mintyfrog

I’m sorry that you expect each unknowing consumer to have the intellectual capacity to understand the geopolitical consequences of each product they by based on the environmental damage and human rights violations during its production.

It’s almost like you’re the fool for expecting such a flawed system to work. Saying, “well, you paid me to do it!” does not absolve you of guilt.

Source?

“It’s not our fault, we just produce cheap goods, the pollution is the fault of the people buying the goods”

If your products are cheap because you’re polluting, you are the problem. If you weren’t polluting, your products wouldn’t be as cheap. If your products weren’t as cheap, they wouldn’t be competitive on the capitalist market. If they weren’t competitive, they wouldn’t be bought.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Are you insinuating that the United States has criminally prosecuted individuals purely for their support for Palestine? Any examples?

Read those articles and explain how the US is violating them? Also, your article is in an unknown journal from a place without free speech.

Edit: Love the downvotes from people not bothering to check the primary sources.“US is bad so they must be violating international law with sanctions”

No countries recognize a right to protest at any time and location. Imagine if someone could protest the government by just forming a human circle around the leaders shouting, “you can’t move us!” or by standing in a library and yelling constantly.

I try to limit the number of private companies that I give my data to. Each project on its own isn’t enough to warrant creating a new account, and I never have interest in them all at the same time.

Making a Discord account is my barrier to some projects

If you’re paying for video or audio calls, you’re doing it because you want features or privacy. I doubt Twitter offers more features, and I know they won’t offer more privacy.

You’re kind of arguing against the foundation of human society. If we’re all required to “do our own research” about things, where does that requirement end?

Yes, you should do your own research. How much research you need to do depends on the subject matter, how critical it is, and the potential for motivation to mislead you. I can’t tell you where that ends, but for politics and news I am of the opinion that it should end a lot later than trusting a random stranger to censor your access to content.

How can I buy food if I have to do my own research on what’s healthy or what’s dangerous?

You probably should research this.

What about my tap water?

Yeah, you probably should also research this before drinking it because of how critical it is. Maybe get it tested or read your city’s water test results. Do they have motivation to mislead you?

How can I put gas in my car? Use electricity? A computer? A phone?

I’m not sure what the struggle is here.

Somewhere along the way you have to trust the systems that have been built by the people before us to function, and for people who work in those fields who are experts to use their expertise.

Yes and no. Should you see inconsistencies, you should probably verify that what you’re trusting is accurate. Inconsistencies like blocking wikileaks on a qanon blocklist. However, what you’re talking about isn’t even the case here. We’re talking about a blocklist maintained by strangers on the internet.

Perhaps you’re not familiar with this blocklist and how it doesn’t exclusively include QAnon sources, as I indicated.

No list can exclusively contain QAnon sources. It isn’t possible. You’re relying on someone else or a group of people to make that determination. In doing so, you’re blocking non-QAnon sources that you may just happen to disagree with. They also block far-right sites as described in the Github. How far to the right does the site have to be to be blocked? You’ve now created an echo chamber by blocking the opposition, all because you trusted that a list called “no-qanon” only blocked QAnon.

Even if what you’re saying is true, you’re now relying on someone else (or a group of people) to censor sites you wouldn’t like and also not be susceptible to those things when creating this blocklist. You’re ignoring the risks associated with false positives. You can’t outsource your own critical thinking.

Labeling the opposition as a deranged cult that must be censored doesn’t exactly sound anti-fascist to me. Again, not talking about hate groups here or anyone that advocates for violence.

Name a major media outlet that hasn’t been suspected to be influenced by Russia.

Nope. The linked list does. Check the URLs. WikiLeaks is blocked.

Doesn’t it sound at least a little bit foolish to trust someone else to intentionally censor the politics of your internet? You’re creating your own echo chamber.

How can you understand and disagree with the other side if you can’t even read their content? I’m not even talking about hate groups, I’m talking basics like WikiLeaks and the NRA.

Exactly this. Most G20 countries had reduced coal emissions but China and India (plus Indonesia and Turkey) had increased coal emissions per capita. Because those countries account for ~3 billion people, nearly 40% of the world population, and an even greater percentage of G20 population, the total coal emissions of G20 has increased.

I’m agreeing that depleted uranium weapons are a bad idea. I’m disagreeing that someone is illiterate for not believing an opinionated source.

I could easily quote Wikipedia just as the prior comment quoted OP’s article:

The U.S. Department of Defense claims that no human cancer of any type has been seen as a result of exposure to either natural or depleted uranium.

Surely the DoD has at least some scientific research, no? It would be foolish to take this quote and believe that depleted uranium is safe, and it would be even more foolish to insult someone’s intelligence for not doing so.