Word values, no tiles

My heartfelt pity to those who went on dating websites looking for someone who wasn't there. Now, on to the show.

So which is it? First one view of an actor eliminated for conservative views (which is an action that's garnered plenty of popular support from one side, anyway), then another view of a company eliminating what puts a profitable asset at risk (which, if cynical, does makes more sense). Is this just another play on perception, where Option 2 makes for better optics this go round? Either way, I'm still glad the actor in question has the support she does, and I see the company in question still considers money a more important value. (Cough-金融家-cough.)

Here's another issue around money. In order for this study to be true, the question had to be reworded - in this, participants were asked to equate money to freedom. The rebuttal sounds like an argument against capitalism - where money is irrelevant to freedom, the original premise applies, and the first study is still a lie. What concerns me is that the first study is likely to be used alongside articles like these; but I'll post this link back up because it ties in to the main issue as well as the rewording, about how controlling a narrative controls value.

A proven method on how to value any side is the question of who burns more books. Who controls the flow of information (compare this guy's coverage on different networks over time, for example), as well as how they do so, has become more important to me over time. I'll repeat as often as necessary the need to keep an eye out for information from both sides, as well as my continued choice to seek out and question information folks would conceal or delete, and to lean toward those willing to say what politicians in and out of cassocks won't. (It takes some real contorting to understand how a religious book qualifies as "adult products," and consider me on the opposite side of whatever enacted or supports that ban.)