4 ms·

> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-right.. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-right.... (the writer himself is gay, if

> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-right.. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-right.... (the writer himself is gay, if it matters) As a gay man, no it doesn't matter. You can have completely off base opinions no matter who you are. He panders to an audience, and damages the rest of the community in the process. Calling those articles "exaggerated" is extremely forgiving. The article I quoted uses a combination of outdated pseudo-science and philosophically iffy reasoning behind its pretext. As someone who struggled to come out, I can't tell you how absolutely disheartening and difficult it is to get past your family when they read pieces like that, and clearly don't have the skills necessary to understand why the rationale is bad in the first place. It makes me want to just yank Milo by the neck and show him what irreparable damage he is doing to people (if I could); if he even has the morality to care. >http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes.. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes.... cites multiple real university studies. And then you have things like this. Is this supposed to make up for everything else they do? You gave me a list of articles, but these aren't contradictory to their other practices. To my original point: why bother with the source when you can consume that information elsewhere, from a source that is far more likely to be reliable? To your point about other publications such as the Washington Post being on the other axis of bias, I have trouble understanding how you can simply say they're just on the other side. From everything I've seen from the Washington Post, they're nowhere near as advertently dishonest as Breitbart is, accidentally or otherwise.

rudolf0 10y ago
Here's the summary of his stance: >When I express views like this, I’m sometimes called a reactionary. People say I want to go back to the 50s. And they’re right – but it’s the 650s BC I want to return to, because Sparta had the right idea about male love. You can spend all day wrestling and wanking each other off if you want to, chaps, but you still have to get married, have kids and go off to fight wars. Sure it combines "outdated pseudo-science and philosophically iffy reasoning behind its pretext". But it's not fake news. It's just shitty news, like so much other shitty news out there. I'm not defending Breitbart, I'm just saying it is a press outlet and it should be allowed to exist as one. It shouldn't have to suffer from censorship. No media source should have to suffer from censorship. Fake news mills aren't media sources. >It makes me want to just yank Milo by the neck and show him what irreparable damage he is doing to people (if I could); if he even has the morality to care. Milo is a partisan asshole but he's not a total idiot. Instead of calling for his website to be blacklisted, why not present your opposing view and start a reasonable debate on the subject? You could probably even get him to agree with a lot of your points, and perhaps even empathize. Healthy dialogues are critical in a democratic society. Censorship is the antithesis of everything our society stands for. >To your point about other publications such as the Washington Post being on the other axis of bias, I have trouble understanding how you can simply say they're just on the other side. From everything I've seen from the Washington Post, they're nowhere near as advertently dishonest as Breitbart is, accidentally or otherwise. I don't have any particular examples right now, but just as Breitbart will group together articles of alleged attacks by immigrants or minorities, I've often seen WaPo group together articles of alleged attacks against immigrants or minorities on their top bar. I think Breitbart is probably more biased on average, but they both spin things pretty heavily. Between Breitbart, Fox, Drudge, Huffington, NYT, NBC, WaPo, there is not a single source of objective and neutral news analysis out there. It's probably more fair to put Breitbart and Huffington Post at the same bias degrees than Breitbart and WaPo, but the point is that all these sources are pretty shitty and biased and calling for just one of them to be censored is quite silly.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  No one is arguing Breitbart should be prohibited from existing. Other people choosing not to subsidize or do business with them is not a ban. Also, degree of ideological bias is not the same thing as degree of journalist integrity or factual falsity. A "news" outlet can have no particular ideological bias and be completely disconnected from the truth, or it can have a strong ideological bias and be completely reliable on facts and even have high integrity in presenting all relevant facts in the stories it covers (while, or even would assume, being quite selective in its selection of which stories to cover at all.) So, saying Breitbart is no more biased than HuffPo is not an argument that they are no more fake than HuffPo.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- justinlaster 10y ago
  >You can spend all day wrestling and wanking each other off if you want to, chaps, but you still have to get married, have kids and go off to fight wars. You really don't see anything incongruent about the article's premise and his "conclusion", nor do you see that it's a preposterously philosophically-foolish position to take? He's okay with marrying a women I will not love nor have any emotional stake in. She'll just marry me, we'll live together, and she'll just be a semen vessel? Spare me the willful ignorance. >But it's not fake news. It's just shitty news Can we stop nitpicking? These publications often rely on crappy news in aggregate to push a narrative. It doesn't matter that an article here and there is seemingly rational, or has bits of truth cited by 10 year old studies with whimsical interpretations of those studies, while completely ignoring those studies were never replicated again. Those stories in aggregate begin to build up a narrative. That narrative then becomes accepted by certain people and sometimes unfortunately unquestionably so; the narrative is surrounded by a maze of complete and utter drivel. For some people, it's too much to shift through so they don't even bother to self-critique. The "maze of crap" can even have the nocuous effect of lending credence to the publishing organization. It's the same thing with anti-vaccination people, it's the same thing with flat-earthers, or people who want to claim evolution is fake. The problem becomes muddled when you get into something grey, like politics. But it's still the same pattern. >why not present your opposing view and start a reasonable debate on the subject? You are effectively asking for a dialogue "reset" Not only would that be extremely exhausting to rehash the past couple of decades of why we are where we are in regards to certain subjects, but also would basically be a waste of time. People like Milo have no interest in honest debate, or "truth" if you will. If they did, they'd write far more eloquent positions addressing the actual evidence and perspectives that exist in whatever subject is being discussed; they certainly wouldn't take willfully ignorant positions on those subjects either. They'd also conduct themselves accordingly when being filmed. Watch any of Milo's interviews on video and watch him twist himself in circles. He spends the majority of the time backpedaling on things he said rather than take some affirmative position with evidence to back it up. He and Breitbart are free to publish what they want, in whatever manner they choose. That doesn't mean they deserve people's attention or money. That doesn't mean people need to respect them. >I think Breitbart is probably more biased on average, but they both spin things pretty heavily. There is a difference here. Everyone is biased, so let's not use it as a talking point. The principle behind all this is willing to admit when you got something wrong. The principle is having the integrity to inform your readership of the wrong, and correct it. The principle is not ignoring blatantly well supported positions on certain subjects just so you can tickle your audience's emotions and fears. And to the overall censorship point: No one is calling for censorship. Private citizens and companies don't want to deal with Breitbart. Companies like facebook probably just don't have the ability nor the resources to sort through every single thing that starts trending from Breitbart, only to have it be removed because it's fake. We are talking about a publishing source that posted so many fake news stories, Facebook and Twitter decided to hell with it, we'll just get the story from elsewhere. Breitbart is in this position because of their own actions, not because there's some conspiracy theory to silence one side.

