Lowest common denominator strikes again with ludicrously unnecessary censorship. Not even curse words or things like "suicide" anymore, just whatever drifts past their sights.

Its probably to avoid semantic analysis marking it as distressing or negative and deranking it for the target audience.

It probably triggered someone, somewhere, somehow, sometime and someone flagged it as an issue.

Well that one mark ended up making 13 of the comments in just this comment chain alone. 14 including this one I'm making, on a post with 50 comments on it, over 20% of them. If this were any other massive platform like reddit or Instagram or Facebook, this level of engagement would drive algorithms extremely effectively.

They do expect were dumb. We're trained growing up with wrong info. You know how many people I've met that they think if they get a raise they'll make less money? Or how many don't understand basic tax brackets? Met a girl who thought each tax bracket was applied to your entire income, so millionaire tax was "ripping off millionaires" lmao.

Plus when healthcare and other things are tied to our job, you tend to not make waves and just fall in line. The system is fully against the working class.

True, but I think more people would stand up also and call them out. I'd hope so at least.

But in that scenario the subject of interest (who we're trying to determine if they're stupid or malicious) is the commander regardless of whether they were stupid or they were malicious. (Actually, you could apply the razor to the commander, the soldiers, or the system of both in combination; it works in any of those scenarios, as long as it applies to the same entity the whole time). In your original scenario, you aren't comparing the hypothesis of a malicious employee to a stupid employee, you're comparing a malicious employee to stupid instructions. Hanlon's razor does not imply the employee is not malicious because you aren't using it to imply the employee is stupid, you're claiming the instructions are stupid, which is a perfectly good motivation for malicious behavior from the employee. A correct usage of Hanlon's Razor here would be to say that you should assume the employees are stupid rather than malicious. I disagree with that interpretation because Hanlon's Razor is often wrong, but it's at least a valid usage of it.

It's not about representation, it's a symbol for being cool, visually unrelated to the person you're calling a chad. And it's intentionally extreme.

It's a story about workers flexing their strength against the boss and having the boss back down. It seems to fit just fine to me.

I can't possibly imagine why you seem to be so offended over all this.

Memes are conceptual not literal

I willed it into existence by utilizing another non-organic entity to manifest it.

And I am a real person. Thus the "" are falsely used.
Better use them this way: "Created"

AI slop