# Community > General Discussion / Chit Chat >  Musk buys Twitter

## TysonLPrice

It is at the top of the news:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...lon-musk-deal/

There are a few folks here that can discuss the impact better than I.  My gut feeling is it some kind of publicity stunt.  But Musk is not a fool, so far, so I'm thinking he sees substance.   I thought I read two other big investees looked and passed.  I think Buffet and an another big group.

He wants to make it a platform of "free speech".  Whose though?  Plus governments across the globe have country by country restrictions on the internet.  Free speech in China  :Stick Out Tongue: ...Honest reporting of free speech in Russia on the war in Ukraine  :big yellow: ...the election wasn't stolen in the US  :Sick: 
Will India allow open criticism of the caste system that doesn't exist.  Who killed Kennedy  :Confused: 

I sense crash and burn...

----------


## dilettante

> He wants to make it a platform of "free speech".  Whose though?


Such a revealing sentiment.  You can almost taste the fear in those scare quotes.

----------


## wes4dbt

Yeah, it wont have any effect (at least not directly) on me.  Have never used Twitter.

Musk seem to show his true colors in 2020 when he was throwing a fit about any of the COVID rules that would effect production at his car plant here in Ca.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Such a revealing sentiment.  You can almost taste the fear in those scare quotes.


It's also rather revealing that you quote that part in an effort to imply something and ignore the examples of free speech that almost certainly won't be allowed that have nothing to do with that implication. It's also telling that those who bleat the loudest about free speech are more than happy to block speech that they don't like as well and Elon Musk's history suggests that he will be no different. No reason to expect you to put any thought into that though, when there's Jimmy Dore videos to watch.

----------


## dday9

Someone I know said that he is getting to Howard Hughes' level. I had to look up who that was.

----------


## dday9

I think it is awesome.

I am certainly no right-winger, but when the Biden administration says that it coordinates with social media then I can see where conservatives have a valid complaint about censorship.

I personally cant wait to see MTG go full weird posts again.

----------


## Niya

I vowed to avoid topics like this on this forum so I will say only this and no more: If Elon Musk actually does what he says he said he wants to do, it will be the best thing to ever happen to a major social media platform in the last 10 years. It's about time someone fought back against the madness. We couldn't ask for a better ally than the richest man on Earth. I really hope he is the man we think he is.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I really hope he is the man we think he is.


From the sound of it, I don't think he is the man that you think he is from the outset. There's worse, no doubt, but there's better. To be frank, I don't think anyone that rich is ever going to be a genuine ally to the people because I don't think that anyone who was a genuine ally to the people would ever get that rich in the first place. He'd be far more concerned with the welfare of his workers, for a start.

----------


## Niya

> From the sound of it, I don't think he is the man that you think he is from the outset. There's worse, no doubt, but there's better. To be frank, I don't think anyone that rich is ever going to be a genuine ally to the people because I don't think that anyone who was a genuine ally to the people would ever get that rich in the first place. He'd be far more concerned with the welfare of his workers, for a start.


Speaking only for myself, I don't expect the man to be a saint. In fact I'd prefer that he wasn't. But if he is actually willing to combat the insanity that has been allowed to fester and grow on major social media platforms then I say we need him more than ever. It has gone unchallenged for too long. It needs to stop and if it takes Elon Musk to start fighting back then I'm all for it, despite his flaws.

I'm just gonna wait and see what happens.

----------


## dilettante

> No reason to expect you to put any thought into that though, when there's Jimmy Dore videos to watch.


Wow, is Dore still free?  Is he still doing videos?  Did he do one on this topic?

----------


## Niya

> Wow, is Dore still free?  Is he still doing videos?  Did he do one on this topic?


You naughty naughty boy......Yep, I saw what was there before  :big yellow:

----------


## dilettante

Lol!

----------


## sapator

Well Twitter was givin' the X on a lot of posts so the road was to block "free speech" so if that road stays put then Musk wouldena really have to do anything, so let's hope he "does something". Personally I'm skeptic by nature so we just have to wait and see.
Also...I know a guy, that posted some perfectly innocent strip dance at his home, 4 days ago and that was removed from Twitter and I got mad!...I mean he got mad and when,arr, when I heard that I got mad for him, that is...That's what I meant...

P.S. I only have a Twitter account for my band to be, but never used it. Personally I don't have any social media accounts.I'm old school on that. I have some accounts for flee market and such but that's about it.I don't know, I get irritated just thinking of posting stuff and I really don't have the 24/7 social posting bug and I never will, probably.

----------


## FunkyDexter

There are plenty of social media sites that will allow you to post anything you want.  There have been plenty or attempts to kick start right wing sites in the wake of Trump's twitter ban, some have had some little traction like Parler, others have simply disappeared into obscurity.  Sites like 4Chan have been around for years with less of a political bias but very few rules.  You'll argue that sites like Facebook and Twitter are curtailing your free speech but they really aren't - they censor very little and what censorship they do usually consists of simply putting some piece of content behind an advisory.  This does not curtail the speaker, it simply advises the listener.  The rhetoric that your free speech is being eroded really doesn't stand up to examination and smacks of a martyr complex.

If you find yourself looking at the internet and thinking "I can't find anywhere here to express my views" it's almost certainly because your views are unwelcome to the vast majority of people.  If people wanted to hear what you had to say I can guarantee that some entrepreneur would set up a platform that allowed you to say it.




> I sense crash and burn...


I agree.  It will last until someone starts posting some truly hateful crap at which point Musk will bow to the commercial imperative.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Wow, is Dore still free?  Is he still doing videos?


Funnily enough, the obvious answers to those questions rather undermine the point you seem to be trying to make.

----------


## sapator

Well to be fair I don't do social media but an example I have is from Greece.
When the covid broke and people started to question some methods on youtube, for example vaccine and lockdowns, youtube started giving out yellows, that was a complain from the people that posted so they had, for example when saying vaccines to mime the vaccination gesture and not speak it out. 
Also the social media that are more free are not that popular. There is no point on going to IJusthadanepiphany netowrk and post stuff.
From my point of view freedom of speech means freedom of speech. With some stand out exceptions like racism(tho that take a lot of conversation of what is really racism) and kid abuse or sell human organs on social, the heavy stuff, everything else should not be monitored...And strip shows at 4 in the morning... :Blush: 

P.S. The issue is that currently we are in a sphere that is pre determined of how people should act on social media and the rules are getting more and more specific. If Musk thinks out of the box and can force that to people then something good may come out, because, and I don't want to sound smarty or anything but most of the people are cowed on what their behavior must be on social media, so if they cowed one way or the other and Musk can accomplish, I mean uncow them,then that may make a difference...Or not...

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I think it is awesome.
> 
> I am certainly no right-winger, but when the Biden administration says that it coordinates with social media then I can see where conservatives have a valid complaint about censorship.
> 
> I personally cant wait to see MTG go full weird posts again.


If the current administration asking big tech companies to stop spreading misinformation and help spread information about the benefits of vaccines upsets conservatives I say they "don't have a valid complaint".

----------


## Niya

> From my point of view freedom of speech means freedom of speech. With some stand out exceptions like racism(tho that take a lot of conversation of what is really racism) and kid abuse or sell human organs on social, the heavy stuff, everything else should not be monitored...And strip shows at 4 in the morning...


 :Thumb:  :Thumb:  :Thumb:  :Thumb:

----------


## FunkyDexter

> the social media that are more free are not that popular


Agreed but ask yourself why.  The answer is because the things you want to be able to say are things that other people don't want to listen to.  If other people wanted to listen to them, those platforms would be popular.

To put it another way, you have a right to free speech.  What you don't have is a right to be listened to.

----------


## sapator

Weeelll it depends.
Just to be clear I'm not confronting, we just exchange ideas. 
If by popular we mean Tik Toc or however it's written then I'll pass and we really can't say that people did not want to listen on covid or lockdowns. If so we go on the cowed opinion I expressed. 
Also let me put something else on the table and look a little further and see p.e. if voting was done in the future by "acclaimed" social media addresses or referendums where passed that way.
I'm play evil Musk right now but I have a tendency for the "absurd"  .

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I'm not confronting, we just exchange ideas


Yeah, I know  :Smilie: 




> If so we go on the cowed opinion I expressed


But consider who's really doing the cowing and why.  It's tempting to think that it's the companies or the government but it's not, it's society at large (using the free market as a vehicle).  If the things you want to say are likely to drive other people away from a platform then you can expect the owners of that platform to curtail those topics because they represent lost revenue but let's be clear, it's not the owners of the platform driving that, it's public opinion.  This is not new, society has always policed it's members and ostracised those with views it finds unacceptable.

Musk isn't a champion of free speech but he is betting that there's a market for a platform that allows content other platforms currently consider beyond the pale.  But if he finds that any given topic starts affecting his bottom line you can bet your bottom dollar he will shut that topic down in a heart beat.




> if voting was done in the future by "acclaimed" social media addresses


That would be where I'd check out because we'd be living in a true dystopia.  I don't think it's really relevant here though, nobody is even considering taking away your right to vote.

----------


## sapator

I agree the cowing is done on social level and the companies than can take over and do stuff.
I mean consider why Facebook has those crazy stuff Tik Toc has and why Twitter is more "serious" (just to give an example, for what I know Tok can be more serious than facebook)




> That would be where I'd check out because we'd be living in a true dystopia.  I don't think it's really relevant here though, nobody is even considering taking away your right to vote.


Aha...I did not mean to take away the right to vote, that would be too obvious.  :Wink:   (think cowing + platform control)

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Such a revealing sentiment.  You can almost taste the fear in those scare quotes.


I can't stop you from gleaning out of my statement what suits you but I can tell you how wrong you are about it.  

I wonder how Twitter and Musk's electric cars will go over in China.  He will be able to sell the cars but not advertise them on Twitter.  Is that the "town hall", "free speech" platform Musk envisions?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> freedom of speech means freedom of speech. With some stand out exceptions


Freedom means freedom... except when it doesn't. This is a right-wing staple (which doesn't mean that I'm necessarily calling you right-wing). So many people bleat about freedom but the fact is that they simply draw their line in a different place. Just look at Florida right now. How many people who go on and on about freedom of speech are cheering about the restriction of speech in schools while hiding behind the obvious lie of protecting children from grooming. I think that gun control is another perfect example. People will point to the Second Amendment and claim that they can have whatever gum they want because it says that the people's access to arms will not be restricted at all, but even those people believe in certain arms being restricted and even access to all arms being restricted for certain people. They'll claim that the founders didn't mean that people could carry bazookas while also claiming that the founders did mean assault rifles. Basically, it comes down to "freedom means what I say it means, which means that the things I want should be free and anything else shouldn't be". People may claim that I'm a hypocrite because I want to place restrictions on people too, but that argument fails because I'm not the one bleating about freedom in the first place. Of course I want as much freedom as possible for as many people as possible, but I'll state from the outset that I know that freedom needs to be curtailed in many situations for the sake of individuals and society at large. I find that right-wingers are generally not willing to sacrifice any of their own personal freedom for the sake of others. That seems to be one of the defining differences between left-wing and right-wing thinking these days, in my opinion.

----------


## sapator

Yes but you went on a rampage freedom hunt, I was speaking for the social media.
We can go there but that is another story.
I don't know what left-right wing means and I don't put myself into labels. That is an invention, and a good one may I add, to control people.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Yes but you went on a rampage freedom hunt, I was speaking for the social media.


The principle is the same though. You said that freedom is freedom but then indicated what you think shouldn't be free. Why shouldn't people be free to be racist on social media? Whatever answer you give can almost certainly be applied to other things too, some of which you might not think should be restricted. It's just where you draw the line on what should be free and what shouldn't. Saying "freedom is freedom" is meaningless unless you are talking about completely unfettered freedom, but the only people who really believe in that a libertarian nutjobs.



> I don't know what left-right wing means and I don't put myself into labels.


That you don't apply labels to yourself doesn't necessarily mean that they don't apply. Ideally, labels should be descriptive and people who meet the description can be grouped by that label for useful purposes. This is a problem across the board but one glaring example that I've been considering for a while is the right-wing position on transgender people. They talk about people denying reality and blah, blah but that's crap, because transgender people don't deny that their sex is what they were born with. If they did then they wouldn't consider themselves transgender, because specifically means that their gender doesn't match their sex. What these people really want is to create a "man" box and a "woman" box and put everyone into one of those boxes based on their criteria so that they can then deal with those people in one of the two ways they feel conformable with. Instead of letting people be what they want to be and dealing with them on that basis, they insist that others be what they feel comfortable dealing with. I had something else to say to tie this back in but I got distracted and forgot what it was. I may come back to it.



> That is an invention, and a good one may I add, to control people.


You mean like race?

----------


## sapator

It's not the same. There are some basic principles in western civilization like kids abuse that makes a western civilization.
I don't apply labels to parties , I would for example apply a label to me and say that I'm a programmer (a lousy one but still  :Smilie:  ) or a rock music afficionado.

If race is left or right wing then , yes I mean race. Is it?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I don't apply labels to parties


I didn't say anything about political parties.



> If race is left or right wing then , yes I mean race. Is it?


I give up.

----------


## dday9

> If the current administration asking big tech companies to stop spreading misinformation and help spread information about the benefits of vaccines upsets conservatives I say they "don't have a valid complaint".


You do not have to be completely partisan all the time.

The current presidential administration asking big tech companies to censor information is a soft form of authoritarianism, something I thought you would oppose in all forms after the Trump administration.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> You do not have to be completely partisan all the time.
> 
> The current presidential administration asking big tech companies to censor information is a soft form of authoritarianism, something I thought you would oppose in all forms after the Trump administration.


I don't see it quite that way...I don't see putting pressure on a giant social media network to not publish content that harms people as being censorship.  It is a plea for civility and social common good.  A recent article alluded that perhaps a quarter of the Covid deaths could have been prevented by vaccinations.  An attempt to quash the *deliberate* misinformation that caused that rises above censorship in my opinion.

----------


## dday9

Then I am very glad that you are not in charge.

Principles like freedom of speech are very easy to defend. Arbitrary restrictions that only apply when you as and individual feel queasy about certain speech is much more difficult.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Then I am very glad that you are not in charge.
> 
> Principles like freedom of speech are very easy to defend. Arbitrary restrictions that only apply when you as and individual feel queasy about certain speech is much more difficult.


I'm not talking about arbitrary restrictions that people want to "spare" their delicate feelings.  I'm talking about public heath in a society.  I guess if you were in charge yelling "fire!" in a crowed theater is free speech regardless if it harms people.

I liked jmcilhinney's post #24.  I hope I didn't miss the point but I took it that free speech is in the eyes/mouths of the speaker.  The post was more about freedom in general but I think it applies here also.

----------


## sapator

> It is a plea for civility and social common good


Adolf Hitler, February 1920

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Arbitrary restrictions that only apply when you as and individual feel queasy about certain speech is much more difficult.


Whether you agree with it or not, it's not arbitrary at all to want to prevent the spread of information that is known to be false and that cannot help anyone and will definitely hurt people. If you don't feel more than queasy at the knowledge that millions of people died needlessly because of COVID misinformation then I'm glad you're not in charge either.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Adolf Hitler, February 1920


I would love to see a reference to that quote...and not from "Nazi Racial Hygiene"

----------


## sapator

And who decides what is false or not?
As our esteemed colleague mentioned there was a "cut" for covid , content. In the end even now people are spread in between and of course situation has changed but back then they censorship the heck out of it. So precautions censorship? Are we going to the stone age again people?

----------


## sapator

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128531

And in any way, you waiting to see if Hitler said it or not so you can take it back is not a good sing for the quote by itself. It's a friendly comment btw don't be taking it wrong, again.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I liked jmcilhinney's post #24.  I hope I didn't miss the point but I took it that free speech is in the eyes/mouths of the speaker.  The post was more about freedom in general but I think it applies here also.


Quite so. So many Americans go on endlessly about free speech when it simply doesn't apply, i.e. constitutionally-protected free speech applies only to governmental restrictions, so what a social network chooses to restrict or not has nothing to do with that. If we're talking about free speech independent of the US constitution then it would only be a minority that would advocate for no restrictions at all.

I think that this demonstrates right-wing hypocrisy yet again. When it comes to same-sex marriage, how many times did you hear someone argue that gay people were asking for special rights rather than equal rights because everyone already had the equal right to marry? Now the same people are complaining that they are the ones being censored when everyone is working under the same rules and it's just them who are the ones spreading the disinformation? If I spread equivalent disinformation, I'd expect to be censored equally.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> And who decides what is false or not?


Gee, I don't know. Maybe courts that hear evidence or maybe scientific research. Are you trying to say that nothing should be considered false just in case?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> It's a friendly comment btw don't be taking it wrong, again.


