2 ms·
You're focusing too much on this specific article. My point is about this type of coverage in general, even on topics that might seem "solved" or "obvious" to
by hilux 2y ago
You're focusing too much on this specific article.
My point is about this type of coverage in general, even on topics that might seem "solved" or "obvious" to you.
And even this article in the JPost is a useful reference for a JPost reader to use when a white person says "that never happened," which is EXTREMELY common.
- bell-cot 2y agoMillions of people falsely believing that the earth is flat is not a good reason for the Journal of Astrophysical Research to waste time, pages, or screen real estate running a "The Earth is Not Flat" article. (Admission: I'm so d*mn old that I don't believe performative virtue to be an acceptable substitute for intelligently attempting to fix real-world problems.) The JPost article is 99% worthless as a rebuttal for "that never happens" denialism - because it has zero cites to original sources. (Or is my AV software erasing a sidebar full of links to supporting government documents?)
- hilux 2y agoI'm not sure what constitutes an "original source" in your eyes. The article quotes several people by name (including the current DA), and refers to specific cases.
- bell-cot 2y agoDo you see any credibility difference between these two? "The US Supreme Court says that five factors weigh strongly in favor of overruling Roe and Casey." - and - "Page 43 of the ruling - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf - states that five factors weigh strongly in favor of overruling Roe and Casey."