This is an article I want to write but it has missing pieces I am stuck on. The outline is:
Consider why we do not have a single unbiased lawyer represent the case. We have two extremely biased laweyers
I think this is because it works better. There is no such thing as an unbiased lawyer. It's too hard. So we lean fully into the other direction. Embrace your bias. If you get two people who are fully embracing their bias, AND as long as they do not lie, that will make it much easier to surface truths
Ok so, I think the same is true for news consumption. It's not that the NYT is lying, I think they are going to spend time and effort reporting things that align with their goals/beliefs. I need to see what someone with a bias in the opposite direction is saying
this is an example of this, where a lot of people were like, "wow left wing people are so stupid!! how is a u-turn sign homophobic?" but if you went ahead and read their side, then the answer is very clear: https://x.com/DefenderOfBasic/status/1801667596485296227
I want an example of this on the other side, I want to see a left wing person, calling out a right wing act as stupid, but you can see for yourself that it is reasonable if you listen to the other side. It needs to be a specific, concrete thing
This is an article I want to write but it has missing pieces I am stuck on. The outline is:
This is what Tangle is trying to do, summarize best arguments from both sides: https://www.readtangle.com/
questions