SwiftQuill

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...

When the guy who killed George Floyd was arrested, I didn't "feel happy". I didn't feel any deep satisfaction or joy. And it doesn't matter if I'm not American. If that incident happened over here, I would still not have felt happiness. So I dare you guys go look videos on youtube of the sentencing for the killer. And even go on some woke circlejerks on reddit. Or even go through old tweets. Look at the way people (not just right wingers, but also - especially so - leftists) responded to it. They celebrated it. To these people, it was something amazing. Some even complained that his sentencing wasn't harsh enough. I remember reading the comments, and feeling actually somewhat disgusted at how happy people were. I get it, a horrible criminal gets caught, and justice needs to be served. But why are you so fucking happy? It truly is a form of sadism. I'm not saying "Leftists are as hard on crime as Right wingers". I'm just saying that this "fluffy overly compassionate leftist" is a ridiculous caricature. Maybe it's because I've been more exposed to left wing circlejerks than right wing, but I don't see this behavior as frequently on the right. Not that it matters. I'm not right wing and I'm not here defending the right wing. I think the difference is the type of criminal. If it's illigal immigration for instance, yeah right wingers will celebrate when those criminals are punished.

You guys talk shit about the right wing, and claim the left is "too compassionate"? The left is sadistic. It engages in sadistic glee. Especially when it comes to "righeous justice". Take examples of whenever a politician is arrested, or whenever a school shooter or pedophile gets arrested. Or the guy who killed George Floyd. The GLEE on their eyes. The primitive black and white morality, the "Omg that son of a bitch is going to rot in jail forever HE SO DESERVES IT" and some even COMPLAIN (as seen in this thread) whenever these horrific crimes don't lead to death sentence. Like, yeah, criminals are bad? Why are you so satisfied about hearing of this or that criminal experiencing deep suffering? You call that compassion? It's tribalism. This notion of leftists "caring too much about those poor criminals" is preposterous. Very lacking in self awareness. It's a fluffy, inaccurate characterization of the left.

They worship him. They agree with his points because they are his points.

This might be the wrongest statement in this entire thread. Which has tough competition, with Leo's comments. I suggest you watch Larry Lawton's YT channel. Or one of the hundreds of prison documentaries on YouTube. USA prisons are horrific. Inhumane. You can only say "Prison isn't as bad as it seems" if you are talking about some evolved European country. Because elsewhere, including in the USA, I guarantee you prison is awful. Worse than most people imagine. The exception might be some small county jail for minimum security - a camp.

What does that have to do with anything? Leftism doesn't only exist in the US. And people here, who are not European, like Leo, do seem extremely confident about European politics. So I assume your comment applies to them as well? Guys don't bother talking about European politics if you're not from Europe. Thanks. Sample #57111503 of the genetic fallacy.

1- I'm not an American. I don't follow American politics closely. I know very little about the DOGE situation. I've heard mixed things on the topic. I'm not a die hard Musk fan and I won't defend him for his political actions if that's what you're expecting. 2- My perspective on Trump is that he is a con man. And he's probably buddies with Putin. Did my answer scratch your "gotcha" attempt? Someone should rename this subforum to "Low Consciousness Resources". I think it would be more appropriate. More accurate.

I guarantee it wouldn't. If you seriously believe that, you lack the ability to put yourself in others' shoes. It's a complete mockery of empathy, and laziness to inspect other perspectives.

@The Crocodile maybe instead of talking crap about right wingers with your wokie friends, actually bother talk to someone on the right. A normie on the right. A business owner. Or a minimum wage worker. Actually bother listening to their struggles in life. If you are intellectually honest and do that work, you will see these estimates are way off. But if you're a wokie who loves demonising a large portion of the population for disagreeing with them, you can insist on calling them bigots. When people insist on saying things like "40% of our population are fascists!" that's the type of attitude that ends the dialogue. You, and most in this forum, perceive an excessive amount of ill intent and evil on the right. As opposed to just humans engaging in survival. (and you perceive little to no evil and ill intent on the left, conveniently enough)

