I do advise you to look for news sources as neutral as possible. do not inform your self in any form of echo chamber and then think you are informed. look at topics from all sides. there are good and bad news sources on the whole spectrum. allsides.com or ground.news shows you diffrent approaches to present a topic.

Edit: What I want to add: If you never try to slip into your opponents skin and try to view the world from their perspective, you cannot expect them to do so. This is cruicial for de-polarization and lays the ground for constructive debates.

“pickachu face” …no shit? big corp. controls anything they can to make amd maintain profit? Its good someone does this kind of investigative journalism. But I am not surprised by this article

once there was a study that stated, gingers are more sensitive to the sun. no sheesh sherlock

Yeh, let those fukkers live in fear muahahah

cold brew coffee anyone?

asking for a friendv does the LSD in the coffee machine work? i mean doesn’t it get burned or damaged?

This is a Djembe not a Bongo

Why is that?

i was about to recommend beyer-dynamics but i just read that it’s been sold to china a few months ago

created by deletion

Stability and fat people.

Brought to you by: The Brittish Empire

Me included, I started bc i had some minor health issues and i was recommended to change my diet. What actually worked, but now i realised how this isn’t even an effort and can have an impact. Even if we would eat only half the meat we eat now, there would be a noticable change in these statiscs.

I could argue “everyone just banned cfc” where everyone is not an individual anymore but governments. I see your point tho and you are right, action has to take place this way or that way for something to change. I just wanted to visualize sometimes things do happen because the initial thought of some scientist was probably “if we just stop using cfc, the ozone layer can be safe again”(symbolic for" they found out whats causing the problem") …is not a solution in terms of action but the action that caused the stop was initiated by exactly such a thought. So i wouldn’t categorically throw such thoughts in the wind…

I ask myself: How much does this cost me and how big is the effect… in this particular example the costs are close to zero and the impact, even if small, is there. So the Cost/effect ratio is blowing up to infinity at zero cost.

I also believe that the marketing complex adds a lot of bias to the scene here. if you’re being brainwashed/hypnotized into wanting chicken sandwiches and then buy it, you can’t really say it was your choice, no?. i think people often forget how much money is pumped in commercials, and thats not because “sales go up a bit”. I truly think marketing has gotten to a point where we should regulate it.

Wasn’t there this product (cfc i guess )they put in fridges that caused harm to the ozon layer. And every fridge producer just stopped using it after we found out its really not good? to be fair its not common to happen but it proves its also not impossible that “everyone just…” I think if there’s an easy solution, it is poasible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

let’s hope

i rember this scene of the Chernobyl mini series:

"Ah its only 3.5(unit of radiation) we don’t need to worry!

But the testing device they had could only go as far as 3.5… The actual level was around a factor of 100 or so…

“ln(e) = 1 mom”

please consider choosing colorblind friendly colours :) the colorblind community says thank you.