Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
False balance
Just because two opinions are on opposite sides does not automatically make them equally qualified. This kind of tactic really annoys me because it distracts attention away from the serious issues and gives the undue attention to less serious issues, usually cranks. You don't intrude systemic discrimination discussions with isolated cases of a majority class being picked on. Even worse is that it shifts the fulcrum of discussion in favour of the cranks over time. Seriously, there's something wrong when virtually every other industrialized nation considers universal health care a right, yet it's considered a radical leftist idea in the U.S.
This is why I am not a centrist.
Comments
First, political ideology terms such as "leftist", "right-winger", and "centrist" are loads of crap anyway.
Second, over 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and is mostly anthropogenic. Would be much more fair climate change deniers/contrarians get less than 3% of the airtime.
Most of the deniers aren't even climate scientists, which gives even less reason for them to be represented.
How did this even get started in the media? And how can it be stopped?
How? People on the other side of an issue politically complaining that they were underrepresented, and the media, having no better way of determining proper balance for each issue, decided that it's just easiest to have both sides of each issue represented equally.
It's not just the media. I actually made this thread because I've been seeing it pop up every so often here (in a "opposite side has problems too" way).
Funnily enough, no side ever has a monopoly on truth or perfection.
That said, it is douchey to try and deflect attention from problems by highlighting someone else's.
For all intents and purposes, empiricism comes close enough, hence the climate change example. What I take issue with is people using the "opposite side has problems too" as a red herring, like if some scientists use some dubious methods, that automatically invalidates the evidence.
^ Unfortunately, it's a good weapon for tarring the opposition.
It also lends credence to the saying "one rotten apple spoils the whole barrel".