You think the right wing is increasing in Europe because people are unconscious and have authoritarian fetishes? Give me a fucking break. You seriously think 10, 20, up to 30 and 40% of the population is like that? Or could it be because the news media loves to gaslight people. And even introducing a basic topic like immigration, with any amount of nuance leads to accusations of racism, because the topic is taboo? Could it be that these so called far right parties are somehow addressing issues that a large portion of the population has concerns over, and that other parties (secretly agree with) refuse to address whatsoever, because they want to look politically correct? How about you wokies and centrists grow some balls, and bother to address these concerns? Actually bother to address them. Why is it some people feel concerned about immigration? Why is it some people feel concerned about big government? There might indeed be some truth in the notion that immigrants will take lower wages, and that harms the free market. Maybe there is some truth to the idea the government overtaxes and overspends. Is it all far right bigoted conspiracy, or could there be some legitimate concern somewhere? Or maybe just act like the average CNN reporter and call anyone on the right a racist. EDIT: as someone who is living in Europe, and deals with common problems as certain countries (Germany, UK, ect) I tell you no one gives a fuck about capital punishment. So even entertaining the idea of "Oh let's introduce capital punishment just to appeal the 50% bigoted masses" wouldn't even work in concept. People here have actual problems and don't care about outdated ideas like that.

Spitefulness. That is what I am. That is what I have become. That is what I express with everything I do. I am bitter. I am spiteful. I am angry. I am so angry you can't even imagine. They can't imagine what I feel. They don't even want to imagine it, or care to try to imagine it to begin with. And that is precisely why I feel this way. Because they care fuck all. It is strange. After years and years of people telling me "the world doesn't revolve around you" and "you have main character syndrome", It feels... Strange. I've entered I phase I like to call "Breaking Bad". And nowadays, I walk upright. I feel more self assured. I value myself more. I don't feel like a loser. And in a sense, I did adopt a "main character syndrome", because I no longer feel like a secondary character or an extra in my life. I'm more myself. But I'm not a hero. That's a lie that exists in virtually every story. That there's a "hero" and a "villain". Reality doesn't work like that. All there is is Ego. Some people have a sexy ego, that serves other egos. Some people have an ugly ego, that doesn't serve the other egos. That's truly how it works. Philosophical discussions on Consequentialism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Morality, Ethics, Tradition, Progress, Individualism, Collectivism, all of that is complete bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. I no longer buy into bullshit. And I am deeply bitter because I've seen through the façade. I've seen through all the spooks that this society has drilled into people's heads. I find it abhorrent. I see more decency in your average used cars salesman, in your typical conman, than in these people. Because a conman has no values. And so, he can't be a hypocrite, he can't betray anything. It's transparent how he's just trying to survive. In his own delusional, pathetic way. But these people are so much worse. These people think they are saviors. They think going on streets and chanting slogans and canceling others is the peak of moral good. And they validate one another. And the media validates them. And normies validate them. It's a whole fucking incestuous orgy of reciprocal validation. It's a mind virus. No joke. "Mind virus" is an excellent descriptor. It's something that propagates, and it infiltrates people's minds. To these people, Division is unity. Discourse is hate. Compassion is selective. Victimhood is strength. Censorship is kindness. Love is a zero-sum game. Isolation is community. And cruelty is justice. Their strategy is to divide and conquer. And it's working very well. I'm forced to battle this every single day. Not because I want to, not because I think I have any chance in ending this madness. But I do it to survive. My own survival, my humble needs - some money, some free time, some space, some psychological needs - they are seen as obstacles to these people. My humble needs are seen as the root of all evil in this society. You fucking bet I'm spiteful. I will die feeling spiteful. And what's strange, is I'm getting used to it. My inner dialogue has changed in the last few months. I feel less like a victim, and more like a fighter. It's interesting how a change in mindset makes life more interesting, and tolerable. I will keep fighting. Every single day, I will fight this madness. I will fight everything and everyone who stands between me and my goals. I'm aware it's likely I will lose this war. But I will die fighting. I will hold onto my values up until the very last moment. My values are all I have in this life. Angry? You bet I'm angry. I'm always angry. I will always be angry. You will see it in my face. You will hear it in my voice. You will experience my anger. This anger won't stop until this war ends. And we all know it is never going to end. I'm at war against most of the world. And I have very few allies. I struggle to survive, to meet my basic needs, and people go out of their way to see me being crushed by the world. They look down on me, from their comfortable place in life, see me struggle, and laugh. And they feel validated, and self righteous about it. Schadenfreude in its most hypocritical form. They laugh. In their abhorrent ideology, the more "we" lose, the more they win. Laughter is the ultimate defense mechanism. It prevents them from looking inward. It's the shield that protects them from the utter hypocrisy of their religion, their ideology, their attitude. It makes them feel good. It reveals to me what they are on the inside. They don't seek peace and tolerance by elevating others. They seek pleasure by crushing their enemies. And what they consider an enemy, that's quite a very generous concept. I'm often told by these people that I will be "on the wrong side of history". To these people, I say: go fuck yourself. Angry? You think I come across as bitter, spiteful, angry? You think I'm "operating from an unconscious level"? You think I'm projecting? YOU BET I'M FUCKING ANGRY. I DESERVE TO FEEL ANGRY.

