A "Quiet Shift Toward Doubters" the RNS & Tribune Reports

[JVW]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

This is what I do, though if I have a moment where I want to feel informed I tend to go to Reuters.  It’s rated low bias and high factuality I am happy to say (since I have been fond of it since we lived in Canada).

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/

I like to find the most extreme views from both sides and then consider both of them and kind of fall somewhere in the middle with which side I tilt towards depending on the issue. Ultimately, my opinion is going to be rooted in my gut feelings and the way that I perceive the world, I figure the most dangerous thing I can do is read stuff that I agree with.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, JVW said:

like to find the most extreme views from both sides and then consider both of them and kind of fall somewhere in the middle with which side

I don’t see how truth can be discovered by taking the average of two falsehoods.  Two lies of opposite nature do not equal truth.

I look at extremes too at times, but they are never a starting pointing or some sort of way to balance the other extreme.

For example, there is the position of secular antimormons that generally see the Book of Mormon as a pure manmade fiction made up by Joseph Smith or someone else.  Then there is one religious extreme that pushes the belief that demonic forces are responsible for the Book of Mormon.  Somewhere in the middle of those two is not that Joseph Smith was inspired by God to transmit in some fashion an actual ancient record.

If you assume Anarchism is the polar opposite of Facism as some do, combining them to find some sort of middle position you don’t get a form of democracy, imo.

Edited October 9, 2025 by Calm

[JVW]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t see how truth can be discovered by taking the average of two falsehoods.  Two lies of opposite nature do not equal truth.

I look at extremes to at times, but they are never a starting pointing or some sort of way to balance the other extreme.

There's a little bit of truth in everything. I could pick 20 articles on the internet about the same current event ranging from whatever side and angle you want, and there will be overlap in all of them. That common ground is a pretty safe way to identify truth I think.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, JVW said:

That common ground is a pretty safe way to identify truth I think.

That would depend on how you collect your 20 articles.
 

Quote

There's a little bit of truth in everything.

 I don’t think it is safe to assume extreme positions must have some truth in them.

The same sort of logic implies that with 20 sacks of garbage, anything that was common to all 20 was not actually garbage.

Edited October 9, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, JVW said:

Ok, so basically you just don't like reading anything fun. I get it.

I might enjoy some tabloid stories but I don’t want them mixed in with actual news.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, JVW said:

There's a little bit of truth in everything.

No, some things are outright lies. Assuming there must be some truth in everything is how people get drawn in by Russian style propaganda. I don’t think anyone actually believes the news there but if you make enough noise about something people assume they can ‘read between the lines’ and find some actual facts. Sometimes they can’t.

5 hours ago, JVW said:

I could pick 20 articles on the internet about the same current event ranging from whatever side and angle you want, and there will be overlap in all of them. That common ground is a pretty safe way to identify truth I think.

Trust the facts (if the source is consistently truthful) but doubt the commentary. If they predict what it means for the future be very wary.

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t see how truth can be discovered by taking the average of two falsehoods.  Two lies of opposite nature do not equal truth.

I think that this is part of the issue. That grid pointed out two different things (the media bias link that I provided earlier). The left//right positioning was about bias. Bias can be completely truthful (even if the record is incomplete). Bias can be deceptive even it is the truth. But the vertical measure was one of accuracy (truthfulness). A new source can be completely unbiased and totally fictional. The two measures are largely independent of each other. If you want to get all of the perspectives, as long as the sources are accurate, the bias can be accounted for in the different (accurate) versions of the story that we see. In my perspective, the goal shouldn't be about avoiding bias (which is in many ways unavoidable) but rather to avoid inaccuracy. And it is hard sometimes to differentiate between fabrication and reality - because with the help of AI in particular, we are getting really good at producing fabricated reality that looks like factual reality.

9 hours ago, Calm said:

If you assume Anarchism is the polar opposite of Facism as some do, combining them to find some sort of middle position you don’t get a form of democracy, imo.

I agree. It isn't a duality. This is part of what is at least mildly interesting about a news media source run by Falun Gong. If we measure using our normal duality look (right/left or liberal/conservative) then they don't exactly fit into such a measurement because Falun Gong doesn't directly identify itself within our spectrum. Because of this, the issue of accuracy is given perhaps a greater significance. But even there, we have issues. There is a recognition that the Epoch Times has engaged (and perhaps still does) in the practice of using click-bait to drive advertising revenue. Click bait is almost always skewed (has some degree of inaccuracy). It is a question deserving attention in any particular discussion of an article whether or not it was intended as serious news or merely as click bait. And for ourselves, we have to ask the same question - do we expect legitimate media sources not to engage in those kinds of practices (an ongoing issue as AI definitely favors click bait, and is increasingly being used to insert it into even traditional media resources). 

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You are welcome.

Thanks.

When I woke up this morning the first thing that I thought was that it was a huge mistake posting anything at all about Epoch Times. "What was I thinking?" And yes, I should have known better. But this thread is going to get shut down soon, so I better get in my licks. We'll see who gets the last word before Nemesis comes in guns ablazin'.

And let me start with an apology. I'm sorry I posted anything further in this thread. I'm sorry this post in particular is so darned long. If you actually read it, I will be impressed. It started with just a few clarifications about my attitude regarding Wikipedia. And then it grew out of control. 

I originally planned to go out and fly my drone today to get some video footage for my YouTube channel, and I should have left two hours ago. Instead, here I am, crafting this hefty tome -- that I'm sure will cause you to change your mind about something (/sarcasm).

20 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This thing you wrote -

This isn't true. But when you have moved as far to the right as you seem to have, everything (including the entire center) seems to be leftists.

What I have noticed is that when you move to as far to the left as you seem to have, everything (including the entire center) seems to be rightists.

