I think I know the answer but let's still compare a few issues so we can mutually come to the same conclusion or find alternative ones. Some would have you to believe that "environment has no effect on the individual". Yeah that sounds like something a dirty old man who has sucked enough money out of the system and stashed away out of sight from both the government and his family would say. There are over 7 billion different people on earth, so there is no such thing as a 100% absolute score right? Some are indeed resilient enough to reject their environment completely and actually even manage to influence it by their presence. Hence there will always be exceptions but our environment more often than not will absolutely have an impact on us. Why do so many children in broken and/or violent households grow up to have trust issues and other disorders? Why do so many children born in a specific religious country and/or family grow up to believe and follow that same religion? Why do so many people living in poor neighborhoods with a high crime rate get sucked into it rather than "just say no" and magically go off to study at a 70.000 Dollar annual tuition fee University? Where am I going with this? Well, just like how a violent, hostile or poor environment has a negative effect on us, the headlines we scroll by, the word-use and phrases we hear continuously on the radio at work or in the car, or at home on the 6 o'clock news, are all apart of one and the same (dis)information environment which we are subjected to without even fully realizing it. Don't tell me this singular narrative doesn't have an effect on us when it's literally there 24/7 as they are even increasingly blocking us off from hearing alternative ones.

You know, I remember this scene from OZ years ago about how the character Augustus was not binding himself to one news channel, but watching news from CNN and then switching to FoxNews and then CNBC to get a better taste of the truth by mixing these up. Well, that's like tasting 💩 from a Dalmatian and then go try taste it from a Terrier to conclude which one is better. No need to go try it for yourself, I assure you they both stink. We need real uncommitted and completely detached variations when it comes to crucial issues. This is actually one of the very few reasons I unlike most/actual maxis don't hate (all) altcoins. Most yes, just pure junk only there to cash in on the crypto hype, but some are actually a solid addendum to Bitcoin and make crypto that much more interesting and useful. If you'd listened to solely German news in the mid 1940's, you had no idea how bad things were for the Nazis till the Red Army suddenly showed up on top of the parliament building.

"News travels fast in places where nothing happens." I often think of this quote and can't help but think that this is the reason they are drowning people in some countries with ""news"" about, IDK how Jennifer Lopez doesn't fit in her old jeans anymore and how that for some reason has to be repeated by literally several different outlets. There's a whole lot of NOTHING-news happening in these places so no wonder the people there are ill-informed about crucial events. I mean, who has time to hear about how some gas pipeline in Europe which Washington wanted to get rid of for a decade now get mysteriously sabotaged. Who cares to look this up when we have to look up pictures of JLo in old jeans?

I actually used the following screenshots for a report I wrote a long time ago for a cross cultural behavior class. Using different IP addresses, I took a screenshot to compare what people visiting Yahoo's homepage got to see first from both the US and the Netherlands. One is summarizing the date, weather, stock info, traffic incidents, international news headlines along with local news:

The other is informing you about the more important issues like Pamela Anderson's hair, Jada Pinkett's bikini, that you can sign up for free on espionage den Facebook, Paul's new girlfriend and some 🐎💩 about Jessica Simpson, IDK I can't give you the crucial details on that one since I didn't click on it back in 2013 to find out.😁

But to stay OT, how many of you reject literally everything you hear on TV and go look up the facts and details for yourself afterwards? I sure don't, what do I care if I'm at my friend's house and casually hear the TV on the background saying "traffic jam for several hours in the south of France due to an accident on the tracks". You subconsciously take it in as fact and when the next morning at work some other person who pretty much did the same starts mentioning it you go "oh yeah I heard, a lot of damage huh". No one says "yeah but I didn't have time yet to check the source so I have to check in on it first and discuss it with you at a later time." Why, because it's not all that relevant to you, it's worlds apart and quite frankly, you just don't have enough time and energy to do this with every single thing that happens in the world. That's normal, there are only 24 hours in every day, well, actually 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.09 seconds, so you can't spend your life verifying every single detail, you reserve that for the crucial issues and here's where the difference between the wise and the fool begins. The latter category doesn't. Never, they just take it all in like a sponge, doesn't matter if it's fresh mountain water or stinking vinegar. They just suck it all up and regurgitate it like they suddenly know what they are talking about because they had the radio on in their car or grabbed a newspaper to read in the train on their way to work. So is this cold factual full story they are exposed to and repeat afterwards? Let's examine by their own words shall we. "Women are losing rights under the Taliban now Nato has withdrawn". I'm against discrimination against any race, religion or gender as much as the next guy, but still don't ever tolerate these disinfo goons preaching to me about how the Islamic Republics of Iran or the Taliban are failing their female citizens because they live in poverty without any opportunity and have little to no rights. Not once have I heard either the sender (media) or receiver (fool who repeats the media to me) explain in detail that the Taliban is solely in power now because the Mujahideen they supported took over the country after defeating the once religious free socialist government in Afghanistan because they were allied to Moscow. Yeah, nah, we didn't hear much "care" for women's rights or social rights and poverty back then now did we? No, back then our "free hearts were with the brave people" of the Mujahideen, and this was so according to a woman no less🤡

"Yeah, but this isn't a history report, this is just a short summary of current events". Oh, OK, then don't mention Iran before the 1979 Islamic revolution to me anymore. "No, that was different, that is relevant to the current situation". Then so is the 1953 coup on Iran's last truly democratically elected PM in a time when women could also wear and eat what they wanted but which indirectly allowed for the creation of the Islamic Republic you see before you today. "I don't know man, I'm not an encyclopedia, did you hear about the traffic accident in France?" Oh yeah brah, lots of damage huh?

The main topic momentarily is the Ukraine war. Would you believe most had no idea what they were looking at when you show them this one simple image after they tried to argue "Russia is afraid of Ukrainian democracy"?

So how are you going to preach to us about Ukraine or democracy without even knowing the start of the conflict yourself? When I was a child I often wondered why these wars happened and where/when it started. Why? Because even as early as then I wanted to have all the info before I could give my honest opinion on the matter, because what was it based on other than hysteric emotions and third hand (mis)info, and what would such an opinion be worth? Exactly nothing. I mean, not that it's pointless or anything since we are all allowed to have our opinions, but wouldn't you want one that was fact based with direct first hand info you sought up from the absolute core beginning of the issue, rather than third hand incorrect info numerous other people before you changed as they saw fit before it eventually reached your ears? Who knows what truth is left of the once initial raw info by the time it reaches you, I think it's almost the same as the info you'd get somewhere at the end of the circle in one of those pass it on games.

Then there's Palestine. How are people's perceptions being altered and influenced regarding Israel by the freedumb media they see and hear every day?

I could just rest my case there but of course won't, because would you believe that Israelis are all suddenly pro-human rights now and supporting women in Iran? I imagine their conversations look something like this:

This week btw was the 22th anniversary of the murder of Al-Durra and his son. No arrests or independent investigation to date, but I'm sure the one for Shireen is on the way and coming any day now.

But for Israel, just murdering a woman who was reporting inconvenient truths just isn't enough anymore, nowadays you need to make sure she and her message are really dead by murdering her coffin as well.

“Should we be unable to find a way to honest cooperation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned absolutely nothing from our 2,000 years of suffering and will deserve our fate.” Einstein