All house republicans except 8, vote against codifying access to birth control

[Xzi]

Actually, the Army missed their recruitment goal by 28,000.

I know, that's the point. It's why republicans want to try to force a baby boom by banning both abortion and contraceptives, there isn't enough desperation to go around for their liking right now. Which means not enough slave labor in privatized prisons, and not enough people willing to risk dying for healthcare and college tuition by joining the military. As far as they're concerned, the "pursuit of happiness" part of the declaration of independence only applies to the ultra rich, and the rest of us peasants should be thankful just to get stomped on.

 

[Foxi4]

What part of, "There's no such thing as total objectivity," made you think I believe there was a point in time when journalists were totally objective?

Honesty and objectivity are not one and the same.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Honesty and objectivity are not one and the same.

An honest person however is more likely to be objective, or at least to try to. Disqualifying pretty much conservatives and right-wingers in general, then.

 

[Foxi4]

An honest person however is more likely to be objective, or at least to try to. Disqualifying pretty much conservatives and right-wingers in general, then.

Both sides of the aisle want to make the country better - they simply have vastly different ideas on what that entails and how to achieve their goals. Dishonesty or lack of objectivity doesn’t have a political alignment. The idea that your political opposition doesn’t agree with you because they’re de facto evil is a textbook example of wearing blinders. The gross majority of mainstream media have a left-wing bias and they’re hardly objective or honest in their coverage of the news. In fact, objectivity necessitates looking at every issue from both sides - it’s the absence of such openness to ideas that fuels the problem in the first place.

 

[g00s3y]

80% of this board will never need access to birth control. Just being themselves is enough.

 

[Xzi]

80% of this board will never need access to birth control. Just being themselves is enough.

This board is definitely not 80% alt-right neckbeards. You might be thinking of 8chan or Parler.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

In fact, objectivity necessitates looking at every issue from both sides - it’s the absence of such openness to ideas that fuels the problem in the first place.

It also needs calling BS out, which apparently doesn't happen. Since the right-wingers BSing their way to power, it's grossly unfair to say the media is largely biased in favour of left wing. Twitter has a DEMONSTRABLY OBVIOUS right-wing bias.

 

[Foxi4]

It also needs calling BS out, which apparently doesn't happen. Since the right-wingers BSing their way to power, it's grossly unfair to say the media is largely biased in favour of left wing.

Most media outlets that are considered “mainstream” (CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, The Guardian etc.) demonstrably have a left-wing bias. They mostly skew left.

Twitter has a DEMONSTRABLY OBVIOUS right-wing bias.

That’s hilarious. Jack Dorsey himself admits that Twitter as a company employs primarily left-wing employees and has an overall left-wing bias, to such an extent that right-wing employees feel unsafe speaking up for fear of being ostracised. Algorithmic amplification favours right-wing content because those outlets are good at playing the Twitter game - they manage to do so *in spite* of Twitter’s alignment, not because of it. Twitter amplifies anything that gets users to react, therefore Tweets that are exaggerated, bombastic and controversial rise to the top - right-wingers know that, as do some left-wingers who also do well on the platform, although it’s mostly a right-wing thing, hence the result. Twitter favours extreme tweets because extreme tweets get extreme levels of interaction. One of the primary concerns on Twitter is the silencing of conservative voices, not amplifying them.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/20...liberal-employees-conservative-trump-politics

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Most media outlets that are considered “mainstream” (CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, The Guardian etc.) demonstrably have a left-wing bias. They mostly skew left.

They don't skew right you mean, and the right keeps going far right. Calling the BBC or the CNN left wing is patently disingenuous since if the far right keeps moving right...

One of the primary concerns on Twitter is the silencing of conservative voices, not amplifying them.

Not silenced enough, despite what Jack says, or what you say : https://www.theguardian.com/technol...hm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets

https://cdn.cms-twdigitalassets.com...hmic-Amplification-of-Politics-on-Twitter.pdf

In fact I'd say not silenced at all, despite your claims. Game or not game, the result is the same.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

And look, the reply to all the pro-birth idiots who said "if you can't abort in a state you can just go somewhere else not an issue blah blah blah incel right-wing cope"

https://freedomfortexas.com/uploads/blog/3b118c262155759454e423f6600e2196709787a8.pdf

So, you can't have an abortion, you can't buy contraception and you can't go somewhere to have an abortion. RepubliKKKans are worse than the Church when it comes to control the behaviour of people. So much for freedom eh?

 

[LainaGabranth]

Most media outlets that are considered “mainstream” (CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, The Guardian etc.) demonstrably have a left-wing bias. They mostly skew left.

View attachment 319260

I wonder why the most reliable news outlets "skew left." Maybe it's because reality has a leftist bias.

 

[Taleweaver]

Okay x I'm tired right now. WTF does 'codifying access to birth control' mean?

Going by replies, i take it they want to somehow prevent the free market to provide birth control to whomever needs it, but i can't really make it out.

80% of this board will never need access to birth control. Just being themselves is enough.

You're wrong. Just because you perceive everyone else as being too dumb/ugly/lonely to ever engage in sexual activities doesn't mean you're perception is correct.

Fuck... I bet at least 78% of the mature users are already 'doing it'. But by our comment, I presume you're not among those.

 

[Xzi]

Okay x I'm tired right now. WTF does 'codifying access to birth control' mean?

