Gorillazrule

Mind sharing what extension you use?

I'm not sure I follow your logic. This doesn't seem like propaganda to me, or "technically true." It just flat out is true. The headline doesn't say that only ATC were receiving the emails. The headline is just highlighting that specific subgroup, because that's the point of the article. Showing that while yes, all federal employees received those emails, one particular group received those emails, which were sent out shortly before 2 major incidents involving plane crashes.

The point isn't that only ATC received this email. It's about the consequences of sending this out to all federal federal employees across the board, and highlighting the risk of this using an example of consequences that have already happened. And most likely the buyouts aren't directly responsible for the crashes, the timeline seems too quick for that. But considering that ATC is already understaffed, this is only going to exacerbate the problem we're already seeing.

If I take a sledgehammer to all my walls, and knock down a load bearing wall in the process and cause the building to collapse, would you be upset about a headline reading "Man causes building collapse after knocking down load bearing wall"? Would you consider it propaganda because I wasn't only knocking down load bearing walls, I was knocking down all the walls. Or would you understand that the headline is highlighting the part of the story that is relevant to the article that is being written.

I do agree with you on the main headline though. If I'm understanding the article correctly, they're easing protections against gender and sexual orientation based protections, and increasing the hoops sexual assault victims have to jump through. So the headline is just blatantly misleading.

The thing that concerns me, is where does it stop? This is something I've been thinking about all through the election cycle, and even now. I understand the idea of voting for lesser evil. And that's exactly what I did. But when you vote for the lesser evil, you are showing your support of that evil. You are sending a message that it's an acceptable level of evil. That it's tolerable as long as the alternative is something worse. And it allows the Democrats to keep shifting further right little by little.

We already saw that with Harris campaigning on having "the most lethal military", and talking about how she's going to continue building Trump's wall. (Something Biden did, but at least wasn't campaigning on, and acting like it's a selling point). Maybe the next democratic candidate will be even more anti immigrant, but still pro lgbtqia+. So we have to vote for them over the Republican candidate. Then the next dem candidate is only pro lgb, but anti trans. Democrats were already talking about how Harris's support of trans people lost her the election. When she never even openly campaigned on any trans issues as far as I saw.

And we can elect the lesser of two evils and then protest and send a message about the issues that we don't support them on. But at the end of the day, what incentive do they have to change? What are you going to do about it? Not vote for them and get the greater evil?

Obviously voting 3rd party just splits the left leaning candidates votes and allows the right to win. But unconditional support of the democratic party seems like it just allows them to take a leisurely stroll towards the right every election. I don't have an actual answer. But the idea of continuously voting for the lesser evil as the lesser evil becomes incrementally more evil doesn't really sit well with me.

If you figure out what your coworkers sauce of choice is, let me know too. I love spice, but haven't found a good staple to keep on hand.

I think it's sort of a matter of perspective. You may feel like having an easier mode degrades the experience, but for others it makes the game enjoyable/playable to them.

Do you have the same perspective on people that like the sandbox style of the sims games and so would use cheat codes for infinite money? It certainly alters the experience in a way that is different from the intentions of the devs, and to you may degrade the experience of the game, but for other people it elevates the game, and makes it more interesting or fun for them.

A similar argument could be made about the modding scene. Although it's community driven rather than done by the actual devs of the games, allowing people to mod the game to customize their experience with quality of life mods, or mods that make the game easier/harder allows people to tweak the game more to their tastes and what they're looking for in a game.

You might say that if a game isn't appealing to someone they should just play another game. But if the game is very close to the experience they are looking for, but there are a few hangups that are a deal breaker for them, why force them to look for the perfect unicorn game instead of acknowledging that allowing players to cater the game to their own tastes is better. Having an easy mode does nothing to harm you, or your experience of the game, you can still play at your desired difficulty. And it only opens the game up for other people to enjoy.

You can't make a blind person see a painting. But you can put a braille placard in front of it with a description of the painting. Or have audio tours that describe the paintings. And to you, that may degrade the art, but for someone who otherwise wouldn't be able to experience it at all, it allows them to at least share somewhat in the experience that everyone else in the exhibit is having.

If the brain worms tell RFK Jr. That psychedelics are actually a cancer cure, then legislation could be put forth to legalize psychedelics. But rather than allowing recreational use, or using them for a medical purpose based on scientific fact such as use in conjunction with therapy to treat depression, it could be legalized as prescribed medication for cancer. This has the drawbacks of not allowing access to people that could actually benefit from it, as well as now being used as a snake oil cure for something completely unrelated that will prevent people from getting other more effective treatment.

I think the implications here is that the reasons it gets legalized can have an impact on the specifics of the policy. Which would mean that they wouldn't agree with the policy beyond the legalization itself.

What about Joe Biden made him sufficiently left while Kamala Harris wasn't?

-Joe Biden wasn't campaigning to finish building Trump's wall. Or saying that actually it was a good idea to build the wall and the only problems were just that Trump said Mexico was going to pay for it and that he didn't finish the job.

-Joe Biden wasn't campaigning on being pro-fracking. And bragging about how he was the tie breaking vote for the IRA, which leased new land for fracking. (I understand there was more to this act, but Harris points to it as a way to show she supports fracking)

-At the time the genocide in Gaza hadn't ramped up and gotten as much publicity as has now, so we didn't get to hear Joe Biden's stance on it.