Yeah, I'm always telling friends they're Hitler and they always take it the wrong way.

----------


## sapator

No, I meant they cut it out without court or scientific research. You just said it, "considered" . With "considered" , let's mouthful every opposite voice.

----------


## sapator

> Yeah, I'm always telling friends they're Hitler and they always take it the wrong way.


Tyson and I know what we are doing, I wouldn't have written it to you as you continuously saw zero tolerance to deviations and quip's.

Tyson, you're Hitler man!  :Big Grin:

----------


## dday9

> I guess if you were in charge yelling "fire!" in a crowed theater is free speech regardless if it harms people.


It depends. Is there a fire? If there is, then I'd say that would be protected under free speech. If there is no fire, then the person would be held liable for defrauding the other movie goers.

Again, principles like freedom of speech are easy to defend.

----------


## dday9

> Whether you agree with it or not, it's not arbitrary at all to want to prevent the spread of information that is known to be false and that cannot help anyone and will definitely hurt people. If you don't feel more than queasy at the knowledge that millions of people died needlessly because of COVID misinformation then I'm glad you're not in charge either.


I don't know if you are deliberately doing it or not, but you're conflating a disingenuous statement that I enjoy people dying from COVID misinformation and "spread of information known to be false".

There are too many instances to count where people were banned for saying something at one point, only for the public health opinion to change a few months later validating what the banned person was saying. Many of these people are still banned too.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> If there is no fire, then the person would be held liable for defrauding the other movie goes.
> 
> Again, principles like freedom of speech are easy to defend.


It's easy for gun nuts to defend their right to assault rifles to the parents of children killed in school mass shootings too. That doesn't mean that they're not despicable. You may feel that someone's right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre is more important than the right to life of those who could be trampled in the stampede to get out but not everyone does. The fact that you find it easy to express that preference doesn't make inherently right.

----------


## dday9

Now you are making an emotional argument.

In this hypothetical scenario, I could still feel terrible about the people who died in the resulting stampede while also being relieved that people were able to get out and not perish.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> There are too many instances to count where people were banned for saying something at one point, only for the public health opinion to change a few months later validating what the banned person was saying.


I'd have to be pointed to specific examples to speak definitively but, even if someone turns out to be correct, that doesn't necessarily validate what they were saying. Broken clock and all that. Public health advice was generally issued based on the best information available at the time. People claiming that that advice was wrong were generally doing so for ideological reasons, not because they had access to better information. If they turned out to be right in certain instances that was due to luck as much as anything else. When people made similar claims and turned out to be wrong, how often did they put their hand up and admit they were wrong and, more importantly, why they were wrong?

It's a bit of a sharpshooter fallacy to point to the ones who got it right and and suggest that that means no one making unfounded claims that were not supported by available facts should have suffered any consequences. I would point to all the proponents of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as perfect examples. They made claims and then, when actual scientific evidence became available, they were shown to be wrong. At best, those people just went silent on the matter like it never happened and, at worst, they pretend that they never made those claims in the first place. If the scientific data came back and it actually did support the use of those treatments, those people would have been crowing that they were right all along but that doesn't mean that their claims were validated because they still had no factual basis for the claims when they made them.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Now you are making an emotional argument.


No I'm not. Not in the least. I'm making a completely practical argument, i.e. it is worth sacrificing some freedom so that we avoid situations where people might get sick, injured or die. I'm not saying we shouldn't be allowed to yell "fire" because we might feel bad. I'm saying it because I don't want people to be trampled needlessly. I'm not saying that finding exactly where to draw the line is easy but not doing it just because it's hard is not a good plan, in my opinion.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128531
> 
> And in any way, you waiting to see if Hitler said it or not so you can take it back is not a good sing for the quote by itself. It's a friendly comment btw don't be taking it wrong, again.


Your telling me how to take things now...I find that funny.  Did you mean it that way  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Tyson and I know what we are doing, I wouldn't have written it to you as you continuously saw zero tolerance to deviations and quip's.
> 
> Tyson, you're Hitler man!


There is a common thought in politics in the US.  Making Hitler/Nazi references when speaking about others rarely works the way you intend.

----------


## TysonLPrice

This isn't directed at any single poster...Many of the controls on social media, whether self imposed or laws, came about from the early abuses on the internet.  We can look back at what happens when free uncensored postings are allowed.  The darker natures of ourselves come out.  I don't know how many times I've read about people falling into the anonymous world of the internet and behave in ways they never would to your face or in a social environment.

But I also agree with some posts here that the echo chambers tend to be people of the same opinion and many are not mainstream thereby somewhat monitoring themselves.  But what about the groups that use the internet to plan and execute plots to harm people.  How about drugs?  Should those be unregulated?

So. I guess I'm all over the place on this.  I think it is in part out of the very animal/human nature is to take advantage of each other.  History, past and present, is rife with it.  If we can't do it as individuals concerned about the whole do we get the government involved?  That doesn't tend to work out well a lot.

I'm looking forward to this Twitter development evolving in the near future.  Maybe Musk is rewriting the platform(s).

----------


## sapator

In Holland they have legal drugs so I think I instead of trying to sensor the heck out of whatever , sensor the heavy west society issues.
Other than that I agree (don't taking it wrong that I agree, I still hate you!  :Wink:  )
Also it goes without saying that whoever makes a forum can sensor whatever he/she likes so here, we sensor anti NWO people and F# developers , other forums may do as well but if you go about and say that Twitter would be uncensored you better mean it. Other than that I don't give a rats banouka what Twitter would look like, my life is not dependent to Twitter or any other social media and there are constantly other social to go on about.For example I see rumble.com raising now.

P.S. I want to add to the sensor western list "Captain Marvel", I mean that is a positive sensor material.

----------


## dday9

> I'd have to be pointed to specific examples to speak definitively but, even if someone turns out to be correct, that doesn't necessarily validate what they were saying. Broken clock and all that. Public health advice was generally issued based on the best information available at the time. People claiming that that advice was wrong were generally doing so for ideological reasons, not because they had access to better information. If they turned out to be right in certain instances that was due to luck as much as anything else. When people made similar claims and turned out to be wrong, how often did they put their hand up and admit they were wrong and, more importantly, why they were wrong?
> 
> It's a bit of a sharpshooter fallacy to point to the ones who got it right and and suggest that that means no one making unfounded claims that were not supported by available facts should have suffered any consequences. I would point to all the proponents of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as perfect examples. They made claims and then, when actual scientific evidence became available, they were shown to be wrong. At best, those people just went silent on the matter like it never happened and, at worst, they pretend that they never made those claims in the first place. If the scientific data came back and it actually did support the use of those treatments, those people would have been crowing that they were right all along but that doesn't mean that their claims were validated because they still had no factual basis for the claims when they made them.


These examples are only related to COVID and not other topics.

There were several examples of people being banned for pointing out that the non-vaccinated rate of deaths were misrepresented in the beginning because the date at which the reports would claim that x% of all COVID deaths/hospitalizations are those who are not vaccinated started before vaccines were available or widely accessible. There were others who were banned for pointing out that there has been an uptick in abnormal cases of myocarditis in those vaccinated and should probably looked at more closely. There were others who were banned for pointing to studies that show masks that are not properly fitted N95 masks (mainly cloth masks) have little to no effect on preventing the spread of COVID.

I think there is also the issue of misrepresentation. Look at your ivermectin example. Everyone I listened to suggested that they didn't know if ivermectin helped with COVID or not, but their doctor prescribed it to them because it might help and the side-effects are very minimal. What is real fouled up is saying that people who took ivermectin to help with COVID were taking horse de-wormer when board certified doctors were prescribing the medicine to patients. That's like saying people who take penicillin are taking dog medicine. (fyi - I didn't take ivermectin, I just "roughed" COVID out).

As far as non-COVID related topics, I think the most disturbing example is the Hunter Biden laptop story. Twitter made it so that you couldn't even share the link to the NY Post article. Then after the 2020 election but before the 2022 midterm elections gets ramped up, the NY Times legitimizes the story and now it's fine to talk about again?




> No I'm not. Not in the least. I'm making a completely practical argument, i.e. it is worth sacrificing some freedom so that we avoid situations where people might get sick, injured or die. I'm not saying we shouldn't be allowed to yell "fire" because we might feel bad. I'm saying it because I don't want people to be trampled needlessly. I'm not saying that finding exactly where to draw the line is easy but not doing it just because it's hard is not a good plan, in my opinion.


That makes sense. I thought you were making an emotional argument at first, so thank you for the clarification. I think we just fundamentally disagree on the extent of freedom of speech.

I do not think that every speech is protected (i.e. not drawing a line). Like I said, slander, fraud, etc. these aught not be protected under freedom of speech. I just think where I draw the line and where you draw the line are further apart than being able to reconcile our differences.

----------


## sapator

To be fair, I don't think those people where banned for covid matters, they where banned for world domination matter but the ball took everything at that point in time, including posting covid matters and more specifically they where posting post after post in a way that the thread was becoming a big spam. So not even for world domination matters but for the way they where expressing them (I'm trying to justify Funky -the foaming admin hamster).
Unless, you blabbermouth with the other mods and they told you that they where specifically banned for covid matters.If so, the mod team should be ashamed...And I feel violated as they forgot about me...

----------


## wes4dbt

> From my point of view freedom of speech means freedom of speech. With some stand out exceptions like racism(tho that take a lot of conversation of what is really racism) and kid abuse or sell human organs on social, the heavy stuff, everything else should not be monitored.


This exposes the problem.  "I want free speech, EXCEPT for this, this and this".  There will always be people unhappy with what's on the EXCEPT list.  

I think JMC has done a good job of explaining this but there's my two cents worth.

----------


## sapator

Kay, I said the western civilization heavy stuff but I would likely be open to full freedom.I don't think the pushers would Tweet about their pushing anyhow.So I take a turn for complete freedom so I won't have people grinding the wheels. Complete freedom it is!
Anyhow, you know that this whole thing is prolly gonna turn into big commercial BS right? Musk freedom and all.It's a commercial...Mask.

----------


## TysonLPrice

One thing to keep an eye on Musk's/Tesla relationship with China is changed.  I'm bringing that up after reading this article:

https://fortune.com/2022/04/26/jeff-...everage-tesla/

I believe Jeff Bezos backed off on that Tweet and the article doesn't mention it.  A few bullet points:

* Tesla was the first factory Chana allowed to not be required a have a China approved business partner.
* It is Tesla's second largest market.

It goes on about the influence China will on have Twitter but that was just speculation to me.  My point is I see a real press  problem with Musk, Twitter, the new  "freedom of the press" branding and his new relationship with China's policies on Twitter in the future.  I'm looking forward to see it unfold.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> As far as non-COVID related topics, I think the most disturbing example is the Hunter Biden laptop story. Twitter made it so that you couldn't even share the link to the NY Post article. Then after the 2020 election but before the 2022 midterm elections gets ramped up, the NY Times legitimizes the story and now it's fine to talk about again?


Just my two cents on that...it was right before the election and Rudi Giuliani was heavily involved.  His credibility was in the gutter and he was literarily running around the world "digging" up evidence on Biden's son.  He ended up barred for presenting lies in court which points to his credibility.  The story was headlined by the "New York Post", owned by none other than Rupert Murdoch.  Who owns Fox news that constantly pushed all that other election garbage...the Murdock family.  When the Post was asked to share the information they were reporting on they refused.  Summing that up, Giuliani involved, the Post owned by the same family that owned a network dedicated to defeating Democrats, refusing to share the information saying "trust me", and a national election just ahead.  I think any "responsible" network would have been hands off.

Just the shear idiocy of the concept at the time.  A laptop pops up with all that "evidence" from the Post who won't share it from a company owned by a network dedicated to lying and Rudi Giuliani was heavily involved  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## dday9

Again, you're being incredibly partisan about this.

I personally didn't buy the legitimacy of the NY Post article when it was first put out there because of the points you made. However, when Twitter decided to censor it under its content moderation policies, it made me take a second look at it. I still didn't really buy it after my second look, but now it seems like the NY Times has validated some of the text exchanges found on the laptop.

The fact is that we have two counter examples, the Steele Dossier and the NY Post Hunder Biden story, on two extreme ends of the spectrum, with two different outcomes. Again, I'm no right-winger, but I can see their complaint here.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Again, you're being incredibly partisan about this.
> 
> I personally didn't buy the legitimacy of the NY Post article when it was first put out there because of the points you made. However, when Twitter decided to censor it under its content moderation policies, it made me take a second look at it. I still didn't really buy it after my second look, but now it seems like the NY Times has validated some of the text exchanges found on the laptop.
> 
> The fact is that we have two counter examples, the Steele Dossier and the NY Post Hunder Biden story, on two extreme ends of the spectrum, with two different outcomes. Again, I'm no right-winger, but I can see their complaint here.


You seem to be leaving out the Post would not share the information...that very action may have got the story out..


Edit:  I'm going out on a limb...wasn't there questions about possible stolen property?   That might keep news agencies other then Fox and the Post from running inflammatory stories weeks before an election.

----------


## dilettante

This guy is funnier than Dore anyway:

----------


## dday9

It is like talking to a brick wall.

Then again, I knew that before talking to you, so it really is my fault.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I think we just fundamentally disagree on the extent of freedom of speech.
> 
> I do not think that every speech is protected (i.e. not drawing a line). Like I said, slander, fraud, etc. these aught not be protected under freedom of speech. I just think where I draw the line and where you draw the line are further apart than being able to reconcile our differences.


That was one of my points in the first place. There are people (not necessarily you) who like talk as though they are the ones who believe in freedom and "we" don't, but it really just comes down to where different people draw the line between what they think should be free and what shouldn't. As I said earlier, I think that Florida right now is a perfect example, where so many right-wingers champion freedom with one breath and then cheer at the suppression of freedom the next. Even they know that what they're actually doing is wrong, so they have to hide it under the guise of protecting children from grooming.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> As far as non-COVID related topics, I think the most disturbing example is the Hunter Biden laptop story. Twitter made it so that you couldn't even share the link to the NY Post article. Then after the 2020 election but before the 2022 midterm elections gets ramped up, the NY Times legitimizes the story and now it's fine to talk about again?


I can't say for sure what was in other people's heads but it was pretty clear that people were just making stuff up about Hunter Biden in an effort to throw mud at Joe Biden by association. You cam say that everyone has the right to make up their own mind who they vote for but if they make their mind up based on deliberate disinformation then is that really democracy? I don't see an issue with a social platform banning deliberate disinformation intended to change the result of a democratic election. I feel even less bad about it given that the side pumping out that disinformation are now the ones crying about the election not being free and fair.

----------


## Niya

Some comments from the video:-



> I'm enjoying this more than I could ever express. Liberals seem to love free speech when the only speech allowed is theirs. God willing, Elon will keep his promises.





> Imagine leaving the game because the referee wont let you cheat anymore





> Finally hope from the insanity that has taken over the world.





> *Oh no free discussion without censorship? Now arguments from each side must stand on their own merit? 😂 I wonder what the results will be?*





> If Elon Musk goes through with this and manages to break open public discourse and end internet censorship, he deserves a Nobel price. I'm not even joking a little bit. That would be a victory of mankind over tyranny that hasn't been seen in nearly a century.





> They are not going anywhere, because they love the attention and are addicted to having a platform for their outrage. Do you really think these dirt merchants can go platformless for any real length of time. The problem is that they will now have to debate their ridiculous ideas, and that's what pisses them off.





> Ah what a shame the leftists might have to see differing opinions and not have the power to get them kicked off the platform anymore


I'm loving how all of this is unfolding more than I should. What a time to be alive!  :Big Grin:  Even if nothing changes in the end, this brief moment has given me hope for the human race.

The comment in red is the one that resonated with me the most.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> It is like talking to a brick wall.
> 
> Then again, I knew that before talking to you, so it really is my fault.


Dropped into name calling...I win  :wave:

----------


## dday9

> Dropped into name calling...I win


You're old enough to know that isn't name calling, but it is me admitting defeat and you winning.

I understand that at this point, nothing I can say will change your mind and you aren't giving any arguments (only defenses) to try and change my mind, so what's the point?

Regarding your other post, you realize the extent to which I watch TV it is _It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia_ reruns on Hulu or whatever baking show my wife puts on Netflix? Just because I disagree with you does not make me a right-winger.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I don't think those people where banned for covid matters, they where banned for world domination matter


I don't _think_ DD was talking about bannings from here but rather people getting shut down on facebook, twitter etc. (correct me if I'm wrong here, DD)

For the record, there were only two bannings here (there was a third that I rolled back when I read deeper into what the user had posted and realised I had incorrectly ascribed his intent) and they were both for starting a new thread on the topic immediately after Steve closed the thread and said not to start a new one.  We try to keep our moderation light but, if an admin or mod tells you not to do something and then you go ahead and do it anyway, the result is predictable.

