4 ms·

To rise above bias one does not need to be superhuman - simply stop relying on opinions. It's not hard. This is, for instance, how the NYTimes developed such a

To rise above bias one does not need to be superhuman - simply stop relying on opinions. It's not hard. This is, for instance, how the NYTimes developed such a stellar reputation that they have long since squandered. This [1] is an article from them on the Titanic. Outside of some pointless comments on the wireless operator, it's just a perfect article and source. It's only modern times that we've increasingly normalized putting emotion, opinion, and so ahead of reality. One need only look at the latest wars for rather extreme illustrations of such. Literally everything I have cited has been a fact, while most things you have sourced have been not only opinions, but opinions that should be expected to be anything but impartial. Some of the few facts you have offered are also misleading. For instance you mention that "On June 29, 1894, Debs hosted a peaceful meeting to rally support for the strike from railroad workers at Blue Island, Illinois." Calling it a peaceful meeting is not only an opinion, and also an intentionally misleading one. That meeting is quite relevant, because at its conclusion - the workers set out to riot - setting fire to local buildings and derailing a train. [2] That event is actually what triggered the government crackdown, as the locomotive they derailed was carrying US Mail. It's like wherever Debs went, violence followed! Finally I would also say that it increasingly feels like you're engaging in active cognitive dissonance. You're half arguing that they didn't engage in violence, and then half arguing that - well they had to engage in violence! [1] - https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0415.html https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general... [2] - https://www.britannica.com/event/Pullman-Strike https://www.britannica.com/event/Pullman-Strike

AlbertCory 3y ago
> Literally everything I have cited has been a fact You have "literally" continued ignoring the evidence that your facts are wrong, e.g. about what Debs' six-month sentence was for (contempt of court, not for inciting violence). He was never convicted for conspiracy or inciting violence, because Pullman refused to testify. > locomotive they derailed was carrying US Mail aside from the pedantic fact that locomotives don't carry mail; mail cars do: The union consistently said that it didn't object to mail cars. It was having a Pullman car attached that was unacceptable. > wherever Debs went, violence followed! since he stayed in Chicago while violence was all over, that's certainly not "literally true."
- somenameforme 3y ago
  The contempt of court charge he was convicted of was for disobeying a court injunction to stop "ordering, directing, aiding, assisting, or abetting" the strikes, which had since turned increasingly violent and riotous! That is extremely noteworthy in a time when the courts were much more judicious, and Debs had the clout, influence, and connections expected of a high profile man and former state Congressman! Even overtly violent criminals like Al Capone were never able to be convicted of anything even indirectly related to violence. Also, I did not misspeak when I said locomotive. The rioters, after setting fire to buildings, did literally derail the entire locomotive. And this locomotive had a US mail car. Again you pay too much attention to words. You're completely right that the Union said they didn't object to anything except Pullman cars. They would have also said they don't support setting buildings on fire. Yet, a brief meeting with Debs and off goes his followers to set buildings on fire, derail entire locomotives - including those carrying US mail, and partaking in general hooliganism. This is yet more evidence of why words are utterly irrelevant.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    Once again you demonstrate how little you know about this. You are just a troll who wants attention. I'm sorry I've given you even this much, but that's all you're getting. Go away.

AlbertCory 3y ago

> Literally everything I have cited has been a fact You have "literally" continued ignoring the evidence that your facts are wrong, e.g. about what Debs' six-month sentence was for (contempt of court, not for inciting violence). He was never convicted for conspiracy or inciting violence, because Pullman refused to testify. > locomotive they derailed was carrying US Mail aside from the pedantic fact that locomotives don't carry mail; mail cars do: The union consistently said that it didn't object to mail cars. It was having a Pullman car attached that was unacceptable. > wherever Debs went, violence followed! since he stayed in Chicago while violence was all over, that's certainly not "literally true."

somenameforme 3y ago
The contempt of court charge he was convicted of was for disobeying a court injunction to stop "ordering, directing, aiding, assisting, or abetting" the strikes, which had since turned increasingly violent and riotous! That is extremely noteworthy in a time when the courts were much more judicious, and Debs had the clout, influence, and connections expected of a high profile man and former state Congressman! Even overtly violent criminals like Al Capone were never able to be convicted of anything even indirectly related to violence. Also, I did not misspeak when I said locomotive. The rioters, after setting fire to buildings, did literally derail the entire locomotive. And this locomotive had a US mail car. Again you pay too much attention to words. You're completely right that the Union said they didn't object to anything except Pullman cars. They would have also said they don't support setting buildings on fire. Yet, a brief meeting with Debs and off goes his followers to set buildings on fire, derail entire locomotives - including those carrying US mail, and partaking in general hooliganism. This is yet more evidence of why words are utterly irrelevant.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Once again you demonstrate how little you know about this. You are just a troll who wants attention. I'm sorry I've given you even this much, but that's all you're getting. Go away.