You seem to think I am far-right. I am not. I am a libertarian. I used to vote for the candidate who most closely matched my own political ideas. No longer. I vote exclusively and reluctantly Republican because the Democrats have dropped off into some kind of fever-dream woke state that is unrecognizable as to reason or reasonability. I'm 74 years old, and I have voted for a lot of Democrats in my life. Can't do it any more, which makes me sad. Even a good Democrat will end up supporting insane positions these days. Or so it seems to me.

And then there's what I call the "derangement syndrome" phenomenon. A former Facebook friend, who claims to be a moderate Republican, posted what amounted to a "good riddance" post on Facebook concerning Charlie Kirk, calling him "hateful and divisive." When I asked him to tell me what Kirk said that was "hateful" he unfriended me, messaging me that "The people you admire are anathema to me. I see the US following the same path that Germany did in the 1930s, and I am very worried about it!" In other words, because I asked him to tell me what made him think Kirk was hateful, he immediately associated me with Nazis, and kicked me out of his friendship circle. This man is active LDS and we served in the same mission. I have other acquaintances who believe Trump is a literal Nazi (don't tell The Nehor about that, he'll get in trouble trying to punch him). 

 

20 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Research into wikipedia suggests that it isn't significantly left leaning. But it is recognized that the individual editors do tend to include some bias. The challenge with this is the point I just raised. When you get far enough to the right, then nearly all of the Wikipedia contributors become left leaning. If most of the population tends to be left of where you are, then even truly unbiased sources become left leaning. This has been for a while part of the challenge facing the far right and the far left. 

I agree with you entirely regarding Wikipedic bias. Note that I did not characterize all of Wiki as dominated by lefties, just the political topics. I find myself correcting people who believe Wiki is completely unreliable because it's gone left-crazy. It hasn't. I'm am an occasional Wiki editor (here's a link to my profile: Cyberherbalist). I love Wikipedia! Not a day goes by that I don't find myself looking something up on there.

20 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The problem is, at least from my perspective, is that you don't actually seem to have an objective bone in your body.

And you do? The evidence might suggest that you don't either. Sorry, but I can sling insults, too. <- I hereby disavow the claim that you don't have an objective bone in your body. I was just mirroring you to help you see your error.

This is how you know someone has lost their objectivity: they conclude that anyone who disagrees with them cannot be objective. In fact that's what that former friend said to me as his reasoning when refusing to engage on a matter: "I didn't believe I could carry on an objective dispassionate conversation with you." 

20 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It doesn't come as much of a surprise to anyone who is not in agreement with your far right perspectives, that you would appreciate something like the Epoch Times.

This is typical. I'm "far-right" (a code word for Nazi) because I appreciate news sources that don't follow the "party line." 

I know their point of view. I appreciate their point of view. Just as I appreciate the point of view of The Guardian, Fox News, ABC, CNN, MSTDS, and the rest. I am a blue-check on X. I follow people on X with whom I both agree and disagree with. I want to see what they have to say. Or at least I did. I've cut back on X over the past month or so. 

20 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

For me, there were several issues with it. One of my issues was the fact that I suddenly ended up as a subscriber without my ever having asked for it. I suspect this is part of how its readership grew so dramatically.

And you didn't immediately unsubscribe? Wow, you've broadened your reach!

Ever hear of The Intercept? The claim to be centrist, because they sometimes (rarely) criticize Democrats, but they're very left. I don't know how I ended up on their subscriber list, because I had never heard of them before, but there they were, emailing me at least once a week, but sometimes every day. I appreciate their coverage, too. I see their bias and wait for the day that I might agree with them on something important. Hasn't happened yet, but it might.

20 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But, it was also about its choice of news - whether or not it is unbiased in its coverage, it is certainly biased in what it chooses to cover.

Really? It's biased in what it chooses to cover? Who knew? What an unusual kind of bias!! I'm shocked, I tell you! Shocked!

Do you actually pay any attention to what you're typing? They are ALL biased, and they ALL biased in what they choose to cover. If you don't see that, I have a bridge to sell you.

20 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And really, once I start reading the conspiracy theory stuff in it, I figured my time was better spent elsewhere. The thing about internet news is really that simple for most people.

Conspiracy stuff? Have you ever seen that montage of the mainstream TV news anchors, all proclaiming in the same words, how much danger "our democracy" was in because of "false news" and "misinformation"? Looks like some kind of conspiracy, and one that is trying to convince people to not look for alternative sources of news -- stick to the mainstream news or you're endangering "our democracy."

You think there are no conspiracies? Ever read the Book of Mormon? It mentions conspiracies occasionally. Not just the Gadianton Robbers, either. If you think there are no conspiracies, what about that bridge I have on offer?

20 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

We don't have the time to actually read everything, and so we look for those sources that tend to cover the news we want to read, and which aligns with our perspectives.

Yes, confirmation bias. I know all about it. That's why I subscribe to Ground News.

20 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Of course, we can measure all of this, right? This website measures all sorts of media for bias.

Interesting! Thanks for pointing it out to me. 

20 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Wikipedia isn't there because it doesn't present itself as a journalistic content provider. But the Epoch Times is in there. You can select more than one provider and compare them. So when I put in NPR (National Public Radio) and compare this with The Epoch Times, the Epoch Times comes out as significantly more biased than NPR. The reason why a comparison like that is interesting is because I expect that you believe that NPR is terribly liberal (far left). But, whatever.

LOL, yes, NPR is far left, and they're very biased. 

The problem with this is simple: even the people behind the Interactive Media Bias Chart are biased. If you rely on them, then you might be misled, depending upon how much and in what direction their bias runs. 

