I’m sure this is true. I wish there was a way to communicate it better, though. People have been sounding the alarm for so long that stories like this fall flat with most people. I don’t have a solution, I’m just lamenting that most people will just scroll past because we’ve been hearing dire warnings like this for decades.
There is nothing bad faith in my arguments. I am sincere in saying that I disagree with sending troops over there and in saying that I don’t see it as a massive escalation to send 100 troops when we already have 50,000 in theater.
You are arguing in bad faith by ignoring what I am saying and simply labeling any disagreement as “obvious propaganda”. Nothing here is black and white. This conflict has been going on for generations. Any immediate response has generations of previous actions behind it. To say otherwise is disingenuous.
Nothing in this conflict is simple. Nothing is clear. Nothing is black and white. Maybe labeling me as a propagandist for disagreeing on one specific thing while agreeing with your broader stance shows who the real propagandist is.
Jesus fucking christ… Why does everything that anyone disagrees with “propaganda”? Why can’t it be someone with a different fucking viewpoint? What the fuck is wrong with people on Lemmy that we can’t discuss something without it being “obvious propaganda” or some other bullshit?
Not everything is black and white. There is room for disagreement on parts of this conflict. I don’t agree with the US sending troops of any kind to Israel and I think we should stop giving them weapons until they stop committing genocide. The only point I was trying to make is that it doesn’t seem like a massive escalation to send 100 troops and a defensive system when we already have 50,000 troops, many war ships, two nuclear aircraft carries, and a ton of aircraft in theater already.
I agree that we shouldn’t be sending troops to Israel right now but 100 troops is hardly “all the troops” and isn’t a large change in the number of troops in the region.
Again, I don’t think we should be sending troops or weapons to Israel right now, but this does seem like a proportional response to Iran’s attack. They launched missiles at Israel. The US sent an anti-missile battery and 100 troops to support it. It seems like kind of a token force to say “we’re supporting Israel in this, but we’re also not going to go crazy”.
I’m actually asking. What is meant here? That Israel isn’t a real country? Or did I miss something?
I’m afraid to ask but, what do you mean by “false country”?
How about we steer toward better data privacy in general? Cars are collecting way too much data about us? So is everything else! We need sweeping legislation to claw back our privacy. We need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to privacy.
Right now, if he were able to convert all of his $241.8B to cash, then distribute it evenly among all of the employees at all of his companies, he could give each of his 146,000 employees $1.6M.
No one person should be that wealthy. I don’t necessarily think that billionaires should be abolished, but I do think they should be paying a shit load more in taxes than they are.
Also, before anyone says it, yes, I know it’s not as simple as converting his holdings to cash. I’m just saying “if it were possible”.
I take it that you would argue that the media bias bot is worse than nothing?
I’m not arguing in favor of the media bias bot in particular here. I’m just kind of thinking about what might be a better solution. Given the fractured media landscape at the moment, it seems unreasonable to expect everyone to immediately have know the various biases of each news source. Having tools that help with that, even if they are themselves biased, seems like a good starting point for understanding the bias of different news organizations. Is there a better way to develop a similar tool that provides more useful information?
Okay, I can certainly see that perspective and, after reading the link posted by @ayyy@InEnduringGrowStrong@sh.itjust.works I can see how this scale is problematic in other ways since news bias isn’t one-dimensional.
Is there a better way to educate people about the bias of particular new organizations, though? It seems unreasonable to expect everyone to develop their own individual assessment of every news organization. There are simply too many of them offering too many different spins. This attempt at providing something easily digestible seems like a reasonable starting point. It’s certainly not perfect and has a lot of room for improvement but is it worse than nothing?
Thank you for the link, that was helpful!
This is an honest question because I see the media bias bot being consistently downvoted and don’t understand why. Can you fill me in? Why is the media bias bot hated so much? It seems fairly reasonable in its assessments. For example:
They currently live in the US. So, whether they properly answered your prompt seems to depend on your definition of “your country”.