temporal1 wrote:Wayne in Maine wrote:I'm guessing that the editors of the Oxford Dictionary are opponents of Brexit and Trump.
is it a guess when stated openly, leaving no room for doubt?
for me, this was one unusual aspect of this election, the honesty, and confidence, of the bias.
even non-political folks could read it, no trickery of wording.
I think it's a guess until someone points to an "objective fact". So far, it's an appeal to "emotion and personal belief".
The definition strongly implies that we used to believe in something called "objective fact" that could be observed and proven by people who might not start with the same opinion or feelings, who might not feel like they belong to the "same tribe".
Temp seems to feel that this is particularly true of mainstream media. Isn't it even more true of blogs and pundits and people expressing their opinions on the Internet? As Ken Burns says, "these days, a vivid lie goes around the world three times before anyone has time to look up the facts". And it doesn't matter how many times a lie is disproven, some people will continue to believe it if it's a lie that belongs to their tribe.
The problem is not that "they" are biased. We are all biased, every one of us. If we don't have ways of getting beyond our own personal bias, holding ourselves accountable to objective fact, then we're stuck in appeals to emotion and personal belief.
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?