Facebook prioritizing different types of hate speech

Page 10 of 12 [ 179 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

09 Dec 2020, 5:15 am

cyberdad wrote:
Antrax wrote:
I can't speak for Australia, but in the U.S. the ratio of self described Democrats to self described Republicans is 4:1. In the country as a whole the same ratio is 1.1:1. Fairly obvious the media has a Democrat (leftward) tilt relative to the country.


Why do republicans hide their political affiliation? do they worry they might get called racists and can't defend their beliefs?


Ah I see I forgot to include a few words in my first statement that might make it misleading. I've corrected it in the original post. The ratio in the media is 4:1. The ratio in the public is only 1.1:1.

Looking at how self-described independents say they lean and vote, Republicans aren't hiding their affiliation anymore than Democrats are. I have no reason to believe this would be different in the media.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,277
Location: Reading, England

09 Dec 2020, 5:20 am

Pepe wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Based on what I have heard, not one conservative is employed on their news team.
If true, how can there *not* be left-wing bias in hiring? 8)


Maybe we could read that information a couple different ways. Those who look to be hired by the ABC are not conservative, not being paid more by rich private owners, and so on. Do you have actual evidence that there are hiring practices that favour those with leftwing beliefs over conservative? And what type of conservative beliefs do you think the ABC is discriminatory against?


Tell me one news presenter, on the ABC, who has a right-wing political affiliation.
Simples.

I will research the person, and get back to you. 8)

A quick search suggests that Tom Switzer and Amanda Vanstone both have backgrounds in the Liberal Party. But it also told me that ABC requires its correspondents to be politically neutral, much like the BBC does, that presenters routinely make an effort to present multiple sides of an argument, and that ABC is trusted to be fair by 70-80% of Australians.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,150
Location: Australia

09 Dec 2020, 5:34 am

The_Walrus wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Based on what I have heard, not one conservative is employed on their news team.
If true, how can there *not* be left-wing bias in hiring? 8)


Maybe we could read that information a couple different ways. Those who look to be hired by the ABC are not conservative, not being paid more by rich private owners, and so on. Do you have actual evidence that there are hiring practices that favour those with leftwing beliefs over conservative? And what type of conservative beliefs do you think the ABC is discriminatory against?


Tell me one news presenter, on the ABC, who has a right-wing political affiliation.
Simples.

I will research the person, and get back to you. 8)

A quick search suggests that Tom Switzer and Amanda Vanstone both have backgrounds in the Liberal Party. But it also told me that ABC requires its correspondents to be politically neutral, much like the BBC does, that presenters routinely make an effort to present multiple sides of an argument, and that ABC is trusted to be fair by 70-80% of Australians.


Source, please. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Glory to Ukraine.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,150
Location: Australia

09 Dec 2020, 5:36 am

Bradleigh wrote:
Pepe wrote:
So, no, there are no conservatives on the ABC.
My point stands.
Thank you. 8)


Because the conservative opinion is anti-fact.



Is not. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Glory to Ukraine.


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

09 Dec 2020, 6:08 am

Pepe wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
Because the conservative opinion is anti-fact.



Is not. 8)


Which side of the political aisle is more likely to believe in sky daddy instead of science? Which side would more likely follow creationism instead of evolution? Which side has all the anti-vaxxers? Which side pushes for trickle down economics? Which side has people like Donald Trump who cannot sneeze without telling a lie?

It is in the name of conservative that those following it have resisted actual new information, preferring only comforting information that reinforces their worldview outside of any new findings.

If I asked you to look at Middle Eastern politics and asked you if the conservatives or progressives there were more pro-fact or anti-fact, which one would you say would be more enlightened? Or really any culture that might be very different from your own, would you trust the conservative who is more likely steeped in religious doctrine, or the progressive to be more open to facts that might differ fromtheir preconceived vision of the world?


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,277
Location: Reading, England

09 Dec 2020, 6:34 am

Pepe wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Based on what I have heard, not one conservative is employed on their news team.
If true, how can there *not* be left-wing bias in hiring? 8)


Maybe we could read that information a couple different ways. Those who look to be hired by the ABC are not conservative, not being paid more by rich private owners, and so on. Do you have actual evidence that there are hiring practices that favour those with leftwing beliefs over conservative? And what type of conservative beliefs do you think the ABC is discriminatory against?


Tell me one news presenter, on the ABC, who has a right-wing political affiliation.
Simples.

