Then there is your answer:

You see the whole article, others don’t. Publishers sometimes decide by your IP, your location etc. if you are allowed to read it freely (also putting rate limits up, so if enough people in your vicinity already saw it you will hit the paywall reasoning that you are already interested and more willing to pay). Or they simply put up the paywall later based on how popular an article is.

Or in short: a lot of new links have paywalls because the people posting something didn’t even know there was one.

PS: many people regularly clicking news from all over the world also often have addons, plugins and filters running that circumvent a lot of those paywalls automatically, so we sometimes tend to forget about them…

It’s not like the sane among us are suddenly going to decide to go along with fascism

If that’s your definition of sane I think you are in for a surprise about how low the number of sane people is. Just like common sense isn’t actually that common.

I think it’s not natural, rather an illustration of covert media propaganda being very powerful.

That the point…

In reality nobody loses faith in democracy. They simply criticise the application/implementation (specifically the EU one that isn’t very democratic in the first place and the total lack of consequences for lying politicians).

But the decline of democracy has another facet… the deteriation of media quality and information being replaced by attention seeking and framed clickbait bullshit. Which is what brings you this rediculous misinterpretation of the cited study.

Or: reading this article should not tell you that people lose faith in democracy but should make you lose faith in journalistisc standards at the Guardian.

Actually young Europeans are losing faith in the actual implementation where constantly lying politicians suffer zero consequences while the media floods everything with bullshit as a diversion.

This BS article with it’s utter misrepresentation of the actual study cited is a perfect example of the latter…

You can’t have a high military budget, a big military industrial complex, knowledge about your stockpiles (and the rate at which they are depleted) for several years and problems with your stockpiles running dangerously low all at the same time.

And given that we know the first three points to be a fact…

Depends: If you want to show that officials are blatantly lying the stuff they say is indeed the relevant information.

I might surprise you but people don’t vote for the law as written but indeed for plans and promises made by law makers.

“or”?

Okay, then let me rephrase it: When “nearly half” disapprove it can (and probably does) mean that there is still no majority (or plurality) approving, which is what OP falsely concluded.

To be fair here and without looking up numbers, such polls tend to often show the same pattern. Something like 45% A, 30% undecided, 25% B.

So when “nearly half” disapprove it can still mean “a majority” does.

by factor of 3 obviously…

No.

If I tell my lawyer about a child I abused years ago he can do exactly nothing as there is no imminent crime to prevent that would allow him breaking confidality.

If I tell my priest the same applies.

If you want to change that, change the laws binding those people. But don’t pretend that the church is going out of its way to protect child abuse by in reality doing nothing and applying the same rule indiscriminately exactly like they did for a millenium.

or you have so little faith in your church

I will tell you a secret: Not everything in the world is about tribes or team sports. I personally deem any organized religion as an abomination.

But when a “remember that the confession’s confidentiality is absolute, has been exactly like this for nearly a millenium and you are beholden to god’s/church laws first an foremost” (so the same unchanged statement as always) is reframed as the church somehow explicitly going out of its way to protect child abuse specifically people should actually notice that they are being manipulated.

Are you seriously arguing that child abusers should be protected by the church because of historical precedent?

No I’m arguing that it is well within your rights to argue for changes in that basically ancient church law. If that’s what you want to do, go one. I would actually agree.

But if you instead pretend that this is not about the seal of confession but hallucinate how the modern church is somehow going out of its way to protect child abuse (like a lot of commenters here do) you have completely lost the plot.

No, I am arguing for a church law established nearly 1000 years ago and upheld ever since that indiscriminately protects all confessions. If you want to argue for changing this (as you should) go along.

But pretending that this is about protecting child abuse or even -as multiple comments here do- hallucinating how the catholic church “goes out of its way” (by doing exactly the same aus in the last ~900 years) is insane.

The Catholic Church is going out of its way to protect child abusers

Nearly 1000 years of a confession’s confidentiality being absolute and the punishment for violating it being excommunication, is the exact opposite of “going out of its way”.

Congratulations. You fell for propaganda by stupid framing.

This is not actually about child abuse per se. It’s also not about “warning” priests.

This is a simple and factual reminder: Confessions are part of a protected sacrament and the seal of confession is absolute and always has been (or at least for nearly a millenium). To violate it means excommunication.

I wonder if you would react with the same outrage when this was a bar association reminding their lawyers of the disciplinary consequences of violating confidentiality agreements.

Sacrificing a jet to protect the ship isn’t the problem. The problem is that there shouldn’t be a situation where that’s a choice you have to make. And I would bet a lot that it actually was no intentional choice at all.

Most ships in a carrier strike group have basically one job: to protect the carrier. Imagine a situation where a drone/missile is launched, detected from far away and yet there is no ship available to intercept it when that’s basically their whole f***ing job and doing an evasive maneuver with such a fast and nimble object as a carrier seems like your best option. That’s basically a whole chain of fuck-ups. The deck crew performing accordingly and having screwed up securing a jet, too, is just the cherry on top.

When coloring stuff with Carmine (used for ~3000 years by now) becomes a revolutionary idea in the US…

PS: Also civilised regions are actually thinking about replacements as that color is often used in food that would be vegan without it.

Nazis are only pro-power. Everything else is just a means to an end.

They don’t actually care who they are advocating against. There is only one constant: They are the ones at the top, destined to rule, and the masses need to be controlled by pitting them against some “enemy”. That enemy is always replaceable because it needs to be replaced every time they accidently “solve” a problem or need a change of narrative.