talkpolitics | Entries tagged with bias

Stereotypes are a truly powerful thing indeed. However, the problem with stereotypes is that they are a little bit true (as in some of x are truly y) which is what makes them so powerful. This makes it difficult to counter them - you cannot create opposite stereotypes of “girls are great at maths because they can focus better” or “boys are great at child care because they are more fun” without those too being based in truth AND realising the damage it does to the outsiders (boys hearing that girls are great at maths will conclude that boys are not good at maths, girls hearing that boys are great at child care will conclude girls are not). In every stereotype there is both a loser and a winner.

But why use stereotypes at all, you may ask? Well, it is human nature to both notice and remember commonalities... this is how stereotypes are created. It is a survival mechanism. It is actually necessary to have stereotypes in many situations.

We are creatures of narrative; we both consume and create them every waking (and otherwise) minute of every day. Before we can re-write certain narratives to improve the lives of those who live within them, we have to understand each narrative.

( Read more... )

fridi

Personally, I hate the term "historical revisionism" because it has the implication that history was "figured out" and "static" and it is only ideological jerks who try to "revise" or "change" it. It sort of tries to make the "orthodox" narratives of history seem like they were author-less, generated without ideological predisposition or goals, and that only the "revisionist" accounts are "biased" in some way.

But all historical narratives have some degree of bias and error in them. It is necessarily the case. They are all authored. It does not mean you have to prefer one of the other; sometimes the chronologically "older" narratives are better-supported than the chronologically "newer" ones, and sometimes vice versa.

One can engage with the merits and problems of an argument without coming up with some pejorative label for it that attempts to lump it in with a lot of different arguments that you also don't like.

I guess the above is in reference to American historiography; I am sure there are other cases of this elsewhere. The standard book on this is Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession, which discussed in depth the "big arguments" in the profession during the 1950s-1980s, many of which were about slavery, the Civil War, and questions of identity.

luzribeiro

Can you name at least one or two?

I'd say there either aren't any (which of course shouldn't stop you from getting information anyway, all you'd have to do is filter out the bias and the bullshit - I know, that's the hard part but still) - or I could at least list two: C-SPAN and AP News.

But let's face it. ollectively, the networks compete for news. If they make stuff up while competing, it will hurt them. 2000 Mules comes to mind. Fox's snd MSNBC obvious biases limit them also. Yet, the more of it you watch, the more of a "neutral" view you can form. If you think you're being buffaloed, they lose you. And if you only listen to one or two and take them as gospel, they have you. But there's always a choice. Maybe an even better question would be, what mix of news services are needed to provide a "neutral" view? Assuming "neutrality" is the goal. I say at least seven.

luzribeiro

We captioned the video of Montana Man telling Tucker Carlson he is "the worst human being known to mankind" so you can experience it in all its glory.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CRr-e6Wj_8R/

And predictably shits himself.

I'm typically not a fan of people going after celebs or politicians in public. But in this case Tucker is responsible for thousands of deaths all in an attempt to get better ratings. He deserves everything he gets. I hope to see more of this against right wing assholes.

Considering how much hate Tucker has thrown around down the years I see no problem here. He knows he has influence and doesn't use it in a positive way but decides to spout lies and conspiracy theories instead and yes, he is indeed dangerous.

If anyone has refused to take the vaccine because of his advice and later died he should think about that long and hard. Tucker has been a champion for Trump and all the terrible stuff he did and his interview style is both vile and simply doesn't allow someone to respond to his accusations without him cutting them off the second they start making a valid point.

The guy does not deserve to be on TV.

PS: THIS exact scenario should play out everywhere anytime that garbage person crawls into public.

airiefairie

When you are living within another culture, it is easy to become a victim of stereotypes. People will generally hold beliefs of other groups of people that are always untrue and in most cases they will start judging you for your racial marks.

As foreigners, we need to understand that making stereotypes is not a natural phenomenon in human beings. Instead, stereotypes are reinforced through dominant groups in society, in order to favour racial groups over others.

However, people that make these judgements need to understand that there is no scientific evidence that any race is superior to another. After all, every culture has criminals and geniuses. Also, they need to understand that the idea that any race is pure does not exist.

Compared to years ago humanity has made some progress accepting multiple cultures in one society; nonetheless, we need to do more as individuals: leave aside the differences, stop basing our perspective of others on racial profiles and start viewing those around us based on their personal qualities and achievements.

