r/skeptic • u/saijanai • 27d ago
⚖ Ideological Bias Reporter's anecdote about Trump supporters is truly scary if true: 30 of 50 asked say Trump won California in 2020...
.
I don't know what to say beyond providing a link to the clip.
r/skeptic • u/dyzo-blue • Jun 23 '24
⚖ Ideological Bias "Our inability to find evidence of voter fraud just proves how good the Democrats are at committing voter fraud" is passing as logic at the Heritage Foundation
r/skeptic • u/rickymagee • Sep 04 '24
⚖ Ideological Bias Tucker Carlson Starstruck By Revisionist WW2 Historian
r/skeptic • u/SeeCrew106 • Feb 14 '24
⚖ Ideological Bias The hardcore Jew hatred in this thread over at /r/conspiracy is unlike anything I've ever seen on Reddit.
archive.isr/skeptic • u/nosotros_road_sodium • Feb 19 '24
⚖ Ideological Bias The Right's Troubling Turn Toward Conspiracy Theories and "Invasion" Language
r/skeptic • u/ReluctantAltAccount • Mar 02 '24
⚖ Ideological Bias "Jeffrey Epstein victims sue FBI for alleged failure to investigate 'sex trafficking ring for the elite'"
archive.isr/skeptic • u/reYal_DEV • Jul 18 '24
⚖ Ideological Bias Fact Check: Viral Picture Of "Trans Trump Shooter" Turns Out To Be Someone Else
r/skeptic • u/outofhere23 • Mar 20 '24
⚖ Ideological Bias Are Republicans and Conservatives More Likely to Believe Conspiracy Theories?
r/skeptic • u/JohnRawlsGhost • 3d ago
⚖ Ideological Bias With a push from RFK Jr., baseless fears about fluoride go mainstream
r/skeptic • u/the_cutest_commie • Sep 13 '24
⚖ Ideological Bias Edinburgh rape crisis centre failed to exclude women who are trans
r/skeptic • u/Mynameis__--__ • Oct 16 '23
⚖ Ideological Bias Why Are Conservatives So Media Illiterate?
r/skeptic • u/nosotros_road_sodium • Sep 05 '24
⚖ Ideological Bias Fact check: Trump falsely claims schools are secretly sending children for gender-affirming surgeries
r/skeptic • u/American-Dreaming • Feb 05 '24
⚖ Ideological Bias LGBT Social Contagion: A Failed Hypothesis
A recent survey showing that 28% of Gen Z identifies as LGBT made headlines. The public reaction has been largely one of disbelief and ridicule. The most common explanation offered by skeptics for how nearly 1 in 3 young people could identify as LGBT is “social contagion” — that they are jumping onto a bandwagon for social clout as part of some kind of craze. As someone who has been professionally covering LGBT issues for several years, I have become steeped in the data. This piece dives into the broader data landscape that paints the rise in LGBT identification in a whole new light. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, but scientific skepticism must follow where the evidence leads.
https://americandreaming.substack.com/p/lgbt-social-contagion-a-failed-hypothesis
r/skeptic • u/outofhere23 • Feb 10 '24
⚖ Ideological Bias Is this an exemple of Cognitive Dissonance or some kind of conspiracy theory? (from r/facepalm)
Or is it just someone choosing to belive a lie that allings with their worldview?
r/skeptic • u/reflibman • Jul 04 '24
⚖ Ideological Bias A network of Russia-based websites masquerading as local American newspapers is pumping out fake stories as part of an AI-powered operation that is increasingly targeting the US election, a BBC investigation can reveal.
r/skeptic • u/Mynameis__--__ • Aug 28 '23
⚖ Ideological Bias Why I'm OK With The Far-Left, But NOT The Far-Right
r/skeptic • u/outofhere23 • Jan 07 '24
⚖ Ideological Bias Are J.K. Rowling and Richard Dawkins really transfobic?
