Obviously not all liberals are socialists but NBC’s continued employment of Rachel Maddow isn’t helping their perception.
I loving hate maddow with a passion and i think she does as much of a disservice to public discourse as James O'Keefe.
And if you don't know, liberals are
by definition not socialists, as I am not a liberal.
I have presented facts to you, direct facts and evidence from Google's own services. I've proven that they will recommend searches that are almost never searched while omitting blantantly more popular ones.
You have not presented facts, you have presented evidence of a hypothesis you have that google censors conservative content. I have disputed that claim with evidence that puts your hypothesis into question.
On the case that you posted two images "proving" that google has a bias, this is nothing but literal anecdotal evidence. Your sample size is one. Learn basic statistical methodology.
You just go ahead and ignore that and try to backtrack me to some stuffty "fact checking" site and tell me since I don't believe that I must be an idiot.
I'm literally presenting evidence and links that counters your point. You presented a video from google that was heavily edited as proof of a censorship conspiracy. I presented factual and verifiable evidence that Project Veritas (the producer of the video) has lied by omission of footage through editing before. This puts your hypothesis into doubt since the evidence you presented may not be credible and requires greater scrutiny.
How is this hard to understand?
It's clear and blantant in the articles it chose to reference and use as sources as well as what they have to say about blantantly left extreme news outlets, it is biased. I placed links pointing this out.
If you read any of the amalgamation of sources I pointed towards, you would notice that the website I linked sources it's claims from conservative websites as well. Mind you, some of the proof on those pages come from Breitbart.com and The Blaze.
Also, considering what you've told me, you have lived either in an era or area that holds radically different views to what is commonplace in the US now. I and millions of others grew up or are still growing up with liberal biased schools, news networks and family.
How many members of congress spoke against capitalism 60 years ago?
How many members of congress approved of gay people 60 years ago?
How many members of congress wanted the nationalisation of healthcare?
How many members of congress where against segregation 60 years ago?
Think of all the ideals that define the left and think, how many of these people have been in power? What percentage of the population do they make up?
I suggest reading about conservatism and it's history in the united states and how they have been the status quo ever since it's inception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_StatesThe united states are extremely right leaning compared to everywhere in the world. The democrats, until recently, have been centre-right for most their existence.
Remember when Stephen Crowder said "democrats are responsible for slavery"? Well that's true, by name only. This is because the democrats and republicans where extremely right leaning compared to today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_DemocratsAnd the southern democrats of the time have almost nothing to share ideologically with the democrats today, they where massively conservative.
If you want me to further illustrate my point, please tell me and I can expand more onto this topic as there is a lot to discuss about how America is very ideologically homogeneous in terms of Left/Right compared to the rest of the world.
This isn't here nor there in terms of what was said, but what grimlock said still stands, just not in the way he intended.
Again, you can dismiss me as a "whiny sjw cuck screaming at his screen" but I still have problems with the evidence you presented.
i think its perfectly reasonable for people to be skeptical of one of the biggest tech companies thats employed by most of the world and is extremely close to you on very personal level. "wanting to crush all conservatives" i would consider a stretch under any normal circumstance, but it doesn't feel like were dealing with a normal circumstance. theres a lot of "fake news" and emotions that sway people like crazy nowadays. the internet is not only connecting more and more people to discuss this, it has made it very difficult for companies to hide this kind of lucrative behavior.
i wouldnt say i currently believe google has a bias right down to its search results, but it seems abundantly clear theres an unspoken bias or at least people feel theres an unspoken bias in silicon valley. why would they be biased? i dont know. i have no idea and im not moved to dedicate the next 4 hours to write out a cited retort. im not interested in being right or convincing anyone. maybe they have no bias and its just more fake news meant to cause more rifts.
if thats the case, its really shouldn't be surprising people believe any of the crazy stuff they do. so i would consider not approaching the mindset with the idea people are brain damaged or too stupid to understand logical thinking if you actually care about the betterment of these situations. chances are they're logically thinking about a lie and should be directed to the truth. nicely. in a not passive aggressive or directly aggressive way.
In the quote you quoted me on I was specifically referring to the logical leap MM made when he made the implication that
"these search results look like their biased in this one instance => this is evidence of what i've been saying"
The pictures that he gave us are purely anecdotal evidence and have no statistical significance whatsoever.
Now I
do think there is one
very very important message you just gave us and I want everyone reading this to notice this very clear distinction that I am making:
i wouldnt say i currently believe google has a bias right down to its search results, but it seems abundantly clear theres an unspoken bias or at least people feel theres an unspoken bias in silicon valley. why would they be biased? i dont know. i have no idea and im not moved to dedicate the next 4 hours to write out a cited retort. im not interested in being right or convincing anyone. maybe they have no bias and its just more fake news meant to cause more rifts.
I have highlighted the important section.
People like MM
feel very strongly based on
anecdotal evidence and
confirmation bias that there is a bias in silicon valley. This
does not imply that there
is a bias and no way
proves it.
The fact that Grimlock(I love your posts grimlock, I really think you are a funny guy) attacks me as someone who takes feeling over fact is very confusing to me since MM blatantly uses confirmation bias in his posts to come to insane conclusions.
