ILemmen

I'd say the trade-off here that if news is presented in an entertaining manner, it is likely to be be consumed while compromising on thoroughness, while if it is presented in a more informative manner, it will be better thought out (not necessarily more accurate) but not enough people will watch it, meaning that people would still have a poor understanding of what is happening. pick your poison.

Its true, but that doesn't means that a one-party state is better. This doesn't cancel out the significant downsides of a one party state. Avoiding argument is a good thing when the policy is needed immediately for emergency purposes, and bad thing at any other time.

Doing something productive can often help put you into a calmer state of mind so that it is easier to think rationally about the issue.

I think the main problem with suppressing arms research is that it just gives the advantage to whoever doesn't.

The truth needs to be heard. It will either be heard peacefully, or burn your house down (metaphorically) if you ignore it.

An individual's economic class (atleast in America) tends to be fluid and change with age. Most working Americans, who were initially in the bottom 20 percent of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20 percent. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent. Most great fortunes are squandered within 3 generation.

https://fee.org/articles/busting-myths-about-income-inequality/

We have to test novel drugs on something, and animal testing seems better than going straight to human testing. (If there are even enough humans are willing to be guinea pigs)

I think the idea of a soulmate is harmful because it leads to perfectionism in a domain where people don't have time for perfectionism. (dating)

This statement is kind of vague, and depending on how you read it, I would be on opposite sides. If by making peace, you mean agreeing with and supporting it then no. If by making peace, you mean figuring out what you are and are not capable of in relation to it, and acting within a range of behavior that isn't harmful to yourself or others then I'd agree with it.

If statues have to go, couldn't we just send them to museum for historical and artistic value? It seems wasteful to just destroy them.

Do you want to be judged by tomorrow's standard? We should stop throwing stones in glass houses when all houses are glass.

She is basically just publicly funded celebrity who on paper has some power, that if in practice she were to use, she would lose shortly afterwards.

Its kind of funny to see the mainstream press talk about the importance of press freedom when they get criticized by someone powerful, but then ignore it when they denounce smaller individuals or brands.

It is generally better when a lot of different types institutions are balancing each other out, because each has certain virtues and certain vices. Large corporations create a lot of material prosperity for most people but tend to create great disparities which lead to jealousy and thus certain types of social strife. Without them everyone would be in extreme poverty but would be equally poor. Perhaps they should be reformed a bit, but overall raising up institutions that have lost power makes more sense to me.

I just don't trust governments to have anymore idea what's true than any company. Both have incentives to distort or can be mislead the truth, and thus both will consistently be incorrect, and to just give one the option to penalize the other just causes their biases to be unquestioned.