SwiftQuill

Yes, they are. They are wokies, that's their religion. They are the worst type of woke. The type of woke that portrays himself as neutral, scientific, and "a bit left leaning". They aren't loud as other wokies. You might like them. You might agree with their positions on things. But you must admit they are wokies. To say that Pakman and Destiny aren't woke would be like me saying Matt Walsh isn't right wing. And people have demanded evidence from me of instances of these people being woke. Which is hard to do for 2 reasons: 1- EVERYTHING they do and say, and ALL of their content is woke. We're swimming in an ocean of liquid shit, and you ask me evidence of the shit. 2- I don't have a bucket near me. If you want me to watch an entire Pakman video, listen to his propaganda, write down his argument, summarize his argument, write down my argument and present further evidence and documentation and links that he's wrong or heavily biased, I need a bucket near me to puke as I'm doing that.

I think education is essential. But we must use the information we obtain, otherwise we forget it. Here's what I think on this topic: Go back and revise the essentials. Revise what is electromagnetism. What are the different types of chemical reactions. A description of the periodic table. The names of the planets. Revise the essentials of history (first world war, second world war, cold war, other wars). The essentials of maths (equations). The basics of geography (the main countries, the main cities, the main languages people speak). Don't bother studying with 100% depth. Don't bother studying all the electromagnetism equations and formulas. Those things are the ones you will definitely lose from your head since you won't use them on a daily basis. Also, education is important, but it's important to study what's relevant to you. Should you really go back and study history and literature? Or should you start fresh by studying Finance, or Web Dev, or something more practical? Or maybe, instead of studying subjects you've already covered in the past, perhaps study something new. Like sociology. Or philosophy. Or psychology. Or zoology. Also, will you have the motivation to do this in the first place? I happen to have gathered some old science and politics books. I planned on studying them. Because I wanted to revise chemistry (I forgot 100% of this subject) and I wanted to study politics (the official definitions of terms, the historical stuff, etc). Turns out, I can't muster motivation to study anything that isn't practical or fun. I study psych every now and then, only because it's fun. And I study business subjects like Marketing because I plan on starting a side business in the future. If you like Psychology I HIGHLY recommend this series by the way:

When I say " it's fine if you only watch x" I don't mean you in particular. I mean whoever. These aren't assumptions. This is a perfect description of the likes of Pakman and Destiny and their woke ilk. I don't know what you mean by political pundits. In terms of individuals, I watch a youtuber called Gonçalo Sousa. He reports and commentates Portuguese news. He identifies as right wing but in my opinion he's pretty unbiased for the most part. 99% of YouTube politics channels are complete garbage. Either right wing grifters or left wing insufferable wokies. I don't know any channel besides Gonçalo Sousa that is even remotely watchable. As for news media, I watch Portuguese news channels. They are a bit biased to the left but overall ok. And lastly, saying that there is subjectivity when determining if someone is being biased, and calling someone biased, that's not a contradiction. I think it's a mix of factors to analyse, and it's hard to be 100% sure and scientific when assessing bias. This is not an oxymoron nor self refuting.

I get frustrated when people misconstrue me even after I have corrected their errors and made myself clear. I did not say or imply that the right is unbiased. It's fine if you watch content creators who refuse to address immigration issues, crime, misapplication of LGBTQ rights, misapplication of dei/affirmative action quotas, anti hate speech laws, cancel culture, hate men, hate white people, hate western society, hate their own ancestors, hate the middle class, and hate anyone who is to the right of Stalin in the political spectrum. It's fine if you choose to only watch content with headlines like "white cop kills black man" and "neonazis protest against mass immigration". There's no objective measure to qualify bias. But to me these 2 individuals - Destiny and Pakman are extremely biased. Their pride and their careers depend on them being biased.

Why are you pulling that card again? First of all, I'm not right wing. I don't defend the right wing. I never said the right wing is any better on this topic. Second, I said Destiny and Pakman are very biased. That is my opinion. It's fine if you disagree. I personally perceive a lot of bias in their content. Third, I pointed out earlier that the "but the right wing is worse!" card is a mere deflection from criticism addressed to the Left. That does nothing to your case. The right wing might be a thousand times more dishonest and biased than the left. That doesn't in any way free the left from criticism. How many times do I have to point this out in this forum?

I'm not going to watch. Only because I'm tired of politics tbh. I'm done engaging with these retarded wars of left vs right. I actively go out of my way to avoid watching political content.

Closed minded biased leftists fail to perceive closed mindedness and bias from the left. They must protect their religion with tooth and nail.

It's not about agreeing with everything. I don't agree with everything Jordan Peterson says but I watch him. But if I've seen only two videos from Nick Fuentes and I immediately identified him as a horrible source of information, and a promoter of dangerous ideas, I don't need to watch him for a week straight before making this judgement. As for Pakman, I think he is authentic. Same with Destiny. Two authentically woke, closed minded clowns. The hosts of The View are also authentic. Being authentic is an insufficient criterion to be worth being listened to.