rudolf0 10y ago

Here's the summary of his stance: >When I express views like this, I’m sometimes called a reactionary. People say I want to go back to the 50s. And they’re right – but it’s the 650s BC I want to return to, because Sparta had the right idea about male love. You can spend all day wrestling and wanking each other off if you want to, chaps, but you still have to get married, have kids and go off to fight wars. Sure it combines "outdated pseudo-science and philosophically iffy reasoning behind its pretext". But it's not fake news. It's just shitty news, like so much other shitty news out there. I'm not defending Breitbart, I'm just saying it is a press outlet and it should be allowed to exist as one. It shouldn't have to suffer from censorship. No media source should have to suffer from censorship. Fake news mills aren't media sources. >It makes me want to just yank Milo by the neck and show him what irreparable damage he is doing to people (if I could); if he even has the morality to care. Milo is a partisan asshole but he's not a total idiot. Instead of calling for his website to be blacklisted, why not present your opposing view and start a reasonable debate on the subject? You could probably even get him to agree with a lot of your points, and perhaps even empathize. Healthy dialogues are critical in a democratic society. Censorship is the antithesis of everything our society stands for. >To your point about other publications such as the Washington Post being on the other axis of bias, I have trouble understanding how you can simply say they're just on the other side. From everything I've seen from the Washington Post, they're nowhere near as advertently dishonest as Breitbart is, accidentally or otherwise. I don't have any particular examples right now, but just as Breitbart will group together articles of alleged attacks by immigrants or minorities, I've often seen WaPo group together articles of alleged attacks against immigrants or minorities on their top bar. I think Breitbart is probably more biased on average, but they both spin things pretty heavily. Between Breitbart, Fox, Drudge, Huffington, NYT, NBC, WaPo, there is not a single source of objective and neutral news analysis out there. It's probably more fair to put Breitbart and Huffington Post at the same bias degrees than Breitbart and WaPo, but the point is that all these sources are pretty shitty and biased and calling for just one of them to be censored is quite silly.

