Cont: Musk buys Twitter II

Please will you all try harder to focus on Elon Musk and Twitter/X, and refrain from discussing matters for which there are already dedicated threads.

And please do not personalise your posts.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
HansMustermann said:
Look, I disagree with my esteemed coleague Samson... BUT... With all due respect, I don't see why everyone (including himself) is so obsessed about his OCD. Well, ok, he has the O in OCD as an excuse. What's everyone else's excuse?

...snip...
Click to expand...

It is Samson who brings it up.

The reason I have mentioned it in replies to Samson is that he seems unaware that some of the people he has lauded Musk for unbanning are people that want to kill and/or sterilise people such as him. Samson states that he is against "gay children being sterilised" - which is how he views some medical treatment for trans children, again I have pointed out to him that the Nazis that he has lauded Musk for unbanning aims are to sterilise and/or imprison and/or kill any gay person.

For Samson as long as the Nazis are posting against trans children receiving some kinds of medical treatment he is happy to get into bed with them, he actively supports nazis having a platform to "campaign" for their aims.

That he cannot see the contradiction in his reason for lauding the likes of Nazis being unbanned by Musk and his claimed reason for being against trans children receiving some medical treatments has nothing to do with Samson's mental illness, his mental illness claim is nothing but a red-herring he throws into the pool.
 
Darat said:
He is suing for “business disparagement”, “interference with contract” and “interference with prospective economic advantage.”
Click to expand...

Business disparagement, a.k.a., trade disparagement, is also called "trade libel" in lawyer parlance.

Yes, there is technically a jargon difference between it and defamation, but basically it boils down to: it's "defamation" if it's about an individual, it's "business disparagement" if it's about a business or its products. That's it. That's the grand difference.

So while you are correct in that they are separate torts, and that it does matter in strictly defining what it's about in a legal setting, I feel like I'm also not entirely in the wrong for lumping them together in a casual talk on the topic.
 
HansMustermann said:
Business disparagement, a.k.a., trade disparagement, is also called "trade libel" in lawyer parlance.

Yes, there is technically a jargon difference between it and defamation, but basically it boils down to: it's "defamation" if it's about an individual, it's "business disparagement" if it's about a business or its products. That's it. That's the grand difference.

So while you are correct in that they are separate torts, and that it does matter in strictly defining what it's about in a legal setting, I feel like I'm also not entirely in the wrong for lumping them together in a casual talk on the topic.
Click to expand...

We shall have to agree to disagree.

As a short humouous break, have a read of Kathryn Tewson's thread on the lawsuit in the style of UP-GOER FIVE https://nitter.net/KathrynTewson/status/1727002256149770483

You'll need to scroll down past the stuff about Space X.
 
HansMustermann said:
@angrysoba
I don't really believe that IQ is a measure of much in the real world, but let's not go down that rabbit hole this time. Certainly doesn't stop anyone from doing stupid stuff or having stupid beliefs.

As for Tesla and SpaceX, I don't see how owning something would prove someone isn't stupid. Contrary to his claims, he didn't start Tesla, nor PayPal for example. He bought Tesla, just like he bought Twitter, while in the case of PayPal actually PayPal bought his crappy X.com competitor... and was promptly dismayed at his unusable spaghetti code. And he didn't design any of the space stuff at SpaceX.

And that's ignoring the stuff he's hyped and failed, like SolarCity. Or half-baked and abandoned ideas like the hyperloop.

What he's done in all cases is hype it with some unrealistic claims and promises, and occasionally outright lies. E.g., in his SolarCity big presentation, where he claimed that all those houses had his solar roof tiles, which not only wasn't the case, they didn't even EXIST yet. He had some tiles glazed to LOOK kinda like solar panels, but they weren't.

Or on the subject of Tesla, promises like that he'll soon produce 20 million electric cars a year... which would need about as much lithium per year as was mined in the previous decade, not to mention running into the problem of the known world-wide lithium reserves. He dismissed that as his being able to just extract lithium from clay with salt and water, but again that process didn't even exist, so he was just lying on the stage.

Plus other promises that pumped the price up, like the Tesla Roadster, Cybertruck, etc, which never seemed to actually get done. Nor match his initial promises, even in their current vapourware state. (E.g., the cybertruck went from a monocoque hydroformed one-piece body to attaching sheet metal to a conventional chassis, defeating one major point of why that body would be better.)