Sounds simple? Sadly, turns out that it isn't.

fridi

What narrative would you use to convince individuals to get the Covid vaccination who haven't done so?

Let's see what we come up with.

Of course you first need to understand why they have not gotten vaccinated with an "honest" conversation and go from there.

We also need to understand some will never get the vaccination. And yet...

I'd go with the Truth first. Considering other vaccinations pre Covid, around 10% of people will never get vaccinated for whatever reasons. So in order to get to 90% you have to be bluntly honest. For example with the three warnings now out. Two for J and J (one for GBS and the other for clots) and myocarditis in men with Pfizer. When someone brings those up, people shouldn't just say "oh that's normal in a given population, some will always get side effects." That doesn't help. What would help is to say "yes that vaccine has some issues in that group so maybe you should get this other vaccine". Stop minimalizing people's concerns.

On the other hand, I'm aware that truth won't convince everyone, not even close. We all know it. Lotsa people gotta learn the hard way...

luzribeiro

Maybe we should call it vaccine obstinacy, instead.

But we should certainly not be kidding ourselves about where the hesitancy or obstinacy is coming from: It's coming from Republicans. It's coming from rural Americans. It's coming from the northern Rocky Mountain states, and in the Deep South. It's coming from evangelicals. And it is especially coming from men.

Here is some interesting commentary on the issue, and how it will probably stop the US from getting to herd immunity before next winter sets in.

Vaccine hesitancy among Republicans emerges as Biden's next big challenge

A Monmouth poll this month showed that only 36% of Republicans said they had received at least one shot of the vaccine - compared with 67% of Democrats and 47% of independents - and a stunning 43% of Republicans said they would likely never get the vaccine.

Surveys by the Kaiser Family Foundation have shown persistent resistance in rural America, where 3 in 10 residents said they will "definitely not" receive a Covid-19 vaccine or will do so only if required, a higher percentage than in suburban or urban areas. The military is seeing a vaccine surplus as the acceptance rate plateaus at some bases and drops at others. And a recent New York Times analysis showed that vaccination rates are lower in counties where a majority voted for former president Donald Trump.

fridi

I heard this one recently. Only 6% of people who died of covid didn't have some other comorbidity.

Wow! So if I don't have diabetes Covid won't really hurt me?! Awesome!

Except that "comorbidities" in that statement includes actual EFFECTS of covid, like pneumonia and respiratory failure.

ONLY 6% WITHOUT COMORBIDITIES? THE TRUTH ABOUT COVID DEATHS

People talk about how there is misinformation, about how confusing covid is, how first you hear this, then you hear that...but you don't. Unless you're getting your covid facts from click-bait media (which is just about all of them, honestly). If you just follow the recommendations and information from the CDC, the messaging is pretty clear and consistent, and it only changes as the data itself changes, which is, you know.... science.

People lament the inability to get accurate information anywhere, but then they go right back to Google and start lapping up whatever click-bait "news" Google is shoveling (for ad revenues) today. It's like complaining you don't like bleeding and then slicing your own arm open.

kiaa

MSNBC revealed as MORE partisan than Fox News
Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti break down a recent report that ranks MSNBC as the most partisan broadcast news organization on cable, outpacing Fox News.

Tbh, both are equally insufferable. QAnon people watching Fox and Russiagaters watching the other. MSNBC's highest demographic are Blue MAGAs aged 65+. The network caters to affluent suburbanites (aka Karen), which increases advertising rates.

I mean, MSNBC's Nicole Wallace was communications director for former President George W Bush. Here she's defending Bush's torture program: VIDEO.

Don't know which of the two networks is more biased, but I think they both check that Parisian box; drives me nuts to watch either of them.

As someone looking in from the outside, it's a surreal experience watching either Fox or NBC. Sean Hannity on one end of the crazy stick, Rachel Maddow on the other. From the perspective of someone who lives in a country where we have broadcasting funded by the people, American news does seem crazy indeed. Of course no journalist will ever be 100% neutral, but networks like Fox or MSNBC is truly something else. They aren't even trying to appear neutral in any way any more, and some of the stuff they say is quite concerning to me.

luzribeiro

"All this is to say that logical fallacies are everywhere and not always easily refuted. Truth, at least in science, is not self-evident. And this helps to explain why science denial is easy to generate and hard to slay. Today we live in a world where science denial, about everything from climate change to COVID-19, is rampant, informed by fallacies of all kinds.