The thread itself wasn't closed for a single specific reason but rather a combination of the _potentially_ dangerous nature of what was being posted, the spammish nature in which people were posting and the fact that some of what was being posted was straying uncomfortably close to hate speech.  I don't think we'd have ever closed that thread solely because people were expressing doubt about covid vaccines etc. (look at how long we let it run for a demonstration of that).  However, once the other two factors came into play we weren't left with much choice.  The thread had become a toxic and unedifying mess that was bringing this forum into disrepute.



On the whole free speech thing, I fall somewhere in the middle.  Broadly I think most matters are best aired out in the open and censorship just drives dissenters underground where they become toxic.  However, I'd say there are two problems with taking this as an absolute:-
1. There are some obvious exceptions derived from indecency and danger.  We do not allow people to post beheading videos because we all recognise that it's indecent on a fundamental level and we all want anyone who would do that to be ostracised from our society.  We do not allow people to use a platform to plot crimes of violence because we recognise the danger that represents.  Of course those are two (deliberate) strawman examples intended to illustrate a point and therein lies the problem.  As we discuss topics that are less and less indecent or dangerous than these everything starts slipping into shades of grey where individual morality and judgement come into play.  Society as a whole needs to reach a consensus but any consensus will disappoint people on one or both sides of a debate.
2. The assumption that airing and challenging views in the open will inevitably result in a desirable outcome is demonstrably flawed, particularly when dealing with a forum as large as the internet and with so little social consequence for deviance.  Offering up another strawman, there are people right now arguing from a position of anonymity that paedophilia and bestiality should be given the same status as trans genderism and homosexuality, do you really want to legitimise those voices and see where it leads?  Again, that's a deliberate strawman but everything short of it is a grey area.

Where I come down is this: Free Speech is incredibly valuable but it is not an absolute.  We should not be afraid to curtail it but we should be damn sure we're doing it for good reasons when we do.

It should go without saying that political partisanship is not a good reason and I think it's interesting to reflect on how that plays into the two (that I'm aware of) recent topics of conversation that have been squished on major social media platforms: Covid measures and the stealing or not of the US election.  Both were politicised but, in both cases, I think it was the danger that misinformation could represent rather than the politics that motivated the actual squishing.  It's unfortunate that, in both cases, it was the position politically associated with the right that got squished because that leads to a sense of political motivation that wasn't necessarily present.

As for whether those squishings met the bar of curtailment from a societal danger point of view, both fall firmly into the area of grey for me.  I think adding advisories was an acceptable way to go but I would have been uncomfortable with outright censorship of the topic.  None the less, I would not have viewed censorship as utterly beyond the pale given the danger involved.

I don't know enough about Biden's laptop to comment on its squishiness.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> You're old enough to know that isn't name calling, but it is me admitting defeat and you winning.
> 
> I understand that at this point, nothing I can say will change your mind and you aren't giving any arguments (only defenses) to try and change my mind, so what's the point?
> 
> Regarding your other post, you realize the extent to which I watch TV it is _It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia_ reruns on Hulu or whatever baking show my wife puts on Netflix? Just because I disagree with you does not make me a right-winger.


So if I was to post that "talking to you is like talking to a moron" you don't consider that devolving into name calling?  That is how I took you saying what you said.  I considered it insulting.

I see your points day after day on Fox news.  Maybe you don't watch it but it is such a huge echo chambers of those conspiracy theories that they ooze out.  That is what I tune out instantly.  Maybe I should have given your reply more thought.  I'm guessing we are past that now.

----------


## sapator

I'm not here to defend dday (he can do it better for himself) but when I read that talking wall, what my Greek mind interpreted was that you have your opinion standardized so it cannot be altered by any means. That was what I perceived on the post but I'm not sure if the US interpretation  comes out bad, I would like to know tho so I can add it to my insult list.

----------


## TysonLPrice

The internet is really  abuzz with Musk buying Twitter.  This link is a single site but every one and their bother has an opinion:

https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/twitter

At the top of the list, and leaving my partisan hat off, is Trump.  The big question is  will he be allowed back on?  Another side story is he says he won't go back on. A few more on who it is good for, democrats or republicans?  I'm not unpacking all that.

My point is all the press is just spectacular for Musk.  What a great start!

----------


## FunkyDexter

> will he be allowed back on?


Oh, he'll be back on.  I never met an addict who didn't loudly declare they would never do it again... and then did it again.

While I'll admit to some schadenfreude over Trump getting banned I'm not sure I agree with the decision and I think I'd rather have stuck with advisories for him.  On the other hand, he was persistently breaking their published rules (though he wasn't alone in that) and he did foment an insurrection so that does get awfully close to meeting the bar where I'd support a ban - he's firmly in my grey area.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> I'm not here to defend dday (he can do it better for himself) but when I read that talking wall, what my Greek mind interpreted was that you have your opinion standardized so it cannot be altered by any means. That was what I perceived on the post but I'm not sure if the US interpretation  comes out bad, I would like to know tho so I can add it to my insult list.


 No way! Your insult list is already so long and varied that a trained team of badgers with backhoes couldn't find the depth of it. We won't be adding to it. 

Free speech is a hopeless, but necessary, discussion. As it can be seen from this discussion alone, EVERYBODY wants to restrict free speech SOMEWHERE. There isn't a single person who doesn't have a few things they feel are appropriately out of bounds. The issue is that everybody draws that line in a different place. 

There isn't an absolute right or wrong when it comes to freedom, whether speech or otherwise. It's a fluid, context-driven, line. Any time anybody tries to pin it down, it shifts away from their attempts. Still, we have to study it, and shift it around.

----------


## sapator

Lol.
My insults are smooth and slick!  :Big Grin: 

Well as we say in Greece, since the river got it (meaning that info came out), Musk will be fighting the: government agency that creating a ministry of truth, to combat what it deems misinformation.
See the "system" that many here so blindly trust, is finding ways to fight and keep the wheel balanced. Just like they did with the "virus that will not be named".

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Musk is his own disinformation machine. His behavior around this has been erratic, at best. Some have suggested that his recent behavior is an attempt to scuttle his own deal. When it comes to Musk: Stay tuned.

----------


## sapator

Well I didn't say anything about Musk's behavior and you might as well be right, I just said that if the "system" don't like what you do, it will find a way.

----------


## Niya

> His behavior around this has been erratic, at best. Some have suggested that his recent behavior is an attempt to scuttle his own deal. When it comes to Musk: Stay tuned.


The fact that he so clearly recognized the problem with Twitter and other major platforms tells me he is solid individual of sound mind. I only hope more people follow in his footsteps. It's long past time the problems he claims to want to address be dealt with. The "crazies" have had the megaphone for far too long.

I was neither here nor there with Elon Musk but after this Twitter buy, he earned by respect and if he does what he says he wants to do, I will respect him even more.

----------


## dilettante

Musk has been traveling to the future to obtain technology:

----------


## Niya

> Musk is his own disinformation machine.


This is something the "crazies" would say because they have no real argument.

I'm not saying you are one of them of anything like that but you sure sound like them.  :Wink:

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> The fact that he so clearly recognized the problem with Twitter and other major platforms tells me he is solid individual of sound mind. I only hope more people follow in his footsteps. It's long past time the problems he claims to want to address be dealt with. The "crazies" have had the megaphone for far too long.


When it comes to Twitter, Musk IS the crazy. He's still feuding with the SEC over the settlement he made because of his past illegal behavior using the platform. I don't think he was intentionally trying to defraud people, it seemed more likely that he just wasn't thinking, but that might come with the environment. Twitter allows a person to put words out to the world without any thought. Mine don't matter. His can crash markets.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> This is something the "crazies" would say because they have no real argument.
> 
> I'm not saying you are one of them of anything like that but you sure sound like them.


Since you don't appear to know what I'm talking about, have a look at this:

EDIT: Well, doggone it, the profanity filter won't allow that link. I have no idea why it doesn't like the word "**************", so we'll see if this posts.

And...it does not! The word there is press hyphen release. Why in the world is THAT disallowed? Perhaps it's to stop press releases from some point in the past? Anyways, it's not allowed. The link was to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) release about the fraud charge settlement that Musk agreed to. You can search for it yourself, or you can read this "Musk friendly" article from Reuters:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/m...ts-2022-04-14/

----------


## dilettante

Well at least the most agile of comedians who have evaded the Iron Curtain (so far) are having some success:

----------


## Niya

> When it comes to Twitter, Musk IS the crazy. He's still feuding with the SEC over the settlement he made because of his past illegal behavior using the platform. I don't think he was intentionally trying to defraud people, it seemed more likely that he just wasn't thinking, but that might come with the environment.


I don't find this odd. He is running Tesla and SpaceX, two very large entities with a lot of moving parts. Frankly I'm amazed he has been able to do all of the things he does so successfully. Most of us would be burnt out. Considering the enourmous pressure he is under juggling so many balls, I'd expect him to make mistakes. He is still only human.




> Twitter allows a person to put words out to the world without any thought. Mine don't matter. His can crash markets.


That's fine as long as you don't silence the people that say your thoughts are crazy.

----------


## Niya

> Since you don't appear to know what I'm talking about, have a look at this:


Ah, I see what you're talking about now. To be honest, I don't really care about that. I'm tunnel visioned on this entire thing with Twitter and what he says he wants to do with the cancer that rotted it for the past few years. That means more to me than all that stuff with the SEC.

----------


## Niya

I get what you're saying Shaggy. Thing is, to me, even if Elon did 100 things wrong, the takeover of Twitter for the reasons he stated is definitely something I support, assuming he does what he says he is going to do. I'll let others judge him on whatever wrongs he has done in the past. None of it affects how I feel about the Twitter takeover.

----------


## sapator

Wouldn't it be funny if he exposed medical companies on twitter? I mean he was skeptic about to whole thing and twitter started blocking everything related from a period and forth. 
That would be funny as fk!   :Big Grin:  Letting tweets with the juicy info go by and have the lunameds scream left and right pulling their hair out! Just for this I hope he does do good.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

It's hard not to notice that he's only skeptical about things that hurt him financially.  He may be the closest we currently have to the old time robber baron.

----------


## Niya

> He may be the closest we currently have to the old time robber baron.


You can't be a kitten in a den of wolves if you want to rule the den.

----------


## homer13j

joker-popcorn.gif

----------


## wes4dbt

> You can't be a kitten in a den of wolves if you want to rule the den.


lol

Yeah, they started it!!!   :Stick Out Tongue:  :Stick Out Tongue:  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## dilettante

More and more people are awakening to the dangers of the faux left:

----------


## Niya

> 


It's astonishing how accurately that parody aligns with reality. 




> More and more people are awakening to the dangers of the faux left:


It's about damn time. I don't know why it took so long for people to catch on.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Niya the SJW.

----------


## Niya

> Niya the SJW.


Infinite realities of infinite possibilities and this still wouldn't be possible.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Nobody fights more over social justice issues on this forum than you, so why would you not be called an SJW?

----------


## Niya

> Nobody fights more over social justice issues on this forum than you, so why would you not be called an SJW?


That's like saying someone that talks about serial killers is a serial killer.

----------


## dilettante

Wait... I thought the video ended.  Didn't it?

----------


## Niya

> Wait... I thought the video ended.  Didn't it?


Lmao  :Big Grin:

----------


## jmcilhinney

> That's like saying someone that talks about serial killers is a serial killer.


Um, no. That may just be the worst analogy I've ever heard. Saying that someone who talks about SJWs is an SJW is like saying that someone who talks about serial killers is a serial killer. Shaggy didn't say that you talk about SJWs or even that you talk about social justice. He said that you FIGHT FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE and that is the definition of a social justice warrior. The fact that some people have decided to add some additional negative aspects to that definition and, in so doing, imply that anyone who fights for social justice also has those negative aspects doesn't make it so. They do this specifically so that anyone who fights for social justice will try to differentiate themselves from those who should be allies but they don't want to be associated with because they don't view themselves as having the same negative aspects in the hope that they will drift away from supporting the other parts as well. Congratulations on swallowing the propaganda.

----------


## Niya

> Um, no. That may just be the worst analogy I've ever heard. Saying that someone who talks about SJWs is an SJW is like saying that someone who talks about serial killers is a serial killer. Shaggy didn't say that you talk about SJWs or even that you talk about social justice. He said that you FIGHT FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE and that is the definition of a social justice warrior. The fact that some people have decided to add some additional negative aspects to that definition and, in so doing, imply that anyone who fights for social justice also has those negative aspects doesn't make it so. They do this specifically so that anyone who fights for social justice will try to differentiate themselves from those who should be allies but they don't want to be associated with because they don't view themselves as having the same negative aspects in the hope that they will drift away from supporting the other parts as well. Congratulations on swallowing the propaganda.


If I were an American, my views would classify me as a conservative perhaps even an old-school libertarian but I can assure you, nobody in the American political spectrum would mistake me for an SJW. Look at it like that.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> If I were an American, my views would classify me as a conservative perhaps even an old-school libertarian but I can assure you, nobody in the American political spectrum would mistake me for an SJW. Look at it like that.


It really doesn't matter what Americans may or may not mistake you for. It matters what you do. If your position is that you don't fight for social justice then why not just state that, instead of going round the houses and relying on the definitions from the people who seek to demonise by doing via those definitions? Maybe Americans wouldn't think you were an SJW because they're working from a faulty definition of SJW. The majority of Americans seem to think that Bernie Sanders is a socialist, so what does that tell you about how you should regard what they think?

----------


## dilettante

SJWs have little to do with social justice.  That's just the flag they wrap themselves in.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

SJWs don't call themselves SJWs, as far as I can tell, that's just the flag that others wrap them in...so that they can beat them, usually.

Nobody is more militant about social justice issues on here than Niya. Yeah, he's wearing the black hat with the skull, but nobody fights more...hence: SJW.

There was that Hindu parable about the atheist who spent every waking moment denying god, only to be welcomed into heaven upon his death, because he had managed to keep god in his mind all the time...even if just to deny god.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> SJWs have little to do with social justice.  That's just the flag they wrap themselves in.


Maybe don't make up your own definition for the term and throw it around as an insult. If someone has nothing to do with social justice then they're not an SJW, so if you call them one then you are the problem.

----------


## Niya

> SJWs have little to do with social justice.  That's just the flag they wrap themselves in.


This man gets it  :Wink:

----------


## dilettante

Those flags seem to get additional use for virtue signaling from the decks of their yachts while sipping wine and eating their boutique premium chocolate ice cream.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> SJWs don't call themselves SJWs, as far as I can tell


I think it's kinda like "politically correct".  It started out as something that people self identified as and then got adopted and coerced into an insult.  Same thing happened with woke.  I can't think of a term that was coerced by the other side but I do see similar names deployed (e.g. gammon, boomer etc.) and don't view it as any more edifying.

Honestly, though, that sort of name calling is really just childish and indicative that you don't really have a case to make.  Mostly it smacks of trolling and meek hypocrisy.  This whole thread is a case in point.  It actually contains precious little actual hand wringing by liberals but, oh boy, aren't we seeing plenty of glee at the hand wringing of liberals.  It's almost as if some folks want a platform to whine about how hard done by they are, even when they're not, and it's much easier to do that if they portray the other side as whining, even when they're not.  A couple of years ago you could check the comments section of any article on Brexit to see the same thing.

Musk's buying Twitter.  He may or may not change their posting rules.  It's hardly earth shattering and, as far as I can see, the only people talking about it are the right.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Those flags seem to get additional use for virtue signaling from the decks of their yachts while sipping wine and eating their boutique premium chocolate ice cream.


There are a few in business and politics there use social justice as a means to enrich themselves.  But they are are very small percentage.  The vast majority probably are volunteers.  Your response is typical, demonize the whole because of the niche players.  

Also, I'd have to agree with SH.  SJW's don't call themselves that, it's a term used by the haters.

----------


## dilettante

So something like the way anybody who doesn't agree with you is a "right winger" or a "racist" or any of the other slurs that the self-aggrandized haters use.

----------


## wes4dbt

> So something like the way anybody who doesn't agree with you is a "right winger" or a "racist" or any of the other slurs that the self-aggrandized haters use.


Don't believe I've called anyone those name.  It doesn't matter that much rather you agree with me or not.  Certainly doesn't matter enough for you to make false claims.  But it is another typical response from you.  lol

----------


## dilettante

It's hardly a false claim.  You see it done over and over and over again here.

I doubt we have even seen much here from anyone who could legitimately be categorized as "far right."  I can't imagine those posts would be left here, though for some reason the "far left" has free reign.

Most people fall along the middle 80% of the spectrum, and the ones tarred as "right" are probably somewhere between left and right of the center.  But when you huddle within a deep dank hole I suppose even a little light feels painful.

