The presumption that there is a possible unbiased perspective is itself the most insidious form of bias.
But nobody wants to read "it's complicated, here are some facts so you can figure out your thoughts on the matter", so we tend to cut away half and paint the rest in broad strokes to turn that into "This is reality, and here are the monsters who deny it".
Edit: No politician anywhere ever introduced a bill with the intentions of "Incentivizing people not to work."
Even "shutting down the economy" has the intention of being able to get back to 100% sooner and thus maximizing total output/GDP/work over a period longer than the short-sighted days/weeks immediately ahead.
But if you zoom out and leave away the negatives: monsters!
There is a long list of evidence for conservative attacks on the poor in the US, which is in no way limited to programs like where the criticisms you mentioned apply - although I don't believe those criticisms are made in good faith to begin with anyway.
I care about the behavior you're showing though, because that unfortunately isn't contained to the US. "The other side are all monsters" is common, that's why it's a problem. But you must get over "... but they really are monsters" to be able to see the problem, I'm afraid.
I have a lot of problems with your analysis. Your original comment argued that conservative policies towards the poor are out of some concern for the future unintended consequences. I replied because we have mountains of evidence that is not the case. You then go on to straw man me with a false dichotomy that the Right's policies are either done out of some genuine altruism or that "they're monsters". We can acknowledge the reality of the situation without resorting to such ridiculous reductionism.
And finally, I'm not looking for a fight about my political convictions. I'm correcting one more instance or a narrative that has plagued modern political discussions for decades. Both sides are not the same. And it's either ignorant or disingenuous to claim otherwise.
I believe this is what they are trying to get at. No ill will intended, but it seems pretty futile to try to "correct" the way another person experiences the world since any viewpoint a correction comes from is inherently a property of observation at some place+time+culture. I think earlier societies' greater homogeneity tricked us all into thinking objective reality is a thing that exists.
When people normally talk about a unbiased perspective they are talking about objectively presenting, discussing or evaluating a given topic (within the realms of what is possible).
Saying it is impossible (which I think is tenuous at best, but I for the purposes of argument I will concede it) is not seeing the wood for the trees. As long as people are trying to be objective (even if they fail) it is much better than just giving up and just not even attempting.
Many people seems to think of things in terms of absolutes. Just because you cannot being completely objective it doesn't mean that one shouldn't try.
> It is not the greatest of modern scientists who feel most sure that the object, stripped of its qualitative properties and reduced to mere quantity, is wholly real. Little scientists, and little unscientific followers of science, may think so. The great minds know very well that the object, so treated, is an artificial abstraction, that something of its reality has been lost.
-- C.S. Lewis
> We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
-- Werner Heisenberg
Actually a lot of people do say exactly that. I've heard it quite often both online and in my personal life.
What is "the rationale behind that statement", other than intellectual honesty? The statement is true, not even attempting to be objective does not follow from it. Denying it to achieve something that isn't even gained by its denial is a refusal to be more objective, plain and simple.
> So while you are correct the statement on its own does not state that
.. I'm still at -1. Not because what I said is wrong, but because some would prefer it to be wrong or something.
> I believe that to be dangerous because it then allows you to engage in sophistry.
That also doesn't follow. I would even say that is sophistry. The statement is true, it doesn't become untrue because of things you claim would follow from it, even if you had shown how they follow from it, which you did not.
I fundamentally don’t think you understand what I am saying from this reply. Therefore I think any discussion past this point on this matter is worthless.
2. Some biases are more harmful than others.
2. Some ideas, some people, some foods, some air, some planets, some shoes, some economists, some...