I will research the person, and get back to you. 8)

A quick search suggests that Tom Switzer and Amanda Vanstone both have backgrounds in the Liberal Party. But it also told me that ABC requires its correspondents to be politically neutral, much like the BBC does, that presenters routinely make an effort to present multiple sides of an argument, and that ABC is trusted to be fair by 70-80% of Australians.


Source, please. 8)

You’ll have to be more specific, but here:

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8064- ... 1907220424
https://research.qut.edu.au/best/wp-con ... -Media.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/ ... -the-right



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 17,958
Location: I'm right here

09 Dec 2020, 6:41 am

Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
From a far-right perspective of course the media appears to have a left-leaning bias. From a far-left perspective the media appears to have a centre-right bias.


I think the media's leaning relative to the country is the best way to describe its bias.

I can't speak for Australia, but in the U.S. the ratio of self described Democrats to self described Republicans in the media is 4:1. In the country as a whole the same ratio is 1.1:1. Fairly obvious the media has a Democrat (leftward) tilt relative to the country.


How about for editorial boards? Liberal presenters are irrelevant if the editorial staff are mostly conservative.

It actually is not obvious that US media has a leftward tilt. They have a sensationalist tilt and a pro-establishment tilt, this is compounded by conservatives in America going batshit insane since the 90s, but it isn't tilt to increasingly find yourself disagreeing with the mentally ill. Facts don't actually have a left-wing bias although it might appear so at times when so many conservatives are constantly arguing against them.


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,658
Location: Long Island, New York

09 Dec 2020, 9:07 am

slam_thunderhide wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:

All these companies going "woke" is a reflection of the hip wealthy cohort thinking that way.


That is just delusional. The elites decide what they want, and then they manufacture consent - not the other way round. If some companies are responding to the "woke" opinions of young people, it's only because those young people have had those "woke" opinions put into their heads by elites in the media and academia, not because those young people have figured anything out for themselves.

The naivety on this sub-forum is remarkable. I'm sure that only a few years ago it wasn't this bad.

Why would a bunch of white elites as a group want to promote socialism, the idea that being born white makes you a racist that has to be constantly told to check your privilege? Why would a bunch of elites promote anarchy and rioting? That kind of thing is bad for the bottom line usually. It would be better for them to teach the 1950s mantra of what is good for general motors is good for America.

The whole notion that there are a bunch of global elites getting together to brainwash a world of sheep shows lack of understanding of human nature and of how one becomes an elite. To become super wealthy and stay that way one has to be unusually innovative. To do that one has to be an individualist/independent thinker. The idea that those types of people can get together and agree on a plan of world domination and to not deviate from the plan over a period of decades strains credulity.

In regards to woke thinking Academia is a problem. The decent into wokeness is matter of a combination of appeasement(human nature desires the easy way out, the short term fix) and the slippery slope effect not a grand conspiracy. Groupthink in bubbles is also an issue.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,817
Location: New York City (Queens)

09 Dec 2020, 11:34 am

slam_thunderhide wrote:
The elites decide what they want, and then they manufacture consent - not the other way round. If some companies are responding to the "woke" opinions of young people, it's only because those young people have had those "woke" opinions put into their heads by elites in the media and academia, not because those young people have figured anything out for themselves.

People do get ideas from other sources besides just "elites in the media and academia" -- especially these days, in the era of the Internet, when all sorts of content by ordinary people occasionally "goes viral." Even before the Internet, there existed a variety of grassroots groups that disagreed with the elite consensus, some of which managed to gain publicity for their views and eventually succeeded in changing the elite consensus, at least in part. (Examples: the various civil rights movements.)


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
- My Twitter (new as of 2021)


Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,817
Location: New York City (Queens)

09 Dec 2020, 2:20 pm

Pepe wrote:
I am a moderate conservative independent.

I'm glad to see you acknowledging that you do have a political opinion ("moderate conservative") rather than claiming to be "neutral," (as you once did not too long ago, and as some glaringly right wing posters around here still do).

I hope your claim to be "the oracle of Truth" is just in jest. No one is an infallible "oracle of Truth."


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
- My Twitter (new as of 2021)


uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

09 Dec 2020, 2:48 pm

Pepe wrote:
Do you want me to say: "Based on what I made up"?
So, you have a problem with my honesty?

You always come at me with attack mode activated.
So many people do.
It would be nice to have discussions rather than debates.

I have information sources that have been proven, over many years, to be very reliable.
Referring to people, whose job it is to be informed, is a rather logical thing to do, in my mind.
Where do you get your information? :scratch:


I believe that in your mind, you do believe you are being "honest" in your beliefs. I have issue with your credibility. You don't even follow your own standards of behavior and expectation.

