Ah yes, the ol’ “if I don’t know something, then it MUST be X” argument.

Substitute X for whatever ya like! Demons, ghouls, demon ghouls…the possibilities are endless!

TF you on? Just because there weren’t immediate, drastic regime level changes doesn’t mean they went “exactly nowhere”.

There have been many changes at smaller levels not being reported in mainstream western media. Public pressure called for MANY local officials to step down along with changes in law that have already started effecting everyday life, and at least in Thailand, some pretty major changes in how public officials are held accountable via more expansive auditing channels, thereby increasing transparency.

Not everything is a fucking hollywood movie wherein you have some Hunger Games style uprising against the elite.

In fact, it’s fucking insulting hearing people who haven’t an ounce of global exposure beyond whatever 2 or 3 media sources they shove their heads into saying “those protesters got nothing accomplished”.

Never let anyone tell you protesting doesn’t work.

Tf is this shit

I’m a giant media conglomerate.

I have two facts that I intend to share in a neutral manner (and, for the case of this hypothetical, we will assume that “sharing knowledge in a 100% completely neutral, fact-based manner” is even possible).

I will call these Fact A and Fact B.

During the Super Bowl, I denote 30 seconds of airtime to Fact A, and denote only 5 seconds of airtime to Fact B.

Question: is this propaganda?

Can’t wait till AI can just learn and utilize my consciousness on my behalf. That way I don’t need to exist.

I mean it’s possible yeah. But the point is that the professor should know this and, hopefully, modify the instructions for those with this specific accommodation.

Ideally, absolutely. That’s what makes the hallmarks of a great scientist.

In practice, institutionalized science can be just as dogmatic and closed-minded as some of the worst religions.

I have had advisors/coworkers/management straight up ignore certain evidence because it didn’t fit their preconceived views of what the results “should be”. This doesn’t make the process of science objective anymore when people are crafting experiments in ways to fit their views, or cherry picking data that conforms to their views.

And you would be surprised at how often this happens in very high-stakes science industries (people’s lives are at stake). It’s fucking disgusting, and extremely dangerous.

“I don’t have one” is what I typically say lol

He works at the knife factory

WhatsApp? Isn’t that just like, a messenger? Would think you’d want better friends if you’re encountering hate speech in your group chats haha

We define people by their labor value in capitalist societies. It only makes sense headlines would refer to people thru the lens of their previous employer.

The fact that it can be interpreted in multiple different ways makes it sloppy. Should be more explicit.

False dichotomy.

You can blame more than one person at a time. You don’t have to pick one or the other to blame.

Also, straw man.

You made assumptions about the speaker that were never originally implied.

Because the people there didn’t allow US capitalists to exploit them and their resources; because the people started to organize themselves and their resources around public interest; because they were voting in leaders who didn’t allow US elite to exploit them.

And so they must be punished.

Yes I agree with this analysis

No no no, it’s “socioeconomic” profiling. Completely different I promise 😉

Basically, AT&T argues against it saying it’ll force them to innovate and be competitive with other services.

Won’t anyone think of the poor telecom shareholders??