3 ms·

But you didn't just say "all major news outlets", you also said "all websites". Which is to say, all people. If you believe that, why then trust your own assess

But you didn't just say "all major news outlets", you also said "all websites". Which is to say, all people. If you believe that, why then trust your own assessment of the situation? If you believe you yourself are genuinely interested in knowing the truth as objectively as possible, why could this not apply to others, as well? Yes, the world is complex, that's why I think "left and right" is too simple a dichotomy. It leaves out more than it covers, and adding a lot of biased sources together doesn't necessarily cancel the bias out, leaving the facts. Say you read articles of each "side" about colony collapse disorder -- where on that spectrum do statements of actual beekeepers fit in? Or hey, consider well sourced articles on Wikipedia, say, about skin colors and "races".. not a fun ride for racists. Does that make Wikipedia "leftist"? Or is it rather that reality is "leftist" in that case? If you go back to the original meaning of the words, right basically means supporting the status quo and special privilege (the king, that is), and left being against it. Since then it has come to mean all sorts of things for all sorts of people. Is someone who is against abortion and for gay marriage in the US a liberal or a conservative? Are they liberal on gay marriage while being conservative on abortion? If you allow for such granularity, you are back to reading articles by individidual authors -- even a "left-wing" newspaper can publish a "right-wing" article, and none of them will ever publish the perspective of someone who thinks all objects are just delusions of the mind, that there exists nothing but everything, because such a person would not bother to write, and nobody would understand it. > The Guardian makes a loss, but someone is footing the bill - what does that someone want you to think? In this case, we can at least find out what the trust wants you to think that they want you to think it: http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/the-scott-trust/values/ http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/the-scott-trust/values/ Granted, everybody says that.. But that doesn't mean everybody is lying or deluding themselves about it, and if it does, it includes you and me, too, and we're back at square one.

gaius 13y ago
Interesting choice of example, because there are multiple perspectives on it. One says "teh drug companies are EEVIL, killing bees for PROFITS" and that may or may not be true, but there's also the explanation of varroa mites spreading viruses, which may or may not be the root cause - we just don't know yet. And the "solution" might turn out to be that the drug companies devise a way to protect the bees by targeting the mites. The world is complex. Incidentally, right and left mean which side of the House of Commons the parties sit - whoever is in government now, sits on the right and the opposition on the left. So you see the absurdity - the last government was the left on the right...

gaius 13y ago

Interesting choice of example, because there are multiple perspectives on it. One says "teh drug companies are EEVIL, killing bees for PROFITS" and that may or may not be true, but there's also the explanation of varroa mites spreading viruses, which may or may not be the root cause - we just don't know yet. And the "solution" might turn out to be that the drug companies devise a way to protect the bees by targeting the mites. The world is complex. Incidentally, right and left mean which side of the House of Commons the parties sit - whoever is in government now, sits on the right and the opposition on the left. So you see the absurdity - the last government was the left on the right...