Which school did you quit? High school? College? You're going to work at a coffee shop? I guess that's fine for the time being. Sell courses, books, music, to make money? Each of these alone can be very time consuming, and these are very different products to sell. Merely to produce one single decent online course, or to write a single book, or to become a musician, each of these requires developing a skill over a long period of time. Unless you are selling someone else's courses, books and music? I personally value education a lot. But I understand if some people don't fit into that path. Some people are more into trade skills, like electrician, plumber, mechanic, and some people are more into entrepreneurial stuff. But whatever path you pick, I suggest you plan carefully and realistically. Don't you think there is an over abundance of online courses these days? If you focus on online courses, do the research, see what skills are not being taught (like some very old and niche programming language) and create a course specifically for that. But you need to be realistic. And chances are you will spend a lot of time producing a course, it will be difficult (to use the equipment, to edit the videos, to write the script, etc), you put it on sale on Udemy, and it will be visible on the 4th page (almost no one bothers to reach this far).

Why not a Chromebook? I bought one for 230€. The battery lasts a very long time (8-10h). I don't think it's compatible with OneNote but you can use some other software. Also it's incredibly light. Very practical to travel with and to type with it on your lap.

TODAY I QUIT MY BULLSHIT JOB! "Freedom isn't granted, it is taken." - Chad Max Stirner

My opinion on the topic is that the education system deserves many changes on various levels. First off, I think it would be ideal if throughout highschool for instance, students were forced to take at least one "hard skill" class just to be able to get by in late stage capitalism. Examples of classes would be electricity, mechanics, industrial machines, customer support, stuff like that. Second, I think the education system is too fucked right now in the sense it leaves students tired, unmotivated, and stressed out. I know there is no one education sytem, it depends on your country and even city. But most people I speak to say the same thing. They hated school or think most kids nowadays hate school. My highschool was almost 40 hours worth of classes. What kind of student arrives home after 8 hours of classes and has energy or motivation to do homework and study? This is too much. I think introducing more classes to an already demanding system could make it worse. I do think, however, there is room for revision. I'll be honest, even as a software developer/data scientist, I've NEVER had to use derivatives or integration for my work. I don't think kids need to study THAT much maths. One class I adored in highschool (which here is mandatory) was philosophy. Fantastic class. I was taught aristotelic logic and all the formal and informal fallacies, and even a bit of ethics/morality. I think philosophy is the kind of class that should be mandatory for all students at some point. One other subject I think should be taught is Study Methods. Many students don't even know how to study. They don't know how to read efficienty and how to take notes, and even how to approach the academic challenges. I struggled with this myself until late in highschool. So I think Study Methods would be mandatory. I had Literature class almost all 12 years, and I think that BS is a bit much. We don't need that much literature. Some people suggest kids should be taught Finance, and I agree, but then again it goes the opposite of your suggestion (more focus on soft classes). I think basic positive psychology would also be a crucial subject at some point. Concepts to learn here would be: how to communicate assertively with compassion, how to experience emotions in a healthy way, how to develop self discipline, how to be cooperative, how to care about others in a healthy way. This is what I refer to as "good woke" ideas. I also think many classes I had in middle school were 100% waste of time, like "civics education" (I'm not sure how it's called in English) or "Project Class" (a class where you do projects on random topics, just to learn to use Powerpoint and give oral presentations, which is something you already do in most other classes). I also think gender studies could be a good class to teach. BUT DO IT WISELY WITHOUT IDEOLOGY. What I mean is teach kids that there are different kinds of sexual expressions, not all men express "masculinity" in the same manner, not all people are straight, not all people experience sexuality in the binary way. Teach them the difference between gender vs sex vs sexual expression vs sexual orientation etc. - notions that even wokies fail to understand.