Stay Out Of Democrat Cities

I have a legitimate question for all who have opinions on the subject of media in our culture, which seems to be most people who have commented on this thread. And it has less to do with the available media, but rather what I have found to be a vacuum within media. And it has less to do with my opinions about the "mainstream media," CNN, MSNBC, etc., which many consider to have a liberal bias and the "countermedia," Fox News, etc. , which many consider to have a conservative bias.

I discovered this issue about available media in the process of searching for educational podcasts. It is so simple for anyone to start a podcast. And there are a lot of ones that I have found created by people who simply like to hear themselves talk. So, one would think that there are some intelligent people out there who have knowledge on a particular subject that they want to share with the world, without any bias or agenda. But, there really aren't any out there, specifically with regard to science, that don't fall into one of the polarized camps.

My specific question is it one of the following explanations?

1. There are no objective, non-biased people out there making podcasts about science.

2. Those in control of the "mainstream media" have such power that they can squelch even a simple science podcast by an objective, non-biased person, because it threatens the mainstream media agenda.

3. We are so polarized as a society, that there is no demand for an objective, non-biased science podcast. As such, those who tried to do an objective, non-biased science podcast stopped doing it because no one listened.

Or some other explanation.

I tried posting a comment regarding the issue of mainstream media, but it wasn't allowed. I am a progressive, and I have a lot of issue with mainstream media. It's run by corporations that operate based on self-interest and not public interest. As far as unbiased science-based podcasts, Neil DeGrasse Tyson has a podcast. You may not believe him to be unbiased, but he has excellent content on all sorts of scientific topics.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson StarTalk

https://www.unbiasedscipod.com/

I found this one via Google search. This type of content does exist, but I do agree that there should be more of it and it should be more mainstream instead of the sensationalism that is current mainstream media content.

I do listen to Neil DeGrasse Tyson for his content. It was from his podcast that I learned melting sea ice does NOT increase sea levels and also the time frame for when we will realize significant and apocalyptic effects of climate change. He does tend to be pretty biased on some subject matters. My main issue with Startalk is he interrupts too much. His guest will be in the process of answering a substantive question and he will interrupt to finish what he thinks the guest is going to say and then he moves in another direction, without ever giving the guest the opportunity to fully explain. As a result, he doesn't really cover the topics very well.

Plus, when he had Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage on the show, I realized that, despite their admission to having no science background, they both have more practical "scientific minds" than Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who has this infatuation with flying cars.

There seems to be confusion on this forum. Both Fox News and CNN are mainstream media and they are both biased. In fact Fox News ratings are much higher than CNN. Therefore I can’t see how Fox News would be considered anything but mainstream media and with the dominant bias being put out.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that Fox News was not mainstream.

Obviously you are claiming that. We have been told not to quote and present information from mainstream media, yet here was someone posting a comment regarding content that would be airing on Fox News.

Again, it's hypocrisy. You don't have a problem with mainstream media, as long as the reporting fits your views and aligns with your narrative.

It's the same issue regarding the use of the report provided by CBS News. So long as the information fits your narrative, you don't care what the source is. That's not intellectually honest. I don't like mainstream media, at all. I don't watch network news nor cable news. I don't get my information from the typical sources that regurgitate the same talking points. Most of my information comes from talking to people with firsthand experience.

Turtle, we can disagree, and I have zero problem with it, but just be honest that you are willing to listen to mainstream media and consume the content when it fits the worldview that you already hold. If that's what you choose to do, I don't care. It doesn't affect me at all. It's not how I choose to get information, but that's me.

Take care and Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

Kyle Rittenhouse interview on the TV now. "Tucker Carlson Tonight", on FOX News Channel.

I thought that mainstream media was frowned upon here?

What other cable channel features an actual interview, in-studio, with the ACQUITTED (Kyle Rittenhouse) from the Kyle Rittenhouse court case?

*HINT*---None of your "mainstream" media (pronounced Propaganda Wing of the DNC).

What would be a better source of factual information, Kerry? Who would have a better explanation on what he experienced that night than Kyle Rittenhouse? CNN, ABC, The Atlantic, Bloomberg, The LA Times, The Washington Post?

Hmmm, no one was claiming that Fox News is not mainstream media.

PackRat has now claimed that Fox News is not mainstream media.

I have a legitimate question for all who have opinions on the subject of media in our culture, which seems to be most people who have commented on this thread. And it has less to do with the available media, but rather what I have found to be a vacuum within media. And it has less to do with my opinions about the "mainstream media," CNN, MSNBC, etc., which many consider to have a liberal bias and the "countermedia," Fox News, etc. , which many consider to have a conservative bias.

I discovered this issue about available media in the process of searching for educational podcasts. It is so simple for anyone to start a podcast. And there are a lot of ones that I have found created by people who simply like to hear themselves talk. So, one would think that there are some intelligent people out there who have knowledge on a particular subject that they want to share with the world, without any bias or agenda. But, there really aren't any out there, specifically with regard to science, that don't fall into one of the polarized camps.