Plus other vapourware claims like the ability to deliver full self-driving any time now, for several years.

Etc.

And in all that, the only constant seems to be self-aggrandizing himself for attention. (I.e., what I called a Tinkerbellend.) Again, occasionally with outright lies.

So basically, not much different than what he's done with Twitter.

So... why does that prove he's not an idiot? :p
Click to expand...

Sure, but you avoided TWO Twitter-related examples of things that Twitter CEO Elon Musk has said/done:

1.) called that diver a pedo (on Twitter). Was that just stupid and not malicious?

2.) After firing Yoel Roth, ex-head of Safety at Twitter, hinting that he was a pedophile, leading to mobs of stalkers.

Is that not malicious?
 
Darat said:
You provided lists of names - is this the only one on your lists that was banned and then unbanned?
Click to expand...

Darat said:
It is Samson who brings it up.

The reason I have mentioned it in replies to Samson is that he seems unaware that some of the people he has lauded Musk for unbanning are people that want to kill and/or sterilise people such as him. Samson states that he is against "gay children being sterilised" - which is how he views some medical treatment for trans children, again I have pointed out to him that the Nazis that he has lauded Musk for unbanning aims are to sterilise and/or imprison and/or kill any gay person.

For Samson as long as the Nazis are posting against trans children receiving some kinds of medical treatment he is happy to get into bed with them, he actively supports nazis having a platform to "campaign" for their aims.

That he cannot see the contradiction in his reason for lauding the likes of Nazis being unbanned by Musk and his claimed reason for being against trans children receiving some medical treatments has nothing to do with Samson's mental illness, his mental illness claim is nothing but a red-herring he throws into the pool.
Click to expand...
I am a simple man.
I am overwhelmed by people more clever, Musk and X are arguably my match
 
Darat said:
It is Samson who brings it up.
Click to expand...

Seems to me like one doesn't absolutely need to go down that detour, to address his views, much less repeat it whenever Samson has something entirely different to say. But you're the admin, you know better than I do.

Darat said:
The reason I have mentioned it in replies to Samson is that he seems unaware that some of the people he has lauded Musk for unbanning are people that want to kill and/or sterilise people such as him. Samson states that he is against "gay children being sterilised" - which is how he views some medical treatment for trans children, again I have pointed out to him that the Nazis that he has lauded Musk for unbanning aims are to sterilise and/or imprison and/or kill any gay person.
Click to expand...

1. Actually, when I mentioned the Nazi argument, it wasn't yours, it was someone else a few pages ago claiming that Samson is supporting people who would have executed him for being mentally ill during WW2. Don't particularly feel like naming and shaming, but I felt like throwing it in too at least as a general idea.

2. It's still an argument by association. Just supporting the freedom of speech of group X doesn't necessarily mean you agree with -- and in fact support -- literally everything they have to say.

E.g., I disagree with Bart Ehrman's conclusion and arguments about a historical Jesus, AND with Carrier's sufficiently meeting the burden of proof for his mythical Jesus. (Being probably 51% right is somewhat less of a slam dunk.) But I don't think either should be barred from publishing their views. In fact, I consider Bart Ehrman to be an outstanding scholar, who deserves nothing short of praise for introducing to the laymen what was almost a closed group discussion, and think that the world would be worse off if he couldn't do that. In fact, he provided me with most of the arguments AGAINST his conclusion.

Or on the topic of Nazis, I find myself seriously disagreeing with the NSDAP and Hitler, but I've still read Mein Kampf for historical reference and insight. I understand why Europe is still butthurt about Nazis and why they'd ban it, but I simultaneously I'm both against that ban AND against Nazis.

In the words of Orwell, "If Liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." I don't want to hear again why I'm going to hell for being an atheist, but I respect the people's right to say that. And I also enjoy the right to say they're stupid, even if THEY don't want to hear that.

3. Even among the self-identified Nazis, they're a rather eclectic bunch, where not everyone agrees to every single idea that Hitler and the NSDAP ever said. Trivial example: there are Slavs identifying as National Socialist, but I don't think they agree with Hitler that Slavs are subhuman. So the extrapolation is further weakened, as to what someone would support if they support their right to say stuff.

