Video

I heard, why don't you look it up for yourself? the noise from ships and sonar are more of a problem. 😮

Probably not as bad as birds strikes from airplanes😮

About 3:14 in…. Hah! Awesome 🎉

How is that project going to affect the tourism? Have you seen the location of the farm? I think you just talk bs

As of 1/24 the first windmills are producing "free" electricity. Does that mean that people who live in the South Coast monthly electric bill will now cost less as promised? This entire project used very little union and local labor. Another broken promise.

Yes, it's better to keep burning gas, fracking the earth, etc.

I would really love to know how much work you did put in to get to this stage

@@Melodyjackson1 I engage in various prolific investments by compound interest & leveraging and as well operating with an investment professional Mrs Brisa Richardson, so far I've attained returns of over $30k last month

@@ChirsRobinson Wow😊l know her and I have also been trading with her, she's such an amazing woman with good skills keeps me happy all week knowing I earn 15thousand extra income trading with her.

@@ChirsRobinson Actually thought I was the only one trading with Mrs Brisa Richardson!. she currently manages all my funds too and she also provides webinars on how to trade perfectly without losses, I haven't started on my own yet, still building up my portfolio with her help now.

Same here, I earn $13,000 a week. GOD bless Brisa, she has been a blessing to my family.

Okay, I see what you're saying, but it's "minority-owned", not "minority-operated". That just means that the person that / the group of people who got together and started the company are minorities. There's probably a lot of cishet white guys on the team too (as we saw in the video), so don't worry! haha Anyhow, that specific argument is unfounded, but your overall comparison is also bunk in my opinion because of the history upon which affirmative action seeks to create equity. You define "discrimination" as actions that are "unjust", and while I am not debating your definition, I question why seeking to systematically right historical wrongs that have long-lasting effects would be regarded as "unjust". Your definition also points to "prejudice", and I would place this definition of "prejudice" in full view for context to your overarching definition in order to clear up the weight of these buzz words: "Prejudice" = "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience" (according to Oxford Languages) So, what is the opinion / action that is not based on reason or actual experience? I understand where you're coming from as I've heard this debate play out in my family's living room countless times, but I challenge you to think about it like this: You've only been given one average meal a day for your entire life by Person X, while your neighbor has been given 3 big nutritious meals a day by Person X. You're emaciated and can't maintain a job or keep up your home because you don't have the stamina to perform these activities. You swing from one illness to another to another due to the decreased cardiovascular and immune function inherent to extended periods of malnutrition, and the doctor visits cost you a lot of money and time - again impacting your ability to hold a steady job. Your body is in survival mode, and your mind is too. You suffer from depression and anxiety, and while going to therapy does nothing to solve the underlying issue, it does help you to feel seen - for a price. Your low levels of success lead you to be looked down on by your neighbors, which only increases your depression and anxiety symptoms, and you even begin to subconsciously resent them in order to protect your mental-emotional state. (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4951875/) Meanwhile, your neighbor has swapped out the grass in their yard for a flourishing garden, and you see them digging and pruning and watering out there every evening. Sometimes when you wake up early in the morning due to your gastrointestinal distress (again, inherent to malnutrition), you notice your neighbor jogging out your window with a couple of other people in the neighborhood. They've had barbecues and, after your neighbor hired a contractor to install an in-ground pool 8 years back, even pool parties. You hear the faint music and bursts of laughter sometimes through your thin windows as a bitterly chilled draft sweeps over you. 5 years ago, you noticed a really nice car had started parking out front on a regular basis, and you wondered if, in all their arrogance, they had bought themselves a second vehicle, but one night you saw that your neighbor was sharing a candlelit picnic in their garden with someone. Last month, you saw your neighbor and their partner cheering on a tiny little kid on a tricycle snaking their way back and forth on the sidewalk. You begin wishing that you had the energy to find and keep a partner, but you look around at your dusty, dirty house and realise that the flies are likely the only company you can keep long-term. This is a fractional and fictional bit (written quite poorly tbh) to display how far-reaching the effects of chronic systemic deficiency and abuse can be. If your ancestors were abused, you carry on the physiological effects, not to mention the direct effects that "nurture" will have on you and your children (i.e., hypervigilance - www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6127768/). If your ancestors were systemically robbed, you will need to have systemic protections in place to ensure equitable access to the tools of success, not usually even to negate the effects of being chronically robbed but to seek to dampen these effects so they are not as extreme. If the government has systematically deprived your ancestors of these tools for success, they will need to offer them tenfold to make up for the earnings gap and lost income from better jobs over the years in order to help PREVENT and undo prejudicial treatment of you and other minorities. I imagine this is going to be a stretch for you, since taking the position you've shared often overlaps with a lack of general empathy towards others (especially very "othered" others), a lack of insight / understanding toward macroeconomics, macrosociology, and nuance in general, and a lower reading capacity due to lack of interest in the role-switching inherent to reading or at least a rather narrow selection of reading materials. However, I would not have put forth this energy if I thought I was shouting into the void. If not you, perhaps someone else will glean something useful from this empathetic effort to unravel your diatribe. I don't care to assume that you are like everyone else I've engaged in debate with before, and I expect you to want to be your own thinker. I understand why you likely believed this - I get the surface-level rationale. I'm proposing that it is fundamentally flawed because it leaves out historical context. In a perfect world, you would be right. This is not that world. I'm not even arguing that I'm right. I'm arguing that I believe that I am right due to the information that I have sought out and has been presented to me thus far, and that perhaps your position could be strengthened by reasonable reevaluation. I would highly encourage you, if you take nothing else from this short essay I've written, to check this definition and article out: Definition (how I am seeking to enter this conversation): www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith Article (something I try to work through often): hbr.org/2022/02/are-you-aware-of-your-biases.