dragonwriter 10y ago
No one is arguing Breitbart should be prohibited from existing. Other people choosing not to subsidize or do business with them is not a ban. Also, degree of ideological bias is not the same thing as degree of journalist integrity or factual falsity. A "news" outlet can have no particular ideological bias and be completely disconnected from the truth, or it can have a strong ideological bias and be completely reliable on facts and even have high integrity in presenting all relevant facts in the stories it covers (while, or even would assume, being quite selective in its selection of which stories to cover at all.) So, saying Breitbart is no more biased than HuffPo is not an argument that they are no more fake than HuffPo.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
justinlaster 10y ago
>You can spend all day wrestling and wanking each other off if you want to, chaps, but you still have to get married, have kids and go off to fight wars. You really don't see anything incongruent about the article's premise and his "conclusion", nor do you see that it's a preposterously philosophically-foolish position to take? He's okay with marrying a women I will not love nor have any emotional stake in. She'll just marry me, we'll live together, and she'll just be a semen vessel? Spare me the willful ignorance. >But it's not fake news. It's just shitty news Can we stop nitpicking? These publications often rely on crappy news in aggregate to push a narrative. It doesn't matter that an article here and there is seemingly rational, or has bits of truth cited by 10 year old studies with whimsical interpretations of those studies, while completely ignoring those studies were never replicated again. Those stories in aggregate begin to build up a narrative. That narrative then becomes accepted by certain people and sometimes unfortunately unquestionably so; the narrative is surrounded by a maze of complete and utter drivel. For some people, it's too much to shift through so they don't even bother to self-critique. The "maze of crap" can even have the nocuous effect of lending credence to the publishing organization. It's the same thing with anti-vaccination people, it's the same thing with flat-earthers, or people who want to claim evolution is fake. The problem becomes muddled when you get into something grey, like politics. But it's still the same pattern. >why not present your opposing view and start a reasonable debate on the subject? You are effectively asking for a dialogue "reset" Not only would that be extremely exhausting to rehash the past couple of decades of why we are where we are in regards to certain subjects, but also would basically be a waste of time. People like Milo have no interest in honest debate, or "truth" if you will. If they did, they'd write far more eloquent positions addressing the actual evidence and perspectives that exist in whatever subject is being discussed; they certainly wouldn't take willfully ignorant positions on those subjects either. They'd also conduct themselves accordingly when being filmed. Watch any of Milo's interviews on video and watch him twist himself in circles. He spends the majority of the time backpedaling on things he said rather than take some affirmative position with evidence to back it up. He and Breitbart are free to publish what they want, in whatever manner they choose. That doesn't mean they deserve people's attention or money. That doesn't mean people need to respect them. >I think Breitbart is probably more biased on average, but they both spin things pretty heavily. There is a difference here. Everyone is biased, so let's not use it as a talking point. The principle behind all this is willing to admit when you got something wrong. The principle is having the integrity to inform your readership of the wrong, and correct it. The principle is not ignoring blatantly well supported positions on certain subjects just so you can tickle your audience's emotions and fears. And to the overall censorship point: No one is calling for censorship. Private citizens and companies don't want to deal with Breitbart. Companies like facebook probably just don't have the ability nor the resources to sort through every single thing that starts trending from Breitbart, only to have it be removed because it's fake. We are talking about a publishing source that posted so many fake news stories, Facebook and Twitter decided to hell with it, we'll just get the story from elsewhere. Breitbart is in this position because of their own actions, not because there's some conspiracy theory to silence one side.