Well, you disagree with me, and call my opinion 'bias', i.e. 'biased'. (Leaving aside the gratuitous 'laughably'.) You presumably see yourself as 'not biased'. (Nice work if you can get it.) I think 'bias' used like that doesn't make a lot of sense. Every person speaking their mind can be called 'biased' by someone who doesn't agree, but that doesn't really get us anywhere, does it. It's primarily a way of disguising (to yourself) that you're saying "You're wrong and I'm right".

Yes, 'suggesting the targets lack reason', which if they had it, I suppose, would make them more in agreement with the criticizer. (In this neo-con-ruled world people who use the term 'bleeding heart' see themselves as 'realists', i.e. follow the pronouncements of the local economist, think-tank, party-back-room guru etc without much considering the actual effects on people or the world. Money, or votes, is the prize. Everywhere is obsession with 'efficiency' and 'growth'. It's hardly noticed how many people hate their work, or that growth is unsustainable, or what's happening to the planet. We have no idea where we're going but are obsessed with getting there efficiently. But that's rant for another place..)

> due to the prevalence of virtue signaling by left leaning Hollywood that doesn’t align with the reality of all the statistics pointing to far greater levels of charity as a percentage of income/wealth exhibited by those on the ‘right’.

Gonna need numbers on that mate, because everything I've read suggests conservatism is correlated with reduced amount, degree and frequency of charitable behaviour.