> The AllSides Media Bias Chart is more comprehensive in its methodology than any other media bias chart on the Web. While other media bias charts show you the subjective opinion of the one person who made it, our ratings are based based on multipartisan, scientific analysis.
> and by their own admission doesn’t even try to compare for honesty or credibility
I don't think this matters in the context of the point I was making.
> Most of the two R columns routinely run fake or highly selective coverage
Hmm, so this further reduces the number of quality right-leaning sources. Seems to further prove my point. Remember, the chart shows sites with the most traffic.
> There is an enormous difference between an outlet like the New Yorker, which is definitely liberal but also fiercely committed to fact checking, and outlets like Newsmax or The American Conservative which are proudly movement conservatives first and journalists second, if at all.
Maybe, but it doesn't matter in the context of my point. Also, if they are clear about their biases it shouldn't matter, unless presenting outright lies. Many left-leaning sources try to come off like they are objective. Also:
> A leading New Yorker writer omits crucial facts to run interference for Joe Biden against serious allegations of corruption in Ukraine, writes Joe Lauria. [0]
Many left-leaning sources were also guilty of this (twitter going so far as take down the tweet from the NY Post as "hacked information" even though there was zero evidence this was the case, and Facebook de-prioritizing shared link of the same).
This is my opinion and based around some examples I've seen, but I believe that conservative sources have a tougher time making money, because people will attack their ad-partners for supporting those companies. I'd like to see where this happens to left-leaning sources.
I don't believe most conservatives agree with his rhetoric, they just like his policies for the most part. They probably don't even like him much, they just dislike the direction the democratic side is going enough to vote for him.
I think it's unfortunate that you feel this way, especially if it's without any evidence. I wouldn't say that 80% of liberals are communists and socialists. I think this mentality will only further the division between sides.
> Can you explain to me what you think is happening in your Telegraph link?
Smokers and obese people are being prevented from receiving surgeries that are not deemed "essential" unless they stop smoking for 8 weeks or loose weight, respectively.
> In particular, why you think this is "the NHS" and not some specific services in one part of the country
Maybe this question isn't to be taken literally, but multiple articles' titles with some variation of "NHS bans some obese and smokers from surgery 'indefinitely'"
> and also why these patients can't make use of private healthcare instead.
As of 2015, only 10.5% of population was using private insurance [0]. We could assume roughly 89.5% of population is covered by the NHS since it's given by default. If you cannot afford private insurance, you will only have NHS.
In my opinion, I believe having a public option will slowly eliminate private insurance or at least reduce the types of services available. Additionally I think it's dangerous for the government to set that sort of precedent.
"Universal Healthcare" is generally pretty terrible. I'm not saying the US system is perfect, it has plenty of flaws but at least you can't be banned from getting services you want [0]. Plus government is already subsidizing the cost of the vaccine, and creating a program for elderly and low income people to get the vaccine for fairly cheap [1].
>> "American capitalism" is also responsible for the greatest reduction of poverty globally in all of human history.
> Is that true? I’ve heard this recently from republican leaning sources but it doesn’t appear to be true.
I can't find sources to determine the exact contribution of the US to this, but free market capitalism in general is definitely responsible [0].
>> it seems like a majority of climate change talk always revolves around how the US can be doing more
> An American citizen emits 16 tonnes of co2 per year. Who else even comes close?
Canada is higher, Australia is close behind. I mentioned this before, but US co2 emissions have been in decline, while many other countries are increasing. It will not take India long before it eclipses the US.
America represents 15% of total co2 emissions [1]. If we wanted to reduce globally everyone needs to participate.
> American capitalism has led the world to the brink of destruction by climate change
This sort of alarmist language makes it really difficult to take anything you said seriously. I'm fairly confident most people think climate change is concerning, but not "on the brink of destruction"
"American capitalism" is also responsible for the greatest reduction of poverty globally in all of human history.
> Nothing else pales in comparison to the destruction that's coming as a direct result of USA turning a blind eye to climate change.
Interesting, because the United States has actually been lowering carbon dioxide emissions, and total output absolutely pales in comparison to China which has seen nearly exponential growth [0].
This may be completely wrong, but it seems like a majority of climate change talk always revolves around how the US can be doing more, and rarely about what other countries can do.
Interesting how America is always to blame for the world's problems. I'm not saying America has been perfect, but it certainly does more good than bad.
I'm not the poster you're asking, but I've been using Syncthing [0] for anything I need to share with my phone (or any other device for that matter). Very simple and fast to get using.
I'm guessing the vast majority of "wealth" is in assets/stocks. That isn't money just sitting around. The value is only realized when those are selled off. They also would owe capital gains tax. So now they gets taxed twice?
> The current system is also a redistribution of wealth, just from the bottom to the top.
I think that capitalism/free markets has been the biggest driver in bringing people out of poverty.
> That's what a wealth tax is supposed to change.
This is also hugely immoral. Property is a fundamental human right. There is no "right" in having as much money as someone else. In the US at least, there is supposed to be equal protection of your rights. Taking money from one person and giving to another is immoral. Besides, wealthy people are also people that donate enormous amounts of money. Let them figure out how they want to give it away.
> Regarding the argument about companies, I'm sure the French king also employed a lot of people, we still got right of the system of absolutism.
You will have to provide me some more evidence on how these are connected.
Can you explain? On the site:
> The AllSides Media Bias Chart is more comprehensive in its methodology than any other media bias chart on the Web. While other media bias charts show you the subjective opinion of the one person who made it, our ratings are based based on multipartisan, scientific analysis.
> and by their own admission doesn’t even try to compare for honesty or credibility
I don't think this matters in the context of the point I was making.
> Most of the two R columns routinely run fake or highly selective coverage
Hmm, so this further reduces the number of quality right-leaning sources. Seems to further prove my point. Remember, the chart shows sites with the most traffic.
> There is an enormous difference between an outlet like the New Yorker, which is definitely liberal but also fiercely committed to fact checking, and outlets like Newsmax or The American Conservative which are proudly movement conservatives first and journalists second, if at all.
Maybe, but it doesn't matter in the context of my point. Also, if they are clear about their biases it shouldn't matter, unless presenting outright lies. Many left-leaning sources try to come off like they are objective. Also:
> A leading New Yorker writer omits crucial facts to run interference for Joe Biden against serious allegations of corruption in Ukraine, writes Joe Lauria. [0]
Many left-leaning sources were also guilty of this (twitter going so far as take down the tweet from the NY Post as "hacked information" even though there was zero evidence this was the case, and Facebook de-prioritizing shared link of the same).
This is my opinion and based around some examples I've seen, but I believe that conservative sources have a tougher time making money, because people will attack their ad-partners for supporting those companies. I'd like to see where this happens to left-leaning sources.
[0] https://consortiumnews.com/2019/10/08/the-new-yorkers-partis...