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.

Bruh you do understand House Repubs were the ones who passed the bills that prevented Biden from stopping arms to israel right?

Also false dichotomy. Just because one side is “pro-something” doesn’t mean the other side is automatically the opposite.

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

There’s no way this dude has ever experienced even an ounce of happiness in his entire life.

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??