Hello

But. and this is the part ive been puzzling over. oftentimes when the defenders have the critique explained to them further, they eventually come to a point (either out of frustration or genuine desire to understand, ive seen both) where they agree that the source shows a bias, they agree the bias is harmful, buuuuutttt... well why do we have to criticize THIS instance. the bias is so common, its basically mundane. why make a big deal out of it.

and i think to some extent its a logical progression of treating every pointing-out of bias like a character assassination, but the very argument itself relies on an understanding that these things arent limited to individual bad actors? its like instead of moving the goalpost youre flat out claiming the other teams goal as your own

and the counterarguments are so obvious im not sure anyone could actually believe their own stance once they get there, hence why i think it only shows up as a last resort or a thought-terminating cliche. like... no, nobody gets a free pass to have their bias go uncommented on just because the bias is common. in fact that makes the problem MORE important to talk about. talking about it to any meaningful degree will require concrete examples and those examples cant all be evil foaming-at-the-mouth bigots or people will just ignore their own complicity. and so on and so forth