It is all also very clearly stated in the information they must collect in order to provide their service. There should’ve been no surprises here, as you must assume that scenarios like these will happen eventually.
Lmao yeah I’m not sure what the commenter is implying? The question we should be asking is if the polled population is representative of the general population.
Do they expect the study to poll the entire US population?
Typically I value comments based on argumentative strength and/or whether information provided adds value to discussion.
Strong arguments will be upvoted even if I disagree with the overall conclusion. And part of what makes arguments strong is civility and open-mindedness (in my opinion).
False dichotomy. Doesn’t have to be one or the other. It can be “more” under one party than with another.
How is it that SO MANY people literally can’t see past a false dichotomy logical fallacy? I swear every other fucking comment is like “Yuhh WELL it wouhda been the same under the LIBS” like some sort of “gotcha”.
The amount of people that desperately need a course in basic informal logic is beyond astounding.
TF you on? Just because there weren’t immediate, drastic regime level changes doesn’t mean they went “exactly nowhere”.
There have been many changes at smaller levels not being reported in mainstream western media. Public pressure called for MANY local officials to step down along with changes in law that have already started effecting everyday life, and at least in Thailand, some pretty major changes in how public officials are held accountable via more expansive auditing channels, thereby increasing transparency.
Not everything is a fucking hollywood movie wherein you have some Hunger Games style uprising against the elite.
In fact, it’s fucking insulting hearing people who haven’t an ounce of global exposure beyond whatever 2 or 3 media sources they shove their heads into saying “those protesters got nothing accomplished”.
Never let anyone tell you protesting doesn’t work.
I have two facts that I intend to share in a neutral manner (and, for the case of this hypothetical, we will assume that “sharing knowledge in a 100% completely neutral, fact-based manner” is even possible).
I will call these Fact A and Fact B.
During the Super Bowl, I denote 30 seconds of airtime to Fact A, and denote only 5 seconds of airtime to Fact B.
I mean it’s possible yeah. But the point is that the professor should know this and, hopefully, modify the instructions for those with this specific accommodation.
Ideally, absolutely. That’s what makes the hallmarks of a great scientist.
In practice, institutionalized science can be just as dogmatic and closed-minded as some of the worst religions.
I have had advisors/coworkers/management straight up ignore certain evidence because it didn’t fit their preconceived views of what the results “should be”. This doesn’t make the process of science objective anymore when people are crafting experiments in ways to fit their views, or cherry picking data that conforms to their views.
And you would be surprised at how often this happens in very high-stakes science industries (people’s lives are at stake). It’s fucking disgusting, and extremely dangerous.
AHHHHH so friggin cute!! Names?