Quo Vadis GOP?

[Admiral Yi]

Throughout history various people have used the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was executed at the request of the Jewish religious leadership as justification for pogroms.  Therefore we should say that this is not true.

[Berkut]

SO apparently I have to say something I think is untrue (there is no bias in the mainstream media) or else I'm helping Trump.

You do love your strawmen.

What you ought to do if you care about what is true is stopping repeating something you know is not true - that the mainstream media is biased against conservatives/for liberals.

But I don't know that that is not true.

So you think the Wall Street Journal is biased against conservatives?

[Berkut]

Throughout history various people have used the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was executed at the request of the Jewish religious leadership as justification for pogroms.  Therefore we should say that this is not true.

You should definitely stop repeating slogans that focus on some specific fact that is meaningless but is crafted in order to fucking justify genocide, yes. Seems rather obvious to me.

If you are sitting around having a conversation about politics in 1933 Germany and you know that there are a bunch of people out there itching to murder them some Jews, yeah, constantly bringing up how the Jews did actually ask for Jesus to be executed, and then retreating  to a claim that "Well, strictly speaking it's true!" to justify bringing it up over and over and over again (and pointedly leaving off any nuance or disclaimer that it is not relevant or even useful to the overall conversation about what to do about Jewish people) is utter bullshit.

Hiding behind "BUT IT IS TRUE!" in some facile manner when you know in fact that the story is being used for a very specific agenda is definitely enabling those with those agendas.

All good propaganda has some little kernel of truth in it. The media does suck a lot of the times. Every single media outlet out there screws up and gets things wrong. They are all run by humans, and hence have bias. All these things are true.

It is NOT true, however, that the mainstream media ought not to be trusted because it is all biased against conservatives and for liberals. That is a lie. It is a comforting lie for conservatives, but a lie nonetheless. And we know exactly what the purpose of the lie is, just like we know what the purpose of the "...but the Jews asked for Jesus to be executed, and hence deserve a wee bit of genocide!" is a lie as well.

[Admiral Yi]

Got it.  If Beeb had only said it once, tht would be fine.  Or he could repeat it, but only in a place less packed with rabid climate deniers and anti-vaxxers than Languish.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Barrister]

SO apparently I have to say something I think is untrue (there is no bias in the mainstream media) or else I'm helping Trump.

You do love your strawmen.

What you ought to do if you care about what is true is stopping repeating something you know is not true - that the mainstream media is biased against conservatives/for liberals.

But I don't know that that is not true.

So you think the Wall Street Journal is biased against conservatives?

WSJ is one of the few major outlets that has a more right-wing bent.

[Berkut]

SO apparently I have to say something I think is untrue (there is no bias in the mainstream media) or else I'm helping Trump.

You do love your strawmen.

What you ought to do if you care about what is true is stopping repeating something you know is not true - that the mainstream media is biased against conservatives/for liberals.

But I don't know that that is not true.

So you think the Wall Street Journal is biased against conservatives?

WSJ is one of the few major outlets that has a more right-wing bent.

FOx News? Doesn't count as major media? The Hill? BBC? Reuters? Forbes, The Economist?

There are many more then "a few" that lie in the middle of the bias chart.

The mainstream media is not biased against conservatives or for liberals. Indeed, there is a direct correlation (and I would claim causation) between the objectivity of a news source and its lack of actual, meaningful bias.

https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_StaticMBC_Button&utm_medium=OnWebSite_Button#

You are confusing (and it isn't confusion of course since this has been explained over and over and over again) not being pro-conservative with being pro-liberal/anti-conservative.

[Berkut]

Got it.  If Beeb had only said it once, tht would be fine.  Or he could repeat it, but only in a place less packed with rabid climate deniers and anti-vaxxers than Languish.

Thanks for the clarification.

It is interesting how unwilling you both are to actually engage with the argument and instead just create fake responses to respond to instead.

[grumbler]

Throughout history various people have used the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was executed at the request of the Jewish religious leadership as justification for pogroms.  Therefore we should say that this is not true.

We shouldn't believe fairy tales of any sort.  I think that it is fair to say that the commonly-believed story detailing Jesus's trial is almost certainly untrue, regardless of whether we believe that he existed, was the savior, etc.  Even the gospels differ as to what happened.

[Berkut]

Throughout history various people have used the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was executed at the request of the Jewish religious leadership as justification for pogroms.  Therefore we should say that this is not true.

We shouldn't believe fairy tales of any sort.  I think that it is fair to say that the commonly-believed story detailing Jesus's trial is almost certainly untrue, regardless of whether we believe that he existed, was the savior, etc.  Even the gospels differ as to what happened.

An excellent point.

And since we know that is the case, it does raise the question of why would someone, in the context of 1933 Germany as an example, keep raising that particular point, which is likely not even true, and they almost certianly KNOW that it isn't true in any meaningful way, and will definitely be used as if it were true in a very different, and more dangerous way?