My specific question is it one of the following explanations?

1. There are no objective, non-biased people out there making podcasts about science.

2. Those in control of the "mainstream media" have such power that they can squelch even a simple science podcast by an objective, non-biased person, because it threatens the mainstream media agenda.

3. We are so polarized as a society, that there is no demand for an objective, non-biased science podcast. As such, those who tried to do an objective, non-biased science podcast stopped doing it because no one listened.

Or some other explanation.

I tried posting a comment regarding the issue of mainstream media, but it wasn't allowed. I am a progressive, and I have a lot of issue with mainstream media. It's run by corporations that operate based on self-interest and not public interest. As far as unbiased science-based podcasts, Neil DeGrasse Tyson has a podcast. You may not believe him to be unbiased, but he has excellent content on all sorts of scientific topics.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson StarTalk

https://www.unbiasedscipod.com/

I found this one via Google search. This type of content does exist, but I do agree that there should be more of it and it should be more mainstream instead of the sensationalism that is current mainstream media content.

I do listen to Neil DeGrasse Tyson for his content. It was from his podcast that I learned melting sea ice does NOT increase sea levels and also the time frame for when we will realize significant and apocalyptic effects of climate change. He does tend to be pretty biased on some subject matters. My main issue with Startalk is he interrupts too much. His guest will be in the process of answering a substantive question and he will interrupt to finish what he thinks the guest is going to say and then he moves in another direction, without ever giving the guest the opportunity to fully explain. As a result, he doesn't really cover the topics very well.

Plus, when he had Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage on the show, I realized that, despite their admission to having no science background, they both have more practical "scientific minds" than Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who has this infatuation with flying cars.

When I was in prison, I would listen to Coast to Coast on the radio. I always enjoyed when there would be a deeply scientific guest or discussion on the show. Always enjoyed George Noory. Sometimes it will get a bit out there with some conspiracy theory type things, but the science angle on many topics was always interesting to me.

There is no narrative in what I said. I'm not searching for things that "fit my worldview". That isn't what's really going on here, now is it?

You posted false information, and I provided statistical data to prove you wrong. That data is non-partison, non-cherry picked, factual, and not in dispute. It could have been left at that.

What's really going on here is you were called out, and now you are butthurt over it. That's something you're just going to have to get over. I can't help you with that, either.

Regardless of the outcome of any of these debates, I too wish you and everyone else a Happy Thanksgiving.

Oh, and as much as I like Neil deGrasse Tyson, I too find his podcast to be a little too scatterbrained for my taste. I just wish he'd stay on topic a little more, and stop trying so hard to get a laugh. That goes for his comedian sidekick as well.

There is no narrative in what I said. I'm not searching for things that "fit my worldview". That isn't what's really going on here, now is it?

You posted false information, and I provided statistical data to prove you wrong. That data is non-partison, non-cherry picked, factual, and not in dispute. It could have been left at that.

What's really going on here is you were called out, and now you are butthurt over it. That's something you're just going to have to get over. I can't help you with that, either.

Regardless of the outcome of any of these debates, I too wish you and everyone else a Happy Thanksgiving.

Oh, and as much as I like Neil deGrasse Tyson, I too find his podcast to be a little too scatterbrained for my taste. I just wish he'd stay on topic a little more, and stop trying so hard to get a laugh. That goes for his comedian sidekick as well.

Happy Thanksgiving, Turtle.

First of all, I want to give a shout-out to the long-timers here on the website. You guys are just killin it! I'm super impressed with how well thought out the answers are and how deep your insights are. Incredibly impressive!

I want to give a special shout-out to Mikey B. and add another angle to something he presented.

Mikey, you have obviously spent some serious time studying how people think because your insights are utterly fantastic. I thought this insight about "the victim mentality" was brilliant:

Although I know you won't, Bklyn Dreams, this sums up a lot of what holds you back from succeeding in life. You yourself have admittedly been involved in criminal activity therefore all of your interactions with police have been as a victim because you were at risk of being arrested for your actions. You were not the victim, you were the criminal. You always see things based on that victim mentality. Just as you saw Kyle Rittenhouse as the evil white supremacist out looking to murder black folk. You had him arrested, tried and convicted of shooting 3 black guys without so much as a thread of facts, you even got the race of those that he shot wrong. You see those he shot as the victims because you more closely relate to them as they were also criminals. It didn't matter that they were attacking him because that's what you would have done also, hell, it didn't even matter that they weren't black. Facts don't seem to matter to you and when someone calls you on your wrongful facts you get defensive and bring race into it. Nobody has said anything about you that you haven't already admitted about yourself but you still can't see past the victimhood mentality.

I want to dovetail my thoughts with what you've said here. I think a big problem we face with people who refuse to see the truth is that they've aligned their personal identity with their beliefs.

As we know, virtue-signaling seems to be at the heart of today's issues. Those who refuse to see the truth of what's happening have all invested in their beliefs. Their beliefs are not just a simple conclusion they've drawn from the facts. They've used their beliefs to project to the world who they believe they are and who they want to be known as. Their beliefs have become their identity.

