We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

In the last day alone, he has asserted that 1) with no intent, there is no bias; 2) that bias may become unintentional; and 3) bias is sometimes unintentional.

Actually, they're totally consistent. One must initially choose a side to be biased. So there can be no bias without initial intent. Bias may later become unintentional, as one is so consistently biased on an issue, he doesn't even realize he's offering a biased slant when reporting on an issue. 3 is a restatement of 2.

To have a bias, one must have an opinion. Do you form opinions unintentionally? They just appear in your head out of thin air? You don;t decide to think a certain way about something? Of course not.

I doubt he is even capable of recognizing any incongruity in what he is saying.

The depth of your thinking on this is somewhere around a bird bath.

I made a joke about how ridiculous his beliefs on bias are, and he responds with this:

"Everything is subjective. If you hate any politician entirely, you’re not thinking very deeply. The correct assessment is to view all of the issues discretely. If we took that approach more often, the debates would be less heated. We’d avoid the risk of demagogues. We’d avoid 'belief, which is the kind thing that enables them."

What about that is not incorrect? Do you seriously believe that it's preferable to focus on politicians rather than issues? Given your frequently emotional tone, you might actually think so. I you'd like to express these thoughts, have at it. It'd be amusing.

If that were a word salad, it would be called the Post-Brutus E Coli Caesar. I'm not saying you shouldn't continue to endlessly argue with him. I'm just explaining why I find it pointless.

You should find it pointless. I don't really have a point except to show that you don't either.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Bias requires a choice. It may become unintentional, subconscious even, at some point. But one must decide to acquire it initially.

This is completely, unequivocally, demonstrably, and totally fucking false. Everything else that flows from this garbage is absolutely pointless.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But it's really all subjective.

What does this word "subjective" mean to you?

On immigration, individual taxes, and environment, Trump is miserable.

Which of these things is he subjectively miserable on? Because the asylum seekers being jailed, families being separated, border crossings being closed, etc, seem like objective hardm to actual people, to just pick one of those.

Please don't say you think others could view those things are positive and thus it's a matter of opinion. It's not.

On trade, his impact is yet to be fully understood.

Tell that to 14,000 GM workers.

And, again, the fact that very nearly zero economist think his is an effective approach should probably carry some weight somewhere.

On infrastructure, Trump's ideas are solid, and inevitable

He's done exactly nothing on infrastructure except use it as a distraction for saps like you.

allowing the Fed to raise rates

This is backwards. The Fed was going to raise rates. The question is whether any stimulus effect of his tax cuts would lead the Fed to raise rates faster to offset that effect. Thus far, it has not.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

To have a bias, one must have an opinion. Do you form opinions unintentionally? They just appear in your head out of thin air?

It's like you've never read even a word of the discussion about race on these very pages.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

This is not a loaded word. I'd accept the argument that "lied" is a loaded word, although I don't agree with it. "Inflated" is the water-down attempt at appearing unbiased. It's also 100% accurate, and thus not biased.

Inflate is loaded, implying an attempt to make something bigger or more significant.

Except regarding tires.

This would be misleading, suggesting that the question is one of disagreement. There is no disagreement. There's an actually correct number, and it is less than what Trump said. Thus he inflated the number.

Or he got the number wrong. You don't know what was in his head. You're making an assumption. You're free to assume in opeds. Do it there.

Your way is biased against objective truth.

Objective truth regarding what Trump said is unknowable unless one is in Trump's head. If you wish to go there, please, take one for the team. I've a policy against entering Superfund sites.

It's often said that a journalists job is to report the truth. You're explicitly arguing they should not do so.

The truth is Trump said the Saudis were buying half a trillion of something. In fact, they weren't. Did he inflate the number? Probably. And in an Oped, I'd be fine with saying he inflated it. I've written here that W committed a war crime by lying us into Iraq. But even here, among W haters (and Slave), I took flack for saying that which I could not prove. This is why I'm not a reporter. I'd say Trump "inflated" the number as well. But guess what? I'm biased against Trump. I think he's a fool and a bullshitter. I should never be a journalist for exactly this reason. I would almost always:

1. Decide a position; and,
2. Let that position infect my assessment of facts on which I was reporting to the point that I would so shade my reports all the time.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Actually, they're totally consistent. One must initially choose a side to be biased. So there can be no bias without initial intent. Bias may later become unintentional, as one is so consistently biased on an issue, he doesn't even realize he's offering a biased slant when reporting on an issue. 3 is a restatement of 2.

To have a bias, one must have an opinion. Do you form opinions unintentionally? They just appear in your head out of thin air? You don;t decide to think a certain way about something? Of course not.



The depth of your thinking on this is somewhere around a bird bath.



What about that is not incorrect? Do you seriously believe that it's preferable to focus on politicians rather than issues? Given your frequently emotional tone, you might actually think so. I you'd like to express these thoughts, have at it. It'd be amusing.



You should find it pointless. I don't really have a point except to show that you don't either.

I wasn't talking to you.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You have this reversed. Sometimes it is unintentional. Most of the time it is intentional. At its inception, it is always intentional. One makes a decision to be for a view or against another.

I wonder if you think that stating something so definitively makes it true somehow. I'm here to tell you that it does not. What you just said is absolute nonsense.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Journalists and authors debate bias bitterly. One argument often made is that unbiased journalism is impossible, as one's views necessarily bleed into one's work. This is somewhat in line with your argument that bias is unintentional. But I find that unavailing because, if a journalist is doing his job, which is to present facts as objectively as possible, he should be working against that bias and scrubbing even the unintentional appearance of it from his text. Failure to do so betrays a decision to allow the bias to stand -- to "get one's view out there."

Do you even know what the terms "unconscious bias" or "implicit bias" even mean? It is true that people (even journalists) work to be aware of and understand these types of biases that everyone holds. But if you cannot see your bias, you cannot "scrub even unintentional appearances of it," you numbskull.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's quite easy to avoid the use of a loaded word like "inflated." All one needs write is "Trump stated that the Saudi relationship involves hundreds of billions of dollars. Other sources quote the amount at issue at a 50 billion dollars."

I think Ty has done a good job of informing you of how the word "inflated," actually works. It is an English word that has an actual definition which was used correctly in the context of the article. Your read of why it is "loaded" is based on the fact that people take issue when someone points out that Trump is lying. Pointing that out is not bias if it is true.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Is it the journalist's job to delegitimize? Or is it his job to report?

Pointing out a clear falsity is not delegitimizing. It is reporting a fact using a clearly descriptive word. "Inflate," means to "increase (something) by a large or excessive amount." It is absolutely appropriate to use this word when Trump increased the amount at issue by an excessive amount. If the journalist had written those words, you would have most assuredly taken issue with the word, "excessive," because you're you.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not conflating them. Ty is doing so.

Bullshit. You can't say, "This board may live in a post-intent world" and then act like it's Ty who is the one arguing that we have abandoned the concept of intent and replaced it with impact.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He is suggesting that because the biased media stories about Trump have the unintended effect of helping Trump, it cannot be said that the media which produces such stories is biased against Trump. This is flatly idiotic.

This is not what he said. Are you even reading his posts?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The correct assessment - the only correct assessment - is that most of the media is biased against Trump, but expressing its bias in a counterproductive fashion that often helps Trump.

No. This is not the correct assessment. It is a flawed view of what is going on because you believe that any attempt to fact-check the President on his many lies must be written in language devoid of what you have randomly defined as "loaded."

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Again, the bias is intentional. The effect is not. That the effect is something other than what is intended does not undo the reality of what is intended.

Now you're just throwing words together in what look like sentences, but are actually just gibberish.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I understand the difference between intent and effect. Those two thoughts coexist quite easily in my head, as I noted.

Nah, son. You do not and they do not.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is completely, unequivocally, demonstrably, and totally fucking false. Everything else that flows from this garbage is absolutely pointless.

TM

Great. As must all discussions, even though this was about reporters, it's now about race.

Right. Well, a kid can have bias injected into his head by being raised in a racist system. But even then, if he's not taking any action to avoid this bias, he has made a decision, hasn't he? Whether deciding to be biased himself, or to do nothing, he's decided.

But on a political matter, which we were discussing, without an intentional decision to view a certain issue a certain way, bias can never occur. (Unless you assume humans have no agency in this stuff, which would also mean they have no responsibility for their acts, which I don't think you or anyone else thinks would be a good rule.) I had to think about Trump, even if it was only fleeting, before deciding he was a fool. I had to think about W before I decided he likely lied us into war. I could not reach those biases without some individual act on my part.

And since then, those views of both men have infected the way I think about both men. This has led me to the notion that one should look at issues discretely. We can't vote that way, of course. But it is the smarter way to think about issues, and it girds against tribal thinking. It's harder to get emotional, to let the lizard brain take over, regarding policy than it is regarding a person.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The only people I see who aren't signalling are those falling into minority groups that are targeted by Trump and the Trumpkins in their #Maga hats. The first group of people have serious concerns and are pissed and scared for good reason.

This is all anyone needs to know about who you are as a person. The fact that only people who are diverse can be scared about Trump's words, policy, and action as it relates to diverse people is absolutely disgusting. It is clear that you do not view these issues as white people's issues.

I know I have been recommending you read White Fragility, but at this point, I'm going to retract the request. It's not for you and based on this and everything you've posted recently, you'll get absolutely nothing out of it.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is all anyone needs to know about who you are as a person. The fact that only people who are diverse can be scared about Trump's words, policy, and action as it relates to diverse people is absolutely disgusting. It is clear that you do not view these issues as white people's issues.

I know I have been recommending you read White Fragility, but at this point, I'm going to retract the request. It's not for you and based on this and everything you've posted recently, you'll get absolutely nothing out of it.

TM

You're misreading me. I did not say these were not white people's issues. I said a lot of the white people who protest most loudly against Trump are signalling. This is, I believe, a phenomenon related to the issues the author of that book raises regarding progressives. ETA: I doubt very much the sincerity of a whole lot of people both for and against Trump. I think, channeling Alain de Botton here a bit, the really strong affinity for social causes these days is a form of a new religion replacing the old ones. Movements have a very tribal element to them. People want to belong to something bigger than themselves. (You've read True Believer, I'm sure.) And very fashionable ones of today are polarizing political movements, call out culture, "take back America" extremists, MAGA, social justice enthusiasts.