It's adorable when people frame "disagreeing" as "attacking". "So many people do" what? Disagree with you? They're allowed to, you know. You keep disagreeing with me, I don't feel attacked. I disagree with you. I explain why. At worst, I "attack" your ideology, with reasoned arguments, and complete explanations. Just because we're discussing the fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean you're being "attacked".

You SAY you have information sources that are this and that, and you SAY they're credible, but as you love to point out, saying things doesn't make them true. You SAY that, but then just expect peopel to take you for your word that it's true, cos you said so, cos you're impartial, cos you use impartial source, and it just goes round and round in a circle o self validation. Meanwhile, everyone else is expected to not only prove everything (which you then discredit or deny as "leftist talk", unless it agrees with you) but also expect them to prove (or disprove) your claims as well - and if they disprove your claims, that's "leftist talk" too.

Where do I get my information? It depends on the information in question. For legal stuff, I read the actual legal language itself, from the source. I.E., the actual text of the constitution, and the actual court cases which have been tried over the years to set legal precedent, or the state laws as written on a state's official clerk website. For culture, the fact that I LIVE HERE helps a lot, first hand experience. When it comes to business matters, the fact that I'm an MBA student with decades of experience running businesses helps, not to mention referring to common and contract law doctrines. As for news, I generally read at least 3-5 articles from sources that AREN'T tabloids, including at least one from an outside observer, of all political affiliations, and aggregate details that overlap. If an article purports something I know to be untrue (not opinion, FACTUALLY untrue), I take that into consideration as to the veracity of the article.

Of course, all you have to do is cite "liberal bias", and imply I'm making things up. Claim my school is a "liberal propaganda machine", and everything I say is just "liberal spin" used to "distort facts", and you're already banging the drum of "leftist media is leftist", and since I'm a leftist (one of THEM) clearly I'm biased anyways, unlike you, the oracle of truth 8) ... And that's largely what you seem to rely on to "disprove" people. Most of your counterarguments seem like they can be summarized as, "I'm right cos I said so, you're one of "them", evidence please?"

Your idea of a "discussion" sounds to me more like an "echo chamber", where the "discussion" is merely "reinforcing the thing you believe".

And I know you're a clever fella. You already know that if you want to have a "discussion" in the manner you seem to be implying, you can do it in the Haven. You've done it before, so I know you know this. You had the topic moved there at your request.

You seem to expect a lot more civility from others than you're willing to give. You seem to expect a lot more of most things than you're willing to give. Credit, belief, sources, proof, etc. It looks an awful lot like one-sided fairness.

---

And, bias or not, Facebook can still legally do what they're doing.

As for "elites", more often than not, the implication is actually "leftist elites", cos that's why they're pushing a "leftist agenda". It's a framing fallacy. Say "elites" so it sounds neutral, but then all the "elites" you point at are "liberals", thus pairing the two by implication.

Funny thing is, "elites control the media and academia" is originally from anti-Semitic tropes that say "the wealthy jewish elite control the media, entertainment, and schools, to brainwash everyone into EVIL dirty jew ideas!" - The actual ww2 nazis used this as anti-Semitic propaganda, as well as it being a popular trope with the american Klan, which is where the "liberals tricking and manipulating minorities into fighting for their cause" came from (or as the Klan put it, "The jews are using the blacks to enforce their new world order!")

They changed the exact words to make it sound prettier, but that is where the idea originated. People try to slide in edgewise and say "well maybe they were actually right, it doesn't have to be bigotry!" - and like most stereotypes, there is a tiny sliver of truth buried in there somewhere - but I don't know that citing two obviously bigoted groups like nazis and klan members as to the validity of unbigoted opinions is a reasonable call. I'm more inclined to think they agree cos they are both similarly bigoted. But that's just one biased lefty's opinion. Or is someone actually willing to argue that the nazis and the klan were actually acting unbiased in their notion of a grand "Liber-Illuminati" conspiracy to create a "New World Order".



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,150
Location: Australia

10 Dec 2020, 2:30 am

The_Walrus wrote:
Pepe wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Based on what I have heard, not one conservative is employed on their news team.
If true, how can there *not* be left-wing bias in hiring? 8)


Maybe we could read that information a couple different ways. Those who look to be hired by the ABC are not conservative, not being paid more by rich private owners, and so on. Do you have actual evidence that there are hiring practices that favour those with leftwing beliefs over conservative? And what type of conservative beliefs do you think the ABC is discriminatory against?


Tell me one news presenter, on the ABC, who has a right-wing political affiliation.
Simples.

