5 ms·
> My litmus test for what sources to believe has narrowed to ones which declare both good and bad actions by any parties. Doesn't pass the sniff test. There's
by mulmen 2y ago
> My litmus test for what sources to believe has narrowed to ones which declare both good and bad actions by any parties.
Doesn't pass the sniff test. There's no guarantee that any relevant impropriety took place on the part of both parties and even if it exists there is no requirement that it justifies the other's actions. This false balance just serves to blame victims and excuse abusers.
Consider: Is it important to note that a robbery victim also received a parking ticket in her past?
> Cops can abuse surveillance authorities and protestors can be violent. There's no requirement that only one party does bad things.
Ok but where is the evidence that both parties did something bad? And that the response of the cops was justified and appropriate?
The real problem here is that this is bad policing. They aren't improving public safety, they're harassing their political opponents.
- ethbr1 2y agoDidn't write anything about justification. Just wrote that typically anyone with power abuses it. And that includes both sides. I've seen too many movements convinced of their own righteousness and neglect keeping their house in order. Or have you never seen a group who tolerates problematic individuals (and keeps silence about them) because they're "one of the group"?
- mulmen 2y agoThis still sounds like faulty logic. The existence of bias in one case doesn't prove it in all cases. Sometimes there really is just an innocent victim. Further, there's no reason to believe there are two sides to any issue. Reality is messy. Your test is too simplistic and fails basic validation.
- ethbr1 2y ago> The existence of bias in one case doesn't prove it in all cases. It proves a source has an editorial department that is either fine with the piece as written or didn't do due diligence. Rarely is there really just an innocent victim. Reality is messy.