anomoly

The real pro tip is always in the comments

I haven’t seen the term gleeking in decades. Growing up in the 80s it was a skill to be mastered.

It isn’t just affecting education, unfortunately. There’s a number of topics (e.g. human rights, equality, etc) that society has become more enlightened about and that they’d like to revert.

Interesting. Thanks for the explanation.

looks like the recipe is here

edit: or not. the image matches but, after actually paying attention to the recipe, I’m not sure that sounds right.

I suspect they won’t need to rationalize it, unfortunately. This will be justification for them to use their weapons.

If you’re here to tell me energy drink body spray is a bad idea, I’ve heard it before, from a bank and some doctors.

This is what it sounds like to me, and Sim Ant is the game I had in mind opening this post. It was a good one.

Do you have any preferred sources for learning more about Umberto eco’s 14 points of fascism?

I have a pair originally purchased for running but they’ve turned out to be useful in numerous situations where I wanted to listen to something without losing awareness of my surroundings.

There’s nothing wrong with the article.

I guess I can concede that the article describes what happened, so maybe it was the headline that set off my skepticism. In my opinion there’s a big difference between:

‘If anything happens, it’s not suicide’: Boeing whistleblower’s prediction before death

and

‘If anything happens, it’s not suicide’: Family friend reports Boeing whistleblower’s prediction before death

I know I’m being pedantic, that it’s just clickbait, and that’s the reality of today’s media; but I’ve spent the last 8-10 years watching some my family radicalized by headlines like this (albeit on different topics) and feel pretty strongly about it, I suppose. After realizing a few years ago the negative effect internet echo chambers were having on me I started to try and be a little more skeptical about things I was reading, especially if I agreed with them. Most of the time I just try to keep quiet but, apparently, felt like trying to start a discussion about it this morning.

claiming that a HR rep and a family friend have the same level of believability is ridiculous.

You probably have a point here. I could have better phrased my statement as something like, “I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a “close family friend” who agrees with my point of view than I am a “close family friend” who disagrees with my point of view” or something similar. For instance, if the women in the article told the reporter, “he was very unhappy and told me he might kill himself” I’d still be thinking there was a convincing chance that Boeing was directly responsible because I wouldn’t consider her any more credible just because she’s agreeing with me.

I feel the same about the response given that I’m agreeing with everyone’s sentiments overall and only questioning the validity of a single source. Suppose I need to get a better feel for the site before trying to be more active.

I’m curious if some one who disagreed with you - on something that they found completely, obviously true - tried to convince you they were right by saying that their mom’s friend’s daughter made a claim about it, how inclined would you be to believe them or that daughter?

I think we all agree that Barnett suspected that something would happen; and we all agree that Boeing is a terrible company that is capable, and guilty, of terrible things. My point it just that there is concrete evidence of these things and articles should rely on something other than some person made a claim with nothing but, “it’s obvious” or “I know” to back it up

What motivation does she have to just fully make up a conversation?

That’s my point: we have no idea. We have no information other than that her and Barnett’s mothers are best friends and that he was a pallbearer at her father’s funeral. She could be a well educated individual that is doing her best to make a point and draw attention to something, or she could be someone who believes tons of stuff that is blatantly false and is telling her opinion to anyone who will listen. Either way, (copying from my other comment) I guess this is all more me just trying to voice frustration with the article. Not that it’s unprecedented (maybe even the norm) these days, but it’s always frustrating to see headlines with unsubstantiated claims and discussions ensuing as if it’s fact."

He pretty much said “I think something may happen to me and they will make it look like a suicide.”

Did he state that somewhere else? Admittedly I haven’t been following the story too closely so I may have missed something there; but if he isn’t documented saying that somewhere credible, then all we have is her claiming that he “pretty much said” that. Is it likely he said it? I mean, I’d definitely be saying it if I was in his shoes, but one family friend’s claim isn’t enough to convince me that this should have been published as it was. I guess this is all more me just trying to voice frustration with the article. Not that it’s unprecedented (maybe even the norm) these days, but it’s always frustrating to see headlines with unsubstantiated claims and discussions ensuing as if it’s fact.

Maybe, though, it’s enough to get the coroner to take another look at his death.

Here’s to hoping

You sure have a lot more faith in corporations than I do…

I probably don’t, I’m just trying to present an argument with throwing on more layers of personal bias

I’m not any defender of corporations, by any means, but I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a “close family friend” who “needed help one day” any more than some corporate HR; and “I don’t care what they say, I know that Mitch didn’t do that” isn’t exactly a solid argument to be basing things on.

Edit: I seem to have missed this on my first read:

Jennifer said she thinks somebody “didn’t like what he had to say” and wanted to “shut him up” without it coming back to anyone"…“That’s why they made it look like a suicide,”

I’m never surprised to hear something bad about Boeing, but this is just a woman convinced with, on the face of it, no other proof than what’s in her own head. Unless she’s got a recording or document, the article’s title could have been, “Family friend tells reporter a story”

That strikes me as a “Sorry, not sorry” kind of response.

This is an evangelical organization so that’s probably all you’re going to get. They have an entire culture built around perceived persecution so, even when they’re forced to apologize for something, they’re going to think they’re the victims of the scenario.

source: I used to be one of them

edit: I guess I shouldn’t make such sweeping generalizations. my opinion is based off my couple of decades as an evangelical and another couple watching my family continue with it

I’ve always liked how Sam Harris addressed this:

It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ. It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves - socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically. Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the US government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religion dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.

Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation