20 years in the future
this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2024
77 points (93.3% liked)
Asklemmy
44151 readers
890 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The implied claim that historical accounts are unbiased seems tenuous.
Just read whatever you find anywhere and leave out the opinionated bits.
In other words, you can safely assume the hows, whens, wheres and to a certain extent the whys are accurate and not made up, and anything else - particularly whether he was right or wrong, the bits about whether his victim was right or wrong, whether the cops are lying, whether the McD employee is evil, whether Mangione should be freed or fried... is all a bunch of ultra-biased hogwash, regardless of the bias.
Taking the police and reporting organizations at their word that they are giving factual information about the who, what, when, where, and why is also a bias.
As others have said, you can't. Take a walk through any history museum and you'll remember it's events like this that spark change, and the US is on the precipise, with class as the determining factor.
The only people who don't have a bias are those that are ignorant of him, because everyone in the country is impacted. And since they are ignorant, they won't have any news for you to read.
...wikipedia's editorial process trends toward unbiased information over time...
You're getting down voted, but I agree with you. I think we are too close in time to get an unbiased process now at wiki. Most things take time to remove emotions and be able to look back with a critical eye.
I couldn't ask certain questions about the 9/11 attacks because it seemed I was being unpatriotic. That I might be friendly with the terrorists. It's like no, I just think the middle eastern man (from Iraq) working at the Eagle Mart didn't have anything to do with Saudi Funded terrorism.
All sources have biases. Just find out what each sourcesβ biases are, and you should be okay.
Why not take in many sources and then average out what you hear?
What kind of information do you want to know about him? What do you find biased about whatever you've been reading? It's not very clear how to answer this question.
Do you want my biased opinion or unbiased opinion on where to get unbiased information?
I go to all sides to get the majority of my 'headlines'