----------


## wes4dbt

> It's hardly a false claim. You see it done over and over and over again here.


I've definitely seen those terms used here.  But it is a false claim when you direct your comment at me.




> So something like the way anybody who doesn't agree with you is a "right winger" or a "racist"


I've may have used those terms at some point in the past but if so, rarely.  Calling someone a hater has nothing to do with political affiliations or racism.  Both sides do it.

----------


## si_the_geek

> I doubt we have even seen much here from anyone who could legitimately be categorized as "far right."  I can't imagine those posts would be left here, though for some reason the "far left" has free reign.


As a general rule "far left" messages tend to be along the lines of "_treat people from group-x as people_", whereas a "far right" message tends to be along the lines of "_treat people from group-x badly_".

The "far left" version will generally cause far less offence (as it is like "_stop treating people badly_", instead of "_you aren't a real human, so I'll treat you however I want_") and it will offend far fewer people... and therefore is more likely to be allowed on this site.

----------


## Niya

> So something like the way anybody who doesn't agree with you is a "right winger" or a "racist" or any of the other slurs that the self-aggrandized haters use.


You're basically Hitler if you use the wrong pronoun on Twitter to refer to someone. I don't think people here realize just how absolutely insane mainstream group-think has become.

----------


## Niya

> As a general rule "far left" messages tend to be along the lines of "_treat people from group-x as people_"


Here. I fixed this for you:-



> As a general rule "far left" messages tend to be along the lines of "_if you deny whatever reality I choose to make up then you're a bigot"_

----------


## dilettante

Yeah, there is none so blind as he who will not see.

----------


## dilettante

Are there any European comedians covering such things over there?

Of course, being just a dumbass North American myself I only understand a smattering of German and French and a few words and phrases in Spanish.  So I guess I wouldn't get too much from their videos.  Mea culpa.

----------


## Niya

> 


Careful with this. Someone might mistake it for satire.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Like I said: Niya is the biggest SJW here.

Well, maybe I didn't say it quite like that, but that's the point. I suppose it got across, too.

----------


## sapator

> Are there any European comedians covering such things over there?
> 
> Of course, being just a dumbass North American myself I only understand a smattering of German and French and a few words and phrases in Spanish.  So I guess I wouldn't get too much from their videos.  Mea culpa.


I guess I got a glimpse here and there of similar shows abroad. Our most famous was the below, but the government canceled it because it was satirizing the...Government  :Stick Out Tongue:  
Although the people there where,as they called them, unwashed left extremist against anything patriotic they where doing a descend job. But, you know, government, born out of a left pocket shot of vodka and 55 years documents release.

I wouldn't be betting on you understanding the language but you can sense the satire in the video. (the maestro is the wife of the minister of internal farts btw, also Trump an Hildy at 1:47)

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I doubt we have even seen much here from anyone who could legitimately be categorized as "far right." I can't imagine those posts would be left here, though for some reason the "far left" has free reign.


2 problems with this:-
1. I don't see anyone accusing you being "far right".  I've seen accusations intolerance and I've seen you personally being compared to a Trump supporter (rightly, in my opinion, though you continue to deny it) but I don't see you being called a fascist or a Nazi.  The only times I see those phrases are when someone says they're called it e.g. Niya's post 114 "You're basically Hitler if you use the wrong pronoun", not when someone actually does the the calling.  This is yet another of the straw men you keep building to enable your own sense of martyrdom.
2. I don't think anyone on here qualifies as "far left".  Show me the communists.  Show me the anarchists.  Unless your definition of "Far Left" extends to liberals you're talking utter garbage.

I'm sure you'll be able to cherry pick a few exceptions to the above if you look hard enough but a simple scan of this thread will demonstrate that the weight of data debunks your position.

----------


## dilettante

You ask for examples, and then immediately declare citing examples to be "cherry picking."  I assume that "cherry picking" is _bad, m'kay_ so what it appears you are really doing is sticking fingers in your ears and shouting "la, la, la, la" to yourself to prevent hearing anything.

"Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?  Yes or no?"

Wow, linguistic traps are easy hmm?  And silly.

But there is hope in your post.  Not calling people who disagree with you fascists or Nazis is a good sign.  Rejecting communists and anarchists is another.  I'm not sure what constitutes a "Trump supporter" for you, but you still seem fond of that label. Perhaps you can correct that as well.  He has been out of office for over a year and a quarter so his name doesn't have much relevance any more.

I'm not sure how you and I are significant though.  Aren't we discussing events and positions on issues?

----------


## Niya

> I'm not sure what constitutes a "Trump supporter" for you, but you still seem fond of that label. Perhaps you can correct that as well.


Just to be clear. I can't speak to what Funky means and this isn't directed at him in any way. 

That being said, based on how this term is used in certain online spaces including pre-Elon Twitter and the dumpster that is Reddit, I'd say it's typically used by these kind of men:-


To denigrate these kinds of men:-

----------


## dilettante

LOL




> They're just questions, Leon. In answer to your query, they're written down for me. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response... Shall we continue?


- Blade Runner

----------


## TysonLPrice

You were being reasonible until you said:




> He has been out of office for over a year and a quarter so his name doesn't have much relevance any more.


He is in the news everyday.  He is supporting republicans and campaigning all over the country.  There are half a dozen books that were best sellers out.  Elon Musk is going to allow him back on Twitter.  The Jan 6th Commission is all over him.  Republican candidates are falling all over him for endorsements trying to "out Trump" each other.  And there is constant speculation he will run in 2024.  Then again, maybe that is not relevant to you...

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Putting all the politics aside, this is shaping up to be an interesting move by Musk. He's talking about charging certain entities to be able to post (not the general public, though), which is a radical departure from the way popular social media has gone in the past. The obvious advantage to that would be the ability to avoid a business driven by ad revenue. Still, I'm really interested to see whether or not he gets any takers. This could be a truly fascinating study in sociology.

Other than that, he has the issue that Twitter is well know more than anything else. It's never been much of a business model and never gotten all that much penetration when compared to the Goliaths of social media. His changes will likely not leave the situation unchanged. It will be interesting to see whether Twitter soars or dives, but I would expect it to do one or the other rather than just muddling along.

----------


## Niya

> He's talking about charging certain entities to be able to post (not the general public, though)


The problem with this is where do you draw the line. I'd be curious so see exactly how paying members are differentiated from non-paying members.

----------


## dilettante

I had assumed payment would be required to operate Twitbots and troll farms.  Wasn't that most of the commercial use in the past?

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> The problem with this is where do you draw the line. I'd be curious so see exactly how paying members are differentiated from non-paying members.


Absolutely. The early reports suggested "politicians and corporations." It's easy to define the latter, but not so easy to define the former. Do you include the local PTA president? City council members? Just national elected representatives? That weird guy who gets his name on a few ballots but never gets more than a dozen votes?

Yeah, IF this idea goes forwards, then it will be totally fascinating to see where the line is drawn and what people do about it.

After thinking about it a bit, I would guess that it would be a non-starter. Twitter lacks the reach of FB. I don't see a whole lot of people who will be willing to put up much to reach a smaller audience. I'm not sure that they'd put up much to reach a large audience if there was some alternative that was free.

Still, it shows that he's trying to make something out of Twitter, which has always underperformed. His ideas may work, or they may not. It should be interesting, either way.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> You ask for examples, and then immediately declare citing examples to be "cherry picking."


Perhaps cherry picking was the wrong choice of words.  The point was that, if you're going to say this: "So something like the way _anybody_ who doesn't agree with you is a "right winger" or a "racist" or any of the other slurs that the self-aggrandized haters use." then follow it up with this: "It's hardly a false claim. You see it done over and over and over again here. I doubt we have even seen much here from anyone who could legitimately be categorized as "far right." " you appear to be levelling the accusation that people are _repeatedly_ falsely portraying you as "far right" for disagreeing with them (not false because you are far right - I don't believe you are - but false because nobodies accusing you of that).  To back that up you will need to provide _multitudinous_ examples of them doing so.

The reference to Trump was purely in service of identifying that someone calling you a Trump supporter, as I have myself, would _not_ constitute calling you "far right".  Although Trump certainly has supporters that are far right, it would be a logical fallacy to assume that all Trump supporters are far right.

So, let's try again.  Are you asserting that people who you disagree with repeatedly accuse you of being far right?  If so, demonstrate that.  You're certainly asserting that this forum has a "far left" bias.  Demonstrate that.

The reason I ask is that both of the above appear to me to be untrue and appear to be being asserted in order to justify a misplaced sense of martyrdom.  If I'm incorrect about that, please explain the purpose of those assertions.




> I had assumed payment would be required to operate Twitbots and troll farms.


I believe he's talking about banning those, not charging them (pretty sure he'll actually follow wherever the money leads though).  So presumably he's be talking about people who want to use the platform for either commercial or political purposes.  Though as others have said, that's going to be a very difficult distinction to draw.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Perhaps cherry picking was the wrong choice of words.


Perhaps "egregious unjustified extrapolation" would be more appropriate.

----------


## dilettante

That's pretty funny.

Chocolate smeared all over your hands and around your mouth yet you claim you didn't get into the candy.

Worse yet, you seem to honestly believe your own spin.  I may as well give up.  I'm trying to describe color to the blind.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Neatly avoided

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Neatly avoided


There was a flash of light, a loud bang and, when the smoke cleared, he was just gone...

----------


## NeedSomeAnswers

> Neatly avoided


He's never been interested in having to properly argue and backup his points what's new ??

----------


## jmcilhinney

> He's never been interested in having to properly argue and backup his points what's new ??


There's a Jimmy Dore video for that.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Some people have been predicting that Musk would back out of this deal. This morning, it has been reported that he has stated that the deal is on hold. That doesn't mean it is dead, but it sure does make it interesting.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Some people have been predicting that Musk would back out of this deal. This morning, it has been reported that he has stated that the deal is on hold. That doesn't mean it is dead, but it sure does make it interesting.


That guy does manage to stay in the news.  The media loves him.  Well I guess that's because lots of people want to hear about him.  He seems glad to give them what they want,

----------


## dilettante

Don't we all want less censorship?

----------


## sapator

I haven't been reading the thread much as it has gone from left to right and up to down and backward again.
So I need to ask, are we for or against Musk purchase? I saw a glimpse of happiness when he was pretended to back off.
Just for the record and since I'm not very enchanted from this thread, I'm with dil and Niya just because they get malefic attacks.   :Cool:

----------


## wes4dbt

> Don't we all want less censorship?


I guess that depends on what's being censored.  I have no problem with censoring lies and hate.  But, as already mentioned, who makes the decision  of what's allowable is the problem.  

I don't want totally uncensored social media or media as a whole.  But it really doesn't play a roll in my life.  The only social media I'm involved with is FB, which I use to keep up with the family.  Though I have had to "UnFollow" some members of my family because of there political and hateful posts.

----------


## Niya

> I have no problem with censoring lies and hate.


I disagree. The best way to recognize an idiot is to allow him to tell us himself. If we silence him, we'd never know he was an idiot. 

I don't want anything censored. I want to know what everyone is thinking whether I like what they have to say or not.

There is no point of view or opinion I'm not willing to entertain or examine, no matter how ridiculous. Of course if I find an idea ridiculous I will not hesitate to say so.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I disagree. The best way to recognize an idiot is to allow him to tell us himself. If we silence him, we'd never know he was an idiot. 
> 
> I don't want anything censored. I want to know what everyone is thinking whether I like what they have to say or not.
> 
> There is no point of view or opinion I'm not willing to entertain or examine, no matter how ridiculous. Of course if I find an idea ridiculous I will not hesitate to say so.


Interesting.  You can't think of one thing that someone could post that would inappropriate for all the men, women and children of the world to see.  I can think of lots of thing I wouldn't want my children exposed to.  There are people that are far worse than just "idiots".

----------


## Niya

> Interesting.  You can't think of one thing that someone could post that would inappropriate for all the men, women and children of the world to see.  I can think of lots of thing I wouldn't want my children exposed to.  There are people that are far worse than just "idiots".


Well, what I'm saying is, I have never seen anything said online by anyone that made me want this person to be silenced. For example, I hate Neo-Nazis more passionately than any other group of humans on the planet. They are the most vile and disgusting examples of humanity I have ever come across, yet I can still comfortably browse sites like 4Chan and Stormfront reading their rubbish. I want to know what these people are thinking and despite their wicked ideologies burning me to my very soul, I want to be able to hear and read what they have to say. I do not believe in censorship, not even for people I consider the dregs of humanity like Neo-Nazis. In essence, I hate censorship far more than I hate hearing or reading the words of people I despise.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> I haven't been reading the thread much as it has gone from left to right and up to down and backward again.
> So I need to ask, are we for or against Musk purchase? I saw a glimpse of happiness when he was pretended to back off.
> Just for the record and since I'm not very enchanted from this thread, I'm with dil and Niya just because they get malefic attacks.


I am leaning towards the belief that he will back out of the whole purchase. I don't have an opinion about that, I'm just betting on the outcome, and that's the bet I'd currently place.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

As for censorship, I'd rather not have it, either. By now, people should be well aware that living without any rules is the same hopeless utopia as communism: A nice idea in theory, but in practice it turns into something that nobody wants.

The key, as in all things, is moderation.

I realize that most people will think I was making a pun, but I said it anyways. It's kind of the Buddhist view, but it seems to work in just about everything.

----------


## dilettante

Well, I guess one of the messages in "The Day The Earth Stood Still" was the difficulty of having even-handed gatekeepers.

Extra-terrestrial societies felt strongly enough about it to turn interplanetary policing over to a race of robots.  Those were idealistically constructed to be even handed, and then they gave them basically absolute power to maintain peace beyond and between planetary atmospheres.

Yes, that's almost absurdly naïve and there are so many ways for things to go wrong, go wrong, go wrong...

But it was just a literary device.  Something to illustrate the point that peaceful relations were even more important than in the pre-nuclear past, or even that once you take your squabbles across a certain line you may face terrible retribution.

So no, we don't have a Gort without imperfection to run the public square.  But there is room to do better than we have.


But don't drag children into it.  Do that and you open doors to some serious criticism of things most decent people do not want their children exposed to.  I'm not convinced children should have access to social media or even all news programming.  Where the _hell_ are the parents?  Stoned on booze and weed all day?

----------


## wes4dbt

> As for censorship, I'd rather not have it, either. By now, people should be well aware that living without any rules is the same hopeless utopia as communism: A nice idea in theory, but in practice it turns into something that nobody wants.
> 
> The key, as in all things, is moderation.
> 
> I realize that most people will think I was making a pun, but I said it anyways. It's kind of the Buddhist view, but it seems to work in just about everything.


I agree, nothing in our past would indicate that no rules works.  I'd like to add, another key is consideration.  Some people can tolerate or even find something interesting in hateful lies.  Other would be hurt, or even worse, may not be able to recognize it for what it is.

As for the pun, everyone here knows you don't use puns in moderation.  lol

----------


## wes4dbt

> But don't drag children into it. Do that and you open doors to some serious criticism of things most decent people do not want their children exposed to. I'm not convinced children should have access to social media or even all news programming. Where the hell are the parents? Stoned on booze and weed all day?


Certainly consider the children when talking about censorship.  Because if someone says they don't want any censorship then that would affect children.  If you deny them access to social media, then you are censoring them.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> As for the pun, everyone here knows you don't use puns in moderation.  lol


Good point.

----------


## ChrisE

that Thread Title just sound unreal, well I suppose for Elon Musk it's normal.
Image he would say..Hmmm I like Cheese Burger's.. I think I'll buy McDonald's

how small we all are if I say ...I need a new or a good used Car :Smilie:

----------


## jmcilhinney

I saw a story suggesting that Trump was claiming that Musk would not buy Twitter at such a "ridiculous" price. If true, I'm thinking that Trump is either trying to bait Musk into going through with the purchase or make him feel better about not going through with it, but I'm not sure which. Trump may want Musk to buy Twitter so he can get back on the platform, even though he says he won't, or he may not want Musk to buy Twitter and even want more right-wingers to get actually banned or dispirited because of other people's bans so that they will migrate to his own platform that even he can't say the name of.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I am leaning towards the belief that he will back out of the whole purchase


He's certainly got history of this.




> I do not believe in censorship, not even for people I consider the dregs of humanity like Neo-Nazis


Your post focuses on the classifications of people rather than their activity and, on that basis, I agree, nobody should be censored for their beliefs.  However, they should be censored based on what they say.  Incite or glorify crime, I'm happy with that being censored.  Trump, for example, was not banned from Twitter for his views.  He was banned for inciting a riot and then glorifying it.

