Sentrovasi

You're trying to characterise it as such now, but saying "emphasis on the critical" - that's your input suggesting that this support had merit. Hardly just saying it's a different terminology. You're backpedalling again.

Regardless, a lot of people have chimed in explaining to you exactly why this is so damaging and how little merit your qualification has. If you're as uneducated on the whole situation as you seem to be, why are you so unwilling to accept that it's probably wrong?

I think it's even more abhorrent to claim to "critically support" something while being ignorant, as you claim to be, of what you're supporting. In what world does ignorance and being critical go hand in hand?

Saying you're a critical supporter, then backpedaling to say you're just asking questions, either suggests wilful ignorance, which is the worst kind of disingenuity, or plain laziness in endorsing things you don't care enough to know about, which in the age of internet-fuelled extremism is arguably worse.

What exactly is being "supported"?

To put it into perspective, I can claim to be a "critical supporter" of the effort to repel Russia's attack on Ukraine, except that unlike people who claim to "critically support" the other side, I'm not claiming to "support" the aggressive oppression of a sovereign country at all.

As such, ostensibly "critical support" for something must mean that you'd rather this shit happen than not. You can't claim "emphasis on the critical" as though that absolves you of that burden. If you were really more critical than supporting then you'd be "critically supporting" the other side.

I think the criticism is that they're repeatedly publishing these and claiming they're outliers without attempting to show how they got their results, from what I'm reading.

I really hate his justification because it seems incredibly selfish and short-sighted. Imagine if he murdered someone and said it wasn't murder because it was art. It can be both, and society might also argue it is not art or should not normatively be art.

That was the prop money. I guess if they'd known he'd steal it, they would've used fake prop money instead.

I think the problem is this: the man was paid for his work. People don't seem to get that.

The deal was that he was paid an amount of money to make an art piece. That art piece was supposed to use another bunch of money as props. He was supposed to then give back the prop money after the exhibition was over.

When he made his work that used none of the money, that was fine. The museum rolled with it and gave him his dues. They didn't even ask for the prop money back when they realised he wasn't using it.

The problem is that he's now supposed to return the prop money that was to be used in the artwork, and he's refusing to.

He's already been paid, he's just being a shit to an organisation offering a public service.

It's a burn and also true. If a genetic mutation becomes prevalent enough, it's no longer really considered to be a "mutation".

Serious question: If you're not expecting a response, why put it on social media? It might be healthier to externalise some of your rants through other means and move away from the expectation that things need to be on social media for them to matter.

Never ask it for advice period. It is always confident because that's the most believable way to present information on the internet. It is usually wrong because it is not actually intelligent.

The part about sheriffs scares me as someone not well-versed in American affairs because I read previously that some sheriffs don't believe that federal laws should apply to them and that could be good, I guess? But could also be really bad.

I haven't watched it, but Ado's songs are amazing and are a huge pull factor for me.