Any time someone thinks that any of the things you posted can be considered extreme and that said place that promotes is considered, and I quote, "Extremely politically onesided", is positive for me, especially since many left-focused websites or jornals, like new york times, aren"t called that, when they clearly have a bias towards a certain political opinion.
Anyone that thinks that having positive news about Trump(or any right-leaned politician), or saying actual facts that isn't in favor of authoritarian-like movements like Black Lives Matter makes them "extreme" or think they are dilusional lives in a bubble, or at the very least are lying to themselves(or convinced themselves of that lie).
Sorry, but this first paragraph is just beyond ridiculous.
I will for argument's sake assume that the New York Times is a biased rag that promotes communism, authoritarianism, pedophilia, cannibalism, and rounding up an executing Trump supporters. Whatever.
No matter how biased the Times is, that does not have anything to do with how biased another source is. "I like my sources biased, because other sources are biased", is not a good argument. Attacking another thing does not make your thing better. If one food will kill you, and the other will make you go blind, you don't eat either.
Second paragraph is just a pure strawman argument.Last edited by JWeinCom - on 28 September 2020