You can't be serious. Nick Fuentes, the incel Nazi holocaust deniar? And when I use these terms, I'm serious. I don't overuse these terms as wokies like to do. Within the same post, you defend both Destiny the woke cuck, and Nick Fuentes the neonazi? It truly shocks me. And no I don't call him a Nazi because everyone calls him a nazi. I've seen actual videos from him saying he agrees with Hitler and that it's "ok" to wear a Hitler t-shirt. And a video of him doing gymnastics denying the holocaust.

@PurpleTree I get my news from Portuguese media. RTP, Sic, CNN Portugal. I find them a bit biased to the left. Every once in a while they do the "white cop kills black man" thing. But I'd say they are legit for the most part. I'm glad it's not like in the US where they do race baiting and pull retarded cards like that all the time. The news here are for the most part watchable and accurate. And there's no right wing equivalent to Fox News here. Which is why whenever I watch American CNN or MSNBC it's so obvious to me those media are ridiculously biased to the left. Downright woke propaganda.

I don't know man. I personally think journalists should be allowed to express their opinions on things. But I understand the risk of being too tolerant to the point you get someone on tv justifying genocide or defending a tyrant like Putin. I wouldn't know how to draw that line. @Leo Gura @The Crocodile The fact you guys keep insisting on framing everything in terms of left vs right, and that you use "but the right does it worse!" as an excuse to dismiss any criticism directed at the left, that is a huge bias. That is prevalent in this forum. I don't see why you even bother debating politics if you are unwilling to concede on problems in the left. "Reality is left wing!" Preposterous. Tsk. I can't believe I've been baited into this thread. My intention was just to drop that meme in the beginning and leave.

"oUr nOn wHiTe hOsTs aRe lOsInG ThEiR ShOwS!" God. The racism and victimhood of the left are so prevalent and obnoxious. Everything is about race, gender, sexuality. It's difficult to strawman them at this point. You hear them speak ONE sentence and it's filled with woke garbage. How on earth do people watch this shit? Then go whine you are losing the middle ground audience to alternative media and that men are turning to the right and all of that shit.

In the definition of bias, ChatGPT gave the exact examples I've been giving throughout this thread. It's fine if you disagree with this definition. Or if you prefer to use another term instead. But my definition isn't controversial, and the examples I gave do qualify as bias according to this definition. And everything I've said in this thread and all the examples I gave are also included here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias I fail to see how my take on anything here has been biased.

Well I don't know what to say then. I guess my definition of bias is more encompassing than yours. - ChatGPT seems to agree with my usage of the word.

How? The topic of this thread is corruption and bias in the media. I gave another example of a type of bias that can happen in journalism. I gave a very obvious, black and white example for the sake of demonstration. You keep insisting that someone is only biased if they lie or misrepresent something. And I disagree. Bias, in journalism, can manifest in various ways.

This isn't the limit of bias in journalism, by the way. I think the worst bias of them all is the manner they pick topics to cover. Here's a list of potentially relevant topics: A: Climate activists block a road, one of them is beaten by a cop B: Left wing politician commits fraud C: Reporter uncovers crimes committed by Antifa D: Right wing politican commits fraud E: Unknown guy on Twitter says liberal women are cu*** and gets fired F: Feminist scholar publishes a new book called "I hate men, and so should you!" G: Phd Psychology professor publishes new book criticising trans surgeries on children H: Reporter uncovers crimes committed by The Proud Boys I: Pro-Hamas I MEAN Pro-Palestine activists beat up jewish college professor J: Illegal immigrant rapes a woman K: Right wing celebrity is charged with sexual harassment allegations A leftist news media will absolutely only cover A, D, E, F, H, K. And also I, but frame it as a peaceful protest, and "forget" to report on the violence. A right wing news media will only cover B, C, G, I, J. Maybe also A but "forget" to cover the police abuse bit. So what's the solution to this? Should there be a 50/50 ratio of convenience to the left and to the right? It's tough. I don't have a solution for this. But I do think it's a real concern.

Negative Bias doesn't necessarily mean you strawman others. Bias can be lack of acknowledgement of validity in an argument. Lack of acknowledgement, lack of charitability. Conversely, Positive bias doesn't mean you agree with 100% of things within an ideology. You can be a leftist, and agree with 90% of leftist concepts, but refuse to even address the existence of the other 10% of issues. If you are a leftist, and you agree with say all of leftist ideas except for the defund the police stupidity. And you refuse to ever bring that up, or refuse to acknowledge "Hey, I don't like Joe Rogan but I agree with him on the defund the police topic". That's also a bias. Because your religion is too sacred to point out flaws within it. And if you are a cuck named Destiny, or a clown named David, that's how you behave. 0 videos on the toxicity of defund the police. 0 charitability on any argument for controlling immigration. 0 acknowledgement of problems that exist on the left pointed out by anyone. And the other guy's religion is evil. So even if that religion has 1% of good ideas in it, you refuse to bring that up whatsoever. Here are two examples: Example A: "I don't like Joe Rogan. But he is too demonized for his stance on the trans stuff. For the most part, most people do agree with the notion that trans women have an advantage over cis women. Still, I think Joe Rogan has not investigated this issue enough. People can't rely on common sense for this topic. There are indeed some scientific papers that demonstrate trans women don't have an advantage here. And I don't think Joe Rogan has done his homework." - nuanced, charitable, still left wing, not biased. Example B: Title of the video: "JOE ROGAN PROMOTES BIGOTRY AGAINST TRANS PEOPLE YET AGAIN" - an actual title of one of David's videos - proceeds to show a 1 minute clip of Joe Rogan talking about the topic, allowing for a lot of cherry picking and distortion of his actual argument.

