So what form does the resistance take?

stanfr said:
I personally don't support arson, but you're being pretty disingenuous comparing a hypothetical harm to the "livelihood of 100,000 employess" when 25,000 federal employees were definitely and absolutely harmed and fired by Musk. (illegally of course, which is why the result is still being disputed). And then to draw a false equivalency between him and Bill Gates, who spent less than 1/5 of what Musk did, had no major social media platform to continuously promote his candidate, and has zero actual involvement in government. Could you seriously imagine Gates being given the kind of power Musk was given if Harris had won?
Click to expand...
Can you imagine the level of unrest and violence if Pandemic-Chip-Gates would have been given access to all that data?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Well, given that you responded directly to @mikegriffith1, and you specifically said that they and their colleagues should consider their priorities... it seems abundantly clear that you were implying that mikegriffith1 is anti-vaccinations in general*. Furthermore, it insinuated that anyone who opposes male-appropriation of female spaces, or opposes the permanent maiming of youth in the name of gender identity must also necessarily be opposed to vaccinations.

If you'd like to walk-back your prior post and rephrase it to be clearer, that would certainly be appreciated.

*I suppose it could be true, I'm not going to try to wade through a malfunctioning search system to try to find past posts by mikegriffith1 on the topic. But nothing posted here by them suggests or supports the idea that they generally oppose vaccinations.
Click to expand...
you can interpret it as you like. Mike Griffith has, so far, as far as I can see, supported Trump and his policies, and that's what I meant to address. If he is not anti-vax and is still pro-Trump it's up to him to figure out how to parse that. I do not need to. Trump and his administration are visibly what they are.

If you feel somehow that this implicates you or others who favor certain individual policies that happen to agree with Trump, I would consider that a logical issue, and your problem. Even the worst tyrants and idiots are likely to favor some things, agreement with which does not make you one of them. Not all linkages work in reverse. You can like the autobahn without being a Nazi. Mr. Griffith has made it pretty clear he is "one of them," and if he wishes to decouple his customary rhetoric from that of the administration, no doubt he can do it himself.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Well, given that you responded directly to @mikegriffith1, and you specifically said that they and their colleagues should consider their priorities... it seems abundantly clear that you were implying that mikegriffith1 is anti-vaccinations in general*. Furthermore, it insinuated that anyone who opposes male-appropriation of female spaces, or opposes the permanent maiming of youth in the name of gender identity must also necessarily be opposed to vaccinations.

If you'd like to walk-back your prior post and rephrase it to be clearer, that would certainly be appreciated.

*I suppose it could be true, I'm not going to try to wade through a malfunctioning search system to try to find past posts by mikegriffith1 on the topic. But nothing posted here by them suggests or supports the idea that they generally oppose vaccinations.
Click to expand...

For your reference then:

B

Cont: Thread 'Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part V'

Continued from here. You may freely quote from previous threads in this series.
Posted By: Agatha





eerok said:
I can't devote my whole day to sneering at you and your lame sources, sorry.
Click to expand...



Oh sure, right....of course you were not cherry picking. I understand your point.

Rare Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome Detected in Vaccinated Young: Lancet Study


https://www.theepochtimes.com/rare-m...9ffnvON7XXBaCi
Click to expand...
 
TragicMonkey said:
Since we've reached the era of just saying whatever and seeing if anyone believes it: the Tesla "vandalism" was an inside job: faced with declining sales Musk has turned to insurance fraud.
Click to expand...
That's a mighty fine spoonful of spaghetti you tossed there. Sticky, too. Do you have a social media account you can seed with it?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Republicans have been calling for boycotts of every company doing anything vaguely DEI under Biden, and yet you were not at all concerned then about their employees.
What has changed?
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right?

Boycotting is fine - go for it, as much as you want. But setting things on fire and threatening people is NOT boycotting.
 
stanfr said:
I personally don't support arson, but you're being pretty disingenuous comparing a hypothetical harm to the "livelihood of 100,000 employess" when 25,000 federal employees were definitely and absolutely harmed and fired by Musk. (illegally of course, which is why the result is still being disputed). And then to draw a false equivalency between him and Bill Gates, who spent less than 1/5 of what Musk did, had no major social media platform to continuously promote his candidate, and has zero actual involvement in government. Could you seriously imagine Gates being given the kind of power Musk was given if Harris had won?
Click to expand...
You're making the false assumption that I support 25,000 federal employees being put out of work. I'm not fond of it at all. But I also recognize that nobody has raised a stink about United Health Group laying off 30,000 employees. There's a serious contradiction involved in this entire discussion, and I can't wrap my head around how you guys justify the hypocrisy.