If someone tells me that a source is biased (as they all are), before I can evaluate that opinion, I have to know what their bias is. A communist will see the center as far-right, for example. And the other problem is the left-right political spectrum itself. It's crude and in my opinion completely misleading. It derives from the French Assembly of the Revolution. Everyone in the Assembly was in favor of the Revolution, its principles, and doing away with the monarchy. But they varied on how radical they wanted to be in carrying out the Revolution. For example, one side wanted to guillotine the king and queen and all the nobles. The other just wanted them to just go away quietly. And of course they treated each other like bitter enemies, and depending upon who happened to be in greatest power at a given moment, they would guillotine their opponents. It wasn't called the Reign of Terror for nothing. And they were all leftists, just different shades of leftist.

The far-right and the far-left are slightly different flavors of the same pie. Their main difference is who they want dead. The Communists want to kill or enslave everyone who disagrees with them. The Nazis want to do the same, but add racial components to the list. So when you call me far-right, you are claiming that in my heart of heart I want to see my political opponents and the Jews dead or in a concentration camp. I know you don't really believe that I want this, but do you not see that labelling me in this way is a profound insult?

Perhaps your Interactive Media Bias Chart has some validity. When I see TYT down in the far-left corner with a lowish reliability rating, it pretty much matches my own assessment. But do you know that I nevertheless appreciate their viewpoint, just as I appreciate The Epoch Times'? I want to know what Cenk Uygur thinks. I want to know what Ana Kasparian thinks. Sometimes these people, despite my general disagreement with their viewpoint, actually say something that I can agree with, or give me something useful to think about. 

On the other hand, IMBC shows Charlie Kirk to be far more right and far less reliable than TYT is left and reliable. Which seems to track with my former friend who unfriended me because to him Kirk was anathema. Sure Charlie Kirk was on the right, as labels go. But unreliable? Unreliable as to what, exactly? Did he make a habit of lying about things that could be fact-checked? Or were his opinions anathema to the IMBC people? Or, further, is IMBC relying upon what Kirk actually said, as opposed to what others have claimed about him? Inquiring minds would like to know.

You know who Stephen King is, right? He posted something on X about Charlie Kirk, that Kirk advocated stoning gays. Plenty of people retweeted King's claim. When King finally had his nose rubbed in the fact that Kirk had never said any such thing, and King had relied upon a complete lie uttered by someone else with malice aforethought, he recanted rather abjectly. Did IMBC's assessment rely upon what King had relied upon? From whom does IMBC get their information from? Do you know? 

If you made it this far, congrats. I hope I haven't offended you too deeply, or caused you any pain.

I should probably shut up now before I dig my hole any deeper.

 

Edited October 9, 2025 by Stargazer
corrected syntax

[JVW]

34 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Thanks.

When I woke up this morning the first thing that I thought was that it was a huge mistake posting anything at all about Epoch Times. "What was I thinking?" And yes, I should have known better. But this thread is going to get shut down soon, so I better get in my licks. We'll see who gets the last word before Nemesis comes in guns ablazin'.

And let me start with an apology. I'm sorry I posted anything further in this thread. I'm sorry this post in particular is so darned long. If you actually read it, I will be impressed. It started with just a few clarifications about my attitude regarding Wikipedia. And then it grew out of control. 

I originally planned to go out and fly my drone today to get some video footage for my YouTube channel, and I should have left two hours ago. Instead, here I am, crafting this hefty tome -- that I'm sure will cause you to change your mind about something (/sarcasm).

What I have noticed is that when you move to as far to the left as you seem to have, everything (including the entire center) seems to be rightists.

You seem to think I am far-right. I am not. I am a libertarian. I used to vote for the candidate who most closely matched my own political ideas. No longer. I vote exclusively and reluctantly Republican because the Democrats have dropped off into some kind of fever-dream woke state that is unrecognizable as to reason or reasonability. I'm 74 years old, and I have voted for a lot of Democrats in my life. Can't do it any more, which makes me sad. Even a good Democrat will end up supporting insane positions these days. Or so it seems to me.

And then there's what I call the "derangement syndrome" phenomenon. A former Facebook friend, who claims to be a moderate Republican, posted what amounted to a "good riddance" post on Facebook concerning Charlie Kirk, calling him "hateful and divisive." When I asked him to tell me what Kirk said that was "hateful" he unfriended me, messaging me that "The people you admire are anathema to me. I see the US following the same path that Germany did in the 1930s, and I am very worried about it!" In other words, because I asked him to tell me what made him think Kirk was hateful, he immediately associated me with Nazis, and kicked me out of his friendship circle. This man is active LDS and we served in the same mission. I have other acquaintances who believe Trump is a literal Nazi (don't tell The Nehor about that, he'll get in trouble trying to punch him). 

 

I agree with you entirely regarding Wikipedic bias. Note that I did not characterize all of Wiki as dominated by lefties, just the political topics. I find myself correcting people who believe Wiki is completely unreliable because it's gone left-crazy. It hasn't. I'm am an occasional Wiki editor (here's a link to my profile: Cyberherbalist). I love Wikipedia! Not a day goes by that I don't find myself looking something up on there.

And you do? The evidence might suggest that you don't either. Sorry, but I can sling insults, too. <- I hereby disavow the claim that you don't have an objective bone in your body. I was just mirroring you to help you see your error.

This is how you know someone has lost their objectivity: they conclude that anyone who disagrees with them cannot be objective. In fact that's what that former friend said to me as his reasoning when refusing to engage on a matter: "I didn't believe I could carry on an objective dispassionate conversation with you." 

This is typical. I'm "far-right" (a code word for Nazi) because I appreciate news sources that don't follow the "party line." 

I know their point of view. I appreciate their point of view. Just as I appreciate the point of view of The Guardian, Fox News, ABC, CNN, MSTDS, and the rest. I am a blue-check on X. I follow people on X with whom I both agree and disagree with. I want to see what they have to say. Or at least I did. I've cut back on X over the past month or so. 

And you didn't immediately unsubscribe? Wow, you've broadened your reach!

