The reason I brought up that phrase is that Scott Adams of the Dilbert cartoon endorsed Hillary in 2016 using this exact language, despite actually liking Trump.
> "So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety."
If I recall correctly, he says that merely that endorsement, however transparently fake it was, got a lot of people off of his back.
1. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective truth. Right wing and left wing views are opinions on how the world should be, so neither belong on Wikipedia.
2. What right wing views are censored on social media? Superiority of capitalism over other economic systems? Less taxes leading to better prosperity? Reduced government regulation lets innovation flourish? Welfare programs are a waste of money? I see these views get debated and their pros and cons pointed out, not censored.
The irony is that Musk was proclaiming that Twitter is now going to focus on free speech (as in, everything non-illegal goes), and just now they removed an instance of non-illegal speech.
Maybe a court would decide that heart emojis aren't a company secret covered by an NDA, but are expression of solidarity with workers which is legally protected speech regardless of what the employer thinks about it. Or maybe not. By the free speech ideology you can't know, and are supposed to assume innocent until proven guilty, and keep it until a court orders taking it down.
But here a private company is executing its own unilateral judgement by their own clearly biased moderators.
The definition, applicability, scope, etc., of tech industry standard NDAs is very clear cut. Presumably Twitter didn't insert some uniquely odd clauses.
Trying to create vagueness where there is none seems like motivated reasoning
Never heard of this so looked it up. Dude had an argument with his ex while in a car, hit her a few times, she managed to escape, he drove into a parade some time later. The motive behind the attack is unknown. What does this have to do with the parent post?
So he was a right wing extremist who murdered several innocent people. The parent was saying that left wing extremist attacks aren't nearly as prolific.
Edit: on further thought, no motive for the attack was established. This seems more like an act of random violence fueled by rage, rather than an ideological attack.
Perhaps it's because right wing extremists are significantly more likely to use violence? I think it's understandable that the default image of a terrorist is someone who espouses right wing values in that case. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/08/post-911-dom...
I might be in a bubble but I very, very rarely learn about left wing attacks, while right wing ones pop up here and there.
Edit: Also, about that link GP posted above about the Congressional baseball shooting: The perpetrator attacked Republican lawmakers, who have the most power to implement right-wing policies. In contrast, the attacks mentioned in my link mostly affected random people who probably did not have much political power, and were just members of groups that are often disliked by right wing extremists.
>Humans aren't clownfish and cannot change their gender.
Hit the nail on the head here. Hence, the medical community's current response is to adjust the individual's body, appearance and treatment from others to match their gender as closely as possible.
