11–20 of 87 posts
Then it lost me with "Oh and smoking bans are good and global human population increases are good and also drilling=evil corporations so banning it across the board=good"
Those are debatable. Not very politically neutral is it.
Everything is awesome!
Some of these are objectively good, such as world literacy increasing, less pollution in the atmosphere or survival rates increasing for endangered species. Then it lost me with "Oh and smoking bans are good and global human population increases are good and also drilling=evil corporations so banning it across the board=good" Those are debatable. Not very politically neutral is it.
Sorry not sorry. Happy to not be paying for people's lung cancer treatment or dealing with secondhand in bars when I want to listen to live music. The vape bans are pretty preposterous though.
> drilling = evil
If it's in the ground it's not in the air.
Some of these are objectively good, such as world literacy increasing, less pollution in the atmosphere or survival rates increasing for endangered species. Then it lost me with "Oh and smoking bans are good and global human population increases are good and also drilling=evil corporations so banning it across the board=good" Those are debatable. Not very politically neutral is it.
The world is great and all, but politics is (and always will be) sinister; politics now owns education.
Some of these are objectively good, such as world literacy increasing, less pollution in the atmosphere or survival rates increasing for endangered species. Then it lost me with "Oh and smoking bans are good and global human population increases are good and also drilling=evil corporations so banning it across the board=good" Those are debatable. Not very politically neutral is it.
While population increases are not good by themselves, all reduction in mortality is very good for everyone who has not to die. Interestingly this seems to have the consequence that the birth rates decline strongly as observed in many places.
Drilling is not bad because of "evil corporations", but because it regularly is accompanied by harming the environment, be it through the drilling, building roads through natural forests or oil spills.
Some of these are objectively good, such as world literacy increasing, less pollution in the atmosphere or survival rates increasing for endangered species. Then it lost me with "Oh and smoking bans are good and global human population increases are good and also drilling=evil corporations so banning it across the board=good" Those are debatable. Not very politically neutral is it.
Supposedly unbiased "both sides" journalism is a sham anyway. Better to read a couple biased articles and make up your own mind.
Some of these are objectively good, such as world literacy increasing, less pollution in the atmosphere or survival rates increasing for endangered species. Then it lost me with "Oh and smoking bans are good and global human population increases are good and also drilling=evil corporations so banning it across the board=good" Those are debatable. Not very politically neutral is it.
> Smoking bans are good. Sorry not sorry. Happy to not be paying for people's lung cancer treatment or dealing with secondhand in bars when I want to listen to live music. The vape bans are pretty preposterous though. > drilling = evil If it's in the ground it's not in the air.
At this time last year it was highly questionable if humans would ever lose to algorithms at games as complex as Go.
Now we have reason to be optimistic that an entire class of problems are amenable to solution through computation, and more evidence super-human synthetic intelligence is indeed possible.
Some of these are objectively good, such as world literacy increasing, less pollution in the atmosphere or survival rates increasing for endangered species. Then it lost me with "Oh and smoking bans are good and global human population increases are good and also drilling=evil corporations so banning it across the board=good" Those are debatable. Not very politically neutral is it.
Smoking bans are probably debatable.
But to be fair, it wouldn't be political neutral even if it weren't for those particular statements. There are plenty of people in the world (and the US in particular) who think it's a debatable political statement to say that anthropogenic climate change is real, or that evolution and the big bang are science fact. In fact there are people in the US who would think that whole article is a perfect example of everything wrong with the "evil liberal agenda".
There's no such thing, really, as a politically neutral statement.