----------


## Niya

> However, they should be censored based on what they say. Incite or glorify crime, I'm happy with that being censored. Trump, for example, was not banned from Twitter for his views. He was banned for inciting a riot and then glorifying it.


I'm not sure I agree with this. Don't get me wrong, the goal of maintaining peace is laudable. However, if I go on Twitter and tell my followers to riot and they actually do it, then there is a far deeper problem here and censorship isn't going to fix it. Banning Trump is just a lazy response. I'd be more interesting in why the rioters did what they did. What was it that made the rioters feel so bad that it was so easy to incite them into such a frenzy. It is absolutely insane to me that everyone in the mainstream avoided examining this more deeply and simply dismissed them as mindless sheep following a mad man. This kind of willful ignorance is how great empires fall.

----------


## Niya

> Your post focuses on the classifications of people rather than their activity and, on that basis, I agree, nobody should be censored for their beliefs.


Well this is how the extreme left operates in case you're unaware. It is entirely possible to get banned from Twitter for saying something as innocuous and harmless as "there are only 2 genders". You don't have to incite a riot like Trump did to invite the banhammer on Twitter.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> It is entirely possible to get banned from Twitter for saying something as innocuous and harmless as "there are only 2 genders".


Citation needed. Do you have any actual examples of anyone being banned for JUST that? I very much doubt it. If someone was banned after saying that then I'm pretty confident that there was some lead-up that was taken into consideration as well.

----------


## TysonLPrice

It looks like Texas is against censorship too...

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/13/tech/...urt/index.html




> Texas's law, which was blocked last year but reinstated by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, makes it illegal for any social media platform with 50 million or more US monthly users to "block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against expression." As a result, it also creates enormous uncertainty about how social media companies such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube will function in the state.


I don't think VBForums has over 50 million members but if it did I could sue if I was banned for "whatever" I posted.  Seems like there are posters in this thread that are just fine with that law.

----------


## Peter Porter

> I disagree. The best way to recognize an idiot is to allow him to tell us himself.


And then you censor if the person wants to cause phsyical harm, or do we let this person continue posting the same until there's actual death or injured people, because this person carried through with their plans, or encouraged a closet nut to do so? Should this person be allowed to continue posting after a tragedy this person caused so this person or their follower cause harm again? Alot of them post anonymously, which are impossible to track to be arrested. Where is the line drawn?

----------


## FunkyDexter

> if I go on Twitter and tell my followers to riot and they actually do it


...then you are culpable.  You would likely be prosecutable under conspiracy.  And if Twitter allowed you to do it, so would they.




> Citation needed


^yep, that.

You said earlier that you're demonised if you use the pronoun no Twitter.  But that means _you were able_ to use the wrong pronoun.  You just didn't like being held accountable for it.

----------


## Niya

> Citation needed. Do you have any actual examples of anyone being banned for JUST that? I very much doubt it. If someone was banned after saying that then I'm pretty confident that there was some lead-up that was taken into consideration as well.


I said it's possible as in, it is within the realm of reason and that assertion is based entirely on the outcome of similar cases that fall within the scope of "gender politics".

If you're tempted to think that it is not possible to get banned from Twitter for this, you might want to pay attention to cases like this. It's the same kind of gender politics at play with the same group of people behind it but the stakes are far higher than a simple ban on a social media platform.

----------


## Niya

> ...then you are culpable.  You would likely be prosecutable under conspiracy.  And if Twitter allowed you to do it, so would they.


Why isn't trump in a jail cell or at least been called before some kind of committee to answer for his actions.




> You said earlier that you're demonised if you use the pronoun no Twitter.  But that means _you were able_ to use the wrong pronoun.  You just didn't like being held accountable for it.


The ban was implied when I made that statement. I didn't think I needed to say that. It is possible to be banned and demonized at the same time.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> or at least been called before some kind of committee to answer for his actions


Um... have you been following the news?  He was impeached, there are multitudinous cases being brought against him and a rather high profile committee sub-poenaing various of how close associates as we speak.  Will he be convicted?  That remains to be seen.  Most likely he won't but it'll be down to politics (the Reps will win a majority in the mid terms and quash the Jan 6th committee) rather than legality and you better believe that you or I would not enjoy the same protection.




> The ban was implied when I made that statement. I didn't think I needed to say that. It is possible to be banned and demonized at the same time.


Citation needed.


Edit> how the hell do you spell sub-poenaing? :Confused:

----------


## Niya

> Where is the line drawn?


That's easy. Draw the line on things that are universally agreed upon by all groups. Child molestation is an example of such a thing. No matter who you are or what your politics are, you will probably agree that molesting a child is wrong. I mean even Neo-Nazis and genocidal dictators love their children.

Outside of this, I think everything should be free game.

----------


## Niya

> Citation needed.


You do know you can Google this stuff right? 

https://twitter.com/kaitmarieox/stat...704003?lang=en

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-people...ly-two-genders

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> It is absolutely insane to me that everyone in the mainstream avoided examining this more deeply and simply dismissed them as mindless sheep following a mad man. This kind of willful ignorance is how great empires fall.


That depends on what you consider mainstream media. If you are talking about television, then they didn't examine it more deeply because the medium doesn't allow deeper investigations of anything. Sure, there can be documentaries that examine things in depth, but I wouldn't call anybody that does feature length documentaries part of the mainstream media. I would consider places like ABC, CNN, Fox News, and so on as mainstream media, and they never do stories longer than a few minutes.

If you include radio, then you DO see somewhat more detailed studies, but there again, the format is mostly shorter segments with lengthy 'documentaries'. Some of those did dig deeper.

If you include print media, then there were plenty of deeper examinations. Print media is a format well suited to that.

So, it all comes down to what you include when you talk about mainstream media. Include print, and there were deeper dives.

However, you also have to consider that in a country of over 300 million people, a view that is shared by 0.1% can still mobilize over 300,000 people. The capitol riot included far fewer. When you get to their numbers, you can find that many incensed about contrails delivering mind-control drugs. It's just the law of large numbers at work: Once you have a large enough population, all of which can find like minded folks on social media, then gathering a few thousand for ANY cause becomes possible. 

Do we need to have an in depth study of contrails if a few thousand people get together to start clamoring for one? Probably not, since it wouldn't do a thing. Such a study would be rejected by the people involved in the protest, so it's a waste of time.

----------


## Niya

> Once you have a large enough population, all of which can find like minded folks on social media, then gathering a few thousand for ANY cause becomes possible.


This is actually an extremely good point. I've said this to people on a number of occasions. It's funny, I remember telling a friend something to the effect that if you started a movement where the core belief is that you can get closer to God by having a dog chew on your scrotum, you could probably get thousands of people worldwide to sign up.

Still, I don't think censorship is the cure. If someone is determined enough, a ban on Twitter won't stop them from reaching their intended audience.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> You do know you can Google this stuff right?





> Twitter banned me for 12 hours hours today for saying there are two genders, claiming *I engaged in targeted harassment and abusive behavior*. What a time to be alive.


So what did she _actually_ tweet.  Given that you're citing Kaitlin Bennett I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that it was a whole lot more just saying there are only two genders.  I'm pretty sure you'll find that targeted harassment and abusive behaviour is a much better descriptor than her claim.  (I tried to find the content but couldn't.  I can't find anything that corroborates her being banned at all)

Plenty of people have been able to engage in the trans gender debate, on both sides, without receiving a ban.  Those who disagree with Trans rights have included J K Rowling, Marc Almond and Adele.  None were banned though all received backlash.  All that is required is to do so in a non abusive manner.




> That's easy. Draw the line on things that are universally agreed upon by all groups. Child molestation is an example of such a thing


It isn't, though.  That's the problem.  There are groups out there right now advocating for a P to be added to LGBTQ.  The P stands for pedophile.  We live in a horrifying world.  ALL morality is subjective so every platform and social group has to draw a line on what it deems to be acceptable and attempt to hold that line.  Twitters line is primarily aimed at abusive or intimidating behaviour (not politics as you are trying to claim) and I'm pretty sure that, if you dig deeper, that's what you'll find people have been banned for.

----------


## Niya

> So what did she _actually_ tweet.


http://libertyhangout.org/2018/05/tw...s-against-her/



> Yesterday, Bennett posted a photo to Twitter of herself with two pistols behind her back with a caption that read If I had a pistol for every gender there is.


She ridiculed the idea that there are more than 2 genders by using a humorous comment. Basically she used humor to push back against the progressive ideology that is trying to convince the world that there are more than two genders, something that is patently false. So basically she was banned for criticizing a stupid idea. This is absolute insanity.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Bennett posted a photo to Twitter of herself *with two pistols behind her back* with a caption that read If I had a pistol for every gender there is.


You don't see how that can be construed as intimidating?!




> something that is patently false


It's not though.

Edit>You might find this an educating read

Edit2> I should also add that you're linking to Bennett's own page.  Do you have anything that corroborates it?

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

People tend not to show themselves in any light other than the one they'd like to be seen in. You always need to get the other side of the story, or else you're just being gullible.

Having said that, we can't get the other side of the story for every story, because there isn't enough time in the world. Therefore, we all accept certain things uncritically, and we do so because we HAVE to. Still, if challenged on some point that can be verified, it is good to find both sides. 

That is not a firm rule, just a guideline. We don't have time to go searching for both sides on every statement anybody questions us on, either. To some extent, we're all just making it up as we go.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Still, I don't think censorship is the cure. If someone is determined enough, a ban on Twitter won't stop them from reaching their intended audience.


To theorize on this a bit, I believe we may be too old to be talking about this intelligently. I grew up before the internet. I was out in the workforce before social media even made an appearance. Therefore, my formative experiences were in a different world.

Censorship wasn't the name of it before. It was called 'life'. A rare view almost never encountered another, similar, view so long as it was sufficiently rare. The tinfoil hat crowd (by which I mean those who literally line their hats with tinfoil), are not numerous, so they may have made it through life without encountering more than one other believer. Even if they encountered a few other believers, and didn't simply fall out (like the People's Front of Judea, which was a joke, but it was a joke because everybody knows of examples where that exact thing happens) with one another, they couldn't organize. What would they do, write letters? Post advertisements in papers? I believe they tried all of that, but still couldn't organize much because they reached so few.

Social media and the internet age has created one fundamental change that society is still wrestling with: Those with like views can not just find one another, but once they do, they can wall off their community. That latter part is something that has existed LONG before the internet. It's a fundamental requirement to forming a cult. While still used today, isolating recruits from outside contact has always been one of the key tools (and identifying characteristics) of cults. 

Not all cults are bad, and not all isolation is bad, but the internet age has allowed the recruiting and walling off like no time in history. We don't know what this will do. 

Still, the theoretical point is basically this: For those of us who are old enough to have grown up before the internet, we lived in a time where there was censorship of everybody, and almost nobody saw it as censorship. When you are a part of a society, whether it is VBF, your local PTA, a youth soccer league, some church, or even just a place of employment, there are rules that you don't cross if you want to stay a member of that society. Sometimes they are written, sometimes they are not, but they are ALWAYS enforced, and enforced by the same means: Excommunication, in one form or another. That's censorship.

What the internet has allowed is two fold. One is that groups can form with their own set of unique rules, so people can find societies with the rules they prefer. The second is that people can readily wear different faces. You can be one person in one forum, with one personality, and a different person in a different forum with a different personality.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> we can't get the other side of the story for every story, because there isn't enough time in the world.


I agree but in Bennett's case she has a history of false claims which is why I wouldn't accept the word from just her own site.  What surprised me is that I couldn't find _anything_, even from other right wing news sites.

I _did_ manage to find a petition to get her banned.  It's not doing great and I doubt Twitter will pay any attention to it regardless :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 




> For those of us who are old enough to have grown up before the internet, we lived in a time where there was censorship of everybody, and almost nobody saw it as censorship. When you are a part of a society, whether it is VBF, your local PTA, a youth soccer league, some church, or even just a place of employment, there are rules that you don't cross if you want to stay a member of that society. Sometimes they are written, sometimes they are not, but they are ALWAYS enforced, and enforced by the same means: Excommunication, in one form or another. That's censorship.


I think that sums it up really well.  We have always had and continue to have the right to say just about anything.  What we have never had and still don't have is the freedom to do so without consequence.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Still, I don't think censorship is the cure. If someone is determined enough, a ban on Twitter won't stop them from reaching their intended audience.


Censorship isn't meant to be a "cure".   It's just a tool.  

You keep saying there shouldn't be any censorship, but then you post this,




> That's easy. Draw the line on things that are universally agreed upon by all groups. Child molestation is an example of such a thing


So it seems you do believe there should be censorship.  The real problems seems to be you don't like what's being censored.

----------


## Peter Porter

> Originally Posted by Peter Porter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Niya
> ...


Ok... So you also agree upon censoring all shared information that instigates something that could cause all kinds of physical or personal harm to people of all ages.

We're on the same page!

----------


## Niya

> Edit>You might find this an educating read


K I'm done. This is just too bizarre for me to discuss seriously.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Bizarre? Look at the natural world. The only difference there is, they don't get hung up about it.

----------


## Niya

> Bizarre? Look at the natural world. The only difference there is, they don't get hung up about it.


I'm willing to talk about gender politics in as much as it relates to the topic of censorship and law but if the discussion steers into any direction that invites debates about the validity of the more esoteric or bizarre aspects of the gender identity narrative, I'm bailing right out. I'm no more willing to talk about this than I am willing to debate young Earth creationism, flat Earth theory or religion. It's just a waste of time that is uninteresting and goes nowhere. I'd rather we just agree to disagree and move on.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Does any of this ever go anywhere? I'm not sure that I've seen anybody on this forum ever budge even an inch from whatever view they had going in. Not on gender, not on censorship, not on COVID, and CERTAINLY not on VB6.

----------


## Niya

> Does any of this ever go anywhere? I'm not sure that I've seen anybody on this forum ever budge even an inch from whatever view they had going in. Not on gender, not on censorship, not on COVID, and CERTAINLY not on VB6.


True. However, a lot of interesting things come out of these debates. For example, I learned a whole lot of stuff from VB6 vs VB.Net debates. No one ever changed their minds but I did gain a lot of knowledge from it. Nothing good can come from debating things like religion and gender identity. Those topics are far too grounded in subjectivity.

----------


## sapator

I have to agree on the stubbornness of all of us. 
The issue here is not to get too personal as some people seem to.
I mean there are some point's that we will never agree on and it may also be the relative distance of countries. And it's for the best. I think one opinion only is not the democratic way.
Whatever we talk about, it is going to go as it is going to go, meaning I don't think Musk will look at this forum to decide what to do.
The only thing that may work the wheel is mass gathering (in particular web gatherings) and that's where the attention of control has focused on.  
So, Elon, pal, the known group here want censorship (dil excluded), I'm against any censorship and Niya want's light as frat censorship, let's us know, will ya? Thanks.

P.S. I think I hate neo nazis more as we have lost 13% +  of our population from their brothers. Of course they where pissed as:
Not only did Greece protect its homeland, marking the first defeat of the Axis in WWII, but it allowed the British to tighten the blockade in the Mediterranean and cut Italy's communication lines, allowing for extra months of time for allies to prepare.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> I'm willing to talk about gender politics in as much as it relates to the topic of censorship and law but if the discussion steers into any direction that invites debates about the validity of the more esoteric or bizarre aspects of the gender identity narrative, I'm bailing right out.


Well, I love a good stampede, so just to be clear here, do we just have to say the word "gender", or does it take a bit more?

----------


## dilettante

The good news is that more average people are taking a peek behind the curtain and questioning that which scuttles in the darkness behind the thin veil.




This material should be exhibited in public meetings _without prior notice_ and a response demanded of locally elected officials who associate themselves with the two-faced monster we have in the US.  Despite a more multi-party veneer in other countries, I suspect power remains shared within two or maybe three larger camps presenting false faces of "a difference" to the population.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Is Musk backing out of Twitter?
> 
> Elon Musk is having cold feet about the Twitter dealor he's just trolling. On May 13, Musk tweeted that his deal to buy Twitter is temporarily on hold until he can get more assurance that the social platform's user base is at least 95% real people, versus fake or spam accounts.


That's not new but his approach to that seems to be firming up.

----------


## dilettante

I agree that Musk seems to have gone pretty limp on the deal after so much initial bluster.  Maybe he just wanted to watch the media set the radical left's hair on fire again and watch them run in circles.

----------


## TysonLPrice

I assumed people knew about Buffalo...maybe not:

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/15/10990...g-what-we-know


Here's a twist to censorship...Many of the conservative stations have been pushing "Replacement Theory" or "White Replacement Theory".  It has morphed a few times but for Fox News, and particularly Tucker Carlson,  it is part of their culture wars approach to broadcasting.   The liberals are allowing unrestricted immigrations in to dilute the white conservative vote.  Unless something is done "white America" will fail.  Personally I think they should be censoring themselves for the divisions they are creating.