I will research the person, and get back to you. 8)

A quick search suggests that Tom Switzer and Amanda Vanstone both have backgrounds in the Liberal Party. But it also told me that ABC requires its correspondents to be politically neutral, much like the BBC does, that presenters routinely make an effort to present multiple sides of an argument, and that ABC is trusted to be fair by 70-80% of Australians.


Source, please. 8)

You’ll have to be more specific, but here:

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8064- ... 1907220424
https://research.qut.edu.au/best/wp-con ... -Media.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/ ... -the-right


God.
I find the grunt work tedious.
Where is Brictoria, when you need him? :mrgreen:

Here is something for you to contemplate:

Quote:
Journalist Tom Switzer has argued that ABC left wing bias is not deliberate, but at the same time it is entrenched and incestuous. [142] In 2006 Switzer concluded:


Quote:
More recently Switzer has written:

… a soft-Left "group-think" clouds [ABC] editorial content, which alienates large segments of the Australian public…the ABC is not calculatedly partisan, nor do its masters deliberately pull the strings in any one direction. Nonetheless, there is little doubt that an entrenched Left-liberal bias—or perhaps mindset is a better word—seriously undermines the ABC's claim to be an impartial provider of news and current affairs. [144]


Quote:
Switzer similarly echoes more hard line assessments such as those of political commentator Michael Warby. Warby has argued that the ABC adopts a 'noble righteousness' in relation to any criticism of its overall reporting style, yet it only periodically allows a ‘guest enemy’ to express classic liberal or conservative views—and that it does not see this as a problem.


Quote:
For Switzer this amounts to a situation whereby:

On every issue of political controversy, the ABC's mental default position is essentially left of centre: opposition to labour-market deregulation, antiterror laws and tough border protection; support for a republic, multiculturalism and same-sex marriage; an obsession with gender issues, Aboriginal rights and catastrophic manmade global warming; and a deep suspicion of Tony Abbott, neo-conservatives, economic rationalists, climate sceptics and the ‘Christian Right’. These people won't get the soft interview. [146]


https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... c395086092


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Glory to Ukraine.


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

10 Dec 2020, 3:30 am

Tom Switzer is literally the Executive Director of the Centre for Independent Studies, which despite its name is a conservative group described as "classically liberal" (in an Australian sense) with a focus on "free markets and limited government". Hardly a fair critic against the ABC, a government funded broadcaster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Independent_Studies

I would be interested to learn who these donors are of the CIS, that is people paying Tom Switzer for the sort of news he covers. This quick source says that CIS tries to keep its corporate donors a secret, but known donors are BHP and Shell.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Centre_for_Independent_Studies


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

10 Dec 2020, 3:35 am

Can I also say screw to anyone who complains about sources that "support for a republic, multiculturalism and same-sex marriage; an obsession with gender issues, Aboriginal rights and catastrophic manmade global warming; and a deep suspicion of Tony Abbott, neo-conservatives, economic rationalists, climate sceptics and the ‘Christian Right’."

This guy is literally saying boo against things like gay and trans rights, I really don't think he is worth listening to. He is against looking into manmade climate change, and for a lack of skepticism against Christians, which is code for being allowed to be discriminatory against LGBT people. Anti-science.

I really hope this was not what you meant Pepe when you talked about fair sources.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

10 Dec 2020, 11:54 am

So basically we've side-graded from "Pepe says so, and he says he's impartial, so just accept it" to "Tom Switzer says so, and he says he's impartial, so just accept it", as though that not still merely someone claiming to be impartial, and passing of their opinions as "fact". At best it's an "appeal to authority". Jus cos someone throws the word "independent" or "impartial" into the mix doesn't mean it magically absorbs the essence of "impartiality" into the whole concoction.

I suppose if hard-line conservatism is your benchmark for "normal" or "impartial", then anything "left" of your arbitrary "center" would likely be construed as "bias". Of course everyone seems "too liberal" if you're the most conservative thing in the room. Funny how that works.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,916

10 Dec 2020, 5:56 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
Can I also say screw to anyone who complains about sources that "support for a republic, multiculturalism and same-sex marriage; an obsession with gender issues, Aboriginal rights and catastrophic manmade global warming; and a deep suspicion of Tony Abbott, neo-conservatives, economic rationalists, climate sceptics and the ‘Christian Right’."


Australians forgot we had our own Donald Trump by the name of Tony Abbott He was championed by the likes of Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Neil Mitchell and Switzer. Not unusually all of these journalists subscribe to the same script obsessing against all the issues you listed.