So I guess your point when you said "That is a fine thing." is that it's a fine thing that people respond to Trump and Musk's lying by becoming generally more skeptical of the claims of others, not that it's a fine thing that Trump and Musk lie. If so that seems like a reasonable viewpoint.
Yep thanks for clarifying my intent.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Ummm, yeah. It would make more sense to say, it would be a fine thing if people would see charlatans and liars for what they are and punish them accordingly. But the post you responded to was about how Musk and Trump were apparently NOT held accountable for their lies to which you said, "That is a fine thing." followed by some complete nonsense that you misunderstood about ESSs.
This thread is important, so please take it very seriously as do I.
Musk is a loose unit, but I find it offensive as an issue by issue public intellectual to be categorized as a diehard fan. I think he has done a prodigious job of turning back on Richard Levine and thoroughly evil people. He is like a lot of us, hoist by his careless pronouncements. I give this weirdo a huge break.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,964
Musk is not at all like us-
what is it with Right-wing Demagogues managing to make their supports feel like they are like them?
Musk comes from a rich, white-supremacist South African family and never had to think of running out of money in his life. Seriously, how deluded would one have to be to believe that the richest man in the world is "like a lot of us" ???
Same with Trump: how the Bible Belt adopted a scheming New York millionaire's son, serial adulterer and braggart as "one of them" is proof of a mental flaw.
Also, it's precocious to think that Musk needs "a huge break" - typical authoritarian fanboy mentality, in which the Leader can get away with anything, while his critics deserve the tightest scrutiny.
what is it with Right-wing Demagogues managing to make their supports feel like they are like them?
Musk comes from a rich, white-supremacist South African family and never had to think of running out of money in his life. Seriously, how deluded would one have to be to believe that the richest man in the world is "like a lot of us" ???
Same with Trump: how the Bible Belt adopted a scheming New York millionaire's son, serial adulterer and braggart as "one of them" is proof of a mental flaw.
Also, it's precocious to think that Musk needs "a huge break" - typical authoritarian fanboy mentality, in which the Leader can get away with anything, while his critics deserve the tightest scrutiny.
My preoccupation is with indoctrination of youth. Dorsey did it, Musk opposes.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,964
you are kidding, right?
I fear you are not.
you have been thoroughly indoctrinated.
Thing is: "the youth" does what it wants, if we let them interact with each other and the world. If you are worried about indoctrination, it means you are worried about "the wrong kind" of indoctrination.
And, given the number of people leaving Religion, it's clear that indoctrination at a young age will only delay the time when they start thinking on their own.
The idea that one person, with a fraction of the media presence as Musk, managed to "indoctrinate" a generation is assigning godlike powers to him.
But the enemy MUST be super-duper powerful, or why would you have to fight them?
I'm sure Musk told you how vital you are to his efforts!
Last edited:
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
...
At last check, Dorsey's decisions had far more to do with good business practice than ideology or indoctrination.
Musk's decisions, on the other hand? They quite do look to have quite a bit to do with ideology and indoctrination and nothing to do with good business practice. They're certainly not actually opposing indoctrination, though. Generally opposing the education required to fight indoctrination, morelike.
This pretty much runs along the same lines as the whole grooming thing, though, and for nigh exactly the same reasons. On the one side, we have the people who are trying to give kids the tools and information they need to be able to recognize and deal with grooming. On the other side, we have those who actively try to prevent kids from being able to recognize such (using means like banning books, for example) and actively level loud and numerous accusations of grooming, despite openly embracing indoctrination along those lines as a matter of course.
Whether you agree with Musk's position or not is up to you. Hiding behind false rationalizations will only make your reasoning stink, though, and invite manufactured martyrdom when called on it.
