What a strange, defensive comment. Science and facts aren’t “inherently inflammatory”
“Political conservatism is associated with an increased negativity bias, including increased attention and reactivity toward negative and threatening stimuli”
I tried “you people” but for some reason it didn’t go too well.
“In 1951, Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected Prime Minister of Iran, voted in by the legislature and confirmed by the Shah. Mosaddegh became enormously popular after he nationalized the oil industry of Iran, which had been largely controlled by foreign interests. He worked to weaken the monarchy of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi until Mosaddegh was removed in the 1953 Iranian coup d’état—initially an Anglo-American covert operation that marked the first time the United States had participated in an overthrow of a foreign government during the Cold War”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#1951–1978:_Mosaddegh,_Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi
There’s a reason Iranians call the US The Great Satan.
Nazionists?
TIL the whole thing started on October 7th. You must be very smart.
“Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense of the original accusation.”
It wasn’t a “zinger”, I was drawing an equivalence between this lady’s “go back to China” rhetoric and the language of the far right where anyone who doesn’t toe the line is accused of being a foreign agent.
You’re ranting at me like I’m responsible for the content generated by other people. Weird.
instead of maliciously saying “IDF killed 3 Palestinians”?
You’re confusing me with someone else, or trying to put words in my mouth.
I understand you want to try and control the narrative but that’s not how this works.
It… is?
Yes, it is.
No target can have a high enough value to justify committing a war crime over. If you disagree, you’re attempting to justify something that should never be justified by anyone who would consider themselves a moral person. Sort yourself out.
This is the same kind of language employed by far right assholes everywhere.
Why is it “trying to defend the indefensible” when manipulation and lying by omission get called out as people here keep spamming “look the IDF killed 3 Palestinians” when it’s actually 3 terrorists (one affiliated with Hamas, two with Islamic Jihad) that got killed?
All of that is entirely irrelevant. They could’ve gone after the reanimated corpse of Hitler but it would still be a war crime. I’m not sure why you fail to understand this simple yet vital point.
You’re free to argue about the morality of assassinating three terrorists in a hospital.
There’s nothing to argue. It’s immoral and illegal. End of story.
But it’s scummy to leave out the affiliation to try to mislead and gather more sympathy for the terrorists that got assassinated.
“But they were super, super bad guys” is a pathetic excuse. Do you posses a functioning moral compass?
Yes, when you’re trying to defend the indefensible, this is exactly the kind of pathetic response I’d expect to read. Be better.
Have you ever tried defending the indefensible? It’s easier to just downvote.
My favorite is when they try and blame environmentalists for giving nuclear a bad rep and that’s why more nuclear isn’t being built. As if those making the decisions care about what environmentalists think.
Weird how anything that can possibly reduce fossil fuel usage is always too expensive
That’s not true. Wind and solar are often cheaper than fossil fuels and the prices are still going down.
If there’s anything you find inaccurate in the article, let’s hear it.
Ego death? Psychedelics can be therapeutic for those with terminal illnesses.
The world is in a bad place - war, famine, climate change and now this fucker is trying to start WWIII.
Chad comment right there.