If you believe in the mainstream and government narrative, then you wear a mask and social distance and get the vaccine to show the world that you're a person of high morals. You care about society. You care about the good of others. You don't want to be selfish or racist. You want to show you're willing to sacrifice your own comfort, happiness, health, and well-being to contribute to the good of society. That's all fine and good, and all of us are that way to some extent.

But by identifying with their beliefs, these people have created an enormous problem for themselves. Changing their mind isn't a simple matter. They have to abandon their personal identity to do so! All the virtue-signaling they've done has to be abandoned. All the times they talked down to the people around them means they must eat crow and apologize. Not only that, but how much damage have they done by playing ball for the wrong side?

And now who will they be? They don't even know who they are. They just know they want others to think highly of them.

People who feel the need to virtue-signal are insecure to begin with. There's no way they'll have the self-confidence to admit they were wrong, adjust their opinions, and move forward with a new set of beliefs. Now they're in a position where they feel like they either must defend their good name or admit they're a terrible person. They don't see it any other way.

Those of us who are secure in ourselves don't feel the need to announce to the world what great people we are by virtue-signaling. Our self-identity doesn't come from the opinions of others. Our decisions are nothing more than our current conclusion about the known facts. We don't identify with our conclusions. So when unknown facts present themselves, we simply change our conclusion. That doesn't change who we are. It just means that as our understanding of the situation evolves, our conclusions evolve with it. That ability to adapt and evolve and to dig up the truth is part of our personal identity. So changing our minds doesn't mean we're bad people or that we have to abandon our identity. It just means we're learning more, growing, and developing as we should be.

Kyle Rittenhouse interview on the TV now. "Tucker Carlson Tonight", on FOX News Channel.

I thought that mainstream media was frowned upon here?

What other cable channel features an actual interview, in-studio, with the ACQUITTED (Kyle Rittenhouse) from the Kyle Rittenhouse court case?

*HINT*---None of your "mainstream" media (pronounced Propaganda Wing of the DNC).

What would be a better source of factual information, Kerry? Who would have a better explanation on what he experienced that night than Kyle Rittenhouse? CNN, ABC, The Atlantic, Bloomberg, The LA Times, The Washington Post?

Hmmm, no one was claiming that Fox News is not mainstream media.

PackRat has now claimed that Fox News is not mainstream media.

No, I never claimed that, but I will listen to it more than many other stations on the radio. My sole source of news and information? Hardly. Since it was the first national broadcast of a substantive interview with Rittenhouse, I pointed this out, hoping others would gain facts from the best source for the defense: Kyle Rittenhouse: "The evil, gun-toting, radical-right-Trump-agenda-racist that went to Wisconsin to hunt down blacks."

I'm done responding to you on any topic, Kerry. I think there's a village in "Zambia" that is missing you. You're not here to learn anything IMHO. Your agenda has nothing to do with trucking, but you do post a lot. Again, a lot of nothing, from nothing remains nothing.

There seems to be confusion on this forum. Both Fox News and CNN are mainstream media and they are both biased. In fact Fox News ratings are much higher than CNN. Therefore I can’t see how Fox News would be considered anything but mainstream media and with the dominant bias being put out.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that Fox News was not mainstream.

Chief Brodie did and I was responding to when he specifically called CNN main stream and referred to Fox News as contra media. I just wanted to point out that Fox News has a higher viewership than CNN, therefore mainstream. I have no agenda. I come to this site to learn about trucking.

However, it is prudent and I think wise to use precaution for a police officer to be on guard for the possibility that he COULD be a violent criminal when their reason for contact is for alleged or a possibility of a crime to have been or is taking place. The police also use the exact same precaution when dealing with a white guy or Hispanic guy or Asian guy or whomever if also contact is for the same reason.

I agree. Ideally every police officer would maintain situational awareness while approaching a potential crime scene suspect and respond appropriately to what they directly observe in that individual's behavior.

Your percentages of one fingernails worth are woefully off.

You randomly selected 100 people distributed by race. In 2019 there were roughly 44 million Black people in the country, and with a total population of around 329.5 million, that would mean 13 people in the room are Black, like you said.

You said a percentage of those 13 would be responsible for half the homicides in the country. From those FBI statistics we'd been discussing, there were 6,425 Black homicide offenders in 2019, which is where that 55.9% of all homicide offenders came from.

Of those 13 Black people in the room, 0.0001 of them would proportionally represent 55.9% of all homicide offenders in the country. Apparently one fingernail weighs 1 gram, so divided by one 70kg/154lb body, one fingernail works out to be 0.00001 of one body. So ten fingernails is 0.0001.

But you're right, I overlooked something, it should've been ten fingernails from each of the 13 Black people in the room in order to represent 55.9% of the country's homicide offenders.

Again, we're talking 6,425 individuals out of 44 million, or the equivalent of ten grams of body weight per 70,000g person.