But there is a meta-fallacy—an über-fallacy if you will—that motivates these other, specific fallacies. It also explains why so many of the same people who reject the scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change also question the evidence related to COVID-19.

Given how common it is, it is remarkable that philosophers have failed to give it a formal name. But I think we can view it as a variety of what sociologists call implicatory denial. I interpret implicatory denial as taking this form: If P, then Q. But I don't like Q! Therefore, P must be wrong. This is the logic (or illogic) that underlies most science rejection.

Sooner or later, denial crashes on the rocks of reality. The only question is whether it crashes before or after we get out of the way."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-false-logic-behind-science-denial/

What the Scientific American article doesn't mention is the role of propaganda.

( Read more... )

luzribeiro

America's devastating divorce from science

"The unfortunate reality is that our elected government is increasingly populated with many men and women who do not merely ignore scientific facts, they appear to despise them and the people who produce them. They see science as something that stands in the way of their political goals, and therefore must be pushed out of the way.
The solution to this cannot be a call for more science or the restoration of "scientific integrity," whatever that is. We have tried that and it has failed. There comes a point when maybe one simply has to accept that the dream has died and it is time for a new one. I don't know what a new social contract for science would look like, but I am pretty sure it is time to start looking for it."

I kind of disagree with the article. People still flock to "experts" even on the right wing. The issue IMO is that for the vast majority of the US, the only science that gets printed enough to spread into the general population was the scientific consensus.

Now with the Internet and social media, even very flawed reports and scientific work of dubious quality can go viral very quickly. Especially now with the huge politicization of issues like viral spread, pandemic response, climate change, and human gender and gender identity. And of course it's all about the news that people pick in a way that it often aligns with their own worldview. In other words, unlimited access to unlimited information has only allowed people to fuel their own confirmation bias rather than get educated, enlightened and more rational.

Basically, nowadays on any issue from vaccines, to climate change, to how sex is determined, you can find someone with a PhD that agrees with you. And if your point/goal runs counter to the consensus you can make them go viral, and push your respective agenda, accordingly.

kiaa

The False Logic behind Science Denial
...Those who argue that COVID-19 isn’t a real threat are mirroring bogus attacks on global warming and evolution.

"All this is to say that logical fallacies are everywhere and not always easily refuted. Truth, at least in science, is not self-evident. And this helps to explain why science denial is easy to generate and hard to slay. Today we live in a world where science denial, about everything from climate change to COVID-19, is rampant, informed by fallacies of all kinds.

But there is a meta-fallacy—an über-fallacy if you will—that motivates these other, specific fallacies. It also explains why so many of the same people who reject the scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change also question the evidence related to COVID-19.

Given how common it is, it is remarkable that philosophers have failed to give it a formal name. But I think we can view it as a variety of what sociologists call implicatory denial. I interpret implicatory denial as taking this form: If P, then Q. But I don't like Q! Therefore, P must be wrong. This is the logic (or illogic) that underlies most science rejection.

Sooner or later, denial crashes on the rocks of reality. The only question is whether it crashes before or after we get out of the way."

All good points, yet what the article doesn't mention is the role of propaganda.

Propaganda definition:
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Many individuals cannot differentiate between truth and propaganda. If propaganda supports one's preconceived notions, then it is often believed.

( Read more... )

airiefairie

How accurate do you think this chart is?

mahnmut

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-health/uks-johnson-slams-mumbo-jumbo-about-vaccines-after-measles-rates-rise-idUSKCN1V913I

Couldn't agree more with him on this. Anti-vaxxers need to be countered in a serious way. We're past the point where they were just a mere nuisance. Now they're costing lives. Measles has returned to the UK. Johnson is going as far as to call upon social networks to actively block anti-vaxxer bullshit.

Although I find this a bit ironic. You see, anti-vaxers are a part of the populist wave built upon the evil ideology of the denial of fact, truth and science. As are birthers, white supremacists and Brexit ideologues. All of these groups tell lies and create conspiracy theories with no basis in fact or science. They are all based upon the denial of science and expertise. The likes of Trump and Johnson himself thrive on their support and panders to them. But now, being pressed against the wall by the impending health-care headache that Britain has dug itself into, the latter is forced to resort to... defense of facts? Hmmm. Bit too late perhaps, Boris? You can't actively be working to undermine trust in reality, and THEN rely that people would trust facts when it comes to health. You can't have it both ways!

