junkshop
Otto's Favourite
Are you, though?
Are you, though?
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,780
More nonsense.catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,780
Given how often you have parroted outright lies from TwiX you are demonstrably unable to "filter material from X".
dirtywick
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 10,553
samson, i'd like you to at least notice that most of the discussion in this thread doesn't come directly off of twitter. it mostly revolves around twitter itself, the actions of it's ceo and various lawsuits and humiliations he's involved in, moderation policy changes, and the outright lies he tells.
most of that, either directly or indirectly, seems to revolve around free speech is the freedom to lie to get what you want philosophy of elon musk, thus keeping it as difficult as possible for users to filter true from false information on twitter. so, am i concerned for the feeble minded? of course, if you just hate the left so much you'll believe anything then yeah you're going to get roped into that and believe everything they say.
most of that, either directly or indirectly, seems to revolve around free speech is the freedom to lie to get what you want philosophy of elon musk, thus keeping it as difficult as possible for users to filter true from false information on twitter. so, am i concerned for the feeble minded? of course, if you just hate the left so much you'll believe anything then yeah you're going to get roped into that and believe everything they say.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
That's a question rather like "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
To be clear - Everyone has their weaknesses. Falling for lies and deceptions is a poor indicator of feeblemindedness. Some groupings of people have more easily exploited weaknesses, certainly, and are less willing to accept that they've been duped or will simply repeat lies when they think that it's in their interest to do so, but that normally has little to do with how intelligent they are and much more to do with their personalities, their emotions, and how they handle them.
"Low conscientiousness conservatives" in particular, have demonstrated themselves to be deeply problematic in a way that high conscientiousness conservatives and both high and low conscientiousness liberals have not.
It is entirely fair to be concerned about the actual far left. At least, it's entirely fair to be concerned about the actual far left where they have significant influence on policy. Just like it's entirely fair to be concerned about the far right where they have significant influence on policy.
In the USA, at present, the actual far left has very little influence on policy in general. The far right, on the other hand, has very significant influence on policy and has been using it to undermine the parts of Western civilization that are noble and great, with a lot of avoidable suffering and death as part of that. Both bothsiderism and focusing on the left only are deeply dishonest under these circumstances.
How much death are we talking about, given that that's more easily put into numbers than suffering? Really, a lot.
Conservative policies linked to higher mortality among working-age people
That was pre-COVID, to be clear. All those right-wing lies and deceptions surrounding COVID and the vaccines had quite the toll, too, though.
Again, I'm not counting these dead people as necessarily feeble-minded. It's simply that the actual harm done (including, more peripherally, to those who weren't tricked because we're all part of the same community and their losses and political mistakes are also ours to varying extents) by all these brazen right-wing lies and falsehoods is immense and there's nothing even remotely close to equivalent that can be validly attributed to the far left. Hence, it's far more reasonable to be concerned about bad behavior coming from the far right that affects nigh everyone over what *might* be bad behavior, however well intentioned, from the left that might maybe affect... a very tiny portion of the population. Incidentally, it may be worth more seriously considering how much of that "anti-west sentiment" that you're concerned about is actually being driven by backlash against the numerous and serious harms done by those concerned far right people that they're trying to pass off as Western culture.
Last edited:
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Following up on that last bit, because this just popped up -
Elon Musk is hampering hurricane relief efforts—and using X to do it
The social media platform has become Musk’s personal misinformation engine. His response to Hurricane Helene is proof.
This is doing actual harm, both to individuals and to communities as they recover less and more slowly because of those who fell for the crap (as their understandable weaknesses were being exploited by those who sought to gain advantage via deceit), thus also affecting the individuals who didn't fall for the BS. Trying to bring up things like whether one's concerned about their own ability to determine what's misinformation or not is something of a red herring. The fact is that people are being harmed. The fact is that the effects of those people being harmed don't stop with just harming those who fell for lies and falsehoods.
Elon Musk is hampering hurricane relief efforts—and using X to do it
The social media platform has become Musk’s personal misinformation engine. His response to Hurricane Helene is proof.
This is doing actual harm, both to individuals and to communities as they recover less and more slowly because of those who fell for the crap (as their understandable weaknesses were being exploited by those who sought to gain advantage via deceit), thus also affecting the individuals who didn't fall for the BS. Trying to bring up things like whether one's concerned about their own ability to determine what's misinformation or not is something of a red herring. The fact is that people are being harmed. The fact is that the effects of those people being harmed don't stop with just harming those who fell for lies and falsehoods.
Last edited:
The trouble with this is it may be true or it may not be.
I would rely on X to hunt down more on this story.
