i’m wondering why pudding fingers hasn’t banned haircuts since they’re gender affirming too.
Probably argue it’s to prevent hippies instead of being care
Give him time, he has like 2 or 3 more years as governor.
Probably because they’re temporary
The chuds are brigading
Go back to Xitter or Reddit
People like him look at their dick to remind them that they’re a man which is sad but deserved
I hate Deathantis so im only Playing devils advocate. if you go back for enough it was intended for men. He’s just going very traditional as the part of traditional. Ugh that hurt me to type. Gonna wash my hands.
Heeled shoes were originally worn by men, and have been found in the histories of 10th century Persian and 3500 BC Egyptian life. While this style of footwear was originally geared towards the needs of men, the 18th century saw women begin to adopt high heels into their fashion.>
That might have been the original point. Men wear lifts to feel more “manly”, reaffirming their perceived gender. Trans people undergo gender affirming care to feel more like their own perceived gender. The difference is just that other people may not perceive the trans person’s gender the same as they do.
Ah that makes sense. Thanks.
Don’t play devil’s advocate for evil people. They should stand alone in their defense.
I do not disagree with the simple fact that DeSantis is a bigot. I, however, dislike the clear bias demonstrated by this media outlet.
DeSantis has been trying to outlaw wearing clothes that don’t “match” your sex while routinely wearing high heels. It’s reasonable to ask about this.
Can you give an example of the bias you’re referring to in the article?
Not the dude you are asking. I really hate attempting to defend any of the MAGA crowd or even approaching an “enlightened centrist” take.
But, I absolutely can’t stand that slimy hateful fuck and imo I thought the article was oversensationalized compared to what I saw in the video. It didn’t seem like “the whole room laughed”, it didn’t seem like it really threw Desantis off. I didn’t notice a “nervous head bobble.”
It’s just a clickbaity “Desantis gets DESTROYED” article
What part of this article has a bias? Just browsing but I don’t immediately get it
The article speaks as though DeSantis is a person, which obviously implicitly platforms the idea that the self exists as a distinct entity. This is not a universally recognised truth; Buddhism and some other Asian religions do not recognise it. The article is biased and refuses to address the cultural assumptions put into its writing.
Yes, this fact means that everything you’ve ever read is biased. This is because it’s true, everything is biased. Everything is culturally relative. Reality is a social construct and every piece of journalism which claims the existence of reality is biased.
In a Thursday morning press conference in Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, a failed 2024 presidential candidate, flanked by representatives from the Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-government extremist group Moms for Liberty, including co-founder Tina Descovich, attempted to defend the state’s restrictive educational policies.
In a Thursday morning press conference in Florida, the state’s Governor Ron DeSantis spoke in favor of the state’s educational policies which some groups call “over restrictive”.
Which is more biased? The first paragraph is true, but is obviously trying to paint DeSantis more negatively.
Leaving out details is also bias. Especially when those details are pertinent to the subject being reported on.
That he was talking about state policies could arguably be said to warrant including politics based details of the situation. Him being a failed presidential candidate and attending said event with a representatives of an anti-government extremist group would probably qualify for that.
The difference between:
Man speaks at length against restrictions to future meat-production quota’s
vs
Man known for previously running on a platform of meat-quota deregulation. speaks at length against restrictions to future meat-production quota’s, surrounded by meat industry lobbyists.
Yes, the second one sounds more negative, but that’s not necessarily bias.
Do you think my comment did a reasonable job of responding to the previous comment’s question?
I agree that leaving out details is bias, and everyone has bias. Bias can’t be avoided.
The article is about DeSantis’s bigoted hypocrisy. He is a bigot and hypocrite.
It’s not relevant that he’s also a failed presidential nominee. It’s not relevant that he is backed by anti government extremists (his candidacy was aligned with that organization’s gross priorities).
The additions only serve to further alienate the reader from DeSantis and DeSantis supporters. It’s clearly biased against him.
This is an appropriate place for anti-DeSantis bias, but the person saying they were put off by the bias is entitled to feel that way too. If a person can’t see how that article is biased it says a lot about them.
I think it did a reasonable job of responding by pointing out a bias that I also think is evident. There was a choice to use certain phrases in the way they were used.
I just think the level of bias in that direction isn’t as large as it seemed because he is a politician, speaking about a situation with politics in mind. As such , details that potentially add context to the politics of the situation are relevant, that’s not necessarily bias as much as relevant context.
I don’t personally think him being a failed presidential candidate has much bearing past the possible bitterness he might be bringing to proceedings but actively choosing to appear with what could be considered an extremist group, for me, absolutely speaks to political and personal character, for good or ill ( a negative to me personally ).
The additions only serve to further alienate the reader from DeSantis and DeSantis supporters. It’s clearly biased against him.
Potentially, but that doesn’t make them inherently bias, for some that probably looks like a show of power.
That you personally think it’s a negative speaks more to your own bias than the inclusion of the details. That goes for me as well.
