The focus on the economy is the problem. The average American cares about the cost of living and the quality of life. An economy that fails to deliver those is worthless to most of us.

If you haven’t seen a slant, then those two news agencies are slanted towards things that you already believe. In reality, all news agencies are slanted somehow.

There’s no possible way they could cover every single issue from all perspectives, right? So even if you think that they’re trying to be as neutral as possible, the stories that they pick and choose to cover tell you what their values are.

And sometimes being neutral actually means you’re being slanted, because sometimes the truth isn’t in the middle. Sometimes some of actors really are so bad that you need to call them out on their bad actions, at least if you have any morals.

I don’t think it’s simply a question of knowledge. A lot of people make money by supporting the status quo, especially the military industrial complex, and other people hold racist views towards all Palestinians.

No doubt it depends what you mean by “mentally ill”, and also how nomadic they need to be to qualify.

1. Always record the police.
2. STFU.

But sometimes you can tell that the police will get violent if you don’t lick their boots, so if you have to change your game plan, do what you need to do to.

Removed by mod

This is not just Aso. His party believes it’s OK to think and act like that.

That’s one approach, but in the past military experts have cautioned against it because Iran has large missiles pointed at Israel, and Israel has nuclear weapons.

Anyone who would actually say that quote out loud in front of a camera clearly means the latter. People who value public trust would never think of saying a sentence like that, because the focus would be on their relationship with the public and not on themselves.

I have zero idea what you mean when you say that it has destroyed society. Can you explain?

It really isn’t though. This is a pretty weak stereotype. I have so many friends that are counter examples. Hey it’s okay to make a meme if you want to have fun but if that’s how you feel then your friend group is small.

You don’t get to pick and choose what Fox News has said in the past. Their position is that climate change is vastly exaggerated and largely a hoax, and depending who you talk to they might have a stronger view.

You don’t get to forget what they said in the past and present and choose a totally new position, where the main focus is on hypocrisy. Because if Fox News believes what it has said for the last 20 years, then the actual reasoning is that Taylor Swift is acting hypocritically but it’s irrelevant. In other words, if they want to have integrity they would need to undercut their own story.

You personally are free to have a position that purely focuses on hypocrisy if you haven’t already made public statements on climate change. But Fox News is stuck with positions it has already endorsed and continues to endorse. I mean we know that Fox News has no credibility but if you thought that they should, then this is something they can’t avoid.

Headlines like that are weird and I think a bad way of using the English language. Loss of potential revenue is not the same as a cost.

I think there are two separate issues.

The first is that you’re introverted, and you need to learn how to communicate that to people in a reasonable way.

The second is that your workplace clearly encourages communication, and you have an issue with communicating. To some degree, you will need to adjust your expectations. You might think that your job duties are XYZ, but in reality, many of your bosses and coworkers think your job duties are XYZ as well as chatting with people around you, within reason. If you express your needs effectively, perhaps you can adjust that “within reason” to mean “less than now but not zero”.

Sure sure, I think we all knew this decades ago. Saying it again is fine, but talk is cheap.

That all depends on the industry in question. I’m not sure about Shell.

But the key point is that regulating individual action, or focusing on individual action, is only a small part of the problem. We need to focus on the big polluters first and foremost. And we know who they are, even if we don’t know exactly how to parse the data.

You fell into the trap that this post is exposing. Of course personal action matters, everyone knows it and there’s no chance we’ll forget it, but the heavy polluting companies want to focus our attention on that alone, to keep it off of themselves. Please don’t assist them in doing so.

lol yes this was obvious a few decades ago … The years since were just propaganda time for the north and the south.

Humans made this decision. This is not “the system”. It’s greedy people.

US labor law is a joke, that’s how.