It's not that conservative opinions are censored. It's that bad opinion with zero merit to any reasonable person, such as insults, racism, sexual harassment, etc, are censored.
Unfortunately that means that most conservative opinions are censored.
Or, at least, the ones that matter said by our most popular politicians.
Rephrased, think of it this way: if I talk like Barack Obama at work, I'm fine. If I talk like President Donald Trump, I'm getting sent to HR on my first day. And that has nothing to do with their political leanings.
As though HR are suddenly The Arbiters of Truth and that declining birth rates and increasing isolation are helped by people at working fearing being sent to HR if they make a mistake or say something non-approved.
I mean, yeah, those stats are being helped by HR, but not in the direction any sane person would favour.
You don't have to be "Arbiter of Truth" to say "hey, you're making women uncomfortable, three women have complained about your language, you're fired"
The only people who consistently have issues with HR are pieces of shit.
What I'm trying to say is that Donald Trump says things like "grab her by the pussy" and "[Haitians] are eating dogs and cats" and that's why talking like him would get you censored.
You can be conservative and not racist, or not sexist, or not a piece of shit in general. Most conservatives cannot manage that, no matter how hard they try. At least - most conservatives currently in power in the US.
So, if that's your baseline or your inspiration, then yes, you will PREDICTABILITY be censored. And I garauntee nobody gives a single fuck.
Yeah they're not anymore. Woke opinions were getting shoved until that abruptly stopped a bit before Trump's second term. Which is weird because this didn't happen in his first term. Now we've got Amazon promoting the Melania movie.
On Twitter in particular, the woke shoving stopped the moment Musk took over, replaced with it shoving whatever Musk is saying. They're doing less censorship now but are also heavily promoting him.
Since the person you responded to got flagged/dead, I want to make sure they and everyone else who might think like them listens to this (an hour long, so yay attention span)
"As the Senate debates the SAVE America Act amid unfounded claims of voter fraud, Jon is joined by Georgetown Research Professor Renée DiResta and Platformer editor Casey Newton to examine what actually threatens our elections. Together, they investigate how algorithms are engineered to push users toward platform owners' preferred ideologies, explore the incentives driving Silicon Valley's rightward shift, and discuss how Republicans have weaponized disinformation to undermine electoral trust and rewrite voting rules in their favor."
One topic they cover is the manner in which the Biden admin was communicating with big tech about mis/dis-information, and the multiple ways the Right has either blown it way out of proportion by not getting the facts right, and the way the Trump admin has been doing as much or worse than Biden admin ever did.
Running with ANC headphones on is like driving with your eyes closed. Safety is a two-way street and it's everyone's responsibility to maintain a basic level of situational awareness.
Really starting to feel like I'll need to look for an offramp from this industry in the next couple of years if not sooner. I have nothing in common with the folks who would happily become (and are happily becoming) AI slop farmers.
They're sort of damned if they do and damned if they don't, aren't they? If they make traffic stops for speeding people will moan about how they're just trying to meet quotas or ask why they aren't going after "real criminals."
People just want to drive irresponsibly and they will invent any reason to justify why they're the victim, actually.
You've inadvertently completed both parts of a proof by cases. We don't want speeding laws enforced at all right now, because most speed limits are way too low, because they're set for reasons other than actual traffic safety. Let's raise all speed limits to the 85th percentile speed first and only then talk about stepping up enforcement.
Let's not. The Xth percentile speed is not an appropriate measure for a few reasons:
1. Humans are not generally capable of sufficiently accurate long-term low-incidence risk assessment. Meaning, you irrationally value potentially getting to work 10 seconds faster over a 50% increased chance you run over a child crossing the street.
2. Humans are subject to too many irrational psychological factors; stuff like:
• False sense of security due to sitting in a box isolated from the outside world, that's advertised to keep them "safe" in case of a collision.
• Herd mentality, e.g. "everyone's going over the limit, so I will too". Bonus points for rationalizing this behavior "because it's safer to go at the speed of traffic!".
• Delusional rationalizations like "if the limit is 50 then going 10 over must be fine too, due to <reasons>!". Bonus points for applying the "5/10/15/20 over" rule for every possible speed limit — basic maths and physics say hello!
3. The speed humans will travel at on a given road depends primarily on what speed that road seems designed for. People will drive faster on straight, wide roads and slower on winding, narrow ones, regardless of the speed limit. Changing speed limits has little effect compared to changing the physical infrastructure. Show me a picture of a road and I'll tell you how fast people will drive on it.
As such, it makes no sense to first make some sort of a road and only then figure out the limits by observing real traffic. Figure out the appropriate limit first, then design the road with it in mind.
> Bonus points for rationalizing this behavior "because it's safer to go at the speed of traffic!".
But that's true (look up the Solomon curve), and it's exactly why the 85th percentile would be better.
> Delusional rationalizations like "if the limit is 50 then going 10 over must be fine too, due to <reasons>!". Bonus points for applying the "5/10/15/20 over" rule for every possible speed limit — basic maths and physics say hello!
You have cause and effect backwards. People think it's safe to go over the speed limit precisely because most speed limits are too low.
> Changing speed limits has little effect compared to changing the physical infrastructure. Show me a picture of a road and I'll tell you how fast people will drive on it.
Right. So even if going slower is safer, just making the speed limit lower won't accomplish that.
I'll agree with you regarding major arterials but disagree when it comes to suburban neighborhoods. What feels safe from the perspective of someone operating a vehicle can be quite different than what's actually safe when there are pedestrians and cars unexpectedly popping out of driveways.
> What feels safe from the perspective of someone operating a vehicle can be quite different than what's actually safe when there are pedestrians and cars unexpectedly popping out of driveways.
That's all the more reason to raise speed limits on the major roads. Speed limits being more reasonable there makes it more likely that drivers would abide by them even on those smaller residential streets.
reply