mansion7

Why not use lower crime areas, even if they're conservative/right wing areas, and emulate their policies?

The frequent response is "You can't translate them to X because the situations/demographics etc are incomparable". Tet similar objections are less often if ever raised about emulating the policies of tiny Scandinavian countries that are mostly white.

Because their politics are seen as "correct" by the media and academia, and the policymakers they create and indoctrinate. It's deliberately willfully ignorant of potential solutions because the solutions are provided by people whose policies are seen as "incorrect" (and in liberal/progressive circles, this often is reduced to "evil").

But journalists & academics lie to protect criminals, so perhaps that balances things out.

I have noticed this trend among almost all the Google products I use.

YouTube getting rid of dislikes, adding in music mixes, and of course striking videos while providing less than adequate descriptions (if any) of the offending material.

Gmail mixes in ads with your emails more aggressively than ever before.

Google music has been replaced with YouTube music, an inferior, less usable version of the same product, but now it's tied in with your YouTube account so you get spammed with music recommendations that are frankly terrible.

Google Drive, actually scanning your files for unapproved materials.

Google Mini with a voice so eardrum-burstingly loud (and shrill) and no ability to control it separately like you can with Maps.

And of course their search itself has experienced a very noticeable drop in quality and seems now to be a Google Marketplace of Approved Agendas. Not just with the pop up "helpful" cards, but with the actual search itself. It's quite eye opening to do the same search on DDG and find useful results that weren't visible on the first 10 pages of Google.

This isn't even including the other products which I did like, but Google suddenly decided that I don't need anymore.

Google Docs still works well though.

How is that different than CNN and MSNBC do? It's not unusual to tune into either network and see people and groups smeared as racists, sexist, transphobes, bigots, etc based upon "dog whistles" which only they can hear and only they are qualified to interpret, and "context" that only they find rational or compelling.

Yet, YouTube hasn't any problems with that and gladly hosts such content, despite it undoubtedly causing much, much more damage to society.

No. It is not helpful, in the slightest.

They could label it an "opinion check".

"Fact check" leads readers to the false conclusion that the data presented is... factual.

More likely it is a response to Andy Ngo, Project Veritas, and accounts like Libs of TikTok.

Is that a surprise? It's one of the few major unions that is not outright antagonistic to Republican policies and goals.

Republicans see cops as defending them from the outcome of failed liberal policies. Even rich liberals tacitly acknowledge this by hiring their own private police, while they seek to reduce the efficacy of "the public option".

That's a trick question. Every SF politician is a fringe figure.

On an unrelated note, WikiMedia foundation actually pays progressive groups to write/edit Wikipedia articles.

On Facebook, articles that trend are those who received the most votes, shared by friends or family, or selected by by algorithms based on prior interests. Although truth/accuracy is said to be a goal, it's a "social network", not a "truth network" and is not a recognized purveyor of factual data.

On Wikipedia, reality is usually whatever some erstwhile editor can scrounge up that backs up their preferred narrative. As journalists overwhelmingly self-identity as liberal/progressive, it's trivial for a single, anonymous editor to shop around for MSM articles that back up the narrative. That, combined with WikiMedia actually hosting & funding "edit-thons" for progressive activist groups, it is no wonder why Wikipedia is viewed by many as having a liberal bent. Yet, it DOES hold itself as a trustworthy purveyor of factual information.

One of those seems a lot more democratic than the other, but it's the more democratic option that's usually used as the negative example.

A key tenet of progressive belief is that one can manipulate the thoughts of a populace by:

1) banning or altering the words they are allowed to use 2) introducing new words to soften concepts which were previously seen as weird, unusual, or deviant.

For example, the replacement of "prostitute" with "sex worker", or "undocumented immigrant" with "illegal aliens". The new terms obfuscate the plain meaning of the prior terms, thereby softening the subject in the minds of the populace one is trying to manipulate.

Absolutely. Without private property rights, society would fall apart. And though it's doubtful most people would be homeless - most people have friends and family, after all (unless they have alienated then by suggesting their property be confiscated or subject to some form of squatting)

It would be better for those tenants to direct their ire towards the government that made such blatantly unconstitutional laws, rather than attempt to steal goods or services from innocent parties. And this includes essentially forcing one to sell one's possessions as a result of the (very predictable) side effects of said unconstitutional edicts.

That can't be right... if you've shot someone you're eligible for the bennies but those who have a years-long record of non-shooting people aren't?

The article must be confused, that's irrational and immoral.

What is your address? After all, having people come to your house and steal all your property is a risk that you accepted when you purchased said property.