Choosing not to include those details could just as easily be considered bias.
If a person can’t see how that article is biased it says a lot about them.
If you mean me specifically then I’d answer that I do in fact think there’s a bias, i wasn’t arguing for the absence of bias,i was arguing that the specific bias you mentioned wasn’t the only possible kind that should be considered and that in light of the additional kinds it might move the needle of where the bias might be falling.
I’m assuming (possibly incorrectly) that you think that the included details can only be taken negatively, what does that say about your own bias?
That you personally think it’s a negative speaks more to your own bias than the inclusion of the details.
I don’t think it’s negative for people to be alienated from DeSantis. He’s a piece of shit.
If you mean me specifically…
I don’t think I do. You understand what bias is and recognize it.
I agree my proposed alternative paragraph had a centrist bias, which isn’t something I had considered while drafting it. I think that’s because centrist bias is less overt. Since I was trying to contrast against the bias in the original article I still think it was appropriate.
I’m assuming (possibly incorrectly) that you think that the included details can only be taken negatively, what does that say about your own bias?
I’m not sure I understand your question. But this is the internet so I’ll answer anyway. I think bias against DeSantis is appropriate, especially in this community. But I didn’t think the article did it very well. I feel that way because it was so overt that I fear it would never be digested by anyone on the fence. Maybe it’s because I grew up and live in a slightly less dysfunctional democracy but I prefer news articles that help people understand others.
I don’t think it’s negative for people to be alienated from DeSantis. He’s a piece of shit.
Agreed and I’m also aware that that bias can creep in to how i present information but i think blatant attempts to try and alienate people (in general) isn’t a good approach, presenting facts and well reasoned points of view will allow others to draw their own conclusions.
I don’t know if this applies to everyone, but if i get the impression that someone is trying to sway me in any direction (outside of a context where that sort of behaviour is expected and accepted by both parties) then I’d be very unlikely to take their opinion at face value.
I’m not sure I understand your question. But this is the internet so I’ll answer anyway. I think bias against DeSantis is appropriate, especially in this community. But I didn’t think the article did it very well.
Agreed, it wasn’t a well written article, at least by my standards.
Since I was trying to contrast against the bias in the original article I still think it was appropriate.
Also agreed, i was mainly pointing out that by leaving out mention of the potential other type of bias it could lead someone to think it was done intentionally, which ties in nicely with what you wrote next.
I feel that way because it was so overt that I fear it would never be digested by anyone on the fence.
Agreed and i find this to be a common problem, someone with an what would otherwise be a reasonable take pollutes my opinion of it by presenting it in such a way that it makes them seem unreasonable, be that inflammatory language, explicit bias, blatant omissions etc.
I prefer news articles that help people understand others.
This is harder and harder to find, not to say that any news has ever been bias free but to me it’s become much harder to find anything approaching a well presented article without some sort of literary shenanigans being applied.
Any article that talks about DeSantis without leaving you with the impression he’s a psychotic asshole is leaving things out to make him look better.
Lol yeah, but in this case you can do it while staying on topic.
Some people, yourself included, have gone overboard on the sensitivity towards bias. You’re at the point that including facts reads to you as bias. It’s always made sense that excluding certain facts can be perceived as a bias, but now you want an “enlightened centrist” media outlet to omit facts to paint the fascists in a better light?
You’ve gone too far. The truth is Ron is a piece of shit. If speaking that truth is biased, then reality is biased.
Exactly
Some people, yourself included, have gone overboard on the sensitivity towards bias. You’re at the point that including facts reads to you as bias.
No, I have no problem with the bias. Yes deciding what facts to include is a way bias manifests. Everything has bias.
I do not have a preference for centrism. I’ve said that this community is an appropriate place for anti-desantis bias.
Someone asked how is this article biased and I gave an example of how it’s biased and everyone concluded I’m a radical centrist.
As you or someone else pointed out, a preference for centrism is a bias. I agree, but it’s a less overt bias.
You’ve gone too far.
What the fuck, no! Someone asked how this article is biased and I gave an example.
The truth is Ron is a piece of shit. If speaking that truth is biased, then reality is biased.
I agree he is a piece of shit, but I don’t think you understand bias.
Bias is a preference that inhibits impartial judgement. This means reality cannot be biased. Including facts in and of itself is never biased, only excluding facts can be.
The true state of things is not a partial interpretation, it’s an impartial one. A preference or inclination does not mean bias. The preference towards resources that agree with a round earth is not bias, that’s a preference towards impartial, reality-based resources.
You’re conflating inclination with bias. Anytime anything reads as preferring one side over the other, you think it’s biased. Sometimes, some people are wrong. Saying those people are wrong is not a bias, it’s a statement of fact.
Including facts in and of itself is never biased, only excluding facts can be.
I’m not convinced that’s a meaningful distinction for media analysis. Is there resource you could point me to better understand your point? Or some examples that illustrate your point? Eg: how would you go about making this article biased against DeSantis, which facts that were included would exclude to make it biased?
