You can also just not say anything when you don’t have anything to say.

Anti-anything in journalism is still bias, even if you think it’s common sense. Bias just means the outlet has a consistent slant or preference - it doesn’t automatically make them wrong.

That’s why it’s useful to notice bias. If Fox News and the New York Times - outlets with very different biases - both criticize Trump for the same thing, that convergence makes the criticism harder to dismiss. Recognizing bias doesn’t mean ignoring the point; it helps you weigh it more accurately.

The guys in front of and behind you are thinking the exactly same thing.

Few notes:

Factoid = Common misbelief often shared as a fact to the point that they had to tweak the meaning of the term because it became a factoid in itself.

There’s also no proven link between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol. At least not that I know of.

It cost me like 100€ to start mine.

In my experience you don’t even need camo to blend in. I’m a self-proclaimed military autist and my entire wardrobe is earth tones. That alone is enough to startle people on the trails when they’re not looking ahead and I suddenly appear in front of them on my bike. Camo obviously helps, but it’s not about perfectly blending in - it’s about not standing out. When I spot people in the woods it’s always because of a pale face or hands, or some brightly colored or white piece of clothing. Black stands out a lot too, but anything gray, brown, or green usually disappears into the background unless you’re staring right at it.

I do the opposite. The less apps I have on my device the better.

Definitely a much more evil company than all the others still doing it purely out of fear of being bullied into bankruptcy otherwise.

From my European point of view, this whole thing looks like keeping shoes on indoors - mostly only done by Americans, and even there, most people think it’s stupid.

One situation where I wouldn’t bother explaining myself is when it’s obvious the other person isn’t actually interested in a conversation, and they’re just there to posture and throw accusations.

You have a great day.

I have not downvoted you in this thread.

If you want the killing to stop, then you have to talk about viable ways to make it stop - not what would be nice in some perfect universe we don’t live in. I’ve yet to see a single suggestion from you about what should be done instead.

Your cartoon example isn’t even remotely equivalent to the reality Putin is in. He went in expecting to take Kyiv in a week with minimal resistance and no serious Western response. Even in his worst-case planning, he didn’t prepare for what he’s in now. The point where he could have cut his losses passed long ago - he’s gone all in, and now the West is calling his bluff.

Put yourself in his position and look at the “solution” being offered: withdraw all troops, surrender the little territory you’ve gained, and face the full weight of everything you’ve gambled and lost. The alternative? Keep throwing whatever you have left at the problem and hope for a miracle.

Given he’s likely only got another decade or so left to live, there’s no personal incentive to fold now. He has nothing more to lose - he’s not just going to walk away.

I’m not defending Putin’s actions - I’m assessing the realistic options given the current situation. There’s a difference between what should happen in a moral sense and what is actually likely to happen in the real world.

Saying “he should accept the consequences” is easy - but how exactly do you propose making that happen? Wishing for an outcome is not the same as having a way to it. If you think there’s a viable way to get Putin to take personal responsibility or withdraw and survive it personally, I’m genuinely interested in hearing what you think that looks like in practice.

I don’t see a conflict here but I’m happy to explain if you elaborate on what’s confusing about what I said.

Nothing I’ve said is in any way defending the invasion.

In my opinion? Well obviously yeah. That just doesn’t have anything to do with the topic at hand.

Russia has attacked my country in the past as well, and I have zero sympathy for their cause. But that doesn’t stop me from imagining the situation from their perspective. “Just ending the invasion” isn’t a survivable option if you’re Putin. No matter how unjust it’s been, the only imaginable way out is to somehow let him “save face" what ever that means in this situation.

Build your enemy a golden bridge to retreat across.

• Sun Tzu

Explanation is not excuse. This has absolutely nothing to do with justifying anything they’ve done.

If a person climbs onto a stage to make a statement, and instead of getting on stage to make a counterpoint someone just shouts “booo” from the audience, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to demand that person to show their face. There’s a certain level of cowardice in simply downvoting without explaining why you disagree. There’s no option to post anonymously here, so it’s not obvious to me that voting should be anonymous either. If people upvote or downvote, they should be willing to stand behind that - and if someone asks for an explanation, you have three choices: ignore them, block them, or explain. I guess there’s also the option to simply not vote at all.

If it were up to me, I’d hide vote counts from users entirely. It’s not all bad, but I’d argue the net effect is negative. Visible votes encourages toxic behavior. When someone makes a controversial claim, you can first downvote them, then dunk on them in a reply - and now they’re being downvoted into oblivion while you get applause for your smug comment. It feels like you’ve won the debate when in reality, nobody’s mind changed. Heavily downvoted comments also prime readers to dislike them before they even read them, instead of approaching with a neutral mindset and then forming their own opinion - or reading further to see other perspectives. As it stands, the system mostly trains people to recognize what’s popular on a platform so they can self-censor to avoid downvotes, and feel validated for shouting down people who voice unpopular opinions.

So, if someone asks me to explain why I downvoted something, I might explain or I might not - but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable thing to ask. On the other hand, if someone makes it their personal mission to follow me around and harass me because I downvoted their comment, I think it’s unreasonable to demand the system be changed just so I don’t have to deal with it. There’s already a solution for that: blocking them.

Thank you!

No, I haven’t - I’m a plumber by training. I credit my autism for my precision of speech, and as for my philosophy and the vocabulary around it, I’d say that’s simply the result of a few decades of debating these topics online, combined with thousands of hours of podcasts and YouTube videos covering these topics.

It’s rare that I say anything completely original. If something I say comes across as well-crafted, it’s probably because I’ve said the exact same thing a dozen times before.

There’s no real cost to stopping drunk driving. Putin, on the other hand, has gone all in on the war in Ukraine. “Just pull your troops from Ukraine” is about as realistic as “just shoot yourself,” because from his perspective, the outcome is basically the same in both scenarios.

Sure, it would be nice if Russia simply left Ukraine, but put yourself in Putin’s position - it’s a complete non-solution. You don’t fold after going all in. It’s an incredibly naive thing to say, and it ignores the reality and complexity of the situation entirely. It’s a thought-terminating cliché - a feel-good slogan people toss around to avoid critical thinking, while fishing for upvotes from like-minded people.