![]() ![]() Have you been living under a rock? this tweet was literally withheld in my country (together with all of his recent tweets) for being too racist. wonder what people usually listen to rap. Who do you think he's talking about here? ![]() He basically hates all non practicing jews. saying real jews vote in israel's best interest. Here are his tweets calling non practicing jews JINOs (jews in name only) tweet calling bernie sanders a jino But such situations are rare, especially in politics Tl dr "Unbiased opinion" can be a fairly accurate term if someone is indeed a neutral observer. Plus a lot of issues are so clearly good or bad that if you're 'unbiased' about them then that says something about you too, if you're unbiased about the Native American genocide, what does that even mean? It basically means you're either completely uninformed, misinformed or you don't really care about genocide Plus with politics, most issues are connected to other issues, so you basically have to be unbiased on all the other related issues too. Plus a lot of times if you're not 'biased' on a political issue, it also means you've done very little research and might not know necessary context of the issue. One example I can think of, if there are three people watching a Sportsball game and person A is a big fan of team A, person B is a big fan of team B and person C is a fan of a different team that's not playing, and they genuinely have no preference between team A and team B, I think they would have a fairly unbiased view of that gameīuuuutttt those situations are fairly rare, especially when it comes to politics. If someone genuinely doesn't identify with either side of an argument then I would say they do come at it from a much more neutral viewpoint ![]() Basically, not putting yourself on either side of a given issue already. I think the closest thing to a reasonable definition that's possible for "unbiased opinion" is if you're coming from a basically neutral viewpoint, such as not having a personal investment in the issue and not having a strong opinion beforehand. DeFranco shouldn't be getting away so easily. I might have some other points to validate my claim but let me know your thoughts on this. Remember, he is the same guy who acts having a "neutral" stance on the Crowder situation. In "Who I'm Voting For President - Casey Neistat Unleashes Mob on YouTubers", he claims (or at least brings the idea) that Casey wanting to call out other YouTuber's political views as a breaking YouTube's terms of service of bullying. My question is if he's really "neutral", why does he even bother making stuff like "Dear Black People…". He gives his "neutral, unbiased opinion" at times, or if it gets too obvious, he tries to hide it saying, "let me know what you guys think." He constant backs up guys like Alex Jones being de-platformed, Crowder on the Vox controversy and often his content and manner is edgy. He appeared on The Rubin Report and identified himself as "socially liberal," "economically conservative". Not all the signs are coming at the top of my head but I'll try to point out some. I would put him in the same category as Joe Rogan and PewDiePie. But I believe NYT rightfully (maybe not the most accurate) labelled him as far-right. DeFranco is someone always bragging how "neutral" he is and how "authentic" his news is. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |