mr_engineer

They don't have to say they're biased, because they're not lobbying to governments. So, they aren't taking on the responsibility that governments give them, which is to be 'objective'. But, the mainstream is backed by the government-systems. And, because people live under the government-systems (and they know that the mainstream is paid off by them), the mainstream is basically the mouthpiece of the government. So, their job is to be 'objective'. In which case, they have to admit to their failures in being 'objective'!

The mainstream lies by omission. They do not cover the big protests in Europe. This takes away the voices of people whose lives have been destroyed by the government-measures. You can have your justifications for the government-measures. But, the censorship is a sin. Fine, then. Welcome to the alt-media, who explains why they're doing it! They have an alternative explanation for it.

Why do they think they have the right to censor who they disagree with, then?! If this is not a crusade for their 'absolute truth', what is it?!

Bias ceases to be a sin when you're admitting to the relativity of your truth.

Yeah, but they don't define 'the absolute truth'. Their truth is a relative truth, and different from the mainstream. In disagreement with the mainstream on a lot of counts. The mainstream defines the 'absolute truth'. They are out for blood to define their idea of the absolute truth. It's way more fundamentalist than the alt-media.

Most people don't want to be indoctrinated with 'the absolute truth'. They would rather consume media that challenge their perspective, their conditioning and that gives them an alternative point of view. This is a very relieving stat, by the way. The truth is that 'the absolute truth' cannot be ideologically defined. So, this endeavor that the mainstream has embarked on is a futile one. And it is much more realistic to say that there are different sources with their biases and to integrate these perspectives, these sources and to come up with one's own idea of 'objective truth'. And to then come together with other multi-perspectival Tier-2 people and discuss that point of view and see whether you agree on that or not. Most truth/falsehood cannot be proven, though. The mainstream is not in the business of giving the truth, even though that is their claim. They stay within the limits of mainstream-science. Which is funded by corporations who want to get their way. The alternative-media is very banned. Very restricted. And yet, funny how people find ways to get to them!! Regulation is also biased. No, I want the mainstream to just be more open about their biases. If they did that, then paradoxically, their trustworthiness would go up a lot! Cuz they're telling the truth now. Bias is not the issue. The false claims about 'being unbiased' or 'objectivity' are the issue.

The alternative-media is not a 'source of information'. They are simply shining light on the loopholes of the mainstream. When you compare them like this, you are comparing apples to oranges. Because the mainstream takes on the responsibility of defining 'the truth' and 'sharing information'. That's not what the alternative does. I think both have their place, as of now.

It definitely shines light on details that the mainstream doesn't want to look at or sweeps under the rug. And that's very important, given that the mainstream is hypocritical about its 'objectivity'. It's good enough to prove that you shouldn't trust the mainstream. Their job is not to be 'accurate' or 'closer to the truth'. It's to represent the voice of the people on what the mainstream is doing. The mainstream, which is bought and paid for by the governments. They do not represent the people anymore and the people need their own media. The alternative serves that function. Now, what is 'the truth'?! Is it what the government says it is?! If that is the case, then no. It's not 'closer to the truth'. If that's what you're looking for, just listen to the mainstream! The alternative media is for people who need a voice.

You are obligated to follow the law, as a social-media platform. My point is that your position as Twitter should be for free-speech. And you censor very sparingly, where you have to co-operate with law-enforcement. You are censoring the voice of common people in a so-called democracy. The people responsible for this should be hanged, honestly. It distorts the public's idea of public perception. And it demoralizes individuals who are not for these restrictive government-measures. People whose livelihoods, businesses got destroyed by the lockdowns and now by the climate-policies.

The alternative sources don't claim to be unbiased. But, the mainstream makes this claim. So, bias in the alternative-media is less hypocritical than bias in the mainstream.

This is illegal stuff. So, no. The law is very obviously being broken in these cases. But, what about the protests in Europe?! What about the Canadian truckers?! Why were they censored?! These are normal, working-class people protesting against the problematic government policies. This is criminal-level censorship by social-media.

This is some Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth' stuff. We, the state, have the truth. And you get to believe us or shut the fuck up. No room for disagreement. The point of discourse is to debate and have a civil discussion. Censorship is the opposite of that.

