I hate to say it, but regardless of one's stance, on his back should be "Public perception of Fukushima, Chernobyl, and 3-mile Island."
I say regardless of one's stance, because even if the public's perceptions are off...when we remember those incidents but not how much time was in between them or the relative infrequency of disasters, they can have outsized effects on public attitude.
Beats me, I live in Arizona and hearing other people speak Spanish is a daily occurrence. I don't get even the slightest bit upset by it and I feel like you'd have to be insane to care about such a thing.
So maybe you have it here, some people are insane.
Ahh yes, agreed. Like prosperity Jesus wanting you to be wealthy despite saying in the Bible "it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
Or a year round favorite: "Love thy neighbor" (unless they're people we don't like, such as LGBT, immigrants, liberals etc. )
Religion itself? Or man using religious dogma to justify the uglier natures of their internal belief systems and cherry-picking religious quotes to shoehorn their false righteousness into moral discussion? Religion is a powerful tool and it can be used to drum up donations for an orphanage, or leveraged and wielded by people who aren't seeking to enlighten themselves at all apart from learning how to use religion to control people.
ping 1.1.1.1 -n 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
You call my claim wildly wrong and have only this to say?
You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of newsrooms. That you can point to the instances in which they were wrong does nothing to argue that they don't do their best to verify sources, you're missing the fact that it's hard sometimes, missing the fact that mainstream outlets retract statements that turn out to be false later and hedge their bets with wording. Dan Rather lost his career over an unverified source. The NBC headline about the beheaded babies literally says "Unverified reports" in the title.
I think you should read this article about the difficulties of getting the news right in the 24 hour news cycle and educate yourself instead of spewing knee-jerk nonsense which your argument fails to prove. https://www.npr.org/2023/10/24/1208075395/israel-gaza-hospital-strike-media-nyt-apology
False equivalence between Twitter news and mainstream news. Mainstream news has to verify their sources and have a reputation to protect. They retract stories that turn out to be false. As you saw with Dominion, mainstream news has money to protect from slander lawsuits too. It's not perfect and there is certainly bias, but on Twitter there are no guardrails for misinformation besides community notes.
On the one hand that's good and on the other it makes misinformation extremely easy. Misinformation spreads like wildfire on Twitter and the corrections don't. The corrections get buried in "nuh uh, YOU lie" bot spam unless it gets the community notes treatment.
And before someone gets up in arms about the research papers, the researchers don’t get paid by the journals for publishing with them. In fact, the researchers need to pay the journal to publish, and then the journal turns around and charges people to read it.
What you're describing here is called predatory publishing and is not the norm. It's the "fake news" of scientific journals. I'm not "up in arms" about the original topic of making info available to the public whatsoever, just wanted to correct this part.
I'll explain now why it's such a dishonest question. It's a false equivalence that sets the bar for agreeing with an opinion at being willing to die for it yourself. That is incorrect, logically speaking. The bar for agreeing with this opinion would be whether or not I'd be willing to fight and die for MY country if it was being invaded by Russians. That's the core dishonesty of your question, that if I support their cause, I should be willing to fight and die for it myself.
I also wouldn't personally say that every last able-bodied man should fight. Say we have a Ukrainian man whose brother was killed, his brother's wife is disabled, and she has 6 kids. I would have nothing to say about what that individual man should do, and if he chose to help his sister in law get her orphaned children out of Ukraine, away from the war, and take care of them, that's his honorable choice. That brings us to the second dishonest part of your question, it sets the implied bar at a point where if one supports a country that continues fighting for its freedom against a violent aggressor, that we must naturally support the notion that every individual in that country should fight as well. It's taking a macro level question and trying to apply it to every individual; attempting to turn a nuanced opinion into a black and white one by disregarding the contextual realities at the individual level.
Your dishonesty is embedded in the question.
I don't care that you want an answer to your absolutely moronic question. You're transparently trying to stay in control of the discussion by refusing any engagement unless it's answering your question...and I'm telling you that you're a dumbass and refusing to engage such a dishonest question. It's hilarious that you're trying to pretend you're the smart one here though as I'm very easily seeing right through your bullshit.
I said what I said, you're not in charge of shit here. Nobody needs to answer your stupid question first in order to speak their mind. How about you start by acknowledging that Russia is the fascist aggressor in this war, could stop it at any minute by returning to their own territory, and admitting that they're simply the bad guys in this war? Can you say that?
What a dumbfuck line of reasoning. "If you're not willing to die for it yourself, I guess you should just accept it, hmm?"
I've read all you've had to say, and you are by far the pathetic one in this conversation. Your entire moronic schtick should lead to a "I am very smart" meme.
"You oppose Russia yet you don't want to go fight them yourself, why?" is a ridiculous question that you're pretending is a rational one. You're intellectually dishonest af here, and you say you're "not arguing" simply because you're putting your absolute bullshit in the form of a question.
You're calling someone else a weasel while calling this "offer" a peace deal? Look in the mirror.
It's probably my most entertaining series by far.
Sure thing! I think there's a fee for the real one but you might find a free version or see if a local community vocational center type thing wouldn't let you take it for free. If it sets you in the right direction though, it's worth the cost.
And just if you could benefit from some proof, people change careers an average of 5-7 times in their lives. If you haven't decided where to go next, how could you possibly be lost?
Take care, friend. I promise that you know all the answers to the questions you haven't asked yourself yet.