5 ms·

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quadrant-magazine/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quadrant-magazine/

voldacar 7y ago
right wing bad! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
briandear 7y ago
Should we post “left bias” from The NY Times, Washington Post, Citylab, et al? This is exactly what’s wrong with society, especially among the so-called smart people. What’s wrong with a right bias? Doesn’t that enlighten the conversation? Is it possible that there a lot of good ideas from another side of the spectrum of ideas? Why do we call out “right bias?” Why not just let people think for themselves. Apparently that’s not allowed — anything veering even a slight bit right from the left of center or far left gets belittled and chastised. Open your mind. It seems the tolerance of the left is a myth.
- briandear 7y ago
  And the downvotes prove the point.
- angry_octet 7y ago
  It's possible to have a right wing bias piece without it being claptrap, which this clearly is. There are plenty of conservative writers at the NYT/Wapo and dozens institutions like Hoover, if they write something HN relevant, submit it. In fact, I'll submit some myself right now and see how they fare. But don't choose this article as the 'HN is too woke' hill to die on.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    What claptrap? Satanism and occultism on particular is intricately interleaved with many of the greatest thinkers from that time period. These influences are generally understated and coming to understand this relationship has done a great deal to improve my regard for the value imparted by both both of these ideologies. If you take a minute to step outside your kneejerk reactions, you might learn something here, regardless of any bias by this particular author.
    - angry_octet 7y ago
      If you think this article (or the book) is a serious exploration of the clash of ideology inherent in feminism in a time of deep religious oppression, well bless your heart.
strken 7y ago
Quadrant is biased in the same way that Jacobin is biased. It should extremely obvious to everyone who reads it that it takes liberties when picking and choosing sources, that most of the authors have an axe to grind, and that it's exactly the kind of rag that would publish climate change denial just to be contrarian. It also has a reasonably high standard of writing, cites sources, and digs up some fascinating things in its attempts to wage war on the left. It's an interesting propaganda machine, which elevates it above boring propaganda machines like Breitbart or the Daily Kos.
- gatherhunterer 7y ago
  > digs up some fascinating things in its attempts to wage war on the left Oof. You've missed the point. They don't want anything except clicks and your reasons for giving them what they want don't matter to them. You're just another sucker who clicks around in the void of misinformation and bias.
- angry_octet 7y ago
  I think it is a mistake to give more credit to sites just because they can engage in sophisticated sophistry, have MAs from reputable old universities, and have their citations done neatly. Personally, I find the propaganda the Quadrant writers spout rather boring. Breitbart at least has joie de vivre. I don't really think people reading HN should be subjected to pseudo intellectual hate speech like this. It doesn't add to any meaningful debate in society in general or the tech sphere.
  - strken 7y ago
    It sent me down a rabbithole of wikipedia articles about theosophy and satanism, so I like it. The framing of satan as representative of rebellion, personal agency, and freedom in the face of established order interests me, regardless of how much mileage Quadrant can get out of it. You can find it boring, and that's fine, but you can't make me find it boring.
    - angry_octet 7y ago
s9w 7y ago
They (mediabiasfactcheck.com) literally called Politifact and Snopes neutral.

right wing bad! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.

briandear 7y ago

Should we post “left bias” from The NY Times, Washington Post, Citylab, et al? This is exactly what’s wrong with society, especially among the so-called smart people. What’s wrong with a right bias? Doesn’t that enlighten the conversation? Is it possible that there a lot of good ideas from another side of the spectrum of ideas? Why do we call out “right bias?” Why not just let people think for themselves. Apparently that’s not allowed — anything veering even a slight bit right from the left of center or far left gets belittled and chastised. Open your mind. It seems the tolerance of the left is a myth.

briandear 7y ago
And the downvotes prove the point.
angry_octet 7y ago
It's possible to have a right wing bias piece without it being claptrap, which this clearly is. There are plenty of conservative writers at the NYT/Wapo and dozens institutions like Hoover, if they write something HN relevant, submit it. In fact, I'll submit some myself right now and see how they fare. But don't choose this article as the 'HN is too woke' hill to die on.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  What claptrap? Satanism and occultism on particular is intricately interleaved with many of the greatest thinkers from that time period. These influences are generally understated and coming to understand this relationship has done a great deal to improve my regard for the value imparted by both both of these ideologies. If you take a minute to step outside your kneejerk reactions, you might learn something here, regardless of any bias by this particular author.
  - angry_octet 7y ago
    If you think this article (or the book) is a serious exploration of the clash of ideology inherent in feminism in a time of deep religious oppression, well bless your heart.

strken 7y ago

Quadrant is biased in the same way that Jacobin is biased. It should extremely obvious to everyone who reads it that it takes liberties when picking and choosing sources, that most of the authors have an axe to grind, and that it's exactly the kind of rag that would publish climate change denial just to be contrarian. It also has a reasonably high standard of writing, cites sources, and digs up some fascinating things in its attempts to wage war on the left. It's an interesting propaganda machine, which elevates it above boring propaganda machines like Breitbart or the Daily Kos.

gatherhunterer 7y ago
> digs up some fascinating things in its attempts to wage war on the left Oof. You've missed the point. They don't want anything except clicks and your reasons for giving them what they want don't matter to them. You're just another sucker who clicks around in the void of misinformation and bias.
angry_octet 7y ago
I think it is a mistake to give more credit to sites just because they can engage in sophisticated sophistry, have MAs from reputable old universities, and have their citations done neatly. Personally, I find the propaganda the Quadrant writers spout rather boring. Breitbart at least has joie de vivre. I don't really think people reading HN should be subjected to pseudo intellectual hate speech like this. It doesn't add to any meaningful debate in society in general or the tech sphere.
- strken 7y ago
  It sent me down a rabbithole of wikipedia articles about theosophy and satanism, so I like it. The framing of satan as representative of rebellion, personal agency, and freedom in the face of established order interests me, regardless of how much mileage Quadrant can get out of it. You can find it boring, and that's fine, but you can't make me find it boring.
  - angry_octet 7y ago

s9w 7y ago

They (mediabiasfactcheck.com) literally called Politifact and Snopes neutral.