2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Barrister]

Bias is by definition an inaccurate view of the true state of affairs.  No one sets out to be biased and no one should be happy being biased.

I don't think that's right:

bi·as
ˈbīəs/Submit
noun
1.
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
"there was evidence of bias against foreign applicants"
synonyms:   prejudice, partiality, partisanship, favoritism, unfairness, one-sidedness; More
2.
in some sports, such as lawn bowling, the irregular shape given to a ball.
verb
1.
cause to feel or show inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something.
"readers said the paper was biased toward the conservatives"
synonyms:   prejudice, influence, color, sway, weight, predispose; More
2.
give a bias to.
"bias the ball"

https://www.google.ca/search?q=bias

Bias is an emotional state, which may (or may not) impact one's assessment of the true situation.

I have a definite bias in favour of conservatives and against socialists.  I think most of the time I'm able to dispassionately analyze political debates, but I'm aware of my bias and that it may impact my assessment when I don't realize it.

[Admiral Yi]

Your definition seems to back me up Beeb.

[Barrister]

Your definition seems to back me up Beeb.

It speaks of prejudice in favour or against something, not about an inaccurate world view.

It's perfectly rational and accurate to be biased against Nazis, for example.

[Admiral Yi]

It speaks of prejudice in favour or against something, not about an inaccurate world view.

It's perfectly rational and accurate to be biased against Nazis, for example.

Isn't the root of prejudice "pre-judge," i.e. to form an opinion before having the facts?

You surely can't say that prejudiced is a neutral descriptor.

[DGuller]

DGuller has a proven track record of hewing very close to the Democratic party line.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but his constant denial of it weakens DG's credibility.

Say it with me DGuller - it's okay to be partisan and biased. I know I am.

But that's bullshit and misrepresents my worldview. 

I have a proven track record of having liberal opinion on maybe 2/3 to 3/4 of contentious issues.  Which makes me naturally sympathetic to the party that is much more likely to advance such viewpoints.  I also have a deep disdain for the Republican party, because they went off the rails and seem to defend everything that is repugnant, as a matter of principle. 

That is quite different from being a Democrat party partisan, however, even if such differences aren't obvious to people that can't easily perceive subtlety.

[The Brain]

I don't do subtle.

[DGuller]

I agree with Yi on that exchange.  Bias and preferences are not the same thing.  You can evaluate politicians objectively and yet still have personal preferences.

[Barrister]

DGuller has a proven track record of hewing very close to the Democratic party line.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but his constant denial of it weakens DG's credibility.

Say it with me DGuller - it's okay to be partisan and biased. I know I am.

But that's bullshit and misrepresents my worldview. 

I have a proven track record of having liberal opinion on maybe 2/3 to 3/4 of contentious issues.  Which makes me naturally sympathetic to the party that is much more likely to advance such viewpoints.  I also have a deep disdain for the Republican party, because they went off the rails and seem to defend everything that is repugnant, as a matter of principle. 

That is quite different from being a Democrat party partisan, however, even if such differences aren't obvious to people that can't easily perceive subtlety.

No, when you define one party as "off the rails and the defender of everything that is repugnant" that pretty much is the definition of being a partisan for the other party.

Like I said, there's no harm in having a bias, but you hurt your credibility when you try to pretend you're some neutral arbiter of truth.

[DGuller]

No, when you define one party as "off the rails and the defender of everything that is repugnant" that pretty much is the definition of being a partisan for the other party.

So there is no room for "I wish he had a system that allowed more than two serious parties, because when one party goes off the rails, you're left with no choice" mode of thinking?  If you're dead opposed to one party, that automatically makes you a partisan of another party?  In my opinion, that's utter nonsense.

Like I said, there's no harm in having a bias, but you hurt your credibility when you try to pretend you're some neutral arbiter of truth.

Unlike Berkut, I actually don't pretend to be an arbiter of truth.  But I do think that my opinions are considerably more thought out than average, and considerably more factually correct than average when they can be evaluated that way.  And that is despite having clear preferences, which is different from being biased.

[Eddie Teach]

Considering the system we do have, it's mighty fine hair-splitting to insist on a distinction between Democratic partisanship and anti-republican partisanship.

[DGuller]

Considering the system we do have, it's mighty fine hair-splitting to insist on a distinction between Democratic partisanship and anti-republican partisanship.

The end result may not be different, but the thought processes involved can be very different.  And it's my thought processes that are on trial here.

[Berkut]

The first time you picked a fight with me almost ten years ago, you pegged me as a Christian fundamentalist.

Oh god, the raz method of argument.

Give me a break.  I think it's a very relevant fact in this case to support the argument that Berkut sometimes badly overestimates his ability to understand other peoples' thought processes.  And the whole line of discussion is the definition of ad hominem in the first place, to attack people's credibility so that you don't have to attack their arguments.

It isn't an ad hom, because I am not making any claim about your argument to begin with - I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying you do not provide objective information.

It is like asking the head of the DNC what they think about Trump's success as a businessman, or the head of the Tea Party what they think about the impact of Obamacare on the working poor. You will get an answer, but you know they are not answering based on any kind of actual evaluation of Trump, but rather on what answer they think will best serve their goals. That answer may or may not be factual, but that isn't even the point.

[Berkut]

Unlike Berkut, I actually don't pretend to be an arbiter of truth.

I don't pretend to any such thing - I do think I am vastly better about being objective and not a partisan hack though.

When it comes to actual opinions, I am quite capable of having very strong opinions about both parties, and when appropriate, those opinions often fall predominantly on one side. Indeed, I would say over the last decade or so, me and you actually agree on vastly more political positions than we disagree on - of course, we arrive at those conclusions through radically differing processes.

But I do think that my opinions are considerably more thought out than average, and considerably more factually correct than average when they can be evaluated that way.  And that is despite having clear preferences, which is different from being biased.

I certainly agree that your opinions are more thought out than the average person (who thinks much about politics, anyway).

But being thought out and being partisan are not exclusionary. I think you very carefully think out your positions on why the Republicans are "off the rails" and "defend everything that is repugnant, as a matter of principle".

The difference is that if the Dems drive off the rails, you would have a radically more difficult time seeing that. And if the Republicans manage to find the rails, you would have a very difficult time recognizing that as well. Not impossible, certainly, but difficult.

Now, it is true that the average person doesn't even bother trying. Your average Fox viewer doesn't even make the effort, and probably never would. So you are, as you say, better than average.

[Berkut]

Considering the system we do have, it's mighty fine hair-splitting to insist on a distinction between Democratic partisanship and anti-republican partisanship.

The end result may not be different, but the thought processes involved can be very different.  And it's my thought processes that are on trial here.

Nothing is on trial - I was simply pointing out to Kronn that if he wants to know anything about Fiorina, or any Republican for that matter, asking you isn't really a good place to find information that is balanced and intending to actually inform, rather than persuade.


edit: Let's put it this way - if you were asked to write the wiki article on Carly Fiorina, I don't think it would be considered a fair and balanced view on her accomplishments.

[11B4V]

This is great, thank you gentlemen.