You don't really need to be able to share your ideas with the entire world. You need to only be able to share them with like-minded people so that you can work together. What censorship does, is it gets in the way of doing that. It promotes ideas that support their agendas, while censors ideas that get in the way of their agendas. My point is that - don't assume that their censorship is purely unbiased. Or, their definition of 'hate-speech' is purely unbiased. You have the right to ignore what you don't like. You don't have to censor it. And if it offends you, that's your problem. Cancel-culture is the real enemy here. That we all need to be collectively standing up against. Cuz it creates echo-chambers and separations. This will only escalate conflicts.

@Illusory Self They get insecure when you don't care about judgement. Cuz you're supposed to care about judgement! If you don't, you're not controllable. I think this is a shit-test being taken to dangerous levels. I'm not a big fan of them, I think they're narcissistic behaviors by women. I don't think it's personal in your situation. And notice the red-flags in such individuals.

To say that 'there is an absolute hierarchy of men, some are high-value and some are low-value' is a limiting-belief. Women will never ever say this if you ask them about it. This is a very real projection of the rating-system that men use to rate women. Even that's mostly bullshit for the common woman. It's important only for those women who make a living off of their beauty. Like models, actresses, strippers, etc. They need to appeal to what the consensus of men deems to be 'attractive'. Does not apply in dating. We only assume it does because this is how PUAs go about it. Fine, this is what you value. Because your priority in relationships might be sex, not love. That's fine. I respect that. I would suggest not projecting this priority-structure onto other guys. It's disrespectful when you first project this onto us and then make things personal. And, if you ask me whether I choose love or survival, I'll choose love. Because love is the absolute truth. From my perspective. You are free to call this spiritual ego if you want. Or bypassing. Cuz that's what it'll look like for someone with your priorities.

@something_else If you want to make this personal, fine. Let's do this. People like you are the reason why we're still stuck in the patriarchy. Because of this conquest-mindset. This is why we're having to deal with feminism and the evils of it. This shaming of guys without results is why incel-shootings happen. Why don't you want to allow for different ways of doing things, that aren't ridden with toxic masculinity?! Why are you anti-love?! This prioritization of pragmatism ensures that there can be no love between people. Your definitions of 'masculinity' are also fundamentally wrong, by the way. It's not about 'conquest' or 'achievement'. It is about giving, first and foremost. This is something that David Deida talks about in his book 'The Way of the Superior Man'. Read some fucking books.

Defending redpill comes across as pretty low-value to me. It's limiting-beliefs that you need to overcome. Your way is not the only right way. Be open to other ways of doing things.

You can't 'be' a creep. But you can be labelled as one by someone being nefarious with you. And the institutions hate men, of course. 'Toxic masculinity' and all that crap. The really scary thing is the victim-control dynamic that women can play if you pick wrong. If you suspect foul play on her part, go deeper into the reasons behind why you hooked. If you sense codependency on her part, run. Cuz she can get resentful and use that against you in the future.

And if you keep abusing the people, that's gonna stop very soon. So, I think you should watch your back, cuz you never know.

@Heart of Space Okay. Tell me one thing - why do these 'imperfections' always end up working in their favor?! Why do they never backfire against them?! Imagine the level of calculation it must take to have that happen for yourself. Yeah, but you need the government to give meaning to your 'fun coupons'. The day people wake up to the fact that that's an illusion, that's it for the system that's privileging you with shit you don't deserve.

I just want you to hear this message - people are waking up. The day they wake up to the fact that the class-system is an illusion, your position won't be so secure. Just saying.

Why are you supporting this manipulative 'game of incentives'?! This itself is the manipulation! Why aren't you waking people up to the possibility of a lifestyle that transcends this materialism?! Is it because you're ready to bow down to your new overlords?!

There are too many 'imperfections', don't you think?! Imperfections that are so bad, they defeat the purpose of having a government, which is to supposedly 'protect the people'. These are not imperfections. These are coldly calculated moves against the people, to enslave us. This is your 'statism'. My point is that if you support this, you fully deserve what's in store for you. Don't blame others for it, you created this. Congratulations.

We don't blindly believe what we watch, like you believe your mainstream-media. Seriously, the TV is the biggest authority-figure of the world. Take your eyes off the TV, go outside and look at what's happening. Look at the gas-prices, look at how the businesses were destroyed by the lockdowns. Look at how they forced you to take the jabs at gunpoint.