It means ensuring access to birth control via law. The only reason this is even a concern is because of things certain SCOTUS justices said in the wake of Roe v Wade being overturned. I'd say it's because they're religious, puritanical nutjobs, but the darker truth is that they're just financially motivated, per one of my previous comments in this thread.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Going by replies, i take it they want to somehow prevent the free market to provide birth control to whomever needs it, but i can't really make it out.

The free market is unironically a myth. Don't count on it to provide for anything.

 

[Foxi4]

They don't skew right you mean, and the right keeps going far right. Calling the BBC or the CNN left wing is patently disingenuous since if the far right keeps moving right...

Argue with every single market analysis ever, not me.

Not silenced enough, despite what Jack says, or what you say : https://www.theguardian.com/technol...hm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets

https://cdn.cms-twdigitalassets.com...hmic-Amplification-of-Politics-on-Twitter.pdf

In fact I'd say not silenced at all, despite your claims. Game or not game, the result is the same.

Your rebuttal is already addressed in what you’re replying to.

I wonder why the most reliable news outlets "skew left." Maybe it's because reality has a leftist bias.

Reliable, but selective news coverage is still misinformation - it’s lying by omission.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Reliable, but selective news coverage is still misinformation - it’s lying by omission.

As opposed to lying by, you know, lying?

Argue with every single market analysis ever, not me.

If it's made by your "think" tanks, sure.

Your rebuttal is already addressed in what you’re replying to.

Is addressed and confirmed: despite their claims of censorship right-wingers enjoy far more coverage than others.

 

[Foxi4]

As opposed to lying by, you know, lying? If it's made by your "think" tanks, sure.

The graph was made by Ad Fontes, the exact same source of data used for your Twitter analysis.

To reduce subjectivity in our classification of political content, we leverage two independently curated media bias rating datasets from AllSides and Ad Fontes Media, and present results for both. Both datasets assign labels to media sources based on their perceived position on the U.S. media bias landscape.

- Your own source, page 5

You have to decide if it’s reliable and your rebuttal is sound or unreliable and your rebuttal is trash. It can’t be both simultaneously, it’s the same dataset. For the record, AllSides reached a similar conclusion when analysing media outlets, their classification is almost identical. In fact, it’s even more scathing in regards to CNN, NYT and MSNBC, classifying them as having a strong bias to the left. To reiterate, I claimed that most media outlets that are considered mainstream are left-leaning, and both sources support that statement.

Is addressed and confirmed: despite their claims of censorship right-wingers enjoy far more coverage than others.

Algorithmic boosting has a strong preference towards popular tweets - it’s designed to do that. The left needs to learn how to tweet better.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that The Guardian is a rag and presented the results of the study dishonestly. I quote:

We presented a comprehensive audit of algorithmic amplification of political content by the recommender system in Twitter’s home timeline. Across seven countries we studied, we found that mainstream right-wing parties benefit at least as much, and often substantially more, from algorithmic personalization as their left-wing counterparts. In agreement with this, we found that content from U.S. media outlets with a strong right-leaning bias are amplified marginally more than content from left-leaning sources. However, when making comparisons based on the amplification of individual politician’s accounts, rather than parties in aggregate, we found no association between amplification and party membership.

Our analysis of far-left and far-right parties in various countries does not support the hypothesis that algorithmic personalization amplifies extreme ideologies more than mainstream political voices. However, some findings point at the possibility that strong partisan bias in news reporting is associated with higher amplification. We note that strong partisan bias here means a consistent tendency to report news in a way favouring one party or another, and does not imply the promotion of extreme political ideology.

tl;dr Right-wing sources are boosted about as much, and sometimes more than left-wing sources. Party affiliation has no impact on amplification of politicians and extreme content isn’t amplified. Strong bias in the content seems to have a direct result on amplification. In other words, biased content that appeals to users is boosted more, and right-wingers are marginally better at curating their own feeds. Marginally. People listen to whatever reinforces their views the most. This isn’t a scathing indictment, it’s a defense against accusations in regards to deboosting at best (that’s the reason why the study was conducted in the first place, as a defense, and that makes it questionable from the get-go). The results are entirely explainable.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Reliable, but selective news coverage is still misinformation - it’s lying by omission.

Yeaaaaah this just sounds like cope to be brutally honest. There is no obligation -- morally or otherwise -- to report on the latest right wing conspiracy theory bullshit or anything that panders to the right. It's not "lying by omission" to not report misinformation. That's why the sources on the right tend to fall further down into the misinformation rabbit hole on your graph.

 

[Foxi4]

Yeaaaaah this just sounds like cope to be brutally honest. There is no obligation -- morally or otherwise -- to report on the latest right wing conspiracy theory bullshit or anything that panders to the right. It's not "lying by omission" to not report misinformation. That's why the sources on the right tend to fall further down into the misinformation rabbit hole on your graph.

Thankfully I don’t consider InfoWars or WorldTruth.TV to be “news sources” (and I don’t know why the authors apparently do), so there’s that. Attempting to distract from the original argument will always fall flat with me - the thesis was that most media outlets considered “mainstream” skew to the left. This is true by all available metrics. You’re the one who brought reliability of coverage into this, I never argued about it. Who’s coping, exactly?

 

[RetroGen]

How are these studies defining their left/right terms? Is it USA or worldwide? If worldwide, then both American parties are far right and there is no significant left-wing presence. Thus, a supposedly "left-leaning" American news outlet, would be, by worldwide standards, right-leaning. Biden, by worldwide standards, is by no means a leftist, and may actually be closer to Reagan. But what is far more important is factual reliability, and that's where most right-wing sources fail.

See here: https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020