4 ms·

Your separation of "neutral" and "impartial" is wrong, particularly in the given context. OK. Do you have any explanation? Or does your argument consist of onl

Your separation of "neutral" and "impartial" is wrong, particularly in the given context. OK. Do you have any explanation? Or does your argument consist of only assertion? Also, Godwin's law - you lose. You know that Godwin's law was a positive and not a normative statement, right? So what exactly have I lost? I mean, are you saying I'm wrong to criticize a value system that gives lots of free advertising and social prestige to Holocaust deniers while marginalizing actual experts?

anthonyb 16y ago
> Do you have any explanation? In the context, the two words are essentially synonyms; they mean that you favour neither side. Go look up the definitions rather than imposing your own artificial distinction. And the point with Godwin's law is that if you need to resort to absurd comparisons with Hitler or the Holocaust, then you obviously don't have much of an argument. Your point above seems to be that one time, somewhere, a TV program took a ridiculous stand on an issue[1], therefore the whole media artifice is ridiculously biased and crumbling... or something. [1] Note - not a neutral stance, because they gave holocaust deniers disproportionate airtime in comparison to the weight of evidence.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  In the context, the two words are essentially synonyms; they mean that you favour neither side. Go look up the definitions rather than imposing your own artificial distinction. The definitions at dictionary.com support my original claim. And the point with Godwin's law is that if you need to resort to absurd comparisons with Hitler or the Holocaust, then you obviously don't have much of an argument. If you want to fabricate some new phony norm, please give it a unique name rather than misappropriating a name from a completely unrelated phenomena. Your point above seems to be that one time, somewhere, a TV program took a ridiculous stand on an issue[1], therefore the whole media artifice is ridiculously biased and crumbling... or something. My point is that this was one particularly egregious instance that is part of a larger pattern. Go read some media criticism: the idea that media organizations are obsessed with "balance" and "neutrality" to the detriment of actual truth telling is not something I invented. [1] Note - not a neutral stance, because they gave holocaust deniers disproportionate airtime in comparison to the weight of evidence. So, now, in order to be neutral, you have to evaluate competing claims based on evidence...
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Are we looking at different dictionary.com's or something? impartial - adj: not prejudiced towards or against any particular side or party; fair; unbiased neu·tral -adj ... 2. not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy. How are these not synonyms? Ditto with Godwin's Law - go and look at the Wikipedia entry: Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: "I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written.[10] Which (again) is the original point: You have one unattributed example (involving Nazis!) of biased reporting, which you're trying to build a whole argument on. That doesn't work - you have an infinity of potential claims (eg. the FSM did it), so unless you have an infinite amount of time you can't possibly deal with them all. But you can give them weight/air time according to the weight of evidence behind them. Framing that sort of judgement as "inherent bias" is specious reasoning.
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago
      How are these not synonyms? The difference is time. Judges are impartial, but they are not neutral: the whole point of judge's role is to become non-neutral. By the time a journalist has conducted interviews, done research, assembled their notes, and started writing a story, they should not be neutral either: they should have come to some conclusions about the world that a completely ignorant (read: neutral) reader would not share precisely because they've done research. Ditto with Godwin's Law - go and look at the Wikipedia entry You are misrepresenting the article. Read the first sentence: Godwin's law is a humorous observation... That's it. An observation. That is funny. Observations are not normative. Your insistence that they are is a category error. You have one unattributed example (involving Nazis!) First of all, the example involves Holocaust deniers, not Nazis. There's actually a pretty spectacular difference between the two: Holocaust deniers, vile that they may be, have generally not killed anyone. Secondly, if you want a cite, feel free to read http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/18/national/18holocaust.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/18/national/18holocaust.html

anthonyb 16y ago

> Do you have any explanation? In the context, the two words are essentially synonyms; they mean that you favour neither side. Go look up the definitions rather than imposing your own artificial distinction. And the point with Godwin's law is that if you need to resort to absurd comparisons with Hitler or the Holocaust, then you obviously don't have much of an argument. Your point above seems to be that one time, somewhere, a TV program took a ridiculous stand on an issue[1], therefore the whole media artifice is ridiculously biased and crumbling... or something. [1] Note - not a neutral stance, because they gave holocaust deniers disproportionate airtime in comparison to the weight of evidence.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
In the context, the two words are essentially synonyms; they mean that you favour neither side. Go look up the definitions rather than imposing your own artificial distinction. The definitions at dictionary.com support my original claim. And the point with Godwin's law is that if you need to resort to absurd comparisons with Hitler or the Holocaust, then you obviously don't have much of an argument. If you want to fabricate some new phony norm, please give it a unique name rather than misappropriating a name from a completely unrelated phenomena. Your point above seems to be that one time, somewhere, a TV program took a ridiculous stand on an issue[1], therefore the whole media artifice is ridiculously biased and crumbling... or something. My point is that this was one particularly egregious instance that is part of a larger pattern. Go read some media criticism: the idea that media organizations are obsessed with "balance" and "neutrality" to the detriment of actual truth telling is not something I invented. [1] Note - not a neutral stance, because they gave holocaust deniers disproportionate airtime in comparison to the weight of evidence. So, now, in order to be neutral, you have to evaluate competing claims based on evidence...
- anthonyb 16y ago
  Are we looking at different dictionary.com's or something? impartial - adj: not prejudiced towards or against any particular side or party; fair; unbiased neu·tral -adj ... 2. not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy. How are these not synonyms? Ditto with Godwin's Law - go and look at the Wikipedia entry: Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: "I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written.[10] Which (again) is the original point: You have one unattributed example (involving Nazis!) of biased reporting, which you're trying to build a whole argument on. That doesn't work - you have an infinity of potential claims (eg. the FSM did it), so unless you have an infinite amount of time you can't possibly deal with them all. But you can give them weight/air time according to the weight of evidence behind them. Framing that sort of judgement as "inherent bias" is specious reasoning.
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    How are these not synonyms? The difference is time. Judges are impartial, but they are not neutral: the whole point of judge's role is to become non-neutral. By the time a journalist has conducted interviews, done research, assembled their notes, and started writing a story, they should not be neutral either: they should have come to some conclusions about the world that a completely ignorant (read: neutral) reader would not share precisely because they've done research. Ditto with Godwin's Law - go and look at the Wikipedia entry You are misrepresenting the article. Read the first sentence: Godwin's law is a humorous observation... That's it. An observation. That is funny. Observations are not normative. Your insistence that they are is a category error. You have one unattributed example (involving Nazis!) First of all, the example involves Holocaust deniers, not Nazis. There's actually a pretty spectacular difference between the two: Holocaust deniers, vile that they may be, have generally not killed anyone. Secondly, if you want a cite, feel free to read http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/18/national/18holocaust.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/18/national/18holocaust.html