But in a way they did...as the Buffalo shooters reasoning came about being centered on "Replacement Theory" and non-white hate they only have gone on the record once that that was part of the murderer's reasoning.  They have been pushing it for months but when it raised its ugly head they are leaving it out of their broadcasts.  

So in my opinion they push a race baiting agenda, then when someone that embraced that same theory and murdered people over it, they don't even acknowledge he felt that way.   Doing so would be an admission of how very dangerous their position on "Replacement Theory" can be.

That nut in Buffalo may never even have watched Fox News.  He sincerely believed in the same "Replacement Theory" that Fox pushes.   The nation as a whole is discussing race relations and hate, Fox news can't, they promote it.

----------


## dilettante

You'll see very little coverage of the radicalized Red Chinese American terrorist who shot up a Taiwanese American church in California on Sunday though.  So far not one word about his manifesto.

Doesn't fit the narrative.  Will Biden even make a token visit there?

Give it a week.  Which stories will still be "news?"

----------


## TysonLPrice

> You'll see very little coverage of the radicalized Red Chinese American terrorist who shot up a Taiwanese American church in California on Sunday though.  So far not one word about his manifesto.
> 
> Doesn't fit the narrative.  Will Biden even make a token visit there?
> 
> Give it a week.  Which stories will still be "news?"


Actually there was quite a bit of coverage where I looked.  Fox even covered it because they were not culpable this time.

----------


## FunkyDexter

I've certainly seen it.  It 's been all over the news here.

I don't know how the likes of Fox are presenting it but it was _definitely_ racially motivated and the manifesto he issued on line before setting out cited replacement theory multiple times.  What's heart breaking is that a load of folks are going fail to draw the line between their own casual racism and the lethal consequences it ultimately leads to - so this will happen again.

----------


## dilettante

I'd never heard of this "replacement theory" or "great replacement" and had to go look that up.

Turns out that term is a creation of the media, designed to further inflame the radical left and right and keep people divided.  It was taken from early 20th century French nationalism.

As far as I can tell the only real part of that is about the DNC's mission to increase the size of the controllable underclass through enhancement of immigration.  Corporations want cheap labor that won't be tempted to organize and can be used to bust strikes and break the backs of unions.  We've seen this pattern in the US over and over again as far back as the 19th century.

Sad to see people so bent on advocating for low pay, no benefits, no job security, and a perpetual supply chain problem.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Turns out that term is a creation of the media, designed to further inflame the radical left and right and keep people divided. It was taken from early 20th century French nationalism.


It is not a creation of the media, in the form you imply, and is very real and dangerous.  Your post indicates a very deep misunderstanding of its current form.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/17/10992...its-mainstream




> As far as I can tell the only real part of that is about the DNC's mission to increase the size of the controllable underclass through enhancement of immigration


Sigh!!!!

----------


## Niya

> I agree that Musk seems to have gone pretty limp on the deal after so much initial bluster.  Maybe he just wanted to watch the media set the radical left's hair on fire again and watch them run in circles.


Timcast has an interesting theory:-

----------


## Niya

> I'd never heard of this "replacement theory" or "great replacement" and had to go look that up.


This replacement theory stuff is lifted entirely from David Duke Neo-Nazi ideology and it's nothing new. You could have found this replacement theory idea being discussed in great detail by many Neo-Nazis online for the past 20 years. They are literally always talking about it on Stormfront and 4Chan's /pol/ and /b/ sub-boards. However, I don't recall them ever giving it a name. They just constantly rattle on about whites being replaced by "orcs" or "subhumans" or whatever other cute term they invent.

This buffalo shooter embodies the very essence of the average Stormfront user. His 180 page manifesto is basically an entire document parroting stuff being posted on Stormfront and 4Chan's /pol/ and /b/ for decades. Nothing in that document is unique, novel or an original idea by him. I would not be surprised even in the slightest if this idiot was a PowerPoster(Stormfront's forums are powered by the same software that powers this site) on Stormfront. However, it's more likely that he just hung out in /pol/ a lot since his manifesto contain a lot of imagery from 4Chan and /pol/ is the sub-board of 4Chan where Neo-Nazis hang out when they're not on Stormfront. In fact, there is not a single image in his manifesto I had never seen before. The images in his manifesto are images I've been seeing on 4Chan for years.

----------


## dilettante

They raise a good point that most of these probably aren't the sock puppets they appear to be.  Just soullless little people with such empty lives that toadying to a boisterous "in group" and echoing the right lines helps them feel worthwhile again... until they go offline when Ma asks them to come up from the basement and _empty that trash, now dammit!_

It can be hard to separate these from the Free Stuffers who honestly see themselves as entitled victims of one bogeyman or another.

----------


## dilettante

> This replacement theory stuff is lifted entirely from David Duke Neo-Nazi ideology and it's nothing new.


Well it was new to me.  I don't follow the crazy right or the crazy left.  They seem to desperately need each other though.

----------


## TysonLPrice

It seems like my point is being missed by people that have to look it up.




> It has morphed a few times but for Fox News, and particularly Tucker Carlson, it is part of their culture wars approach to broadcasting. The liberals are allowing unrestricted immigrations in to dilute the white conservative vote. Unless something is done "white America" will fail. Personally I think they should be censoring themselves for the divisions they are creating.


I agree it has been around, nothing really new, was from some French guy a while ago, etc.  I'm talking about how Fox news, and particularly Tucker Carson, have been espousing it lately.  Then when it was brought up in the context of a mass shooting they did not report on the very thing they have been espousing for months.  They know their hands are dirty.

----------


## dilettante

I guess you watch more Fox than I ever did.  I hear some of their radio stuff now and then but it never came up or I tuned it out.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I guess you watch more Fox than I ever did.  I hear some of their radio stuff now and then but it never came up or I tuned it out.


You don't need to watch Fox...you just need to keep up on current events...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...acement-theory

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/n...y-murdoch.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media...rvative-media/

----------


## Niya

Why is Fox News being mentioned? The Buffalo Shooter's motivations have nothing to do with what Fox News talks about. There is some overlap, this is true but trust and believe, nothing you find on Fox News would explain the Shooter's motivations. You want to understand his motivations, don't listen to Fox News. That is baby stuff, it barely tickles the surface of what this kid was thinking. Go for the real hardcore material. Go on /pol/ and Stormfront.org. Spend an hour there and you'd get it.

Or better yet, let the kid tell you himself. Read his manifesto.

----------


## dilettante

Well of course if you go to the crazies you will find a lot of crazy.

I'm more curious why somebody tries to claim that the one media source they rail against is somehow responsible for the craziness.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Why is Fox News being mentioned?


Because it is at the essence of my post.  Please read this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...acement-theory

Sure there are really "hard core" sites if you want to view what the fringe element is doing.  What Fox is doing is on main stream media.

----------


## Niya

> I'm more curious why somebody tries to claim that the one media source they rail against is somehow responsible for the craziness.


Even that idea is crazy as hell. The media isn't responsible for this at all. It is society's tolerance of people like David Duke that led to this. He and his followers come up with insane ideas to explain their lot in life and then they ferment these ideas for decades while slowly amassing a following until one of them explodes and we have a mass shooting.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Even that idea is crazy as hell. The media isn't responsible for this at all.


Then we are far apart on this...  Tucker Carlson is one of the most watched commentators in the Nation.  For months and months he has been going on about "Replacement Theory" inflaming his right.  As soon as what he espouses goes south the network closed up about what they have been promoting for months.

Maybe you don't think they are responsible for it at all but it sure got the network to shut up about it.  Why do you think they made that decision about stopping the "Replacement Theory" references.  I don't think it is because they feel they have nothing to do with it.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I agree with Niya on this. These folks have always been there. Tucker Carlson is spreading it to a large group of people (who predominantly won't do anything...and I do mean anything...because they are overwhelmingly elderly), but this group has always been there, and they always will be there. From what little I have heard about it, they start out with hating themselves, and try to externalize the pain.

----------


## Niya

> Then we are far apart on this...  Tucker Carlson is one of the most watched commentators in the Nation.  For months and months he has been going on about "Replacement Theory" inflaming his right.  As soon as what he espouses goes south the network closed up about what they have been promoting for months.
> 
> Maybe you don't think they are responsible for it at all but it sure got the network to shut up about it.  Why do you think they made that decision about stop the "Replacement Theory" references.  I don't think it is because they feel they have nothing to do with it.


Oh I'm not saying that you're wrong perse. I mean yea, if Tucker Carlson was talking about the same stuff, it makes sense that Fox News would now try to distance themselves from the theory. I mean that makes sense.

But what I am saying is that anyone who thinks that the things he was talking about can fully explain this kid's actions, they'd be dead wrong. I mean does Tucker blame Bolshevik Jews for all the ills in society? Does he promote a belief in a racial hierarchy that puts whites at the top, Asians in the middle and Blacks at the bottom? Does he believe that Jews use Blacks as their bulldogs as part of their plans to dominate the white race? Does he talk about black people being more likely to rape a white woman than other races? Does he talk about Jews promoting transgenderism as a plot against the white race? Does Tucker Carlson talk about any of this? I'm betting that he doesn't.

The point I'm making is that this "replacement theory" is only a tiny part of the shooter's motivations. That alone is not what moved him. Like I said, read the kid's manifesto. He explains all of this stuff in great painstaking detail. He even explains in great depth why he chose the weapons he used. It's all there in his manifesto.

----------


## Niya

And by the way, while yes his ideas were insane, the kid was actually very intelligent and of sound mind. It was clear from reading his manifesto that he was wasn't mentally deficient. My impression is that he simply didn't have enough life experience to help him properly frame all the radical nonsense he was reading on 4Chan.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Why is Fox News being mentioned?


Because Tucker Carlson (in particular, though not exclusively) _mainstreamed_ the replacement rhetoric over the last decade.  I agree with you that Fox cannot be held wholly responsible for the events in Buffalo and I've no doubt we'll find out in the next few days that Gendron was hanging out on StormFront etc, but the continuous parroting of racist rhetoric 1. gives validation to the crazies, thus making them more likely to follow through, and 2. makes it increasingly able to couch their views as reasonable and thus recruit more crazies.

Carlson's not the cause, he's a multiplier.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Oh I'm not saying that you're wrong perse. I mean yea, if Tucker Carlson was talking about the same stuff, it makes sense that Fox News would now try to distance themselves from the theory. I mean that makes sense.
> 
> But what I am saying is that anyone who thinks that the things he was talking about can fully explain this kid's actions, they'd be dead wrong. I mean does Tucker blame Bolshevik Jews for all the ills in society? Does he promote a belief in a racial hierarchy that puts whites at the top, Asians in the middle and Blacks at the bottom? Does he believe that Jews use Blacks as their bulldogs as part of their plans to dominate the white race? Does he talk about black people being more likely to rape a white woman than other races? Does he talk about Jews promoting transgenderism as a plot against the white race? Does Tucker Carlson talk about any of this? I'm betting that he doesn't.
> 
> The point I'm making is that this "replacement theory" is only a tiny part of the shooter's motivations. That alone is not what moved him. Like I said, read the kid's manifesto. He explains all of this stuff in great painstaking detail. He even explains in great depth why he chose the weapons he used. It's all there in his manifesto.


I didn't intend to imply that Fox was directly involved in the shooting and I mentioned in the first post I don't even know if he watched Fox.  I do disagree with Shaggy Hiker that "(who predominantly won't do anything...and I do mean anything...because they are overwhelmingly elderly)".  I would say Fox had quite a lot to do with all these stolen election movements, the fire storm over CRT, Trans in bathrooms, etc.  That network clearly motivates people into action, albeit, they are not alone.


I thought my point was very clear and succinct.  The posts seems to turn to, and that is the nature of Chit Chat, to "oh that is old hat" and a general "pooh poohing" of my point.  That is just fine.  I go on about Fox quite a bit and am clearly partisan so I'm fair game.

But a quick review of the top headlines of the current discussion of the shooting and replacement theory you will be hit with quite a few folks criticizing Fox.  Just like me.

----------


## wes4dbt

> And by the way, while yes his ideas were insane, the kid was actually very intelligent and of sound mind. It was clear from reading his manifesto that he was wasn't mentally deficient. My impression is that he simply didn't have enough life experience to help him properly frame all the radical nonsense he was reading on 4Chan.


I could go either way on that.  It was an insane act but his age does make him susceptible.  As far as being very intelligent, meh.  Intelligence is a flakey term anyway.  Just be cause you can write a coherent manifesto doesn't mean your very intelligent.  Obviously his social skills and decision making seem to be below normal.  

I read somewhere that, "Intelligence is how well you survive within your environment".  Or something close to that, it was a long time ago.  By that definition this kid is not very intelligent.  My intelligence seems to come and go.  Every smart thing I do seems to be matched by stupid acts.  lol

----------


## FunkyDexter

> he kid was actually ... of sound mind


He had undergone a previous psych evaluation a year or so before but I can't find definitive details on what the findings were.  We might find out over the next few days.  But Fox haven't wasted any time in pushing that right to the front.

----------


## Niya

> Because Tucker Carlson (in particular, though not exclusively) _mainstreamed_ the replacement rhetoric over the last decade.  I agree with you that Fox cannot be held wholly responsible for the events in Buffalo and I've no doubt we'll find out in the next few days that Gendron was hanging out on StormFront etc, a
> Carlson's not the cause, he's a multiplier.


I just wanted to make it clear that Tucker Carlson's talking points only scratch the surface of the much larger body of work wherein these ideas can be found and that people should really be paying attention to that and not just the the small piece of it presented in mainstream channels like Fox News.





> but the continuous parroting of racist rhetoric 1. gives validation to the crazies, thus making them more likely to follow through





> makes it increasingly able to couch their views as reasonable and thus recruit more crazies.


I agree with this wholeheartedly. Mainstreaming of these ideas make it seem like there are more people thinking like this than there actually are which bolsters the confidence of the crazies.

----------


## Niya

> I could go either way on that.  It was an insane act but his age does make him susceptible.  As far as being very intelligent, meh.  Intelligence is a flakey term anyway.  Just be cause you can write a coherent manifesto doesn't mean your very intelligent.  Obviously his social skills and decision making seem to be below normal.  
> 
> I read somewhere that, "Intelligence is how well you survive within your environment".  Or something close to that, it was a long time ago.  By that definition this kid is not very intelligent.  My intelligence seems to come and go.  Every smart thing I do seems to be matched by stupid acts.  lol





> He had undergone a previous psych evaluation a year or so before but I can't find definitive details on what the findings were.  We might find out over the next few days.  But Fox haven't wasted any time in pushing that right to the front.


I get what you're saying but what I'm getting at is that reading his manifesto, you never once get the impression that something is wrong with him mentally.

Let me put it in programming terms. Let's say a function represents a persons mind and the arguments passed to this function represent information this mind received. The return value of the function represents actions they take based on the input. Truly crazy people are like badly written functions that don't work right. It doesn't matter what arguments you pass in, it will produce terrible output. Intelligent people are like well written functions and if you pass in good inputs, the output would be excellent. This kid is like a well written function that got passed some really bad arguments so the output was terrible.

I remember thinking while reading his manifesto that if someone had taken hold of this kid and poured better stuff into him than the racist garbage he got from 4Chan, he could have been very successful in society.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I feel that Tucker Carlson is the epitome of capitalism. If you look at a young Alex Jones, you see the old Alex Jones. From some documentaries, he was always as he is, at least as far back as HS. Not so with Carlson. He's figured out a line that has made him gobs of money, and that's all the conviction that is necessary, "this makes me rich, so it is right." Of course, he believes a bunch of it, but I'm not convinced that he's all that much of a true believer. I'd say more of a shallow believer is likely to be more accurate.

----------


## dilettante

This interview seemed odd though:




If we are to believe this man (and why shouldn't we?) the "nutty" kid had a long and respectful conversation with him before the terrible events.  Something feels off here, or maybe the world is just bizarre.

----------


## dilettante

Gosh, you can't make this stuff up:

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I feel that Tucker Carlson is the epitome of capitalism. If you look at a young Alex Jones, you see the old Alex Jones. From some documentaries, he was always as he is, at least as far back as HS. Not so with Carlson. He's figured out a line that has made him gobs of money, and that's all the conviction that is necessary, "this makes me rich, so it is right." Of course, he believes a bunch of it, but I'm not convinced that he's all that much of a true believer. I'd say more of a shallow believer is likely to be more accurate.


Fox won a lawsuit partially on a reasonable person wouldn't think what Carlson says is true...

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye

----------


## Peter Porter

> This interview seemed odd though:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we are to believe this man (and why shouldn't we?) the "nutty" kid had a long and respectful conversation with him before the terrible events.  Something feels off here, or maybe the world is just bizarre.