4. As you yourself have pointed out before, not all the people branded as Nazis for some post or another on Twitter, are actual Nazis. As you say, actual Nazis seem to be pretty open about that. The argument about 'keeping Nazis out' or 'supporting Nazis if you let them back' is routinely applied to people who are just bellends, or in a few cases possibly fascists, but whose ideology is far from mirroring literally everything and anything one can pick out of the NSDAP ideology.

5. Even more importantly, it's an ESPECIALLY weak association fallacy, when it's not even specific to the NSDAP, but was what everyone else was doing at the time. E.g., Alan Turing was driven to suicide by government persecution for his homosexuality in 1954 BRITAIN (and starting from 1952.) Hardly what I'd think of as a Nazi country. I mean, yeah, they were wrong, but hardly supporting an association with Nazis.

6. And of course none of that matters anyway, since it's a private platform, and can decide whatever it wants to allow or not. And people are free to like or dislike it for any reason whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
Sure, but you avoided TWO Twitter-related examples of things that Twitter CEO Elon Musk has said/done:

1.) called that diver a pedo (on Twitter). Was that just stupid and not malicious?

2.) After firing Yoel Roth, ex-head of Safety at Twitter, hinting that he was a pedophile, leading to mobs of stalkers.

Is that not malicious?
Click to expand...

I will concede that it could be both :p
 
Samson said:
I am a simple man.
I am overwhelmed by people more clever, Musk and X are arguably my match
Click to expand...

That's a bit like claiming to be overwhelmed by the cunning of Baldrick from BlackAdder, but I won't take away your right to be, if that floats your boat :p
 
HansMustermann said:
That's a bit like claiming to be overwhelmed by the cunning of Baldrick from BlackAdder, but I won't take away your right to be, if that floats your boat :p
Click to expand...
The forum is better than me.
It is better without Charlie Wilkes and Rolfe and myself.
 
angrysoba said:
Peterson has gone way down the whole slippery slope. I think he's mostly high on his own supply, wearing his Batman-villain suits railing against the conspiracy of climate change, vaccines and various other incoherent gibberish. His story intersects with Twitter because he was told his tweeting privileges would be suspended unless he deleted his obnoxious tweet about Elliot Paige's breast being cut off by a "criminal physician". Wherever you stand on the trans stuff, Peterson was just being an ******* with that. Anyway, he was never left-wing.
Click to expand...

i'd like to remind you as well of the time he posted milking machine fetish porn, uncensored, directly to twitter because he thought it was a chinese breeding factory
 
Samson said:
The forum is better than me.
It is better without Charlie Wilkes and Rolfe and myself.
Click to expand...

i won't say it is or isn't, but i don't think people are going to start agreeing with you just because you're feelings are getting hurt that they're not receptive to the teachings of your twitter gurus
 
Samson said:
I am drawn to the idea of agreeing on facts, and progressing from there.
Click to expand...
Sounds highly reasonable in theory. In practice though...

You said that MM was a "nasty lying organisation". Please provide evidence they lied. Third request.
 
angrysoba said:
I don't think he's either an idiot, or a neo-Nazi. Those are both hyperbolic.

He's clearly, whatever his protestations, gone right down the red-pill right-wing route, and is buddies with many of the most egregious ex-friends of Sam Harris: Rubin, the Weinsteins, etc... and some of the people who are even worse (Lawrence Fox, Sargon of ******* Akkad, some weirdo called Matt Goodwin, whose main complaint about British politics is that it is not right-wing enough - yep Brexit Britain with its 15 years or whatever of Tory rule is still too left wing...)
Click to expand...

The red-pillers are idiot neo-nazis, because that is the propoganda they are spouting.

We should not be so squeamish about calling out evil for what it is. That way it wins.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Kisin is an idiot neo-nazi shill and anybody taking him seriously isn't worth listening to you. We've seen what happens when people like Kisin are allowed spread their vile propoganda when a bunch of his fellow scrotes were set loose in Dublin.
Click to expand...
True. Hopefully they'll try again tonight....
 
Samson said:
Just catching up
You are clearly misunderstanding for your perfect satisfaction what ex left are railing against, and they are smart constructs that are functionally extinct.
Click to expand...
Is there supposed to be a meaning in this?
 
once again it's all about advertisers and creators worried about their revenue share as elon musk travels to israel to try and appease them, and blaming the media won't take their thumb off the scale
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom