That's a question for that person. I couldn't tell you why they think so. I'd guess the implication is that someone who's interested in the urban infrastructure of the Netherlands and how it compares to North America's might find it interesting.
Having said that, what a strange question. Do you only find it worthwhile to engage with unbiased content?
> Do you only find it worthwhile to engage with unbiased content?
Of course not, but there's a huge difference between:
1. Pointing someone at (for example) a church's website when you are trying to support an argument against pro-choice, and
2. Pointing someone at the relevant wikipedia page
Both are biased in some way, but one of them is so biased that it is effectively useless unless you are already on board and in agreement with the argument.
> Having said that, what a strange question.
It's only a strange question to the people who are already ideologically aligned in that direction.
>Both are biased in some way, but one of them is so biased that it is effectively useless unless you are already on board and in agreement with the argument.
And? If you do agree with the argument you will find the church's website useful. Honestly, what are you whining about? If you're not interested in watching a channel about how cars ruined cities then don't watch it. Not every recommendation any random person makes will appeal to you.
That aside, I don't agree with the statement. Someone pro-choice may very well find the church website interesting. Reading what the other side says is important, if nothing else so you're not caught on the back foot in an argument, but more importantly because you may one day realize you were wrong all along.
>It's only a strange question to the people who are already ideologically aligned in that direction.
No, it's a strange question regardless of who hears it. You already conceded that you don't only engage with unbiased content, so if anything that makes it even stranger. It's like you don't understand why people recommend things to each other.
GP here, my parent comment mentioned "This seems very different from the large anti-car movement in the Netherlands in the 1970s".
The videos show mostly the result of that movement. If one thinks that traffic in the US is ok and has no idea about how it is in the Netherlands, those videos show what's different.
? All opinions are biased by definition, that doesn’t mean they’re not worth listening to - especially when they’re well thought-out, well presented, and supported by data, which is the case here.
>> Then they are unlikely to be unbiased
> Of course it's not unbiased.
Then why, in the words of GP, "It's worth watching"?