Dil, why do you always show reaction videos of videos when you could just show us the videos they're reacting to without their reactions? It feels like you're trying to train us and all the lurkers to this thread, like how this guy is trying to train black viewers that this wasn't racially motivated, but pure hatred from being evil.  That's it!

Now I've come across evil people, but you know what, they didn't hate anyone! They just enjoyed messin' with people!

I know white people who hate black people, but I've also seen them sit down with their friendly masks on, and have a conversation with a black person like if they're friends, and later continue talking about how much they hate them to me.

Now this kid had a manifesto that he built from everything he learned online. It basically told everyone the reasons why he did what he did, which shows it was racially motivated.

What he did was evil, but his hatred was racially motivated.

----------


## dilettante

It sounds like you're saying something like: "Stop undermining my comfortable and carefully cultivated narrative."

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I get what you're saying but what I'm getting at is that reading his manifesto, you never once get the impression that something is wrong with him mentally.


I agree and I _suspect_ that what we're going to find out from the previous mental evaluation is that he was just a troubled teenager seeking attention (i.e. when he submitted a college paper that mentioned murder suicide).  The recent events were probably the result of a desire for peer validation from more extreme sites he was probably involved in.  There's a lot of supposition there but it seems the most likely to me and makes it all the more troubling that Fox have immediately started trying to sell the "crazy" narrative without bothering to actually dig into the details first.




> I'd say more of a shallow believer is likely to be more accurate.


I agree, but I think that makes him even more morally reprehensible.




> It sounds like you're saying something like: "Stop undermining my comfortable and carefully cultivated narrative."


No, I think we're questioning the carefully cultivate narrative you seem to be swallowing.  You literally spouted a replacement theory trope within 4 posts of Tyson mentioning the Buffalo killings: "As far as I can tell the only real part of that is about the DNC's mission to increase the size of the controllable underclass through enhancement of immigration."  Or to put it another way, Democrats are trying to replace us with immigrants.

I don't think you're a racist.  I don't think you're far right.  But your hatred of Biden (of whom I agree with you, there is much to criticise) is leading you to sources, _any_ source, that will validate that hatred and you're losing sight of what some of those sources represent.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> No, I think we're questioning the carefully cultivate narrative you seem to be swallowing.  You literally spouted a replacement theory trope within 4 posts of Tyson mentioning the Buffalo killings: "As far as I can tell the only real part of that is about the DNC's mission to increase the size of the controllable underclass through enhancement of immigration."  Or to put it another way, Democrats are trying to replace us with immigrants.
> 
> I don't think you're a racist.  I don't think you're far right.  But your hatred of Biden (of whom I agree with you, there is much to criticise) is leading you to sources, _any_ source, that will validate that hatred and you're losing sight of what some of those sources represent.


It is bizarre to me, the number of Americans, in particular, who seem to think that they are the "real"/"proper" left and the best way to distinguish themselves from those whom they think are not is to parrot right-wing talking points.

----------


## dilettante

Most of my posts merely show that the activists who keep opening these threads with a narrative to sell have no leg to stand on.  Most people do not buy it, and every day more are walking away from it once they see what's really going on.  The videos reacting to news and information help illustrate that.  Some of them are Black or Asian or Latino or women or trans, making it harder to discount them as "racists" to be ignored out of hand.

Musk taking over Twitter and making it a free speech platform is an extremely popular thing.  Getting rid of the corporate and government sock puppet accounts is also very popular.

The attitude that clamping down on "loose lips" is vital is absurd in a free society.  Arguments for censorship based on the hoary old "Baby can't eat steak so we all get pablum" trope are pretty thinly veiled emotional appeals designed to incite the population to advocate against their own interests out of fear.

The far left and right have more in common than they don't, and people are getting sick of both of them.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Most of my posts merely show that the activists who keep opening these threads with a narrative to sell have no leg to stand on.


It's a "no" from me.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

It's a no from me, as well.

One thing that threads on here have shown pretty well is that everybody has an opinion, and nobody ever changes theirs.

Another thing it shows me is that people use videos in place of an ability to be articulate. What's the point of that? Nobody wants to read some lengthy post by me, so why would they want to watch something created explicitly as propaganda? It's not even really an opinion, but an advertisement for an opinion.

----------


## FunkyDexter

While we're dishing out Nos, make it a hattrick.




> Most of my posts merely show that the activists who keep opening these threads with a narrative to sell...


The videos you're posting clearly have a narrative to sell.

----------


## dilettante

Another busted narrative:

----------


## dilettante

It just keeps getting better:

----------


## Peter Porter

> Most of my posts merely show that the activists who keep opening these threads with a narrative to sell have no leg to stand on.  Most people do not buy it, and every day more are walking away from it once they see what's really going on.  The videos reacting to news and information help illustrate that.  Some of them are Black or Asian or Latino or women or trans, making it harder to discount them as "racists" to be ignored out of hand.
> 
> Musk taking over Twitter and making it a free speech platform is an extremely popular thing.  Getting rid of the corporate and government sock puppet accounts is also very popular.
> 
> The attitude that clamping down on "loose lips" is vital is absurd in a free society.  Arguments for censorship based on the hoary old "Baby can't eat steak so we all get pablum" trope are pretty thinly veiled emotional appeals designed to incite the population to advocate against their own interests out of fear.
> 
> The far left and right have more in common than they don't, and people are getting sick of both of them.


Dil, I've researched your reaction videos you've posted for days (before the last two), and most of these people reacting have been right leaning crusaders since they started their YouTube channels. Did you think no would go to the source of these videos, and just accept your narrative that these people are like you and me? We all know that clicking _YouTube_ on the bottom right of a playing video would take us to the video on YouTube, and then all anyone has to do there is click on the _channel username_ to go to the channel, and lastly click _Video_ there to see all the videos they posted. Again, did you think no one would look?  :big yellow: 

Just for the future, beaves, find a reaction video from an amature YouTuber who's not on a right leaning crusade. If that's impossible, then just show us a video without any reaction, and just give us your take in words. No more professional YouTubers who've been posting right leaning professionally edited thumbnailed videos since they joined YouTube.

Oh, and about your last two videos, it feels like you're having an anxiety attack! If so, breathe deeply and walk away from your pc.

Go out and have some fun!

Don't let the world worry you into a frenzy! Life is too short to be wasting it like this!

----------


## dilettante

Come on, say what you mean.  You really want an unchallenged echo chamber, right?

If it makes you feel any better I get just as much pushback from anti-vax and 9-11 conspiracy aficionados.  Not like the *****cats in the old COVID thread here, real far out there people.

It's tough being among the few remaining moderates.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Come on, say what you mean.  You really want an unchallenged echo chamber, right?
> 
> If it makes you feel any better I get just as much pushback from anti-vax and 9-11 conspiracy aficionados.  Not like the *****cats in the old COVID thread here, real far out there people.
> 
> It's tough being among the few remaining moderates.


No naked flames near all that straw.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> It's tough being among the few remaining moderates.


This is really just sad self-congratulation. I bet that Biden would tell you that he's a moderate if you asked him. I wouldn't be surprised if Joe Manchin did too. Considering yourself a moderate is really just telling yourself that you think that your own opinions are right. Even if one were a moderate, there's nothing inherently good about that because the best position is not inherently in the middle of the possible extremes. There's also the fact that the political centre in the US firmly to the right by global standards so if you, as a self-professed moderate, find yourself being called a right-winger, then maybe it's because you are by the majority standard, at least on certain issues. The fact people like Jimmy Dore and Tim Poole and their "fans" spend so much of their time regurgitating right-wing propaganda and calling it moderation is rather telling.

----------


## Peter Porter

> Come on, say what you mean.  You really want an unchallenged echo chamber, right?
> 
> If it makes you feel any better I get just as much pushback from anti-vax and 9-11 conspiracy aficionados.  Not like the *****cats in the old COVID thread here, real far out there people.
> 
> It's tough being among the few remaining moderates.


Dil, before my last posts here, everyone knows I'm a ghost in threads like this one. All I do is read both sides without typing a word.

But you, you hate having your echo chamber challenged. I don't see anyone like you go all out with the same stuff repetitively, like you're stuck in an inescapable loop! Maybe it's time you look over your coding. 

After that, take a break. Live life a little!  :Smilie:

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Dil, before my last posts here, everyone knows I'm a ghost in threads like this one. All I do is read both sides without typing a word.


No, you're a radical activist and just didn't know it... apparently.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> You really want an unchallenged echo chamber, right?


You want your continuous regurgitation of right wing propaganda to remain unchallenged, right?

At this point you are trying to portray a mass shooting by a guy who explicitly declared that he was racially motivated as non-racially motivated.  That is not a moderate position.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> everyone knows I'm a ghost in threads like this one.


Well I didn't, so now I know....I see dead people!

----------


## dilettante

> You want your continuous regurgitation of right wing propaganda to remain unchallenged, right?


Egad, pots and kettles.




> At this point you are trying to portray a mass shooting by a guy who explicitly declared that he was racially motivated as non-racially motivated.  That is not a moderate position.


I never suggested such a thing.  The point I was making is that this kid is racist all right, but more importantly linked to Joe Biden administration and Boris Johnson administration backed and funded neo-Nazis in Ukraine, which seems to have fueled his racist motivations.

The kid is obviously radically racist from everything we have seen.  He's also Azov-influenced or at least he self-identifies with them.  And that's a pretty unsavory group for Western governments to be arming, feeding, fueling, advising, and endorsing.

What the facts DO NOT show is anything supporting arguments that "America is racist" or "white people are racist" or "Trump voters are racist" or "Republicans are racist" or "Twitter is racist under Musk" or ANY of the rest of your narrative.  Your narrative being "free speech is bad m'kay" as far as I can tell.

When you add it all up Gendron seems to be radical left, if anything.

How uncomfortable.

----------


## dilettante

Another narrative has crash and burned:

The FBI Went on Trial for the Gov. Whitmer Kidnapping Case and Lost



Prosecutor drops out of Gov. Whitmer kidnapping plot case




> Grand Rapids  A federal prosecutor withdrew Tuesday from the case of a plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, days after two men were acquitted and the jury couldnt reach a unanimous verdict for two more on what had been touted as the largest domestic terrorism trial in recent U.S. history.
> 
> ...
> 
> The acquittals and deadlocked jury on two other men were a blow to the case that had been dogged by controversy and scandal. The defense had raised questions about the FBIs conduct and use of informants, including the indictment of rogue FBI informant Stephen Robeson on a gun crime. The defense alleged that FBI agents and informants had orchestrated the conspiracy and entrapped the men.
> 
> Casertas lawyer called it the conspiracy that just never was.
> 
> Never was, never was going to be," his lawyer, Michael Hills, told reporters. "Our governor was never in any danger. I think the jury, even though they didnt get all of it, Hills said, they smelled enough of it.


Funny how little coverage there has been at CNN, NBC, BBC, and other mainstream "news" outlets.  That case was lost a month ago.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I'm a ghost in threads like this one. All I do is read both sides without typing a word.


Everyone knows I keep my opinion to myself but...

I would never say anything bad about someone but...

I'm the last to criticize but...

I'm the last one to bring things like this up but...

I'm sensing denial  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## Peter Porter

> Everyone knows I keep my opinion to myself but...
> 
> I would never say anything bad about someone but...
> 
> I'm the last to criticize but...
> 
> I'm the last one to bring things like this up but...
> 
> I'm sensing denial


I never point out someone's lack of punctuation, but...  :big yellow:

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Egad, pots and kettles.


That's my point.  You're the pot.




> but more importantly linked to Joe Biden administration and Boris Johnson administration backed and funded neo-Nazis in Ukraine, which seems to have fueled his racist motivations


I assume you're talking about this already debunked conspiracy theory.  It's rooted in a single picture of Gendron wearing a common Nazi symbol that the Azov regiment, along with a whole bunch of other paramilitary groups, is also known to wear.  It really doesn't link him ideologically to the Azov regiment or imply that he was inspired by them in any meaningful way.

Meanwhile he explicitly identified himself as a white supremacist and cited replacement theory as the reason for carrying out his actions.  He _told_ you his motivations and you're desperately ignoring his actual words and casting around for some way... any way... to link it to Biden. And the fact that you found yourself advocating the very theory he cited as his motivation should tell you a lot about the sources you're reading.

The narrative that Biden is supporting Nazis because he's supporting Ukraine is equally plank-headed but really not worth rehashing.  If you're far enough down the rabbit hole to be making that connection you're already mining for Easter Eggs.

----------


## jmcilhinney

I watched a video by a prominent leftie YouTuber a few days ago about Elon Musk publicly declaring himself a Republican. At the time, he said that it felt like a setup. Musk claimed that "they" were going to attack him now and the video suggested that it felt like he knew something was about to come out and he was getting out in front of it. Sure enough, it has become public that musk was accused of sexual misconduct, used his power to punish the person who rejected him and then paid for her silence. He has immediate cast this news as a political attack because he switched his allegiance. You've got to give him credit for knowing Republicans well enough to realise that, not only would they not care that he was accused of sexual misconduct, they would defend him vigorously if he just said that he's one of them. That he would be willing to divide the US even further down political lines as a cover for his being a creep shows just how utterly disgusting he is.

This put me in mind of a question that was asked way back at the beginning of this thread, i.e. that Musk says that he's in favour of free speech but whose? At the time, I didn't interpret that as meaning that he might favour right-wingers of left-, but rather that he might do whatever he can to silence anyone critical of him. He's demonstrated on more than one occasion that he has a pretty thin skin and here he is, explicitly changing his political affiliation in an effort to shut down legitimate criticism of him for something that could have landed many less powerful people in jail.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Yeah, I've seen similar articles although everything I've seen were created after the event with hindsight.  Personally, I _don't_ think his vote switch announcement was an attempt to waylay upcoming sexual harassment accusations.  _Maybe_ it was but it smacks of a simple coincidence that the media have, unsurprisingly, been able to grab onto to hype the story a little more.

I don't much care though.  He's allowed to change his vote and the sexual harassment and subsequent NDA should be a big enough story on it's own.  Nothing says hypocrite like championing free speech after paying a former employee to sign an non disclosure agreement.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Personally, I _don't_ think his vote switch announcement was an attempt to waylay upcoming sexual harassment accusations.  _Maybe_ it was but it smacks of a simple coincidence that the media have, unsurprisingly, been able to grab onto to hype the story a little more.


I might be inclined to agree if it were just the change of political alignment. It's an odd thing to announce but Musk is definitely the sort of person to make such a big deal of something like that. We also know that he really hates unions, but claiming that the Democratic party is controlled by them is simply ridiculous. What makes it most suspicious is that, in one particular tweet (not sure if there were multiple on the subject) he signed off by claiming that "they" were going to start attacking him for changing his allegiance. A matter of days later this information comes out and he is immediately trying to cast it as a politically-motivated attack, even though we know that this revelation was already in the works before his announcement. If I heard correctly, whoever made this information public had actually contacted him about it a week or two ago. It seems that he absolutely knew that this was coming out so, while his political switch may not be fake, the idea that this information being made public was motivated by it absolutely is and it's simply him trying to deflect from what he did. As I said before, he's now not only got people around him to tell him that he didn't do anything wrong but that he's the real victim. I guess when you're so concerned about women's safety in public bathrooms, you've got no concern left for their safety at work.

----------


## wes4dbt

The timing does seem suspicious.  I think it was going to happen but this harassment  suit might have sped up the decision.  I think he has sucked most of the easy money out of the Democrats and now sees greener pastures with the Republicans.  As I said before, I think he showed his real colors when he fought against any COVID restrictions that would negatively effect his car factories.  

A business man peddling a false image to make money.  Go figure.  Not a new idea but it still works.

----------


## sapator

And it's done.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-63402338

He started firing the former head birds and will prolly re estate Trump's account.

----------


## dilettante

Hope the trend continues and we eventually get the vermin ousted from the "broadcast news media" as well.  I'm not holding my breath though, and I doubt trading one set of overlords for another means very much in the end.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

It probably means that Twitter will become the hell-scape that he said he wanted to avoid. Turns out, it's very hard to prevent that.

----------


## sapator

I mean it's nice to shake up the water now and then. And even if twit becomes a hell-scape it would still be something different than the current boredom...Mind you my usage of twitter is zero. Just having an account so I can open the damn thing to copy and article or something but other than that no participation whatsoever.

----------


## TysonLPrice

Well...the bird isn't free in Europe




> In Europe, bird will fly by our rules


https://www.hindustantimes.com/busin...946115077.html

----------


## Niya

> He started firing the former head birds and will prolly re estate Trump's account.