2 cents: Healthy communication What does Healthy communication mean in this context? I believe it is important to communicate ideas with objectivity and charitability. The criticism that this journalist is making about that politician, is it a strawman, is it charitable, is it accurate? Does this political analysis have a scientific backing? Does this communication, in terms of linguistics, contain judgements (words like "racist", "selfish", "greed", "xenophobic"). I'm not saying you should never use these words, but use them very selectively. And healthy communication isn't just about communicating the facts. It's not just about communicating without lying. It's about communicating with the full picture of the events. Does "white cop killed black man" seem like a good headline to you? Or could it be that that event has more variables in it? It might factually be true that a white cop killed a black man, but are you presenting the entire situation or are you presenting one that lacks the full picture?) Impartiality This one is obvious. I think it should be in a Journalist's code of honor to seek and present truth. To actively be against bias, to actively not be loyal to any one perspective or ideology. If you are loyal to something, it must be something extremely inclusive, like humanism. Diversity - not just of skin color and sexuality, as wokies want it Diversity of thought, opinion, perspective. I don't think you need a 50/50 ratio of left wing journalists and right wing journalists. But let's be honest, a news channel lead by a leftist with leftist HR managers and leftist graphic designers and leftist reporters and leftist editors and leftist cameraman, that's bad. The last thing you want in a news station is a reporter who happens to disagree with the majority on the ideology, and is too afraid to report on this or that event that is inconvenient to the majority's belief.

They are biased opinions. If you hear an argument you consider "right wing" (which in itself is a bias), and you interpret it in the least charitable way possible, that's a bias. These clowns have indeed a strong inclination to defend pretty much anything that is the typical progressive ideas (feminism, pro immigration, pro censorship, pro lgbtq rights) and strong inclination against anything that is considered nowadays "right wing" ideas (addressing immigration issues, addressing free speech and the excesses of hate speech laws, addressing toxic implementations of lgbtq stuff). The mere fact that these people insist that the world is divided between Left, and Right, and defend anything in the first category, and demonize anything in the second category, that in itself is a huge bias. There are things that can be addressed without framing them as a left vs right dychotomy. I believe my government exaggerates on taxes, for instance. Not because I'm right wing. But because in practical purposes the government takes about 30% of my sallary. And I do think there are legitimate issues regarding immigration. And if morons like Destiny and David even refuse to engage with these topics without being loyal to their woke cult, that is bias. These people are extremely biased. Breadtube = brainrot

David: "Joe Rogan is transphobic because he is against children doing hormone treaments and against trans women in sports." (extremely biased presentation of Joe Rogan's perspective, lacking nuance on the topic of the trans stuff, clearly defending the trans because that's the progressive thing to do) Destiny: "That guy who died during the Trump assassination? Deserves 0 sympathy. Anyone who isn't a woke leftist and dies, and anyone who supports Trump and dies, doesn't deserve sympathy." (literally saying 50% of the population deserves 0 sympathy or compassion, because they are underdeveloped, or stupid, or just fell for the orange con man) These people's existence relies on them being this biased. Every single video they make, every argument they make, everything they do, is filled with left wing bias. They strawman criticisms to the left (the trans stuff for instance, to them it's all bigotry) and they iron man all the aspects of the left, refuse to acknowledge the toxicity of the left in most cases. To a right winger, it's difficult to see how Ben Shapiro is biased. To a leftist, it's difficult to see how Destiny is biased. These are just woke clowns who lack self awareness and good faith. They are no different than the "let's go outside and punch a nazi!" meme. The issue is that right wingers are more transparent. They tend to make worse arguments, and are often grifters. Leftists on the other hand are rarely grifters, but they perform a lot of mental gymnastics to defend their religion to the end. And they tend to be more educated, which helps portray a fake sense of wisdom/critical analysis.

Those 3 are RIDICULOUSLY biased. They are the left wing equivalent of fox news or Ben Shapiro.

Thanks man

I turned down the job offer today, yes. I'm a software engineer and I just want to survive. I don't even care about remote work or high sallary.

My vision of the Devil: He's a sexy motherfucker. Damn...