I’m confused - are you trying to argue that we should not try to stop the spread of hateful propaganda? Or just that it doesn’t matter to have it in schools? Maybe you are trying to argue that exposing children to hateful rhetoric will not have an impact on their developing brains?

What you are saying does not make sense to me.

From my perspective it is worth pointing out because it shows how Kirk’s murder was NOT a good thing, and is NOT something that should be looked back upon with glee. Rather than being the end of Charlie Kirk’s vision for Turning Point, his death invigorated it and has now potentially set up an entire generation to be propagandized.

It would have been better for the world for Kirk to have kept living and continue embarrassing himself (which he did on a daily basis) and come to a more typical end for these far right influencers - jailed/disgraced. Not to mention that noone deserves to be executed, especially without a trial.

Even with a car payment being $750/month, that’s a pretty fancy car from my perspective - and represents the average car payment for a new car.

I think that these folks could keep up with expenses much more easily if a few minor compromises were made (namely, a cheaper car).

Maybe someone can help me out with this… Every time I look at the scientific literature, it suggests that there is likely a link between acetaminophen use and changes in neural development in fetuses/very young children. Folks on Lemmy seem to feel that there is in fact NO evidence. Am I just looking at the wrong papers?

For example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10814214/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036224000011 https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article-abstract/138/1/139/1672900 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/toxicology/articles/10.3389/ftox.2022.867748/full