ungenerous. sigh

I think you’re not nearly as clear as you think you are.

1 Like

Why don’t you argue with facts and/or reason and/or statistics and/or evidence and/or some kind of logic rather than this kind of thing? I mean, you might have picked up on the some of the back story you missed about the Evergreen professor had you done so…

final answer? i’ll put in the time and the far righties will love it if you’re wrong

1 Like

How is that my company? I don’t get your point - please clarify.

1 Like

I feel I have been as truthful and rational with him as I have been with you, on the same issues in general. I am engaging with everyone on Forumosa in the same way and only a few on the far left are harping on me, such as you and @McNulty. I made a point to @mups with that timestamp and you don’t seem to remember what it is but now we have this back and forth.

If you have a problem with the point I made with that timestamp, please let me know. Bear in mind that I have already acknowledged the couple seconds of mistake there and try to stay on point. If you continue to obfuscate and attack, well, I’m sorry but it reminds me of @McNulty

1 - you’re kind of lumping me in on a side largely based on being against your side, kind of like the thing that weistein was warning against at that 600 stamp. Irony.
2 - so are you taking issue with me not addressing you in your response to mups about that timestamp… when you’re not engaging me on my comments to you on it? Seriously? Am I reading that right?

As for bringing up the wrong timestamp, it’s not to obfuscate, it’s to point out part of why this hasn’t been clear, so when you act like it’s super clear, there’s some nonsense going on in your view of the clarity of points being made.

1 Like

at this point I’m looking at this question

edit: otherwise we’re arguing about our argument, in which case

Hey TT, am I wrong to see your positions on topics as a critique of the faulty system rather than from an us v. them perspective?

Very generous of you to assume some grand strategy on my part, but sadly I have no such noble goal at heart

Mostly I go after what I see are the most ridiculous comments, left and right (do you remember our sanctimonious exchange?). I don’t like stupid bullies*, no personal offence intended. Many people are quick to take offence these days, but I find it offensive when people refuse to recognize and learn from mistakes. Especially when they call me a lying racist hypocrite (which seems to only come from the left, but in fairness I don’t have to interact with the far right very often).

Despite our early minor clash, I think it is super cool that you’re asking me questions like we are equals and adults. Thanks for not talking to me like I’m a stupid asshole, even if at times I give that impression.

*not that everyone i disagree with is a stupid bully, but such people exist. if i’m being a stupid bully, please put me in check (but be ready to back it up!)

1 Like


I mean, if someone wants to make a straight up argument about free speech and college campuses, that’s right there for the taking. I think there could be valid points there.

But when you hold up people in groups like these as evidence for legitimacy of the argument, knowing or not, you may be a pawn for that group, being bankrolled by Koch money, or whatever source from the right that wants to hijack that argument for their political agenda.

1 Like

You realize he was talking about me, and you are now both making this personal?

Yes. My advice applies to you though, or anyone else who hold up Peterson, etc, people like this. You could be short-circuiting your own argument.

Better just to make a point void of using people who ‘legitimize’ it, to avoid getting thought of a part of whatever agenda they might possibly follow. Food for thought.

Are you sure?

Fair enough, I may have reacted too quickly there