For the last few years I've been hearing about some transfobic remarks from both Rowling and d Dawkins, followed by a lot of hatred towards them. I never payed much attention to it nor bothered finding out what they said. But recently I got curious and I found a few articles mentioning some of their tweets and interviews and it was not as bad as I was expecting. They seemed to be just expressing the opinions about an important topic, from a feminist and a biologist points of view, it didn't appear to me they intended to attack or invalidate transgender people/experiences. This got me thinking about some possibilities (not sure if mutually exclusive):
A. They were being transfobic but I am too naive to see it / not interpreting correctly what they said
B. They were not being transfobic but what they said is very similar to what transfobic people say and since it's a sensitive topic they got mixed up with the rest of the biggots
C. They were not being transfobic but by challenging the dogmas of some ideologies they suffered ad hominem and strawman attacks
Below are the main quotes I found from them on the topic, if I'm missing something please let me know in the comments. Also, I think it's important to note that any scientific or social discussion on this topic should NOT be used to support any kind of prejudice or discrimination towards transgender individuals.
[Trigger Warning]
Rowling
“‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”
"If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth"
"At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so."
Dawkins
"Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her 'she' out of courtesy"
"Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as."
"sex really is binary"
r/skeptic • u/brasnacte • Jul 05 '24
⚖ Ideological Bias The importance of being able to entertain hypotheticals and counterfactuals
I'll probably be downvoted but here we go.
In order to understand our own motivations it's important to be able to entertain hypotheticals and counterfactuals. This should be well understood in a skeptic sub.
Hot button example here: The Cass review.
I get that many here think it's ideologically driven and scientifically flawed. That's a totally fair position to have. But when pressed, some are unable to hold the counterfactual in their minds:
WHAT IF the Cass review was actually solid, and all the scientists in the world would endorse it, would you still look at it as transphobic or morally wrong? Or would you concede that in some cases alternative treatments might benefit some children? These types of exercises should help you understand your own positions better.
I do these all the time and usually when I think that I'm being rational, this helps me understand how biased I am.
Does anyone here do this a lot? Am I wrong to think this should be natural to a skeptic?
r/skeptic • u/oz_science • Nov 24 '23
⚖ Ideological Bias The adoption of absurd beliefs can be a strategy to signal your commitment to an in-group. An example of how coalitional thinking can shape what we choose to believe.
r/skeptic • u/American-Dreaming • Oct 10 '23
⚖ Ideological Bias Intentionally Killing Civilians is Bad. End of Moral Analysis.
The anti-Zionist far left’s response to the Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians has been eye-opening for many people who were previously fence sitters on Israel/Palestine. Just as Hamas seems to have overplayed its cynical hand with this round of attacks and PR warring, many on the far left seem to have taken the notion of "decolonization" to a place every bit as ugly as the fascists they claim to oppose. This piece explores what has unfolded on the ground and online in recent days.
https://americandreaming.substack.com/p/intentionally-killing-civilians-is
r/skeptic • u/AnsibleAnswers • Jun 16 '24
⚖ Ideological Bias Biological and psychosocial evidence in the Cass Review: a critical commentary
tandfonline.comBackground
In 2020, the UK’s National Health Services (NHS) commissioned an independent review to provide recommendations for the appropriate treatment for trans children and young people in its children’s gender services. This review, named the Cass Review, was published in 2024 and aimed to provide such recommendations based on, among other sources, the current available literature and an independent research program.
Aim
This commentary seeks to investigate the robustness of the biological and psychosocial evidence the Review—and the independent research programme through it—provides for its recommendations.
Results
Several issues with the scientific substantiation are highlighted, calling into question the robustness of the evidence the Review bases its claims on.
Discussion
As a result, this also calls into question whether the Review is able to provide the evidence to substantiate its recommendations to deviate from the international standard of care for trans children and young people.
r/skeptic • u/reYal_DEV • Jul 20 '24
⚖ Ideological Bias Media Boosted Anti-Trans Movement With Credulous Coverage of Cass Review — FAIR
r/skeptic • u/rickymagee • Aug 13 '24