Yi's analogy about really does line up very well with the "mainstream media is biased for liberals!" narrative. Thanks Yi!

[Barrister]

SO apparently I have to say something I think is untrue (there is no bias in the mainstream media) or else I'm helping Trump.

You do love your strawmen.

What you ought to do if you care about what is true is stopping repeating something you know is not true - that the mainstream media is biased against conservatives/for liberals.

But I don't know that that is not true.

So you think the Wall Street Journal is biased against conservatives?

WSJ is one of the few major outlets that has a more right-wing bent.

FOx News? Doesn't count as major media? The Hill? BBC? Reuters? Forbes, The Economist?

There are many more then "a few" that lie in the middle of the bias chart.

The mainstream media is not biased against conservatives or for liberals. Indeed, there is a direct correlation (and I would claim causation) between the objectivity of a news source and its lack of actual, meaningful bias.

https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_StaticMBC_Button&utm_medium=OnWebSite_Button#

You are confusing (and it isn't confusion of course since this has been explained over and over and over again) not being pro-conservative with being pro-liberal/anti-conservative.

We've been over this.

Take the green line above which shows "Mostly analysis or mix of facts and analysis.

Take the line which is below the word "middle".

Look at the 5 or 6 news sources on the right side of the line - most of which I don't recognize.

Now look at the huge number that are on the left side of the line.  Which includes huge news sources like CNN, NYT, NBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, NPR, Politico...

[Admiral Yi]

It is interesting how unwilling you both are to actually engage with the argument and instead just create fake responses to respond to instead.

You said in response to my Jesus post that it would be a bad thing to mention Jewish involvement in his death in a room full of Nazis.  I took that to mean it would also be a bad thing to repeat that mainstream media has a liberal bias in a room full of Trumpists.  If I misunderstood that point, please help me understand.

You also said that CONSTANTLY repeating that mainstream media has a liberal bias is a bad thing in and of itself.  Saying it once then by inference is acceptable, unless, again, I misunderstood your point.

[Berkut]

SO apparently I have to say something I think is untrue (there is no bias in the mainstream media) or else I'm helping Trump.

You do love your strawmen.

What you ought to do if you care about what is true is stopping repeating something you know is not true - that the mainstream media is biased against conservatives/for liberals.

But I don't know that that is not true.

So you think the Wall Street Journal is biased against conservatives?

WSJ is one of the few major outlets that has a more right-wing bent.

FOx News? Doesn't count as major media? The Hill? BBC? Reuters? Forbes, The Economist?

There are many more then "a few" that lie in the middle of the bias chart.

The mainstream media is not biased against conservatives or for liberals. Indeed, there is a direct correlation (and I would claim causation) between the objectivity of a news source and its lack of actual, meaningful bias.

https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_StaticMBC_Button&utm_medium=OnWebSite_Button#

You are confusing (and it isn't confusion of course since this has been explained over and over and over again) not being pro-conservative with being pro-liberal/anti-conservative.

We've been over this.

Take the green line above which shows "Mostly analysis or mix of facts and analysis.

Take the line which is below the word "middle".

Look at the 5 or 6 news sources on the right side of the line - most of which I don't recognize.

Now look at the huge number that are on the left side of the line.  Which includes huge news sources like CNN, NYT, NBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, NPR, Politico...

I've looked at them. The majority  all in the middle of the zone that is marked as the objectively "not biased" part.

There are many, many, many sources of mainstream news that are in the zone that is marked as "middle", and NOT "leans".

It's amazing how hard people will hold onto their own biases, even when the facts are sitting there right in front of them.

[Berkut]

It is interesting how unwilling you both are to actually engage with the argument and instead just create fake responses to respond to instead.

You said in response to my Jesus post that it would be a bad thing to mention Jewish involvement in his death in a room full of Nazis.  I took that to mean it would also be a bad thing to repeat that mainstream media has a liberal bias in a room full of Trumpists.  If I misunderstood that point, please help me understand.

You also said that CONSTANTLY repeating that mainstream media has a liberal bias is a bad thing in and of itself.  Saying it once then by inference is acceptable, unless, again, I misunderstood your point.

I said nothing at all about rooms full of Nazis.

I think you understand my point as well as I do. Your responding to things I never say has nothing to do with any misunderstanding of my point, but in fact exactly the opposite.

[Berkut]

And Beeb, I notice you are very quiet in response to my actual data showing how belief in your narrative of liberal media bias directly leads to belief in alternative sources of information - the very same ones you so breathlessly wonder about how people could possibly believe?

[Admiral Yi]

I said nothing at all about rooms full of Nazis.

I think you understand my point as well as I do. Your responding to things I never say has nothing to do with any misunderstanding of my point, but in fact exactly the opposite.

My bad.  You said a bunch of people who want to kill Jews.

I agree, I think I understand your point exactly.