The fundamental problem with your thesis (and most everyone at NPR, I suspect) is that you presume that your beliefs are objective facts, without room for disagreement. I don’t know if you’re right or wrong in your opinions, but I do know there are many very smart people (who you dismiss as ignorant) who would disagree with your takes on…
The fundamental problem with your thesis (and most everyone at NPR, I suspect) is that you presume that your beliefs are objective facts, without room for disagreement. I don’t know if you’re right or wrong in your opinions, but I do know there are many very smart people (who you dismiss as ignorant) who would disagree with your takes on Bill Maher and white supremacy. The problem isn’t that you’re wrong… it’s that you can’t even imagine you MIGHT be wrong, and it leads you to dismiss, without any concern of bias, anyone who thinks differently. I assume most people at NPR are the same. Everything you said in your post is an opinion, presented as objective fact. But you, and so many at NPR, have conflated “opinion”, “belief”, “viewpoint” and “judgment” as fact.
The fundamental problem with your thesis (and most everyone at NPR, I suspect) is that you presume that your beliefs are objective facts, without room for disagreement. I don’t know if you’re right or wrong in your opinions, but I do know there are many very smart people (who you dismiss as ignorant) who would disagree with your takes on Bill Maher and white supremacy. The problem isn’t that you’re wrong… it’s that you can’t even imagine you MIGHT be wrong, and it leads you to dismiss, without any concern of bias, anyone who thinks differently. I assume most people at NPR are the same. Everything you said in your post is an opinion, presented as objective fact. But you, and so many at NPR, have conflated “opinion”, “belief”, “viewpoint” and “judgment” as fact.