United laid off 30,000 people. I feel sorrow for them, and I have concerns about that many people entering the ranks of unemployed. I'm not celebrating it, and I don't think anyone should do so. I definitely wouldn't support anyone threatening UHC and attacking the company in order to drive them out of business and put their employees out of work.

The fed laid off 25,000 people. I feel sorrow for them, and I have concerns about that many people becoming unemployed. I definitely wouldn't support anyone threatening the government with harassment or violence in order to make it fail and put more people out of work.

On the other hand... people are ACTIVELY AND INTENTIONALLY threatening Tesla, trying to make their stock value tank, trying to drive the company out of business, regardless of the fact that this would put 100,000 people out of work. But many people - including some of you here - don't seem to have any problem at all with this approach. The risk of putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work is apparently "acceptable collateral damage" as long as it punishes Musk for being politically active.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You're also making the assumption that being transparent about political activity is somehow worse than hidden, under the table, influence peddled behind closed doors. If you genuinely think that Democratic-inclined billionaires somehow have less influence because you don't directly see it, then you're naive. And if Harris had decided to appoint Gates to a role in their administration, I doubt that Gates would decline if it were something they felt strongly about - and I doubt you'd be angry about it.

It might be unkind, but my genuine inference from the last decade of discussions on ISF is that you and several other people here don't actually care about the means, you only care about the ends. You don't actually care that billionaires are influencing politics - you only care that the wrong billionaires are influencing the wrong party in a way that you disagree with. None of you gave a flying crap when the prior owners of Twitter were suppressing conservative voices, advocating for liberal voices and policies, and literally suppressing factual news stories. Most of you justified such activity.

I think Musk constantly tweeting about what they're doing - and their opinion on it - is in poor taste. That said, it's also what they told everyone they were going to do. "Radical transparency", openly communicating what is being found throughout the entire DOGE program/organization/wheteveryoucallit. I don't like it at all. But it's what Musk and Trump said they were planning to do through the process, so they're delivering on that promise.
 
The differences between the firing of public employees and those in the private sector, include:
  • Firing public employees closes down government functions which are often vital, critical, or mandatory. It violates the public trust.
  • The nature of private companies includes going out of business for economic reasons. No public trust is violated.
  • No cause has been given for the vast majority of public employees, making it easy to conclude the reasons are unrelated to performance, often in violation of the Civil Service Act and in furtherance of cronyism and corruption. Rank "Third World" behavior.
  • One can assume a private enterprise is maximizing shareholder return, which is the primary cause. Unless due diligence is poor, there is no violation of law.
  • Nonetheless, either can be done in excess to please predatory instincts, which is disgusting to witness. (Sorry for late edit.)
Basically, it is disingenuous, if not intentionally misleading, to make the comparison. Calling Musk an incompetent jerk is the very best one can say, and much worse is apparent.

(This has nothing to do with arguments around hooliganism, which is abhorrent.)
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
You're making the false assumption that I support 25,000 federal employees being put out of work. I'm not fond of it at all. But I also recognize that nobody has raised a stink about United Health Group laying off 30,000 employees. There's a serious contradiction involved in this entire discussion, and I can't wrap my head around how you guys justify the hypocrisy.

United laid off 30,000 people. I feel sorrow for them, and I have concerns about that many people entering the ranks of unemployed. I'm not celebrating it, and I don't think anyone should do so. I definitely wouldn't support anyone threatening UHC and attacking the company in order to drive them out of business and put their employees out of work.

The fed laid off 25,000 people. I feel sorrow for them, and I have concerns about that many people becoming unemployed. I definitely wouldn't support anyone threatening the government with harassment or violence in order to make it fail and put more people out of work.

