944
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2026
944 points (99.4% liked)
News
37694 readers
1183 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah I don’t care about studies either when my feelings are telling me otherwise.
You should care about the fact that studies will tell you roundup is safe, atrazine is safe, and the like. My sweet summer child, the system is corrupted. If you don't know that yet, there is little hope for you.
You either need more drugs or less drugs. Whatever level you're at now is not working.
First of all, the answer is always more and better drugs. That you don't know that indicts your understanding!
Second of all, you have no idea what you are defending, you trust the establishment and follow their lead. I would argue at this point to not question what you are told by the experts exposes you for a fool.
Yeah what do the experts know?
That is a good point, they know who pays them and who can take their living away from them. What were you fucking born yesterday? That last sentence was delivered in a yell.
I agree with you.
In a world of sheep be a Steve Jobs.
Dead from cancer because you think you know better than the experts?
And wash your feet in the workplace toilet.
I guess that answers that question.
Oh rather, and accepting what you are told without question is such a display of intelligence by the way! We've all seen how trustworthy the experts are, to not trust them, ha, right? GTFO. I don't care how many half wits vote with you because they think they are right on this issue, you are, how can I not be offensive, a sheep. A particularly dumb one trusting your shepard to lead you to safety when you are heading to the slaughterhouse.
Nobody here is listening to you without question. That's what bothers you.
Are you old enough to be using the internet?
If not, are you too old to be on the internet?
My honest answer, is to do your own research. To be more specific though, read the article. Then the study the article is based on. Then do a few google searches and read a few related studies. Look for a general consensus. How many studies are there. What methods do they use? Sample sizes?
Basically, validating this stuff requires work and critical thinking. It's much easier to claim the institutions are corrupt, and that you don't trust anything they say. Doing that also leaves you with nothing but popular opinion, rumors, and whatever you think sounds about right based on a knee jerk reaction.
How can anyone hold a conversation or argument about it when you look at data and go "no actually I don't agree because spooky unrelated study on a different thing by a different journal like ~~10~~ years ago"
Edit: *26 years ago, mb friends
I did not reference any 10-year-old journal. I referenced a lack of faith in these United states.
You can talk your establishment bullshit all you want, all I said was I am not willing to concede the point that it is safe because of a study commissioned by someone.
Were you born yesterday? Or do you just not understand the world we live in? The answer is obviously the latter. Go back To sleep
I was referring to the (retracted) study by monsanto, saying Roundup was safe. I was actually underestimating though, the study was from 2000, so the study you referred to in terms of roundup is actually from 26 years ago :)
Though there was a study in 2019 bringing up a lot of the concerns, and I think that might be the one I was thinking of. https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/02/13/uw-study-exposure-to-chemical-in-roundup-increases-risk-for-cancer/
Also, just in case you were serious, hard to tell, I wasn't born yesterday. I'd have a hard time typing if so.
The trick here is to look at who is funding it and if the methods are correct. If it's independent and competently done, it's probably correct
"the system" doesn't mean scientists are corrupt, it means your politicians are.
Are you for real? Do you not realize mercenary scientific outfits take jobs with the understanding of working backwards from the position their funders want them to be that's and engineer those studies to come to that conclusion, which is in turn taken up by lobbyists and politicians and all that bullshit. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. The fact that you don't realize this at this point, frankly it's just fucking depressing. We are fucked because you are fucking, ahem, not so enlightened.
Dumbass
Source?
I think the top of the post you replied to is speaking out of hard earned personal wisdom. /S
Those things are safe, kiddo. We use this thing called evidence to determine that.