Would you date someone who doesn't recycle?

 

According to a survey from decluttr, 47% of young Americans would not be in a relationship with someone who doesn't recycle.

 

The research was fielded in 2020, and the sample was comprised of 1,332 Millennials and Gen Z's. (2020)

 

The folks who fielded this research were mostly interested in recycling of  E-waste.  And report that 60% of young people don't know what e-waste means.

 

I'm confused.  They can't be recycling e-waste if they don't know what it is.  So does that mean they don't date?

 

Often companies with an agenda do some superficial research to support their point-of-view.  Do you think that is what happened here?  What do you think their agenda is?

 

Do you think that it makes sense to include both Millennials and Gen Z's in the study?  Have you noticed differences between these generations?

 

Meanwhile a Harris poll of 1,000 American adults done on behalf of ISRI (Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries) showed that only 33% of adults 18-34 always recycle, while 48% of adults 35+ always recycle. (Leblanc, 2019)

 

If that's true then the data about dating makes even less sense.

 

So, how do you decide if research is worth using?  Have you seen issues with conflicting research before?  How do you choose which to believe?

 

 

(2020) How are Americas biggest technology users approaching E-waste?  decluttr.com.  Retrieved February 1, 2021, from  https://www.decluttr.com/us/store/e-waste

 

Leblanc, R. (2019, March 12)  Recycling beliefs vary between generations.  thebalancesmb.com.  Retrieved February 1, 2021, from  https://www.thebalancesmb.com/who-recycles-more-young-or-old-2877918

 

You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

 

As the seditionists from the January 6th insurrection continue to be rounded up and charged with their crimes sycophants have begun shouting "free speech" in an attempt to defend their criminality.

 

Time for a little history lesson.

 

In 1919, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr's. opinion in Schenck v. United States held that a defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the first Amendment of the United States Constitution.

 

Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished.

 

In 1969,  in Brandenburg v. Ohio the Supreme Court limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action, e.g. a riot.

 

Hence the shorthand phrase - "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater."

 

Research showed that fake election news declined by 73% after Trump and some of his pals were banned from social media.  (Dwoskin & Timberg, 2021)

 

It also showed that just a few bad actors are responsible for the distribution of fake news including: Sean Hannity, Eric Trump, James Wood and Breitbart News.  (Election Integrity Partnership Team, 2020)

 

Shouldn't they also be banned from social media for shouting fire in a crowded theater?  After all, they did incite an insurrection. 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#:~:text=The%20original%20wording%20used%20in,is%20dangerous%20but%20also%20true.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

 

Dwoskin, E. & Timberg, C. (2021, January 16)  Misinformation dropped dramatically the week after Twitter banned Trump and some allies.  washingtonpost.com.  Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/misinformation-trump-twitter/

Election Integrity Partnership Team (2020, October 29)  Repeat Offenders: Voting Misinformation on Twitter in the 2020 United States Election.  eipartnership.net.  Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://www.eipartnership.net/rapid-response/repeat-offenders