Last edited:
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
If anyone thinks that the youth is entirely capable of seeing through disinformation, I honestly invite them to take a look at 30's Germany or, well, any point in the Soviet Union, and try to explain why else they were so dead set on those mandatory youth groups. Or even before that, go read All Quiet on the Western Front. The whole point of the book is that some youths volunteer out of misconceptions and (induced) patriotic fervour, and have a rather painful (and terminal) road to discovering that everything isn't like in the propaganda.
Not saying that the left or the right are more guilty of this, but there's a reason for that in both cases.
Not saying that the left or the right are more guilty of this, but there's a reason for that in both cases.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
That's a weird strawman, since literally nobody was saying that that's the only place the anti-trans discussions have to take place. On the contrary, the other side was fuming about now having to deal with "nazis" in their echo chamber. Like, that "nazi" argument literally happened even in this thread, or rather its predecessor before it got too big.
In your analogy, they're more like just saying why should someone be banned from a mall, if they ever speak against a certain ideology. E.g., because they actually happen to genuinely agree with the other side of the political spectrum, for their own reasons. Which may not be good reasons, or even sane reasons, but they're reasons. Nobody just woke up and decided "dammit, I want to be wrong and evil."
I mean, mind you, Musk "solved" that in the same way as the Taliban cure headaches with their beheadings, but that point can be made on its own.
In your analogy, they're more like just saying why should someone be banned from a mall, if they ever speak against a certain ideology. E.g., because they actually happen to genuinely agree with the other side of the political spectrum, for their own reasons. Which may not be good reasons, or even sane reasons, but they're reasons. Nobody just woke up and decided "dammit, I want to be wrong and evil."
I mean, mind you, Musk "solved" that in the same way as the Taliban cure headaches with their beheadings, but that point can be made on its own.
Last edited:
dirtywick
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 10,387
i didn't accuse anyone of saying it was the only place, but rather that the argument here is akin to saying it's not fair that you would be kicked out of a mall for starting giant arguments and bothering a bunch of people. well, maybe it's not fair and maybe people don't want to be constantly bothered
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Quoting from your message I was answering to: "twitter needs to be the gathering place for the anti-trans anyway? it's like insisting serious discussions should be happening in malls "
I don't see any of that saying it COULD be ONE of the many places for it, or that only SOME of the serious discussions COULD happen in malls. Which is really all they're asking for. You're mis-representing their position by saying it should be "the" place.
I have had serious discussions in a lot of places. In mall food courts, in pizzerias, whatever. I actually had serious legal discussions with my lawyer way back in a pizzeria or while walking through a park as a shortcut. We also discussed magic history a lot in those places. I discussed with a relative about his divorcing his wife in a sushi bar. I discussed with mom about her health problem in <bleep>ing World Of Warcraft, over the team voice chat. (Team was just the two of us.) I discussed stuff with my employer over the phone in a client's lobby. Etc.
Nobody's saying that any of those should be "the" place for discussing those issues. It's just saying that there's no reason to not discuss legal advice in a pizzeria, if I so choose. Might not be the smartest thing to do, but I CAN. Or if you're a Xian or skeptic bothered by someone talking about magic, then <bleep> off and just don't listen in on other people's conversations. Not everyone has to bend over backwards to create a safe echo bubble for your beliefs.
As for the rest, all I'm saying is that you can make this point on its own, without the distortion. If they're actually harassing other people, well, sure, you can make that point on its own, and I might even agree with you.
I don't see any of that saying it COULD be ONE of the many places for it, or that only SOME of the serious discussions COULD happen in malls. Which is really all they're asking for. You're mis-representing their position by saying it should be "the" place.
I have had serious discussions in a lot of places. In mall food courts, in pizzerias, whatever. I actually had serious legal discussions with my lawyer way back in a pizzeria or while walking through a park as a shortcut. We also discussed magic history a lot in those places. I discussed with a relative about his divorcing his wife in a sushi bar. I discussed with mom about her health problem in <bleep>ing World Of Warcraft, over the team voice chat. (Team was just the two of us.) I discussed stuff with my employer over the phone in a client's lobby. Etc.
