Choosing not to engage can also be a positive rather than just the prevention of negatives.
Or perhaps decide that interaction with such a person isn't viable.
There is no requirement to adopt others particular eccentricities or needs, choosing to not engage can also be a valid choice.
There are of course potential downsides to this, but if each person is unwilling to adhere to a common contract of communication then the cessation of communication is a reasonable response.
You mean cats? Are they not obligate carnivores?
Brazil (1985)
To me this reads as:
< preemptive justification for saying something controversial and/or indefensible >
< controversial statement with no justification or reasoning >
"Not going to explain because it's obvious"
Probably not how it was intended, but that's some weak sauce
Unless you're a big corp, then fuck with impunity but make sure to pay the "cost of doing business" tax.
If the tax is too high, just buy some lobbyists or political system equivalent.
Leaving out details is also bias. Especially when those details are pertinent to the subject being reported on.
That he was talking about state policies could arguably be said to warrant including politics based details of the situation. Him being a failed presidential candidate and attending said event with a representatives of an anti-government extremist group would probably qualify for that.
The difference between:
Man speaks at length against restrictions to future meat-production quota's
vs
Man known for previously running on a platform of meat-quota deregulation. speaks at length against restrictions to future meat-production quota's, surrounded by meat industry lobbyists.
Yes, the second one sounds more negative, but that's not necessarily bias.
I'm having trouble parsing this so i might be commenting on something that isn't there.
Current edge is a chrome re-skin with some addons, I'd put good money on it not being google free.
If you care about data going to nefarious places you probably shouldn't be using either.
you mean the faces that are already posted by the FBI for everyone to see ?
Blocking someone because they don't agree with you telling them they are "absolutely wrong" isn't civil or rational discourse. Unless you meant something different?
I read your reply as stating that the only outcomes could be "argue and make things worse" or "don't do that", a negative and a neutral respectively.
I perhaps read only the words and not the intent, I think we are may be saying the same thing.
In case we are not :
Not engaging actively frees someone up to do literally anything else, which could overall be more positive than just the prevention of the negative.
In addition some people might consider the avoidance of the argument itself to be a positive rather than just maintaining a neutral position.