[mark_l_watson]

It absolutely blows my mind how many of my friends support soft censorship that supports their points of view.

I try to listen to podcasts, occasionally, that are contrary to my own beliefs, not because of free speech but rather to make sure that I don’t end up in a “bubble.”

Coincidentally, I listed to something by The Hill on YouTube last week and it was reasonably good because they had three people speculating on the future economy with slightly different points of view. Not great stuff but worth having on while I was cooking dinner. Also, as a liberal, there is a conservative think tank at Stanford University that I occasionally listen to, not always comfortable for me, but worth a little time every month.

Free speech, in supporting views different from own own, is so very important.

[greyhair]

I tell this to my liberal friends all the time. You don't have to listen to the swill on Fox News, but you should at least listen to valid conservative viewpoints to understand why the disagreements exist in the first place, to understand why there is a range of views on any topic to begin with. Living inside a singular viewpoint bubble doesn't help anyone. The same people that insist that human sexuality is non-binary, and runs across a spectrum, hold near totalitarian beliefs on other topics. As a liberal, that attitude makes me sad.

[hotpotamus]

Who would you consider a valid conservative if not the most mainstream conservative news organization? I have the utmost respect for David Frum and a lot of the "Never Trump" type conservatives who clearly actually believed in their principled ideas, but even they would tell you that they're a minority of a minority. It's often hard to tell if Fox News is leading or following mainstream conservative opinion (and of course it's never that simple), but clearly they track the majority opinions of people who consider themselves conservative.

[no-dr-onboard]

I’ve found that thoughtful opinions are best sampled on an individual to individual basis and not easily found by reading articles from a news organization.

News orgs are rushing to print the story and (at most) only include small tidbits of reactionary analysis. It isn’t the fault of the individual as much as it is the medium. The medium inherently lacks depth.

Two places to start: Daryl Cooper, Michael Tracy.

[no-dr-onboard]

Just some retrospective on this. The more I look into Michael Tracy, the more I find myself regretting suggesting him. Perhaps replace him with Dan Carlin.

[mrkstu]

Reason.com (libertarian rather than conservative, but thought is multi-axis anyway) realclearpolitics.com (they are an aggregator, but host some of their own content at well that leans right) nationalinterest.org wsj.com www.theamericanconservative.com

Faith affiliated:

thetablet.org Deseret.com tabletmag.com

And this site appears to exist to aggregate quality news from every angle:

https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news

[dataangel]

Isn't sexuality obviously objectively not binary? The mere existence of bisexuals seems to punch a hole in this idea.