The political bubble and how it affects your opinion

[Dill]

(07-24-2019, 11:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As you have previously argued, we have only your history to go on.  One could very easily infer such.  Maybe if you typed "LOL" a few more times that would make this less true?

He did announce it and no, your bias doesn't change that.  He also didn't implement it.

No, Netflix has a left leaning agenda.  By default this makes them more pro-Obama.  Seeing as I am not inherently anti-Obama I'm not sure what accusation you're trying to make.

LOL is not a proposition. (Did you miss my point about in post #46 above about the kinds of expression excluded from argument?)

And how, exactly, could one "easily infer" my pro-Muslim bias?  All my "history" establishes is that I am not an Islamophobe, and that I don't exclude Muslims from the same human rights accorded others.  To go that extra step, to get from there to "pro-Muslim" requires---an anti-Muslim bias? My bias consists in NOT being anti-Muslim?  And as far as "we" goes, no one else has stepped forward to assert I have a pro-Muslim bias. Now that Vlad and Lucie are gone, that's just you. Most of the posters you respect have exactly the same stance towards human rights as I do, and do not exclude Muslims.

And if my "bias" doesn't change the point about Trump's Muslim ban, then why the red herring?

Unless what happens AFTER the election can affect what happens on election day, then "he also didn't implement it" is another non-point, another red herring.

The "accusation" I am making is that baldly asserting "bias" in others is really just a substitute for argument/demonstration. It's about inhabiting a particular kind of bubble in a specific way.  Here's how I put it on the "Trump Documentary" thread, post #10, responding to your labeling of Netflix. You added you didn't see how anything "remotely fair" about Trump could come from the UK, once again judging by perceived source--i.e., pre-judging, prejudice.

. . . claiming outlets are "biased" and then judging whatever passes through them as similarly tainted--especially without viewing or reading them--is itself a strong exercise in bias. 

One reason why I don't waste time bias hunting is that the most biased readers, viewers, newsconsumers tend to be bias hunters who assume bias everywhere and modify their information reception accordingly in a kind of self censorship. E.g., won't read the NYT because they "know" what comes out of that paper.

Fox news certainly puts out biased commentary, but a specific example of Fox commentary is not biased because it is put out by Fox, but because analysis of that example reveals bias in that example.  Another example might not register any significant bias at all, even though a Fox commentary. There is no short cut to this kind of direct analysis, case by case.

I should add that the concept of bias itself is not generally thought through by people. it is not possible to participate in political discussion without being animated by some sort of bias. And all bias is not bad or irrational.

To which I add, Labels and categories are necessary for understanding and talking about social groups. But simply arguing from labels does not produce understanding at all.