Should the poorer folk in your city be without flat-screen TVs, just so you can continue to play your PS5? Should they be forced to ride the bus, just so you can have an air-conditioned commute?

That's really how those arguments sound, and they both deserve to be dismissed equally.

Besides the obvious difference in opinion about what constitutes "common", "good", or "the common good"?

Those whose justification is "the common good" are often those who hate them and wish to see them destroyed. One can't blame them for not wanting to consort with such undesirables.

This is the reason that is given, that you have chosen to accept.

The catch is, they label their own violence as speech, and their opponents speech as violence, conveniently.

Hidden camera interviews with numerous employees of the multiple tech monopolies in question reveal that not only do they in target people for censorship based upon their political beliefs and political speech, and in the service of the political parties to which they also overwhelmingly donate, but they do so with glee.

The actions of Facebook, Google, Twitter in their selective banning, deplatforming, and other algorithmic weaselry is often indistinguishable from an in-kind donation directly to the DNC.

I've never had raw emotional fantasies about murdering someone based on their race. I'm certain none of my friends, family, or coworkers have. In fact I'd be surprised if anyone I knew had.

She not only does, but has the confidence to utter those racist fantasies publicly, without fear of reprisal from anyone in her circle.

They may start doing so, if said providers start banning and censoring people based on political beliefs as Google does.

It is because those dissenters have no effect on US elections.

The moment they do and it seems to be helping the opponents of Youtube's preferred candidates (which they have made clear that they have), those foreign dissenters will get flushed down the algorithmic memory hole too.

The news media and the Democrat establishment frequently lump in the millions of Trump voters with Nazis, and then tell us it's okay to assault Nazis.

If group accountability is a thing, why only for one side?

Is YouTube incapable of being in the pockets of the DNC?

I've read quite a bit about transgenderism as a requirement for my degree, and nothing about them renders them incapable of holding down legal jobs. In fact, they have significant legal protections.

Unless you're saying it's because they have to miss so much work because of surgeries, treatments, appointments, dilation breaks, etc? And they resort to hooking because of the flexible schedule?

Odd that despite being right wing and wanting all those right wing things you mentioned, the vast majority of donations on a company-wide and down to the employee level go to Democrat/left-wing causes and politicians. That's not even counting the many many in-kind donations they regularly serve up to left-wing candidates and causes.

It's also interesting that despite being right wing, it is rare to witness a higher-up or decision maker at any FAANG espouse conservative views on social media.

Whereas it's not unusual for them to be calling for stuff so crazily left-wing it would even make AOC blush. And often in a trollish or provocative manner; they're not gonna deplatform and unperson themselves after all.

They were not YouTube-approved scientists, and DeSantis is not a YouTube-approved governor.

As a private entity, Youtube is allowed to censor people they don't like for any reason they wish. Just like they are allowed (and do) promote channels and Youtubers supportive of their political ideologies.

Anyone who disagrees is free to start their own Youtube.

Why do a higher percentage of California prisoners identify as trans, than do non-criminal Californians?

Is there a known connection between transgenderism and higher crime rates?

"writers with a specific agenda denying trans people rights"

Interesting phrasing. They would probably define their 'agenda' as:

"kids can't decide to get sex changes"

or

"people who are in the midst of, or recovering from, gender reassignment are perhaps not the best choice for soldiers"

or

"hey whatever but I'm not paying for it"

And aren't the haters you and Tankus portray them to be. Substack may disagree and ban them, as is the trend in big tech, but their positions are way more in line with US (and world) opinion than Tankus and company.

It's a logical conclusion at which to arrive.

Facebook has literally spent millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours in this effort; recruiters even are given bonuses for hires that tick the right boxes.

Compared to the rest of America and much of the world, they have a culture so woke as to be mistaken for parody. If suitable applicants (IE both qualified and possessing the requisite number of oppression points) HAD presented themselves, they would have been snapped up immediately.

He got his point across.

For every innocuous "I will not be attending X event" tweet that Twitter deemed "violent", one can easily locate dozens of Democrats threatening murder, insurrection, harassment treason, arson, robbery, and vandalism.

So when the average voter sees THEIR guy get silenced, while folks with the magic "D" by their name get a pass...

And then that voter sees those organizations and their employees donate almost exclusively to politicians and causes ALSO bearing the magic "D"...

A point is made that won't soon be forgotten.

As opposed to the current presidential liar? Or his former boss who was also a presidential liar? Or Clinton, a notable presidential liar who by sheet coincidence was married to a wannabe presidential liar?

Just trying to narrow down which presidential liars are acceptable and which ones we throw down the memory hole.