On a side note, I wonder when we can start suing websites and posters who spread disinformation about vaccines, in the same way anyone publishing a book about it could be held accountable? I mean, a few multi-billion dollar lawsuits through the courts by impacted families should do the trick. Those that spread hearsay and downright lies should be accountable; their nonsense does have an effect on society, it has now even started costing lives. As for the social networks blocking and banning accounts spreading disinformation, well... Tricky stuff there. Freedom of speech, and all that. Your thoughts?

mahnmut

You know, I've seen folks being told for eight years that they had "drunk the Kool-Aid" by people who support everything the current president has done without exception.

They were told they have Trump Derangement Syndrome (A term completely made up by the right) by people whose hysterical hatred of Obama included pushing the ideas that he wasn't born in the United States, he was a Muslim, he wanted to make Sharia Law the law of the land, and he was going to take everyone's guns away. These ideas were pushed for his entire eight years in office.

( Read more... )

fridi

Japanese map from 1932, showing what were the national stereotypes at the time.
Source: http://ow.ly/Vgec30nJcQB
Hi-Res: http://ow.ly/rVku30nJcQV

mahnmut

"Fox's Pete Hegseth said he hasn't washed hands in 10 years" (Watch on YouTube)

Fox News' Pete Hegseth admits, unprompted, that he hasn't washed his hands in 10 years.

"Germs are not a real thing,"Pete says. "I can't see them, therefore they're not real."

So, because you can't see something it doesn't exist, huh?
Hmmm. I wonder how he thinks about God...

How befitting the Faux & Lamers lot.

kiaa

So who here dumbs down their talk when talking to blacks? Hispanics? It’s ok if you do. Others do it too. Or so we're being told. Probably. Maybe.

White liberals dumb down their speech around African Americans in 'patronizing' effort to appear less competent, study says

- White liberals speak differently to African Americans in a 'well-intentioned' but 'patronizing' way, according to a new study by Yale and Princeton researchers
- Liberals drew on racist stereotypes about minorities having low status when altering speech patterns to play down their competence and emphasize warmth
- Conservatives did not alter their speech in the same way, researchers found
- Researchers suggested that white liberals may be making the shift because they are aware of real and perceived differences in their own status and privilege

Me, I dumb myself down to talk to so many people, on a daily basis. Color is not the issue as far as I'm concerned. It's ignorance, and it's color blind. Also, being condescending to people is also color blind (I'm pretty good at that too! LOL) See, people make assumptions about other people all the time without even knowing them, including their intellectual capacity - and then act as per those assumptions. The article is not all encompassing of every white liberal, granted, but still, it raises an issue worth thinking about. Interesting talking points, overall.

In the meantime, let's put things in perspective, and keep in mind that conservatives do the same thing, and that's arguably much more prevalent in their case. The study is not definitive, it just shows racial biases exist on the left as well as the right. Is that news? At least liberals generally advocate for equality and have good intentions. That doesn't mean we shouldn't all reflect on our negative biases and realize we aren't immune. In my experience, liberals can admit it and try to do better as humans more often than not, while conservatives usually just deny it outright, remaining unwilling to change their mind about anything. Or am I generalizing too much? All the recent MAGA-hat drama may've altered my perception on this somewhat. Thoughts?

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

MONTHLY TOPIC:
The Scramble for Resources

DAILY QUOTE:

"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)

"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)

"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Talk politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

Entries tagged with bias

On-topic: What drives stereotypes, cultural and otherwise

Thoughts on topic

Are there any neutral media channels out there?

Tucker Carlson gets told

Offtopic ontopic: Cultural stereotypes

Here's a mind exercise

Vaccine hesitancy, the demographics

Gotta love Covid myths

Most biased networks

Science denial

They be hatin' on science? It ain't as simple as that.

Propaganda vs science

Offtopic: media bias chart.

For once we agree, BoJo

All the fairy tales

Friday fun: Japanese stereotypes

Friday WTF. Germs 'n stuff

Curious.

Credits & Style Info

Links

May 2025

Summary