Ever hear of The Intercept? The claim to be centrist, because they sometimes (rarely) criticize Democrats, but they're very left. I don't know how I ended up on their subscriber list, because I had never heard of them before, but there they were, emailing me at least once a week, but sometimes every day. I appreciate their coverage, too. I see their bias and wait for the day that I might agree with them on something important. Hasn't happened yet, but it might.

Really? It's biased in what it chooses to cover? Who knew? What an unusual kind of bias!! I'm shocked, I tell you! Shocked!

Do you actually pay any attention to what you're typing? They are ALL biased, and they ALL biased in what they choose to cover. If you don't see that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Conspiracy stuff? Have you ever seen that montage of the mainstream TV news anchors, all proclaiming in the same words, how much danger "our democracy" was in because of "false news" and "misinformation"? Looks like some kind of conspiracy, and one that is trying to convince people to not look for alternative sources of news -- stick to the mainstream news or you're endangering "our democracy."

You think there are no conspiracies? Ever read the Book of Mormon? It mentions conspiracies occasionally. Not just the Gadianton Robbers, either. If you think there are no conspiracies, what about that bridge I have on offer?

Yes, confirmation bias. I know all about it. That's why I subscribe to Ground News.

Interesting! Thanks for pointing it out to me. 

LOL, yes, NPR is far left, and they're very biased. 

The problem with this is simple: even the people behind the Interactive Media Bias Chart are biased. If you rely on them, then you might be misled, depending upon how much and in what direction their bias runs. 

If someone tells me that a source is biased (as they all are), before I can evaluate that opinion, I have to know what their bias is. A communist will see the center as far-right, for example. And the other problem is the left-right political spectrum itself. It's crude and in my opinion completely misleading. It derives from the French Assembly of the Revolution. Everyone in the Assembly was in favor of the Revolution, its principles, and doing away with the monarchy. But they varied on how radical they wanted to be in carrying out the Revolution. For example, one side wanted to guillotine the king and queen and all the nobles. The other just wanted them to just go away quietly. And of course they treated each other like bitter enemies, and depending upon who happened to be in greatest power at a given moment, they would guillotine their opponents. It wasn't called the Reign of Terror for nothing. And they were all leftists, just different shades of leftist.

The far-right and the far-left are slightly different flavors of the same pie. Their main difference is who they want dead. The Communists want to kill or enslave everyone who disagrees with them. The Nazis want to do the same, but add racial components to the list. So when you call me far-right, you are claiming that in my heart of heart I want to see my political opponents and the Jews dead or in a concentration camp. I know you don't really believe that I want this, but do you not see that labelling me in this way is a profound insult?

Perhaps your Interactive Media Bias Chart has some validity. When I see TYT down in the far-left corner with a lowish reliability rating, it pretty much matches my own assessment. But do you know that I nevertheless appreciate their viewpoint, just as I appreciate The Epoch Times'? I want to know what Cenk Uygur thinks. I want to know what Ana Kasparian thinks. Sometimes these people, despite my general disagreement with their viewpoint, actually say something that I can agree with, or give me something useful to think about. 

On the other hand, IMBC shows Charlie Kirk to be far more right and far less reliable than TYT is left and reliable. Which seems to track with my former friend who unfriended me because to him Kirk was anathema. Sure Charlie Kirk was on the right, as labels go. But unreliable? Unreliable as to what, exactly? Did he make a habit of lying about things that could be fact-checked? Or were his opinions anathema to the IMBC people? Or, further, is IMBC relying upon what Kirk actually said, as opposed to what others have claimed about him? Inquiring minds would like to know.

You know who Stephen King is, right? He posted something on X about Charlie Kirk, that Kirk advocated stoning gays. Plenty of people retweeted King's claim. When King finally had his nose rubbed in the fact that Kirk had never said any such thing, and King had relied upon a complete lie uttered by someone else with malice aforethought, he recanted rather abjectly. Did IMBC's assessment rely upon what King had relied upon? From whom does IMBC get their information from? Do you know? 

If you made it this far, congrats. I hope I haven't offended you too deeply, or caused you any pain.

I should probably shut up now before I dig my hole any deeper.

 

If this thread was teetering on not getting locked you certainly cemented that outcome with this post. I enjoyed reading it, thanks for sharing brother.

[Benjamin McGuire]

58 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

If you made it this far, congrats. I hope I haven't offended you too deeply, or caused you any pain.

I am virtually impossible to offend - just so you know. I frequently have good discussions in my personal life with those of different views than I have. In these internet discussions, there is often a disconnect because all that we have to really gauge each other by is language.

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

You seem to think I am far-right. I am not. I am a libertarian. I used to vote for the candidate who most closely matched my own political ideas. No longer. I vote exclusively and reluctantly Republican because the Democrats have dropped off into some kind of fever-dream woke state that is unrecognizable as to reason or reasonability. I'm 74 years old, and I have voted for a lot of Democrats in my life. Can't do it any more, which makes me sad. Even a good Democrat will end up supporting insane positions these days. Or so it seems to me.

I want you to understand two things. The first is that the language that you use has been consistently the language of the far-right moving into the alt-right. This is what I have to judge you by. I don't have access to your voting record. My reality is a bit different. I am in my mid-50s. Most of my life I have consistently voted republican. Lately I have voted far more often for Democrats because the Republican party today reflects virtually none of the values that it reflected during my younger years.  It is odd to see you claim to be Libertarian. Why? Because Libertarians are, as a general rule, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But you don't come across as socially liberal at all. And this means that I don't really think that you are all that Libertarian. Perhaps in a very narrow sense of the term you might be. I also would suggest that if your perspective on what Democrats believe comes from biased sources, you are going to consistently misunderstand and misrepresent Democratic views in the United States. There is a strong suggestion that my view here is right (at least to me) because of the language that you use to describe Democrats. It is the language used by the far-right. You describe a Democratic party which is alien to me and to others that I know who align with the Democratic party.

