I mean, they’re probably not touching handlebars when riding side by side.

I think that might be volcel? as in voluntary celibate?

yes, I know. I meant it more along the lines of whoever comes up with a method for standardizing bias in media puts their own bias in the methodology.

For example, I feel it is a political statement in itself to have a “bias spectrum” from left to unbiased to right. This implies that both left an right are “biases”, while only the center is truly neutral and therefore an arbiter of truth and facts. Enlightened centrism, anyone?

Also, I disagree with parts of their methodology. The headline “Habitual liar and convicted felon to seek US presidency again” would probably be classified as loaded language, whereas “Donald Trump wants to become president again” would be considered more neutral.

I would argue that the former example is, in fact, more truthful than the latter because it doesn’t omit major reasons why this is newsworthy. But since the mbfc is founded on the illusion idea that there is such a thing as truly neutral common ground, it conflates perspective and bias.

thanks for putting it more succinctly than I did!

I actually meant to start a thread one of these days if we can’t ban it! Glad you started the conversation!

My main concern is that by attributing a tactfulness and political rating to them, we’re attaching weight to that. But who does these ratings? Especially when a pop/mainstream mag like the Rolling Stone is classified as “left” the same that explicitly politically left publications like Jacobin are also “left”. That just strikes me as odd.

I mean yes, they kind of are? Building codes vary widely from state to state and while some newly constructed homes in the US do feature more insulation than older buildings, there’s still room for improvement. Coming from Europe, most US homes would not be considered insulated.

See this article from German engineering magazine www.ingenieur.de (Google translated):

“Core insulation is possible in both new and existing buildings, provided that the outer wall is or was constructed from two shells. In a new building, two shells means that there is a stronger load-bearing wall that also functions as a heat store. It is 18 to 25 centimeters thick. The second shell provides weather protection, is eight to twelve centimeters thick and is anchored to the inner wall. In between is the insulation layer, which is ideally 15 to 25 centimeters thick.”

And that’s without outside/inside plastering / paneling. So insulation plus outer walls is typically 50cm+. Here in Germany nowadays it tends to be even more than that because a) we still don’t believe in AC for whatever reason and so thick walls = at least some heat protection and b) home construction subsidies are usually tied to more demanding standards than the legal baseline.

So TLDR: yes, US homes do have some insulation wedged between its timber frames, but elsewhere building codes are much stricter

maybe, but the article really doesn’t justify the headline imo. The article reads more like her statements are coming from a “this worked for me, so try my way if you’re struggling” place rather than a “work for me for free, bitches” place.

not saying that in itself is good, but, you know, also way less infuriating than condemning those entitled youngsters

or maybe they just forgot to type out “achieve”