Yep, and here’s the simple litmus test.’

“Do I trust any of the people who are collecting large amounts of data about a large number of people?”

No, and furthermore, hell no.

You’re the one that asked the question, “Because Russia just invaded out of nowhere, right?” It’s clearly your turn to answer here.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

With the hostages Hamas can demand things from a deal. Like the IDF permanently withdrawing from Gaza and releasing their Palestinian hostages.

You have not kept up to date on Israel’s statements on this. Israel wasn’t even willing to commit to continuing the cease-fire after the hostages were released, let alone pull out for good.

You don’t even have to leave WW2 to find another genocide in China.

It wasn’t even the only genocide in WW2.

It’s not even unique to WW2. The Japanese killed somewhere between 3 and 10 million Chinese civilians, burning some of them alive. If that range sounds insane, it’s because it is. Some estimates put the number of civiians killed by the Japanese as high as 20 million. Wikipedia.

Exactly, you get it. And I’d like you to go on a speaking tour where you help these knuckle-draggers get it.

I have a core belief that people are essentially good but prone to circumstances that make them conform to do awful things, including upbringing and mental disorders, trauma, bad teaching, bad role models etc.

But this guy is really testing my faith in that belief here.

<Ken_Jeong_ill_allow_it.jpg>

Your ‘n’ key has been sleeping with the apostrophe.

“All of CrowdStrike understands the gravity and impact of the situation”

Here’s $10.

Umm, what if you could stop people from escaping without executing them?!

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.

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.

Removed by mod

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?