wahming

deleted by creator

I don’t see how it’s cheaper to maintain an entire facility and staff just to take care of unwanted items, but I concede it’s a possibility, bureaucracy and inertia being what it is.

In your extensive experience, how common are unlicensed biotech R&D facilities being run in secret? And I see no reason being capable of biotech R&D would preclude it from being capable of more malicious purposes. If anything, I’d assume a significant amount of overlap between the two capabilities.

This is insane. Straight out of a spy novel. Foreign power maintaining bioweapons facility in the US.

That’s fair. If that were the case here, or if she had made any such claim, I’d agree the title would then be fitting. However, since it’s not mentioned, I’ll point out that you’re making assumptions based solely on the headline, and hence proving my point about the wording influencing people in specific ways.

I’m not discussing the morality of the punishment. I’ll refer you to my other comment here:
https://kbin.social/m/[email protected]/t/262280/Singapore-hangs-first-woman-in-19-years-after-she-was#entry-comment-1186793

I’m not discussing the morality of the punishment. I’ll refer you to my other comment here:
https://kbin.social/m/[email protected]/t/262280/Singapore-hangs-first-woman-in-19-years-after-she-was#entry-comment-1186793

My original comment contains details from the article, so I’m not sure why you think I haven’t read it.

Why I find the headline objectionable:

1. Emphasis on gender. Why does it matter that she’s female, or how long is it’s been since the last woman was executed? Is it any more or less significant / objectionable than a man being sentenced to the same thing? It’s not trying to make some sort of analysis about gender trends, so I can only assume it’s a device to invoke emotions.
2. Choice of wording about the quantity. ‘A year’s supply’ would have made it very obvious to anybody browsing that this was not a casual user. Instead they went with the less accessible amount in grams, which makes it seem to those unfamiliar with drugs like it was a tiny bust.

Combined, the headline seems to be pushing a specific agenda, which I find deplorable (the covertness, not the agenda).

Does the source matter when I’ve already pointed out what’s wrong with the headline?

Perhaps so. I’m not discussing the morality of death sentences, just the BS clickbait here

It’s incelish to point out a headline is exploiting gender politics for clicks? Ok.

I’m not sure you know what an incel is, BTW. Here’s the definition for your reference: “a member of an online community of young men who consider themselves unable to attract women sexually, typically associated with views that are hostile towards women and men who are sexually active.”

Now tell me which part of my statement is hostile towards women, or in any way at all related to sexuality. You’re merely using the term as a hammer against viewpoints you disagree with.

Biased title. Why should gender matter in law? This is a blatant attempt to tug at emotions. And they try to focus on ‘31 grams’ instead of ‘a year’s supply’. Take that clickbait back to reddit.

Edit since a lot of people think I’m discussing the sentencing. I’m not, I’m discussing the article itself. My reasoning:

Why I find the headline objectionable:

1. Emphasis on gender. Why does it matter that she’s female, or how long is it’s been since the last woman was executed? Is it any more or less significant / objectionable than a man being sentenced to the same thing? It’s not trying to make some sort of analysis about gender trends, so I can only assume it’s a device to invoke emotions.
2. Choice of wording about the quantity. ‘A year’s supply’ would have made it very obvious to anybody browsing that this was not a casual user. Instead they went with the less accessible amount in grams, which makes it seem to those unfamiliar with drugs like it was a tiny bust.

Combined, the headline seems to be pushing a specific agenda, which I find deplorable (the covertness, not the agenda).

Reddit has been shit, but let’s be honest. That sub was filled to the brim with illegal offers for money. Lawsuits waiting to happen.

Oh god no, keep him distracted and far far away from SpaceX

I want the ability to cut bs out of my stuff

What are you talking about? Nobody’s disputing that. You seem to have lost the thread of the conversation, which is about preventing people you’ve blocked from seeing your posts. At that point you’re not cutting BS out of your stuff, but other people’s.

im saying I disapear to them

This approach is incredibly open to abuse. Reddit implemented this to a lesser degree and abuse already started happening. By blocking everybody who disagrees with you, you can start threads that are only visible to lurkers and your supporters, creating a warped perception of public opinion and false consensus.

Yeah it’s not showing up for whatever reason. Anyway, your reply boiled down to ‘Something that doesn’t exist yet’. It’s probably a good idea to get the replacement tech up and running, and work out the kinks, before cheering for the death of our workhorse communication method.

Are you sure? I’m not seeing anything else in this thread under your profile

Do share the alternative with us, that’s universally supported and not owned by a corporation.

Oh, sweet summer child