I went to Fast Company to see what they say on a subject I know something about, and it published an article which contains flagrant lies. My previous post on this forum links to that article.
I only read X as I have no new expertise to offer. But on subjects I do have an interest in, there is nowhere else I know to look for a profusion of links to almost everything published.
For example, I have a particular interest in women who have escaped the religion of Islam, and what they have to say, such as Elica le Bon. Where would I look besides X?
People who have escaped cults rely on X.
I see nothing of conspiracy theories because I don't look, and have no interest.
Last edited:
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
May? On a quick googling -
Politico. Vanity Fair. ABC News.
This includes direct links to Musk amplifying such falsehoods.
Why?
Seriously, why? X is a poor tool for those particular purposes. As noted above, I did a quick googling and voila.
Some people who have escaped Islam (and other religions/cults) rely on X. You've made it sound a lot like you aren't even looking anywhere else, though, and then claiming that finding such voices cannot reasonably be done elsewhere without any basis.
Were that actually true, that would be nice, but you've given plenty of reason to doubt such. A statement like this is little more than a dodge here, at best. You are the one here trying to push falsehoods, repeatedly trying to reduce things to an extremely superficial level that ignores the problematic context, tossing out loaded questions to try to avoid addressing said context, and more. This comes across as little more than just another attempt to squirm away from dealing with more complex and unpleasant truths that cast things you like in a very negative light compared to what you wish they actually were.
It may be that what you're actually trying to do is defend your personal usage of X, but frankly, that's fundamentally unnecessary. There's no real debate about the fact that X still can and does fulfill some useful functions, even after Musk's sabotaged many of the useful functions that Twitter had. More could be said about how such dishonest attempts to defend actually undermine any case that you try to make, but that's enough for now.
Last edited:
Well, here is Michael Shellenberger who earlier this year exposed systemic child abuse by WPATH nothing to see of course by the would be global censors
He says "... They must have control of X they want total control..."
https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1846037211554390059?t=AtLK31eNZH05akxAM__Gwg&s=19
Suit you sir?
And Shellenberger explains in this short clip that he writes books which are a quarter footnotes.
He wants facts.
I think Dickens went there in Hard Times for some light relief.
He says "... They must have control of X they want total control..."
https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1846037211554390059?t=AtLK31eNZH05akxAM__Gwg&s=19
Suit you sir?
And Shellenberger explains in this short clip that he writes books which are a quarter footnotes.
He wants facts.
I think Dickens went there in Hard Times for some light relief.
Last edited:
What point are you trying to make?
X is the place for all truth, it is there somewhere.
It is not in NYT BBC WAPO Guardian RNZ NZ Herald CNN.
The proof is off topic as usual.
To add, because Musk let's almost everything through, it is almost a one stop shop.
This is hazardous for sure, but I keep up to date with my interests.
It is not in NYT BBC WAPO Guardian RNZ NZ Herald CNN.
The proof is off topic as usual.
To add, because Musk let's almost everything through, it is almost a one stop shop.
This is hazardous for sure, but I keep up to date with my interests.
Last edited:
Nope no sense at all. As usual when asked something your English becomes nonsense. Strange that.
Well you asked what point I was trying to make.
In the relevant post I was saying Michael Shellenberger proclaimed there was a determination by the governments to control X.
He writes books with 25% footnotes, a claim which he makes to validate his position as a fact checker.
He uses X like the vast majority of politicians, public intellectuals and so on.
Yet this thread is mainly devoted to tearing X down, putting X in its place, and suggesting it is a cess pit.
That is a summary of my point.
In the relevant post I was saying Michael Shellenberger proclaimed there was a determination by the governments to control X.
He writes books with 25% footnotes, a claim which he makes to validate his position as a fact checker.
He uses X like the vast majority of politicians, public intellectuals and so on.
Yet this thread is mainly devoted to tearing X down, putting X in its place, and suggesting it is a cess pit.
That is a summary of my point.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,118
It is a cesspit.
That is not a point.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Anyone can write a book that’s 25% footnotes. I expect plenty of 9/11 Truthers have used voluminous footnotes. Shellenberger also says that his inside sources have seen alien spacecraft and alien bodies. He says he believes them because he has met homeless crazy people on drugs and his inside sources didn’t bear a resemblance to them.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,780
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,780
"Drugs are baaad man".
plague311
Great minds think...
Uhm, hasn't it been proven that Musk has folded to many different governments to censor accounts on his platform? Sounds like the governments are in control of X.
Now we'll go back to you pretending like everything happens in a vacuum. Musk selling out X to foreign governments is fine because X totally has all the truths.