Anonymous #1 4w

Disregarding facts because of how they’re presented is lazy tbh

-2

Anonymous #2 4w

Yeah so the lore is the Soviet Union wanted to produce more cotton, so they diverted basically the entire inflow to cotton farms. For a time, this worked, but the dioxin pesticides being used and the soil degradation caused their own environmental problems. The Soviets actually realized this level of diversion would completely destroy the Aral Sea, and approved the 5-year plan regardless. It’s now saltier than the Dead Sea and only 25% of its original size

1

Anonymous OP 4w

This is the before and after, keep in mind this is over an area slightly larger than West Virginia.

4

Anonymous OP 4w

Wtffffff

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Nah requesting real info from a source as opposed to ai generated stuff is just good practice, everyone should do that

5

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 4w

In this case, the info presented is basic facts that are easily verifiable. If it was something more nuanced or there was an actual debate, then I agree. But I think the points made here are all objectively correct

0

Anonymous #2 4w

And the salton sea too kinda

2

Anonymous #2 4w

It’s just a bad habit and I think we should all put in a tiny bit of energy to just not do it at all, even with small things. Start trusting it for small things then you begin to verify less and less and at some point you’ll be thinking something is true when its not bc you didn’t want to spend an extra 10 seconds verifying, just seems like a slippery slope

3