3 ms·
Except in the case of the arguments I make about nuclear, they were verifiably and very obviously correct. I would talk about the energy density of u235 nuclea
by survirtual 2y ago
Except in the case of the arguments I make about nuclear, they were verifiably and very obviously correct. I would talk about the energy density of u235 nuclear reactions vs burning coal, the energy of a neutron vs the energy of photons, things like intermittent generators and baseload, etc. it is not controversial, and anyone with some basic background in physics or chemistry could verify it.
- ty6853 2y agoYes and the red pill moment is when you realize this is exactly why your speech was banned. They will leave provably wrong stuff up as a head on pike to show you're an idiot. They will let correct but unpersuasive stuff up, because who cares. They will let correct (or just controversial) stuff already stated by someone prominent up (even if by kkk or nazis), because they already have a rebuttal canned for that to make you look bad. What they won't let stand is a correct, holistically persuasive original argument for the wrong opinion. They have no defense for that but banning. And thus doesn't apply only to reddit.
- survirtual 2y agoJust to clarify, by wrong opinion, you are speaking to the "authority's" opinion of what right and wrong is, as opposed to the universe's objectively right and wrong? As in, anything that can realistically challenge an entity with power (say, energy companies using non-renewable systems like oil vs infinite / abundant systems like nuclear) is deemed "wrong"?