Nobody's saying that any of those should be "the" place for discussing those issues. It's just saying that there's no reason to not discuss legal advice in a pizzeria, if I so choose. Might not be the smartest thing to do, but I CAN. Or if you're a Xian or skeptic bothered by someone talking about magic, then <bleep> off and just don't listen in on other people's conversations. Not everyone has to bend over backwards to create a safe echo bubble for your beliefs.
As for the rest, all I'm saying is that you can make this point on its own, without the distortion. If they're actually harassing other people, well, sure, you can make that point on its own, and I might even agree with you.
Last edited:
dirtywick
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 10,387
ok, well i'm sorry it was unclear, i could see how my use of "the" instead of "a" could have caused that. but after clearing it up i'm a little disappointed you would still insist i'm distorting anything. if anything conflating the private conversations you're having in public with the public annoucement style method that twitter uses is a distortion
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
Thinking that Dorsey and Musk are ideologically very different people is, essentially, drinking the kool-aid. There isn't all that much between them philosophically, both are libertarian, both want to get rich off the labour of others, both want the gov'mint to get off their backs and neither give two shakes of a lambs tail about those worse off than them. It's simply that Dorsey was clever enough and business savvy enough to grasp the basic business principle* that advertisers don't want to be seen next to the kind of hate speech that kills their brands.
*And this is basic stuff here, stuff that you'd expect a five year old in junior infants to grasp.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
It's still not making it all that much better. Then your analogy becomes, why would someone insist that a mall is A valid place (even out of many) to hold a serious conversation.
Well, why wouldn't it be? I've held plenty of serious conversations in malls. Even if it was as trivial as "what should I buy for my newborn niece", it was actually very serious. Should I have to go outside if I want to have a serious talk? Am I under obligation to just make jokes and frivolous talk as long as I'm inside? Why?
Or moving to less trivial stuff: Exactly what kind of entitlement give anyone the "right" to demand that any conversations they don't want to hear, be held outside the mall? If it happened in a taliban town, would the majority really have a valid point that I shouldn't be allowed to talk with my GF/lawyer about magic in the mall's food court, because it triggers them, or what? Why SHOULDN'T anyone insist that the mall is just as valid a place to talk about that as anywhere else?
Last edited:
dirtywick
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 10,387
i've already addressed the difference in nature between your private conversations in public places and public announcements on twitter. the analogy even holds there because the dm feature is much more comparable to what you're describing and nobody is mad about what's happening in dms.
and while it would be interesting to unpack why insisting the mall be valid is fine but insisting it isn't is not, that's not even my point either. i'm comparing it to a mall because of how it actually functions: twitter isn't a free speech platform as much as he'd like to brand it that way, and there's a reason why everything in this thread revolves around how advertisers are reacting to his changes. to twitter you're an asset to be shown to their real customer, the advertiser. in a mall you're an asset available to their real customers, the stores. and i think that's where the entitlement comes from.
so anyone can certainly insist either one would make a great free speech zone or not, elon is demonstrating why it can't be.
and while it would be interesting to unpack why insisting the mall be valid is fine but insisting it isn't is not, that's not even my point either. i'm comparing it to a mall because of how it actually functions: twitter isn't a free speech platform as much as he'd like to brand it that way, and there's a reason why everything in this thread revolves around how advertisers are reacting to his changes. to twitter you're an asset to be shown to their real customer, the advertiser. in a mall you're an asset available to their real customers, the stores. and i think that's where the entitlement comes from.
so anyone can certainly insist either one would make a great free speech zone or not, elon is demonstrating why it can't be.
He's not Tony Stark and he certainly is no Howard Hughes, although he does share some of the less successful traits of him.
Just as I feel it's ironic that he's obviously a fan of Iain M Banks and gives spaceships names reminiscent of The Culture, when he more closely resembles Jollier Veppers - the antagonist in Surface Detail.
A thought that has occurred to others as well