I really don't like that phrase. It should be "reality has a progressive bias". Progressive is the opposite of conservative. "Liberal" is a specific ideology, and will end up in a position somewhere on the progressive-conservative spectrum based on how progressive or conservative it is.
Specifically it is the ideology of Capitalism, representative democracy, the rule of law, etc... basically the ideology of the enlightenment.
This misuse of Liberal is easy to track the etymology. The colloquial usage of "liberal" does sound like an opposite of conservative, it's basically a synonym for "lenient". But colloquial usage is often totally incorrect in certain contexts, like this one.
People who use "liberal" as an opposite of conservative are just bad at type theory.
nicklaf · 1h ago
FWIW, Colbert quipping that "reality has a well-known liberal bias" was clearly satirical of conservatives' tendency to trot out the canard of "liberal" bias.
You could just as well say he still agrees with your point about reality comporting more with a progressive understanding of ethics, while at the same time parodying Fox News for incoherently making spurious charges of "liberalism" at every turn.
palmfacehn · 1h ago
Invoking Colbert, a well known Democrat partisan, speaks to the problems with this discussion.
Additionally, passionate invocation of "facts", "reality" and "objectively true" should be red flags for any discussion.
SilverElfin · 3h ago
To be fair, Wikipedia is in fact incredibly biased (towards the left). This was also noted by its cofounder:
You can see this in edit history or discussions on various articles. For example whether something gets labeled as a conspiracy theory or not is a matter of opinion, but the coordinated groups of activist editors and their bots and various powers always win, and their bias is in one direction.
That said, I don’t think it’s appropriate for the government to interfere in speech, except by encouraging and supporting a diversity of ideas.
novemp · 3h ago
When one side is known for constant lies, documenting the truth will invariably look like bias toward the other side.
SilverElfin · 2h ago
This is the line that is often repeated but it is simply not convincing except to people who are on that side (which is my side too if that matters). To me, it is obvious that a number of opinionated decisions are made in writing a Wikipedia article, and those decisions are consistently biased. In the last 10 years or so it has been REALLY bad and if you consume information from many different news sources, it is easy to spot the bias Wikipedia carries despite it trying to look like a factual and neutral source.
obpe · 2h ago
Every assertion I checked from that article is false. So there is no evidence Wikipedia has a bias.
Unfortunately the internet has broken the social contract for a large swath of the country. They can find any truth they want online. Facts are no longer important, just (fake) data points that confirm their existing beliefs. The Republican Party has figured out they no longer need to acknowledge facts to win elections, they just need to support whatever idea their constituency is currently consuming from Fox News.
This election cycle it’s that “liberal” cities are overrun with criminal migrants and the only way to save the children is sending in the military. Constitution be damned.
waon · 4h ago
This is what Republicans do. It is their job.
MBCook · 3h ago
It’s exactly the platform they ran on. You’re right they’re just following through.
quantified · 1h ago
Their job is dialling for dollars to get re-elected. We are the product not the customer.
cratermoon · 4h ago
According to Republicans any facts or opinion that conflicts with their world view is "bias"
macintux · 4h ago
A big reason why Trump is firing anyone responsible for tracking or reporting facts.
Specifically it is the ideology of Capitalism, representative democracy, the rule of law, etc... basically the ideology of the enlightenment.
This misuse of Liberal is easy to track the etymology. The colloquial usage of "liberal" does sound like an opposite of conservative, it's basically a synonym for "lenient". But colloquial usage is often totally incorrect in certain contexts, like this one.
People who use "liberal" as an opposite of conservative are just bad at type theory.
You could just as well say he still agrees with your point about reality comporting more with a progressive understanding of ethics, while at the same time parodying Fox News for incoherently making spurious charges of "liberalism" at every turn.
Additionally, passionate invocation of "facts", "reality" and "objectively true" should be red flags for any discussion.
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
You can see this in edit history or discussions on various articles. For example whether something gets labeled as a conspiracy theory or not is a matter of opinion, but the coordinated groups of activist editors and their bots and various powers always win, and their bias is in one direction.
That said, I don’t think it’s appropriate for the government to interfere in speech, except by encouraging and supporting a diversity of ideas.
This election cycle it’s that “liberal” cities are overrun with criminal migrants and the only way to save the children is sending in the military. Constitution be damned.