3 ms·
Being "not true" or "groundless" are not requirements to fear monger. Home invasions are real and based in reality, but if someone published an article titled
by daenz 7y ago
Being "not true" or "groundless" are not requirements to fear monger. Home invasions are real and based in reality, but if someone published an article titled "The hidden criminal killers that are all around us," and had comparable content to this article, I would also consider that fear mongering. Fear mongering is about whipping people up with fear about an issue they have very little control over. To me, this article reaches that threshold.
- graeme 7y agoBut there aren't criminal killers all around us, hiding....So your makeshift headline is false. Vanishingly few home invasions lead to death. I know of no definition of fear mongering that includes whether we can control a phenomenon. And unlike the home invader example, nanoparticles are real and do have bad effects. You're also conveniently ignoring that you can avoid them by going further from their sources. And this info is relevant to urban planners, building designers, researchers, etc
- daenz 7y ago>But there aren't criminal killers all around us, hiding You're missing the point entirely but that's fine. >You're also conveniently ignoring that you can avoid them by going further from their sources Do you recognize how much privilege you're speaking from here? The biggest concentrations were inside buses and cars...you know, the vehicles that the lower classes of society routinely have take to work? They should just buy a Tesla, obviously. Or just not live by highways. Or just live within casual walking distance, through wooded parks, of their job. I ignored it because it's asinine for everyday people.