Indicators of Predetermined Bias

Framing from the start
Lindsay Ellis positions Ms Rachel as fundamentally sympathetic — a well-meaning children’s educator under unfair attack. That framing sets the stage for defending her, rather than neutrally weighing pros and cons.
Use of ridicule and satire
Opponents’ arguments are often caricatured with sarcasm, exaggerated tones, or humorous asides. This makes them look absurd rather than engaging with their strongest form.

Selective focus
The analysis highlights the most extreme or poorly reasoned critiques of Ms Rachel (e.g., accusations of being paid by Hamas, or claims of indoctrination), but doesn’t spend equal time on more measured or nuanced criticisms.

Heavy reliance on moral/emotional appeals
Ellis leans on empathy, compassion, and the positive intent of Ms Rachel as a way to counter arguments — which plays well rhetorically, but avoids systematic examination of whether the criticisms (even if small) might have merit.

Confirmation through history/culture context
Long digressions into Mr. Rogers, Sesame Street, empathy, and right-wing attacks on children’s media all reinforce Ellis’s thesis that backlash is part of a broader cultural panic. These sections serve as scaffolding for her conclusion rather than exploring counterpoints.

What’s Missing for Balance

Little to no exploration of whether any of the criticisms (outside the extreme ones) might have a rational basis.

No meaningful engagement with why some parents or observers might feel uncomfortable with children’s media including political or advocacy messages, even if well-intentioned.

Lack of steelmanning — presenting the strongest version of the opposing case before refuting it.

Conclusion:
The video is more of a defense and cultural critique than a balanced analysis. It’s rhetorically effective, but its purpose is persuasion, not impartial assessment.

reminder that Hitler was literally inbred and his possession with racial purity was actually cope for being an incest child