That you would contort those words so bizarrely shows an extreme bias toward finding nefarious intent where none exists.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ty is doing so. He is suggesting that because the biased media stories about Trump have the unintended effect of helping Trump, it cannot be said that the media which produces such stories is biased against Trump.

No, that's not what I am suggesting.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Great. As must all discussions, even though this was about reporters, it's now about race.

How did you manage to take "This is completely, unequivocally, demonstrably, and totally fucking false" and make it about race? There is absolutely no racial component in any part of that sentence. You are insane.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Right. Well, a kid can have bias injected into his head by being raised in a racist system. But even then, if he's not taking any action to avoid this bias, he has made a decision, hasn't he? Whether deciding to be biased himself, or to do nothing, he's decided.

I give up. Flower is right. There is no point debating you when you constantly just spew nonsensical, made-up bullshit.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But on a political matter, which we were discussing, without an intentional decision to view a certain issue a certain way, bias can never occur. (Unless you assume humans have no agency in this stuff, which would also mean they have no responsibility for their acts, which I don't think you or anyone else thinks would be a good rule.) I had to think about Trump, even if it was only fleeting, before deciding he was a fool. I had to think about W before I decided he likely lied us into war. I could not reach those biases without some individual act on my part.

And since then, those views of both men have infected the way I think about both men. This has led me to the notion that one should look at issues discretely. We can't vote that way, of course. But it is the smarter way to think about issues, and it girds against tribal thinking. It's harder to get emotional, to let the lizard brain take over, regarding policy than it is regarding a person.

I give up again. You need medical help.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

How did you manage to take "This is completely, unequivocally, demonstrably, and totally fucking false" and make it about race? There is absolutely no racial component in any part of that sentence. You are insane.

I give up. Flower is right. There is no point debating you when you constantly just spew nonsensical, made-up bullshit.

I give up again. You need medical help.

TM

I assumed you were talking about racism, which is a bias with which many kids are born. I assumed you were finding fault with a notion that bias is intentional based on previous arguments you've cited stating that racism is a bias with which all people are born.

This explains why I'd be a shitty reporter, no? One should not assume.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You're misreading me. I did not say these were not white people's issues. I said a lot of the white people who protest most loudly against Trump are signalling. This is, I believe, a phenomenon related to the issues the author of that book raises regarding progressives. ETA: I doubt very much the sincerity of a whole lot of people both for and against Trump. I think, channeling Alain de Botton here a bit, the really strong affinity for social causes these days is a form of a new religion replacing the old ones. Movements have a very tribal element to them. People want to belong to something bigger than themselves. (You've read True Believer, I'm sure.) And very fashionable ones of today are polarizing political movements, call out culture, "take back America" extremists, MAGA, social justice enthusiasts.

That you would contort those words so bizarrely shows an extreme bias toward finding nefarious intent where none exists.

I really think you believe everything you just wrote, which makes it kind of sad. The fact that you cannot see that you have put people into groups based on who is signaling and who is not (and the only ones who are not are minorities or MAGA lunatics) combined with the fact that those who are not are really just trying to signal to others that they are part of their tribe is beyond troubling. These are your words, not mine.

"If one wishes to demonstrate that he is cultured and smart, he must offer his anti-Trump bona fides early and loudly. Most of my upper middle class friends who wish to ensure you know they're well thought on issues offer that signal to each other and bond over it."

"If one wishes to demonstrate he is well-off, he lets you know he's turned off by Trump, but thinks Trump's policies are decent. This same person may have voted for Hillary out of concern that his portfolio would get killed by Trump's election, but is now happily surprised to the upside."

"The only people I see who aren't signalling are those falling into minority groups that are targeted by Trump and the Trumpkins in their #Maga hats."

• If you are white and want to show you're cultured or smart, you signal by saying you're against Trump.
• If you are rich and white and want to show that you have money, you signal by saying you're turned off by Trump.
• If you are a minority and you're scared of what he wants to do to you, you aren't signaling.
• If you are a MAGA looney, you embrace the substance--the bigotry--and, strangely, aren't signaling to other MAGA loonies that you are in their tribe.

Those of us who aren't minorities who express a distaste for Trump's policies and behavior are only doing so because they want to show they belong.

How the fuck else can what you wrote be read?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I assumed you were talking about racism, which is a bias with which many kids are born. I assumed you were finding fault with a notion that bias is intentional based on previous arguments you've cited stating that racism is a bias with which all people are born.

I believe we covered this at length. Listen closely. I have never, ever, ever said that racism is a bias all people are born with. Ever. I've never cited to anything that says this. This reading exists ONLY in your head. The examples and studies I gave you have in no way ever even come close to this conclusion.

You are incapable of listening. You hear only what you want to hear, which is why these debates go nowhere other than everyone on this board looking at you like you're batshit crazy.

TM