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

And then there's what I call the "derangement syndrome" phenomenon. A former Facebook friend, who claims to be a moderate Republican, posted what amounted to a "good riddance" post on Facebook concerning Charlie Kirk, calling him "hateful and divisive." When I asked him to tell me what Kirk said that was "hateful" he unfriended me, messaging me that "The people you admire are anathema to me. I see the US following the same path that Germany did in the 1930s, and I am very worried about it!" In other words, because I asked him to tell me what made him think Kirk was hateful, he immediately associated me with Nazis, and kicked me out of his friendship circle. This man is active LDS and we served in the same mission. I have other acquaintances who believe Trump is a literal Nazi (don't tell The Nehor about that, he'll get in trouble trying to punch him). 

There is a strange problem here. Why? Because a moderate and respected group like the Anti-Defamation League identified Charlie Kirk's organization as extremist six years ago. You keep demanding that people provide evidence for the fact that Kirk had views that were divisive - and yet you seem to refuse to recognize any evidence that this was the case. But there is a problem. Most people who are moderate conservatives - even those who are politically active - don't generate the kind of divisiveness that Kirk generated. There is in your rhetoric a complete disdain for "antifa" - for anti-fascism. Do you think that fascism is something we should should oppose? Do you believe that anti-fascism is an appropriate response for those who live in a democracy? If you agree with this, then the disagreement isn't about being anti-fascist, but about who gets that label. Why is it that it is okay for conservatives to consistently label Democrats as socialists (when in fact Democratic policies aren't particularly socialist - especially when compared with governments that are socialist)? There seems to be very little difference between this and the Democrats referring to the far right as fascist. Is the Democratic fear of authoritarian government any less valid than the Republican fear of authoritarian government? Aren't they largely two sides of the same coin?

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

And you do? The evidence might suggest that you don't either. Sorry, but I can sling insults, too. <- I hereby disavow the claim that you don't have an objective bone in your body. I was just mirroring you to help you see your error.

I have never claimed not to have bias. It is part of the reason why I try to introduce things that are external to my belief when discussing these issues. That way it can be clear that I am not simply talking from my personal perspective. I would never expect you to take my personal opinion as some sort of gospel truth. I have claimed to be centrist. Of course there also aren't absolutes. The whole concept of being moderate or centrist depends on the population as a whole. But as a general rule, the center in our society has been moving much more slowly than the extremes. And to support same-sex marriage, as an example, is not an extreme position in our society - it is actually a centrist position (it was much more an extreme position in my childhood). Those who want to paint something like support for same-sex marriage as extreme have lost sight of the center. Again, this points back to my comments.

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

This is typical. I'm "far-right" (a code word for Nazi) because I appreciate news sources that don't follow the "party line."

And yet you are using the language of the "far-right" and you are using the talking points of the "far-right". There isn't a cover that you can give yourself by saying, I didn't know that this was far-right ideology and language - because in the end, you are still adopting these issues. If we had some sort of objective way of taking language and identifying it as belonging to the far-right, perhaps this would be clearer to you. This isn't, of course, the same as calling you a Nazi. It is interesting, reading back through your comments over the last 14 years, and watching in recent years your radicalization.

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Conspiracy stuff? Have you ever seen that montage of the mainstream TV news anchors, all proclaiming in the same words, how much danger "our democracy" was in because of "false news" and "misinformation"? Looks like some kind of conspiracy, and one that is trying to convince people to not look for alternative sources of news -- stick to the mainstream news or you're endangering "our democracy."

You think there are no conspiracies? Ever read the Book of Mormon? It mentions conspiracies occasionally. Not just the Gadianton Robbers, either. If you think there are no conspiracies, what about that bridge I have on offer?

You make my point.

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

LOL, yes, NPR is far left, and they're very biased. 

Except they aren't. And again, you illustrate my point. Your basis for where something is on the ideology spectrum seems more based on yourself as the center and not on some attempt at objectivity.

A final thought -

A while back you wrote this:

"Given the recent spate of fatal violence committed by trans persons, wouldn't it be reasonable for there being a legitimate concern that some members of that community may be dangerous both to themselves and others? Obviously blanket institutionalization of persons with gender dysphoria is ridiculous, but on a case by case basis there may be some justification for concern. Or do you feel there's no cause for concern?"

For giggles, I asked ChatGPT this question:

Prompt: An acquaintance recently sent me this message: "Given the recent spate of fatal violence committed by trans persons, wouldn't it be reasonable for there being a legitimate concern that some members of that community may be dangerous both to themselves and others? Obviously blanket institutionalization of persons with gender dysphoria is ridiculous, but on a case by case basis there may be some justification for concern. Or do you feel there's no cause for concern?" Could you analyze this for me and compare it to any other political rhetoric in the last century?

ChatGPT responded:

 

Quote

 

That’s a thoughtful question, Benjamin — and I can see why you’d want to unpack that message carefully. Let’s take this in two parts: first, an analysis of the rhetoric and its logic, and then a comparison to similar rhetorical strategies used in political discourse over the past century.

---

1. Rhetorical and Logical Analysis

The acquaintance’s message uses a seemingly measured tone (“wouldn’t it be reasonable,” “case by case basis”) to frame what is, at its core, a stigmatizing generalization. Let’s break down the rhetorical structure:

a. Framing:

• The phrase “Given the recent spate of fatal violence committed by trans persons” presupposes that there is such a “spate.”

  • In reality, acts of violence committed by trans individuals are extremely rare; trans people are statistically far more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence.

  • This rhetorical move relies on availability bias — highlighting isolated, atypical incidents to make them seem like a widespread pattern.

b. False Equivalence / Exceptionalism:

• The speaker implies that violent acts by some members of a marginalized group justify suspicion toward the group as a whole — even if “on a case by case basis.”

