mansion7

14 ms·

91.
by mansion7 5y ago
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 incompara
92.
by mansion7 5y ago
But journalists & academics lie to protect criminals, so perhaps that balances things out.
93.
by mansion7 5y ago
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.
94.
by mansion7 5y ago
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
95.
by mansion7 5y ago
No. It is not helpful, in the slightest.
96.
by mansion7 5y ago
They could label it an "opinion check". "Fact check" leads readers to the false conclusion that the data presented is... factual.
97.
by mansion7 5y ago
More likely it is a response to Andy Ngo, Project Veritas, and accounts like Libs of TikTok.
98.
by mansion7 5y ago
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 ac
99.
by mansion7 5y ago
That's a trick question. Every SF politician is a fringe figure.
100.
by mansion7 5y ago
On an unrelated note, WikiMedia foundation actually pays progressive groups to write/edit Wikipedia articles.
101.
by mansion7 5y ago
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
102.
by mansion7 5y ago
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, o
103.
by mansion7 5y ago
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 prope
104.
by mansion7 5y ago
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.
105.
by mansion7 5y ago
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 co
106.
by mansion7 5y ago
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 th
107.
by mansion7 5y ago
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
108.
by mansion7 5y ago
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 co
109.
by mansion7 5y ago
They may start doing so, if said providers start banning and censoring people based on political beliefs as Google does.
110.
by mansion7 5y ago
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
111.
by mansion7 5y ago
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?
112.
by mansion7 6y ago
Is YouTube incapable of being in the pockets of the DNC?
113.
by mansion7 6y ago
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
114.
by mansion7 6y ago
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
115.
by mansion7 6y ago
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
116.
by mansion7 6y ago
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?
117.
by mansion7 6y ago
"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
118.
by mansion7 6y ago
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 Am
119.
by mansion7 6y ago
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, r
120.
by mansion7 6y ago
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 whic

More ›