The true state of things is not a partial interpretation, it’s an impartial one. A preference or inclination does not mean bias.
Which is exactly why I said you don’t understand bias when you suggested reality might be biased.
You’re conflating inclination with bias.
Could you show me where I’ve done this?
Anytime anything reads as preferring one side over the other, you think it’s biased.
Could you show me where I’ve done this?
I really hope that DeSantis gets judged by the God he believes in. As an atheist, I know that his God will judge him poorly.
None of the people claiming to be Christians actually believe or are devout worshippers. They do it for financial gain. Just like the moms for liberty woman claiming Christian values while making sex tapes. It’s all a game, easily played.
I hope he’ll recognize the harm his rhetoric is causing and spend the rest of his life helping people he has harmed.
It’s scant hope, but IMO more likely than the existence of a Christian god.
Damn you sound like you’d love to be paid for tipping fedoras at young m’ladies
How did you know of my love for fedorass?
It’s obvious
So what would be an example of “unbiased” media, in your opinion?
Why does someone talking about journalistic bias get downvoted? This isn’t reddit, you dorks shouldn’t be this reactionary to everything that doesn’t immediately confirm your own bias.
I don’t mind people exercising their right to an opinion.
In this forum in particular I would except everyone to be united in their absolute contempt for that monster.
That’s not the issue, he’s talking about the credibility of the source.
Because it veers off topic enough to be a distraction rather than contributing to the subject.
Bias, when not influencing factual reporting, is a tangent at best. The bias of the site is obvious, and doesn’t change the facts presented.
Now, there was some non essential derision involved in the article, which is far less than ideal, but tone doesn’t change that they did report the facts without falsehood.
So, bringing it up in this thread, is off topic enough to merit a down vote. It’s like being at a party, hearing a conversation about how to bake bread, and saying “yeah, bread is great and all, but I dislike that bag color of that flour.” Great, that’s a valid opinion, but why did you bring it up now?
Maybe not a perfect analogy, but that’s the idea.
Mind you, it is okay to make a tangent. But it kinda needs to be a bit more meaty, and you have to expect some degree of proverbial eye rolls.
In what way does talking about the credibility of the source veer off topic? Seems really on topic. The credibility of the source directly correlates with the ability to accurately form an opinion.
Just because they’re shit talking someone you dislike doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to the possibility of a misconstrued situation. Im not saying that’s what’s happening here, but we shouldnt just assume it’s the truth because you don’t like someone. That’s willfully ignorant
Because credibility and bias are not mutually exclusive, it’s just harder on the reader. You have to check the facts presented. It isn’t hard to do in this case.
The advocate can be pretty hard leaning towards specific issues and viewpoints in what articles they choose to write about, and will advocate for lgbtq+ issues almost to the point of excluding any other possibility. They’ll just not cover an issue before they write against their subject matter.
But they have a long history of staying true to facts in what they report. This isn’t some fly by night thing.
And, a very easy search can pull up the same information from multiple sources, with and without extraneous jokes at desantis’ behalf.
For the comment that we’re discussing, it shows both unfamiliarity with the site/source The Advocate (certainly excusable, it’s not exactly well known outside of a segment of the community it focuses on), and an unwillingness to check to see if the accusation of bias holds water before making the comment.
The article simply is not biased, and the publisher of the article is not only historically good about adhering to facts being vetted, even when publishing things that include opinions; but is considered to be a reliable source on its range of subject matter.
If you go digging into various bias/accuracy ratings on news outlets, the advocate places either left leaning or center/neutral in bias. Which is directly in contradiction to the claim of bias made by the comment above. It’s also rated high in accuracy.
All of this together means that the person making the comment didn’t bother to check. Which makes their claim of bias not only tangential, but misleading. And that is down vote worthy.
Now, on a tangential level, I’m amazed that this community isn’t already aware of the advocate as long standing source for news relating to trans issues, not just gay issues. For decades they were the only major outlet for such news.
I don’t object to general questions about bias and accuracy, I object to someone claiming bias that leads to inaccuracy without doing their due diligence. And, when you consider how often communities like this get targeted for active disruption via manipulation exactly like that, sowing distrust and misinformation, that is a very glaring problem.
I want to clarify. DeSantis is a pig, he should never have held political office, and I spit on his grave (in the future). However, I still stand by the idea that this is a political hit piece. I have no dog in the fight between Republicans or Democrats, they’re both fucking awful. I just dislike the bias in journalism that is rampant right now.
He’s trying to outlaw clothing that isn’t “aligned” with your sex while routinely wearing heels. Attacking a lawmaker for advancing laws they ignore its pushing for reasonable accountability, which isn’t the same as a hit piece.
Dude wants to round up and execute many of our loved ones as subhuman, REALITY is a hit piece against ghouls like Desantis. Painting him in even a somewhat neutral to even disapproving light would be propagandistic journalism in his favor
A hit piece? Support that claim please.