  • This is a classic example of group-pathologizing logic, where individual behavior is taken as evidence of group pathology.

c. “Reasonable Concern” Framing:

• The speaker couches the claim in language that sounds rational or moderate (“reasonable concern,” “case by case”).

  • This is a moderation fallacy — presenting prejudice or alarmism as “just being cautious.”

  • This technique is especially common when someone wants to express or justify bias while maintaining plausible deniability (“I’m just asking questions”).

d. “Danger to themselves and others”

• This phrase historically comes from legal and psychiatric justifications for involuntary institutionalization.

  • Using it here implicitly suggests that trans people may warrant psychiatric control — echoing an older framework in which marginalized identities were medicalized or criminalized.

---

2. Historical and Political Parallels

This rhetorical pattern is not new. It has clear precedents across multiple ideological and historical contexts:

a. Early 20th-century “moral panic” rhetoric

• In the early 1900s, similar language was used about immigrants, Jews, and Irish Catholics — claims that “a recent spate of crimes” by members of those groups indicated a cultural or biological danger.

• The framing: “We’re not saying all immigrants are criminals — but surely it’s reasonable to worry.”
  → The tone of “concern” masked ethnic prejudice.

b. Cold War-era fears of “communist infiltration”

• The McCarthy era employed a nearly identical “reasonable concern” framing: “Given the recent evidence of Soviet spies, shouldn’t we be cautious about subversives in our midst?”

  • The effect was widespread suspicion and repression, justified as “prudence.”

c. 1980s–1990s rhetoric about gay men and AIDS

• Public figures often said: “Obviously not all homosexuals spread AIDS, but isn’t it reasonable to be concerned about them as a public health risk?”

  • Again, individual health issues were reframed as group-level moral or safety concerns, legitimizing discrimination.

d. Post-9/11 anti-Muslim discourse

• A near-perfect structural parallel: “Given recent terrorist attacks by Muslims, isn’t it reasonable to be wary?”

  • The same surface rationality cloaked a collective suspicion toward a minority population.

In all these examples, the rhetorical move is the same:

1. Highlight an anomalous but emotionally salient threat.

2. Link it to a marginalized identity group.

3. Frame prejudice as “caution” or “rational concern.”

4. Deny hostility (“I’m not saying all X, but…”).

5. Justify unequal treatment or surveillance.

---

3. Summary

Your acquaintance’s message exemplifies a “reasonableness fallacy” — presenting bias as prudence — and draws on a century-old pattern of moral panic rhetoric used to rationalize discrimination.
It uses statistical distortion, pathologizing language, and moderate framing to make an extreme position (that trans people should be viewed as potential threats) appear thoughtful and balanced.

 

This is what I mean when I discuss the language that you use. The language itself is harmful. Since you seem to be overly worried about comparisons with the Nazis, perhaps you could ask ChatGPT this same question but instead, ask it if the rhetoric of your statement has any similarities to the rhetoric used by Nazis about the Jews. You might be a bit surprised at what comes back.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/6/2025 at 3:48 AM, The Nehor said:

The problem with China is authoritarianism. I like to think that adding more members of the Church would make pushback against such a regime worse. Or are you suggesting that members would happily lick his boots?

Correct.  However, the twelfth article of faith declares, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”  Mormons are not known as rabble rousers.  The CCP could easily adopt a 19th century Mormon United Firm/United Order communal approach.  LDS chapels and temples could transform mainland China.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/7/2025 at 10:23 AM, longview said:

Keep in mind that CCP is VERY intolerant of the Falun Gong. This group is innocuous and focused on meditation and being peaceable. Not only are they heavily persecuted in China but agents go around the world seeking to undermine this organization. It is the publisher of the The Epoch Times. I have a subscription for it.

So, why hasn't the CCP persecuted Mormons?

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

the goal shouldn't be about avoiding bias (which is in many ways unavoidable) but rather to avoid inaccuracy.

This…

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, why hasn't the CCP persecuted Mormons?

Mostly below their radar. There aren’t enough Mormons to be a problem.

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct.  However, the twelfth article of faith declares, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”  Mormons are not known as rabble rousers.  The CCP could easily adopt a 19th century Mormon United Firm/United Order communal approach.  LDS chapels and temples could transform mainland China.

I am pretty sure that article of faith has a bunch of provisos on it. The history of the faith is not one of strict adherence to the law and submission to lawful authority. Sometimes it happened. Other times it did not.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Did he make a habit of lying about things that could be fact-checked?

The one debate I watched, I couldn’t tell much because he refused to engage with his own stats, but he tossed out “that’s incorrect” against stats I believe are correct because I looked at both the original research, which seemed to follow decent methodology, and the rebuttal and found the rebuttal highly problematic (using a category as something it was not, for example, to raise numbers).

So I don’t know if Kirk made a habit of this, but it definitely sent up a red flag to me that I needed to be careful with his claims.

Also his comments about black pilots…that was an outright lie to me to suggest they hadn’t met the same standards as every white pilot who flew, that they weren’t really qualified when they had passed all the same tests and had to fly extensively for just as many hours before getting their pilot license, so they had the experience as well.

Edited:  I am wrong he was claiming black pilots weren’t qualified.  He was only saying he gut thought that way….and it was someone else’s fault, not his responsibility apparently.

This was part of one factcheck I checked on this.  The problem is I think Kirk is an experienced commentator and he should have anticipated that most people would have missed the point given how he presented it.  It comes across as more plausible deniability to me given his own level of communication skills, which I see as quite advanced, he is very articulate and can be very insightful from what I have seen.  So a misstep like this leading to a massive misunderstanding as he recognizes….hard not to see it as intentional for me.

Quote

The essence of that clip that was missed by almost everybody — Jordan Peterson, to his credit, really picked up on it — which was I was trying to be, you know, very vulnerable with the audience is that DEI invites unwholesome thinking. … I was saying in the clip, "That's not who I am, that's not what I believe." But what it does is it makes us worse versions of ourselves, Megyn. That's the whole point of what I was saying is that I now look at everything through a hyper-racialized diversity-quota lens because of their massive insistence to try to hit these ridiculous racial hiring quotas. Of course I believe anybody of any skin color can become a qualified pilot. 

He is still blaming the DEI rather than the falsehoods here.  Why is he forced to look at it as allowing unqualified people at the helm if he knows that isn’t true?  It’s like blaming LDS themselves because someone’s gut response is “they are not Christian!”.  They didn’t get the idea we don’t believe in or follow Christ from us.

There were comments I watched of Kirk’s that I thought were excellent.  Some of the questions and experiences couples should explore before getting married were very intelligent, imo.

Edited October 9, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 (when in fact Democratic policies aren't particularly socialist - especially when compared with governments that are socialist)?

Truth….

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Also his comments about black pilots…that was an outright lie to me to suggest they hadn’t met the same standards as every white pilot who flew, that they weren’t really qualified when they had passed all the same tests and had to fly extensively for just as many hours before getting their pilot license, so they had the experience as well.

You are fundamentally missing the point of what he said, which he clarified.

He didn't say that they weren't qualified. He said the because of DEI the fleeting thought, which he knows isn't right, of "are they qualified?" could sneak in. He hated that DEI had created a space where such intrusive thoughts could enter.

If you all would research his black apologists, of which I have given you a list, you would see that you are being fed carefully curated proof-quotes and video clips.

But I suppose I am wasting my time. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The CCP could easily adopt a 19th century Mormon United Firm/United Order communal approach. 

The widespread corruption in the CCP seems like it wouldn’t lend itself well to such an approach.  A significant purge of officials and leaders would be needed first, imo, to “easily adopt” such an approach.

Plus if Chinese entertainment is any sign of their society’s desires, the Chinese want to be rich and get special treatment just like most of the rest of the world.

Edited October 9, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

He hated that DEI had created a space where such intrusive thoughts could enter.

But why would DEI create that space when it was never about lowering standards, but about opening up opportunities, allowing more to be considered.

That he goes there isn’t DEI’s fault, but his acceptance of the falsehoods others promoted about it, including now himself since he is labeling the DEI as at fault.

I edited to correct my comment, but then forgot it wasn’t a new post, so reposting here so you don’t have to go back.

Quote

Edited:  This was part of one factcheck I checked on this.  The problem is I think Kirk is an experienced commentator and he should have anticipated that most people would have missed the point given how he presented it.  It comes across as more plausible deniability to me given his own level of communication skills, which I see as quite advanced, he is very articulate and can be very insightful from what I have seen.  So a misstep like this leading to a massive misunderstanding as he recognizes….hard not to see it as intentional for me.

  Quote

The essence of that clip that was missed by almost everybody — Jordan Peterson, to his credit, really picked up on it — which was I was trying to be, you know, very vulnerable with the audience is that DEI invites unwholesome thinking. … I was saying in the clip, "That's not who I am, that's not what I believe." But what it does is it makes us worse versions of ourselves, Megyn. That's the whole point of what I was saying is that I now look at everything through a hyper-racialized diversity-quota lens because of their massive insistence to try to hit these ridiculous racial hiring quotas. Of course I believe anybody of any skin color can become a qualified pilot. 

He is still blaming the DEI rather than the falsehoods here.  Why is he forced to look at it as allowing unqualified people at the helm if he knows that isn’t true?  It’s like blaming LDS themselves because someone’s gut response is “they are not Christian!”.  They didn’t get the idea we don’t believe in or follow Christ from us.

 

Edited October 9, 2025 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

This kind of reminds me of when 9/11 happened I first started watching news regularly. CNN had a 2-hours of news that basically was on repeat, I had to learn to stop watching after 2 hours. Then I discovered the 700 Club covered all 2-hrs of CNN news in the first 10-minutes. That was a long time ago, I knew then it would be bias, but it saved me a lot of time. I guess I wanted to say, just because something is biased, and you know its biased, can it not still inform you of true events, the bias being the opinion of whether it's good or bad? Or are we saying the Epoch Times lies? So, I looked for a specific example.

China probably doesn't like the Conspiracy Theories related to specific claims about the COVID-19 pandemic. Though several initial statements and claims about COVID-19 have been vindicated or substantiated. The big one is Wuhan, China "lab leak" theory censored or dismissed as "misinformation," by various government entities. In 2025, some CIA reports have specifically stated that COVID-19 likely emerged from a laboratory.

However, The Epoch Times has been cited for promoting conspiracy theories about COVID-19 include the idea that the virus was deliberately created as a biological weapon or that it was directed by global elites like Bill Gates. That might push things too far for a news story.

Edited October 9, 2025 by Pyreaux

[ZealouslyStriving]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

But why would DEI create that space when it was never about lowering standards, but about opening up opportunities, allowing more to be considered.

That he goes there isn’t DEI’s fault, but his acceptance of the falsehoods others promoted about it, including now himself since he is labeling the DEI as at fault.

I edited to correct my comment, but then forgot it wasn’t a new post, so reposting here so you don’t have to go back.

 

Nevermind.

Me rindo.

[Calm]

Quote

KOLVET: We've all been in the back of a plane when the turbulence hits or when you're flying through a storm and you're like, "I'm so glad I saw the guy with the right stuff and the square jaw get into the cockpit before we took off. And I feel better now, thinking about that." 

KIRK: You wanna go thought crime? I'm sorry. If I see a Black pilot, I'm gonna be like, "Boy, I hope he's qualified."

KOLVET: But you wouldn't have done that before!

KIRK: That's not an immediate … that's not who I am. That's not what I believe. 

NEFF: It is the reality the left has created. 

KIRK: I want to be as blunt as possible because now I'm connecting two dots. Wait a second, this CEO just said that he's forcing that a white qualified guy is not gonna get the job. So I see this guy, he might be a nice person and I say, "Boy, I hope he's not a Harvard-style affirmative-action student that … landed half of his flight-simulator trials." 

KOLVET: Such a good point. That's so fair. 

KIRK: It also … creates unhealthy thinking patterns. I don't wanna think that way. And no one should, right? … And by the way, then you couple it with the FAA, air-traffic control, they got a bunch of morons and affirmative-action people. 

Here’s more of the quote…

Why does he choose to interpret (instinctively or not) the white qualified guy not getting the job to mean that anyone else getting it isn’t equally qualified?  That’s his choice.  That’s his responsibility.  His own bigotry, imo.  Where is the accountability?

Edited October 9, 2025 by Calm

[JVW]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Here’s more of the quote…

Why does he choose to interpret (instinctively or not) the white qualified guy not getting the job to mean that anyone else getting it isn’t equally qualified?  That’s his choice.  That’s his responsibility.  His own bigotry, imo.

I probably shouldn't participate in this conversation but I can't resist. I'm just going to leave this 2 minute clip here. First half is Charlie Kirk defending himself about DEI hires and black pilots, second half is Jamie Foxx talking about black pilots.

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

His own bigotry, imo.

From someone who literally refuses to watch videos from black people who actually knew Charlie.

I'm done now- this is pointless.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

From someone who literally refuses to watch videos from black people who actually knew Charlie.

I'm done now- this is pointless.

If I had refused to watch videos from black people who knew Kirk, you would have a point.

If there are transcripts, I will use them.  If there aren’t, it will likely take me longer, but if it’s for a continuing conversation and claims are repeated, typically I do end up taking on the video, though may not watch the entire part, but will watch the quoted material and anything before or after that’s on the same subject.

I prefer transcripts and I prefer Kirk’s own words to others’ interpretations.  I have spent some time trying to find fuller transcripts for his quotes and a bit of time trying to find accessible without signing up for anything actual shows.  None of the quotes I find most problematic are available in full transcripts that I can find and I don’t care to subscribe, to hand out my email to others unless absolutely necessary.  It is hard enough at this point to catch all the important emails in the mass of trivia I get.  I have been assuming that defenders will share what they see as sufficient to refute misconceptions and depending on those as my fullest context.

Kind of wondering though why if it’s so important to people for Charlie Kirk to be understood and fuller context will show this, why someone hasn’t put complete transcripts out there to be found easily without having to get added to a mailing list.  That would be my first impulse…and link with time stamp to a video so people could see the original as well.  If anyone knows of those, I would love to see them if access without sharing private info.

I admit to having lost the actual videos post you posted somewhere.  They are not coming up in a search, so when I decided to do a deeper dive that you suggested, from black individuals’ POV, I had to use your list of names.  Searching on videos for Brandon Tatum, Charlie Kirk, and black pilot, I got an instagram where Tatum’s primary response was ‘silly’, ‘stupid’ and ‘dumb’ and ‘go watch what he actually said’….but no actual details of clarification or links to fuller clips.  Nothing else pulled up seemed relevant.  So that had not increased my knowledge at all besides to learn of someone who supported Kirk (though I was already aware of many, so not much new info).

Terrance K. Williams:

His video on Kirk’s death was beautiful and moving.  Scanning through his Instagram account, his tributes to Kirk were great.

I got stopped though by one though that claimed Democrats assassinated Abe Lincoln, JFK, MLK, and Malcolm X and tried to assassinate others, that it is a criminal and deadly dangerous organization.  His credibility for his political arguments took a major hit for me even if I don’t doubt his love for Kirk and Kirk’s concern and friendship with him.

Rob Smith:  found some very moving tributes by him as well as stories about Kirk helping young black kids get to the White House, didn’t find context corrections from him, but he led me to this one by Isaiah Robinson, which showed nothing more than what I had seen before, so I assumed Kirk’s defenders saw that as enough information to get a correct picture of Kirk.  And if so, I stand by what I said.  DEI meant more minorities were being interviewed, etc, but never meant unqualified individuals were hired or let into universities and allowed to pass classes they should have failed, so the only reason someone would go there in thought was if they choose to do so if they were informed that black pilots, etc were actually fully qualified for those jobs, etc.   And to share that thought and to justify that thought as “fair” (as did the person he was talking to and he did not stop and say the guy was wrong) when experienced in public speaking is very problematic to me for the reasons I gave above.

His alleged black women don’t have the brain power to be taken seriously  (altered by a reporter iirc) is defended because he didn’t say that but only applied it to four black women…as if that makes it alright.  Even if he had said that about 4 highly respected white guys…if someone ever says “Charlie Kirk did not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously, he was only there because he stole someone else’s slot”…I would find that highly offensive.  He is also connecting their current undeserved in his view apparently status with the aid they received from Affirmative Action, which has implications for everyone else helped by the same…which was why he brought up them saying that Affirmation Action helped them be where they are today.

Quote

 You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.

The assumption that it was a white person who would have gotten their slot is problematic as well.  Btw, this is another clip that defenders show ending here, so assuming they feel this is sufficient and nothing significant follows that would change meaning.

PS:  I brought this up because of Stargazer asking if Kirk ever lied about something….I think he is deceptive about the results of Affirmative Action, specifically the quality of such hires.  I think he has chosen language in some cases that allows him to attack it without responsibility (DEI is forcing him to have these doubts even though he knows it’s not reality, but the only way that makes sense for him to fairly have doubts is if DEI allows unqualified people to steal slots from qualified people and he gave in another instance, four examples of where he saw that as happening). 

Edited October 10, 2025 by Calm