Preachin' to the peacher.

Just once, I want the 'unbiased' crowd to say something like "Hitler did some bad things, but was a lovely painter."

   

Should a judge or jury only hear one side of the case that's put in front of them? Should an actual real journalist or reporter completely ignore any information that definitively counters something that the person or group they're investigating says?

I'd prefer both sides speaking, where the listener has the absolute right to totally ignore the side that's either wrong, lying, or outright insane. Opting for the one-side-only scenario is basically the same as believing that the state prosecutors conducting show trials for Stalin based on entirely fictitious accusations of the defendant's guilt was actually the greatest height of human judicial history.

   

Both sides sounds like a reasonable concession till you understand the terms and pre-conditions you are conceding to which you are not told of up front.

Stalling favors ONE side, the one with the money.

   

The worst thing about the expression 'money talks' is that 'too many people listen'.

**Weird things comes out of my head when I've consumed.

   

You are mixing things up. A trial is not a debate. Journalism, or truth, is not a debate. Both sides need to be considered for truth to be known. But do we need to debate the merits of things that are not a benefit to society? Like if Climate change is real or not?



That is what the video is about, but takes it a step further. In a debate about what is best for society, is it really necessary to give the bad ideas any consideration, just in the name of 'balance'? Do Karen and Chad need to tell their side, once that avenue has been rejected?

Total accommodation of inferior ideas will always lead to Authoritarian ideas.

   

Let them flow!

   

Total dismissal of all dissent will always lead to Authoritarian ideas. And the implementation of Authoritarian cruelty.

Anyone possessed of an "only we are right, only we are correct, only we are moral, only we are good" mindset isn't just part of the problem. They literally ARE the problem in its entirety.

Some old saying about this sort of arrogant pride leading to the worst of falls comes to mind, as shown most recently by the American right counting their chickens before they were hatched earlier this month when they got almost none of what they wanted out of the last election. And I've been seeing far too much of this mentality on CKA over the last couple of years, from the other side of the spectrum, in the form of a groupmind endorsement & promotion of some truly disgusting things that weren't even imaginable less than a half of a decade ago.

   

This still will not make 2 + 2 = 5 but if we give 5 the same amount of credence than the 2 has we have shifted the terms of the debate. That leads to gaming the debate towards authoritarianism.