-Joe Biden wasn't calling to ensure America has the "strongest most lethal fighting force in the world".

-Joe Biden didn't align himself with the Cheneys.

You see that 10 million more Democrats voted for Biden, but stayed home for Harris and you believe the problem is with the people and not the candidate? Now granted, racism and sexism played a role in this for sure. But to attribute that much of a difference just to that? Most of the people that are deeply racist and sexist are already voting for Trump because he supports those ideas. And from what I've seen, the Republican voters stayed pretty consistent from last election. It was mainly a dip in Democratic voters. If the problem is with the voters and not just that Harris was an incredibly weak candidate, then why do you believe that many more people voted last election?

I watched this video when it came out and I disagree with the findings in it, because to me it seems less to indicate that people reject logic because of political affiliations, and more people are critical of studies that contradict prior knowledge.

People interpreting results on the skin cream have absolutely no frame of reference. There isn't a brand name associated with the skin cream that might have some kind of recognition for people to have prior knowledge. The study that they are presented with is the first time they are seeing anything about this skin cream.

People weighing in on gun control, have a lot of prior knowledge on the topic. Now whether all this knowledge is based on facts or data is obviously questionable. But regardless they have prior experience with the topic. So naturally you are going to be critical of a study showing you results that directly contradict your prior knowledge. Also from the video it doesn't seem clear that they are asking them to specifically treat it like math problem and make judgements based on the study alone. They are asked whether they think gun control is effective. And while obviously they have the infographic right in front of them, most people are not going to base their judgements solely on that data alone.

To put it another way, what if the study was based on something non-political, like say whether smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day improves or worsened lung capacity over the course of a decade? I think most people would be heavily critical of the study that shows smoking improved lung capacity even if the data they are presented reflects that. And I don't think it would be because they are simply rejecting logic and numeracy based on affiliations. It's because they have prior information and knowledge that directly contradicts the singular study that is presented to them.

And this is ignoring the fact that while the statistic they use to measure the effectiveness for the cream is very tangible and direct. Either the rash improves or it worsens. And you can make direct comparisons with the control groups. In the gun control study you are comparing different sets of cities, ones that have gun control laws and ones that don't. You aren't comparing the same set of cities before and after gun control. So already this is a poor study. Then to make matters worse the statistic they use to measure the effectiveness is "crime worsened" and "crime improved". Not crime committed with firearms. Or even just violent crimes. Just crimes. And in cities where gun control laws have been implemented, crime is naturally going to go up because there is a new law for people to break. Anybody who isn't following the gun control laws in that city are committing a crime whereas people in the cities without those laws are doing the exact same thing, but it's just not counted towards "crime" because it hasn't been outlawed.

That's exactly the reason that people didn't vote.

There's no civilization in sight.

Your options are

1. drink the pond water and get dysentery. Struggle to find help while you are slowed down by your illness and shit yourself to death.

2. drink the bucket of shit. Same problem just much quicker

3. drink the camel piss. ~~It's sterile,~~ (edit: I stand corrected) and provides some hydration

4. just fucking give up because all these choices are dire and no matter what you're probably going to die because there is no sign of civilization or rescue, or another clean source of water, or things getting remotely better for you.

And you're yelling at people for not happily slurping up the pond water and subjecting themselves to dysentery. Some people are going to have the fortitude to do whatever it takes for survival. And some people in that situation just give up.

People didn't vote because of apathy, and no hope that things will get better in the future. Yes Harris is better than Trump. But she's still a step in the wrong direction. Just because it wasn't a running long jump towards doom doesn't mean it's not making progress in the same direction. You want people to vote for you? Inspire your fucking voter base. Give them something to rally behind. Make them excited. Give them hope. Give them a reason to stand in line for hours to vote after working an 8 hour day. Have strong policies that inspire confidence in your capabilities. Don't make a large part of your campaign 'at least I'm better than the other person'. That's your selling point? Not how good you are. Just how less bad you are.

Let's preface with the fact I voted for Harris, and understand where you're coming from with lesser evil voting.

But the other half of your argument is that with the way that Harris was tacking to the right to try to gain moderate voters, the choice was between voting between fascism now and fascism later down the line.

But if we vote for fascism later then we have time to distance ourselves from fascism.

By sitting at home happy that you did your job and 'defeated' fascism, until the next election where your choice is again fascism now and fascism a little less later down the line?

As the Dems keep drifting further and further right. At what point do you put your foot down and demand actual progressive policies? And how do you get those demands to actually be listened to when the party knows you'll vote for them because "at least we're not as bad as the other guys. What choice do you have?" Supporting her is a message to the Democratic party that their strategy of slowly becoming more conservative wins elections. And this is the reason that I was very conflicted about voting for her, but just held my nose and did it for the greater good.

I 100% agree with you on everything in this comment. My only point is that regardless of how badly trump wants to finish the job, Harris certainly doesn't seem to want to stop it. And as such, she isn't free from criticism. Moreover she needs to hear more criticism to push her into walking back her support of Israel "defending itself" by retaliating in a wildly disproportionate fashion. And the key time to do it was in the lead up to the election, because if she felt like enough people were upset about it that it could cost her the election, it had a higher chance of making a difference.

It's possible to believe Trump is an evil piece of shit, but also that Harris needs to improve. Just because she's the better choice doesn't mean she's perfect.