Literally what schools are for (in this context where you are using stupid as a synonym for uneducated)

I dont need to “understand US news” to understand a journalists job. It is to deliver objective truths. Biasing news in the opposite direction doesnt help anyone on the long run, it just widens the gap.

Not sure what youre on about.

1. Im not American
2. Youre saying people who dont want journalists faking news headlines to make Trump look worse are supporting Trump? What kinda fucked up shit is this?

So where are those people that are vastly outnumbering the nazis?

I mean they are reporting what literally happened. Making assumptions before an investigation would be bad journalism.

I really hope so. That makes is as obvious as possible that the Republicans were all in there

Not really imo. They are doing about 100 times better than I could have imagined in my wildest dreams after what Elon pulled. Their stock went up from last year, they have a literal trillion dollars to spare for Elons pocket money. Sure, theres some whining about sales and internal troubles, most of it probably for show to make Donald Rapist cough up some tax payer money to “save the industry”. I think we are at a point where reputation literally means nothing for a big corporation. Look at Nestle, they are evil in every single aspect, everyone knows it, and they are doing better than ever and dont see the need to change anything. Being evil simply works, and by now corporations are realizing they dont even have to pretend they arent anymore.

I didnt try to attack them for buying foreign, maybe I misunderstood your comment. I thought you meant Toyota being a Japanese brand would make it unattractive for them, thats what I was commenting on.

Im sorry, I didnt understand any of that.

I wouldnt be surprised if MAGAts buys more overseas than the average American. Their whole merch is made in Asia.

I think the business strategy here is sucking up to a dictator who can decide on a whim that Toyota is now the only American car brand allowed to be American and sell American cars. Or that Toyota parts are exempt from tariffs. Or that Toyotas are subsidised with 300% ontop by tax payer money. Looking at the current situation I dont even think this is a bad decision from a purely capitalist viewpoint, but its cowardly as fuck.

These articles often say “block” but is that really the case? Trump evidently doesnt care what judges say. Wouldnt “opposes” be a better word when a judge doesnt have the power to actually block something? Or is that the correct legal term?

Its almost funny because its behavior that some would shrug off like “dont bother with that man, hes old, bitter and senile, just ignkre him” if it wasnt the President of the fucking United States.

They worship him for stuff like thus because they also want to treat people like that but not be treated the same way.

Would this be considered whitewashing though? From my understanding whitewashing is a practice that “hides” diversity, while in this case the goal would be to get rid of the racist background. Also, the goal would be to change the tradition itself, not simply leaving Zwarte Piet as a black man represented by white people, right?

I am reading those kinds of comments as playfully mocking, especially when the followup is so obviously exaggerated. Wouldnt mind someone using it on me. Im not a native English speaker though so maybe Im just ignorant of the real implicated meaning.

But your “actual endangerment” didn’t actually happen either? They ate weed gummies and had no demonstrable negative effects afterwards, according to the article. Why am I required to address your “potential harm” that never occurred while you get to ignore the other side?

Did it say that in the article? I would still consider non consensual drug consumption to be harm in any case, not to mention there may be negative aftereffects that are not immediately obvious.

Did you not just complain about being pedantic about wording immediately before this sentence?

True, but how was that about wording?

Anyway, I dont think were getting anywhere, we just seem to have different views about the harmfulness of some actions.

Oh there definitely is a way to defend it. “Trans people are evil incarnate trying to destroy humanity. We have to fight them any way we can, even if its just something as small as cutting their pension.” You can justify anything if the basis you operate on is fiction.

(Sorry, maths nerd here, but a funny little analogy from Propositional Logic would be A => B always being true for any two statements A and B where A is false. Like, saying “If horses are apples, then pigs can fly” is an objectively true statement.)

Jesus you guys are so pedantic with the wording. English isnt even my first language. Yeah, she actually endangered people. What I wanted to say is the endangerment didnt cause actual harm in that case. It doesnt make it right but its still much better than causing actual harm.

Also its not a strawman, I literally said “its like saying”, I made a comparison. A strawman argument would be if I pretended like you implied shooting someone in the leg is worse than driving a car.

You cited the possibility of greater harm as the reason for it being worse than actually causing lesser harm. I made an example where that obviously doesnt apply to make the point that the possibility of causing greater harm does not automatically make an action worse than an other.

Right. Changed it, doesnt really change the point though.