On the other hand... people are ACTIVELY AND INTENTIONALLY threatening Tesla, trying to make their stock value tank, trying to drive the company out of business, regardless of the fact that this would put 100,000 people out of work. But many people - including some of you here - don't seem to have any problem at all with this approach. The risk of putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work is apparently "acceptable collateral damage" as long as it punishes Musk for being politically active.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You're also making the assumption that being transparent about political activity is somehow worse than hidden, under the table, influence peddled behind closed doors. If you genuinely think that Democratic-inclined billionaires somehow have less influence because you don't directly see it, then you're naive. And if Harris had decided to appoint Gates to a role in their administration, I doubt that Gates would decline if it were something they felt strongly about - and I doubt you'd be angry about it.

It might be unkind, but my genuine inference from the last decade of discussions on ISF is that you and several other people here don't actually care about the means, you only care about the ends. You don't actually care that billionaires are influencing politics - you only care that the wrong billionaires are influencing the wrong party in a way that you disagree with. None of you gave a flying crap when the prior owners of Twitter were suppressing conservative voices, advocating for liberal voices and policies, and literally suppressing factual news stories. Most of you justified such activity.

I think Musk constantly tweeting about what they're doing - and their opinion on it - is in poor taste. That said, it's also what they told everyone they were going to do. "Radical transparency", openly communicating what is being found throughout the entire DOGE program/organization/wheteveryoucallit. I don't like it at all. But it's what Musk and Trump said they were planning to do through the process, so they're delivering on that promise.
Click to expand...
Really, this deserves nothing but a laughing dog emoji in response, but I'm not big on emojis, I'll leave that to the Signal chatters who so proudly exemplify the hypocrisy you claim to despise. I made it very clear I did not support arson or threats. United's planned layoffs are irrelevant to my response to your false equivalencies.

But to be very clear, I hold all billionaires to the same level of scrutiny, so you are dead wrong that I would not care if Gates had been appointed. I personally think that wealth inequality is one of the greatest threats to our society. It's one of the foremost reasons I supported Bernie in previous elections, and supported those Dems who ran on campaign reform against Biden in the last one. It's a much greater threat, however, when the billionaires who wield that power are evil and/or mentally ill, which is the appropriate description for Musk and other oligarchs who lined up behind Trump at his inauguration, along with the lunatic at the head of it all.
 
Emily's Cat said:
You're kidding, right?

Boycotting is fine - go for it, as much as you want. But setting things on fire and threatening people is NOT boycotting.
Click to expand...

Are we back to:" very few people have gone to far, therefore your entire movement is illegitimate!" ?
Not something Republicans ever apply to their side.

In fact, violence against peaceful protesters, by Right-wingers or cops is the norm:
apnews.com

Man drives car into protesters outside a Tesla dealership, nobody hurt, sheriff says

A Florida sheriff's office says a man drove his car into protesters gathered outside a Tesla dealership in Palm Beach County, but nobody was injured.
apnews.com apnews.com

Maybe that kind of violence is an indication that Tesla is not on the side of the Angels.
 
Anyone remember antifa? Been unusually quiet in the face of recent events, no? Almost like playtime and posting edgy memes are a thing of the past
 
Thermal said:
Anyone remember antifa? Been unusually quiet in the face of recent events, no? Almost like playtime and posting edgy memes are a thing of the past
Click to expand...

I've been to four protests since Trump took office.

Antifa/Black bloc type people attend the ones downtown. They help organize them even. But they don't much like federal employees, they see us as cogs in the machine that they want to break down, and they see the 50501 movement as "liberals" which they equate to sellouts. The more loudly self-avowed Antifa/Black Bloc types seem to identify as "leftists", which to them is very different from "liberal" or "progressive". They hate Donald Trump, but they don't have any sympathy for the civil service either. It reminds me of French communists in 1939/40, happy to watch the French government fight with the Nazis and seeing little distinction between the two.

The protest out in the burbs have no Antifa/Black Bloc presence. The 50501/Tesla Takedown people are mostly white women in their 60's and 70's. The downtown leftist protestors are all about carrying red cards with legal advice in case of arrest, planning escape routes to avoid police encirclement, how to react to tear gas deployment, all that. 50501/Tesla Takedown is old people with walkers (literally, and that's no criticism).

ETA: I live in the Denver area. If you are on Reddit, go to r/DenverProtests to see the black bloc people. Still plenty of edgelords there.
 
Last edited:
President Tramp starts beating the drums of war against Greenland and Iran, The People take to the streets to stop it.

Mutiny in the military as soldiers refuse to attack a NATO ally, the Generals detain Vance and Tramp. Speaker Johnson becomes President till 2028.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom