Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 242:
Line 242: + + + + + + + + + +
to RJJensen
An article shoots itself in the footnote if it employs conservative bias and all sorts of the tricks listed to expose liberal bias. This sort of article has to be very carefully done to avoid wild statements and rhetorical tricks.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:39, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
An article shoots itself in the footnote if it employs conservative bias and all sorts of the tricks listed to expose liberal bias. This sort of article has to be very carefully done to avoid wild statements and rhetorical tricks.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:39, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
==Pervasiveness==
It's more pervasive than you might think, Professor Jensen. For years, the Encyclopedia Britannica has carefully concealed the tens of millions of deaths caused by Communism. If we relied on encyclopedias, periodicals and [[broadcast media]], and the Internet to tell us the truth about history and politics, we would get the Liberal point of view almost all the time.
Liberals like to claim that this is impossible, given the supposed "corporate" ownership of these sources - and arguing that corporations are always "right wing" or conservative, which in turn is based on an assumption that all owners of corporations (i.e., stockholders) are greedy capitalists. However, like most liberal arguments, this one is not backed up by facts. It is rather based on a series of shaky and untested assumptions.
Which brings us back to why liberal bias is such a problem. Liberals routinely dismiss the entire concept of checking their theories against the facts. What the '''assume''' to be so is simply beyond question for them. Which is way that Harvard president was pressured to resign when he dared to suggest that social scientists should '''study''' the factors responsible for the small proportion of women in the mathematics profession. It's a feminist (i.e., liberal) article of faith that discrimination is always the cause of small proportions of women in jobs they feel ought to have equal numbers. The idea that aptitude or even simply inclination might be a significant factor would, if true, '''disprove their assumption''' - hence the outright hostility not only to the idea but to the man who suggested it.
It is liberal hostility to contrary ideas, especially coupled with personal attacks, that is the hallmark of liberal bias. Conservatives, on the other hand, are much more likely to say, "If you can prove it, I'm willing to change my mind." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:26, 19 May 2009 (EDT)