Mine says "Defining journalism as a strictly capitalist endeavor is self-defeating".
Few people have the money or wherewithal to subscribe to every small town newspaper in the country, much less the world, just so they can read articles you post. And getting bent out of shape at people trying to live their lives as informed as possible without being squeezed dry of every penny they have is ludicrous.
However, the feminists that hate men do say “I hate men because I’m feminist”, which make a lot of men think that feminism is about hating men, before they have to chance to learn what feminism is really about.
Then maybe they should stop wallowing in ignorance and listen to something other than an extreme. It's still their choice to react rather than think about their positions. Making someone else change because you're too scared to do it first is lazy and cheap. There's no way to scream a rational position like there is an extreme position, and you're never going to get rid of them by reacting as they do.
Stop using them as an excuse for your unwillingness to change. They're not at fault for your choices.
Based on your statements, I'd say "Enough" means at least one so that you can claim some moral high ground.
Which in turn make some men feel alienated and push them towards content creators like Peterson or Tate.
Which, as you say, is a choice. Their choice. They can either suck it up and not take a minority of vocal extremists as gospel, or they can become the same because they're insecure.
Things that can not be replicated, or are too complex to replicate easily.
I'm sure, given enough energy and processing power, you could replicated just about anything... but if they already exist naturally, why bother? If it takes less energy to mine, or mix, or harvest latinum than it takes to replicate it, then replication doesn't make sense for it. That goes for just about every other physical thing as well.
I mean, DS9 was almost as much in the boonies as Voyager. Assistance was limited, and there were limitations on what he could do, as he was only running the station at the behest of the Bajoran government, not as a true representative of the Federation.
It also introduced facets of war, even before it became a full blown thing in the later seasons. He wasn't always on the side of the angels... because there are no angels in war. War only ever makes demons.
It doesn't excuse his actions, but it doesn't make them truly inexcusable either. They both operated in much more of a grey area than either of the two previous series.
Well, as long as it's nothing like that episode, it should be fine.
I remember an episode of CSI years ago where they were investigating the murder of someone who was rebooting a very Star Trek show into something super dark and gritty, with none of the hope and positivity the original show had. That seems to be the trend of a lot of Star Trek properties the last few years, and it makes me think the writer of that episode was quite prescient.
It won't be the birth of a third party, it'll be the year the House decides who gets to be president. That's what happens when no one gets enough electoral votes.
People don't create actionable items unless they're confronted with the idea that they need to make them.
Many people, like yourself, are waiting for something "actionable" before they do anything. The problem is, everyone is waiting for someone else to do something and thus doing nothing themselves. That's where visibility comes in. Clearly not enough is being done, so people need to get off their ass and do something, instead of waiting for someone else to do it for them.