Do "we" try to be unbiased in "our" political discussions?
I know that politics is subjective so in that sense it's going to be biased but shouldn't we try harder to be sure the underlying info we are discussing or forming our opinions on, is relatively unbiased?
Consider reading a post or article that otherwise seems fairly balanced and then they say "or is this just corporate greed" as if "corporate greed" is a widespread thing.
What would that even mean? A corporation is organized to maximize profits (legally). Competition is generally trying to push profits toward zero but the concept of "corporate greedy" doesn't even make sense.
Yet people repeat it all the time without even thinking about it.
It's the same with deciding that a CEO makes too much? Their pay is determined by the market, just like everyone else. You may feel (for some reason) that it's "too much" but that's not unbiased, logical or factual.
But it's rarely discussed in that vain. Or consider the common thought that someone with a large family can't support themselves by working at Walmart and that somehow Walmart should pay them more?
That's not logical, makes no sense if you think about it at all and it's not how our system has ever worked.
Yet people talk about it was if maybe we should just hope and try to make the wage go up to some level we just came up with.
This just belies any knowledge of how the system works or could work in any sustainable way.
Yet, these ideas are commonly passed along as if "sure, that sounds good".
This is why, in large part, IMO, we get such divided discussions. Today more topics aren't based on reality so anything someone says is seen as reasonable.
This just leads to division and unrealistic outcomes.
There still would be room for subjective differences in how to deal with reality but when you don't even start with reality, of course everyone is divided.
What do you think?