If he brings back Jordan Peterson, Project Veritas, Donald Trump, Babylon Bee, I will be an Elon Musk fan till the day I die. It will restore my faith in humanity. After that I hope he buys VBForums..... :Big Grin:

----------


## sapator

Welcome back you crazy leftist hater you!  :wave:

----------


## dilettante

"Awaken With JP" is pretty comical too, but since I don't use Twitter I have no idea what his presence or status might be there.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> I mean it's nice to shake up the water now and then. And even if twit becomes a hell-scape it would still be something different than the current boredom...Mind you my usage of twitter is zero. Just having an account so I can open the damn thing to copy and article or something but other than that no participation whatsoever.


I don't even have an account, but if you want a hell-scape, you shouldn't have to go very far to find one. There are plenty around, just look for a place without moderation. 

I've been thinking about that a fair amount of late, and largely because of Niya. There are plenty of people who want a 'no holds barred' kind of place, and FAR more who think they do, but there are also a large number who don't like rude people, offensive language, and so on. This creates a tension that doesn't appear to have any ultimate resolution. 

In a common square, everybody is free to come and go as they please. With no rules, those with the lowest standards will end up driving out everybody else. Every single person is offended by some action/statement of some hypothetical other person. With absolute free speech, everybody has the right to shout down anybody they disagree with. Since everybody disagrees with somebody, then there ends up being a whole lot of shouting. Since everybody is free to come and go, that means that the more sensitive will simply go. That will result in a community that will generally slide into the sewer, as the more tolerant are replaced by those more willing to go lower. 

Everybody chafes under some law or another. Places without laws have never been utopias. Therefore, everybody chafes. 

So, who sets the standards for a community? Any number of groups would be willing to. Heck, any number of groups TRY to, and that's just for a public square. Any group that does so will suppress some other group, whether a minority or a majority. 

MLK Jr said that the arc of history bends towards justice. It certainly appears to be bending towards tolerance of different groups, but if you look more closely, it's not so clear. If you tolerate one race/religion/creed, then you become intolerant of those who hate/fear that group.

It's just a constant struggle.

VBF is not a public square. Ultimately, it is a commercial site. The solution, in the case of VBF is both simple, obvious, and distasteful: Eliminate Chit-Chat. I have no interest in that, but it would solve the problem that a commercial site has to deal with.

----------


## Niya

> Welcome back you crazy leftist hater you!


Oh I'm still around....just been spending time else where on the web. Oh and if you thought I hated leftists before, the things I've seen since I was last here has grown that hatred even more.




> "Awaken With JP" is pretty comical too, but since I don't use Twitter I have no idea what his presence or status might be there.


I had to look him up. Even I don't know who this is. He's probably not as big as other names like Jordan Peterson and Donald Trump when it comes to the culture war over left wing censorship.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I don't even have an account, but if you want a hell-scape, you shouldn't have to go very far to find one. There are plenty around, just look for a place without moderation. 
> 
> I've been thinking about that a fair amount of late, and largely because of Niya. There are plenty of people who want a 'no holds barred' kind of place, and FAR more who think they do, but there are also a large number who don't like rude people, offensive language, and so on. This creates a tension that doesn't appear to have any ultimate resolution. 
> 
> In a common square, everybody is free to come and go as they please. With no rules, those with the lowest standards will end up driving out everybody else. Every single person is offended by some action/statement of some hypothetical other person. With absolute free speech, everybody has the right to shout down anybody they disagree with. Since everybody disagrees with somebody, then there ends up being a whole lot of shouting. Since everybody is free to come and go, that means that the more sensitive will simply go. That will result in a community that will generally slide into the sewer, as the more tolerant are replaced by those more willing to go lower. 
> 
> Everybody chafes under some law or another. Places without laws have never been utopias. Therefore, everybody chafes. 
> 
> So, who sets the standards for a community? Any number of groups would be willing to. Heck, any number of groups TRY to, and that's just for a public square. Any group that does so will suppress some other group, whether a minority or a majority. 
> ...


I enjoyed reading that.  I admire your ability to make your views clear without being hateful, hurtful or aggressive. I find it very refreshing.  But normal for you it seems.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I enjoyed reading that.  I admire your ability to make your views clear without being hateful, hurtful or aggressive. I find it very refreshing.  But normal for you it seems.


Same here...good post.  I hate when closing down Chit Chat is brought up.

----------


## TysonLPrice

The bird flies free...




> An emboldened cast of anonymous trolls spewed racist slurs and Nazi memes onto Twitter in the hours after billionaire industrialist Elon Musk took over the social network, raising fears that his pledge of unrestricted free speech could fuel a new wave of online hate.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...-racist-posts/

----------


## jmcilhinney

> The bird flies free...
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...-racist-posts/


Clearly that was a false flag set by Antifa super soldiers. The funny things is that we all know that Twitter is still going to have rules about what can and can't be posted - Tripe Central does, after all, and people still get banned there - so if people go out of their way to push the limits of their new-found freedom on Twitter then they are more likely to cause those limits to become more restrictive.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

If they weren't anonymous, that would make a difference. Most of us are semi-anonymous, and we are that way for a reason. Also, to be clear, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that. As long as you put a view out in public, there are people who will disagree with that view, and therefore with you. That's entirely reasonable. The problem is that there are people who will more than disagree with that view. Everybody goes around with their guard partially up. After all, we DO look both ways before turning (or at least we should). We also (mostly) carry a certain amount of insurance. It's all about exposing ourselves to a certain amount of, but not too much, risk.

When it comes to online behavior, being anonymous means safety from any consequences of your actions. Those who advocate for violent attacks on others, either do so anonymously, or do so in a fashion that keeps them insulated from legal consequences. If people weren't anonymous online, you'd get a whole lot less of the former, but the latter would still be abundant.

----------


## sapator

I think we have discussed this before, not sure in what thread, maybe this one? Anywho we did not reach a verdict as everyone had an opinion of what hell-scape was or the amount of "freedom" .
As I'm not using any social media I had an initial opinion that there should be an amount of moderation but talking with people here my opinion change as to be no moderation whatsoever, except on spamming. If there are illegal acts in the media, the the should be called of by the laws of the country the media resides in and that would be helpful as the perpetrators could be caught. After all anonymity is not a thing. If requested the internet provider must give the identity of the "anonymous" people.
And concerning vbforums ,even if some believe other to be excentric of  irritating, I haven't seen someone deserving a ban (OK yoda, maybe at the end when he lost it but I wouldn't have banned him, it would have steamed off eventually) but it's not a communication platform after all so it can ban whoever it wants. But on most of the known platforms the 3 monkeys live well and proud just twisted oppositely.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Clearly that was a false flag set by Antifa super soldiers.


Alex Jones just verified your story.  So it's definitely true and I'll pass on the intel to QAnon.  Thanks for the heads up.  lol




> The funny things is that we all know that Twitter is still going to have rules about what can and can't be posted - Tripe Central does, after all, and people still get banned there - so if people go out of their way to push the limits of their new-found freedom on Twitter then they are more likely to cause those limits to become more restrictive.


It surprises me that people think that Musk is going to do exactly what he says.  He has just changed his statements on the whole Twitter deal more and once.  Basically he'll do what he says if it works to his interest, if it doesn't he'll change his stance.  That business/politics 101.

I've never used Twitter, probably never will.  But some people sure place a lot of importance on it.

Edit:  10min after posting I read this,

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...coun-rcna54662

Looks like Musk is retreating on his "lifting restrictions" claims.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

The social media companies use advertising as a revenue model. That has worked fairly well for a time, but has faltered of late. Twitter hasn't done all that well in that regard. If the space is flooded with vile content, advertisers will simply go elsewhere. Not many companies want to be associated with that, especially by accident. That would be interesting.

----------


## wes4dbt

> The social media companies use advertising as a revenue model. That has worked fairly well for a time, but has faltered of late. Twitter hasn't done all that well in that regard. If the space is flooded with vile content, advertisers will simply go elsewhere. Not many companies want to be associated with that, especially by accident. That would be interesting.


Been reading Musk want to take Twitter private.  So stocks will be taken off the market.  Would taking Twitter private change the business model??

----------


## Niya

> so if people go out of their way to push the limits of their new-found freedom on Twitter then they are more likely to cause those limits to become more restrictive.


If either Babylon Bee or Jordan Peterson gets to come back, I think it will satisfy those of that are hoping for Elon to be the man we want to believe he is. To those of us that really understand what this is all about will know from such actions that Twitter is finally heading in the right direction. I'm waiting to see.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Looks like Musk is retreating on his "lifting restrictions" claims.


I think that it's certain that he won't be as gung-ho about it as he claimed he would be. That's even more likely, given that he now has to try to find a way to recoup all the money he spent on it. Whatever he may say, his money is far more important to him than anyone else's freedom of expression. I understand that he's already trying to placate advertisers and if he feels the need to do that, he knows even the potential for a barrage of hate is going to hit Twitter and him financially.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

That's pretty much how I see it, too. Whatever his motivation for buying twitter was, running it into the ground probably wasn't it. Twitter always had a profitability challenge. It isn't as obviously monitizable as things like Facebook. Making it a cesspool isn't going to help that any.

----------


## OptionBase1

Musk just wanted everyone to have a chance to fling their poo into the cesspool.

I think all online communities of considerable size prove over and over again that the average person can't cope with the fact that other people disagree with them about things, regardless of how petty or unimportant those things are.  And I struggle to not enter the fray at times myself...

My usage of Twitter was limited to some parody accounts created and abandoned ages ago, and the occasional search for trending topics.  Twitter's popularity has long since peaked, and I'm pretty sure his original purchasing interest was completely impulsive and not at all serious, but it went far enough to where he likely couldn't legally back out.

That being said, to me, if there are things that I'm legally allowed to write on a sign and hold it on a street corner, I believe I should be allowed to post on Twitter.  And that probably covers a lot of crazy bad stuff, stuff that I wouldn't want to actually ever say or post or even think about. And other people should be able to voice their opposition in reply, downvote the eff out of me, block me, ignore me, call me out, etc., as much as they want.

I accept that other people will sometimes choose to do or say things that I would never dream of doing or saying.  We can't expect people to conform to our personal standards of decency.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> That being said, to me, if there are things that I'm legally allowed to write on a sign and hold it on a street corner, I believe I should be allowed to post on Twitter.


That would be fine if Twitter were public property, as a street corner is, but it's not. People could throw you out of a restaurant or the like for writing things they don't like on a sign. It's just that they couldn't have the government arrest you for it. The same goes for Twitter. Generally speaking, no one is being arrested for what they post on Twitter, but the proprietors can certainly tell them to leave. Right-wingers are always going on about the free market but now they get upset that the free market is apparently OK with curbing what they can say on a privately-owned property. Based on their own logic, if Twitter is so terrible then the market should raise alternatives to replace it, yet the specifically right-wing focused alternatives are failing the market test too. It's like they don't even believe their own BS.

----------


## Niya

> That being said, to me, if there are things that I'm legally allowed to write on a sign and hold it on a street corner, I believe I should be allowed to post on Twitter.  And that probably covers a lot of crazy bad stuff, stuff that I wouldn't want to actually ever say or post or even think about. And other people should be able to voice their opposition in reply, downvote the eff out of me, block me, ignore me, call me out, etc., as much as they want.


Bingo! Someone gets it.  :Thumb:

----------


## jmcilhinney

> That being said, to me, if there are things that I'm legally allowed to write on a sign and hold it on a street corner, I believe I should be allowed to post on Twitter.


Are there things that you're legally allowed to write on a sign and hold on a street corner that you're not allowed to post at VBF? If so, do you think that's OK? If so, why do you think that VBF should have more rights that Twitter?

----------


## TysonLPrice

> That would be fine if Twitter were public property, as a street corner is, but it's not. People could throw you out of a restaurant or the like for writing things they don't like on a sign. It's just that they couldn't have the government arrest you for it. The same goes for Twitter. Generally speaking, no one is being arrested for what they post on Twitter, but the proprietors can certainly tell them to leave. Right-wingers are always going on about the free market but now they get upset that the free market is apparently OK with curbing what they can say on a privately-owned property. Based on their own logic, if Twitter is so terrible then the market should raise alternatives to replace it, yet the specifically right-wing focused alternatives are failing the market test too. It's like they don't even believe their own BS.


And don't forget you agree to their terms when you join.  In other words you agreed ahead of time to behave.

----------


## Niya

> And don't forget you agree to their terms when you join.  In other words you agreed ahead of time to behave.


Terms are deliberately vague to allow as loose interpretation as possible which allows them to be weaponized against anyone regardless of what they say.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I'm pretty sure his original purchasing interest was completely impulsive and not at all serious, but it went far enough to where he likely couldn't legally back out.


That's my read too.  Musk has done some pretty cool stuff but, emotionally, he's a child playing with expensive toys.  It started as a publicity stunt and then he found he couldn't get out of it.




> if there are things that I'm legally allowed to write on a sign and hold it on a street corner, I believe I should be allowed to post on Twitter


Hard disagree.  Twitter is a privately owned entity whose proprietors have the right to refuse service to customers as they see fit.  Is that not the argument put forward by cake shop owners to refuse service to gay people?

I'm pretty sure someone will put forward the argument that Twitter should be held to additional standards due to it's size... and they're right.  But those standards should be set by the Government, not, for example, Ye West.  That's the nature of democracy vs anarchism.




> Terms are deliberately vague to allow as loose interpretation as possible


Correct.  That's why mods on forums typically issue warnings before bans.

----------


## dilettante

The advertisers really want the eyeballs of the masses, who have been suppressed or silenced if they didn't toe specific political lines.  It was never about "barrages of hate" because nobody but lunatics from across the spectrum are into that.

Some outfits like GM have made a big show of currying favor with the authoritarians but they can't really afford to alienate 99% of their market.  They are already in enough trouble for many other reasons.  It might be hilarious to see how hard they cry and beg if they are rejected when they want to resume advertising there again in a few days.

Private company, right?

Go ahead and ban Apple, Disney, Starbucks, etc. etc.

It might get quite amusing before the dust settles.

----------


## sapator

I couldn't give 2 rats of a tailbite for twitter but just to see why they blocked people, I went to read the general rules....And then I quit. It's pages within pages telling that our policy may change and be sure to accept our policy and our rules...I don't see that rules anywhere tho (granted I shuffled very quickly) and also gave me a headache. I saw however a note that said: "our rules my change an adopt" (what rules?..Anyway).
So it's a BS or rules.
The issue for me is people want to give out the opposite opinion (like the fakevid virus or whatever Niya imply by left-right fight ) and get blocked. It's private, sure but where else should they turn? They are only so much of media that you can directly post and be read by millions. In Greece we are more of a "closed circle" so I really don't need social media to influence. I mean 50 people around me will spread to 50x50 etc. We are only 9-10 mills. But in US with vast distances you might need the social media.
And let me ask this cuz I truly don't know. Was twitter leniency that bad from the start? Or did they attracted people with less rules at first and they (probably bought through stocks from the 3 companies that have most of the stock of major companies) became a shthole? I'm curious about that.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> They are only so much of media that you can directly post and be read by millions.


The right to speak freely does not include the right to be read by millions.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Terms are deliberately vague to allow as loose interpretation as possible which allows them to be weaponized against anyone regardless of what they say.


They have to be, actually. Language lawyering is a favorite pastime of a fair segment of the population. If you nail things down too specifically, you create much bigger loopholes than you realize. 

For example, there was a case that I read about. I don't think it was on here, but you never know. The idea was that a guy wanted to plant sunflowers on his property. The homeowners association said it was against the rules. He went to his attorney for advice. The lawyer looked over the HOA and found that it explicitly said that sunflowers were not acceptable. However, the lawyer also told him that whoever had written up the HOA had done a terrible job, probably to pad their hourly rate. They had listed a pretty long list of explicitly excluded plants. That was a mistake.

There is a ruling by the US Supreme Court that upholds the principle that, if you say no dogs, it means no dogs, but if you say no corgis, labs, Dalmatians, or pit bulls, then any other type of dog is explicitly allowed. In this case, the lawyer who wrote up the HOA had listed a bunch of plants to make it look like they had done more work, but by doing so, it meant that anything not on the list was explicitly allowed. The homeowner took that rule and surrounded his house with ugly stuff that was not prohibited. When the association complained, he won, and they removed the rule entirely, so he now has his sunflowers.

Similarly, if you try to pin down exactly what is not allowed, people will find ways around it, and if you are highly specific, then you are explicitly allowing everything you didn't think to prohibit. 

The clear local example is the profanity filter. All you have to do is type like Sapator, and you can get around it.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> It's private, sure but where else should they turn?


That doesn't matter. One could easily argue that it SHOULD matter, but it currently does not. Every form of mass communication is controlled by a private entity at some level. Offhand, I can't think of a time throughout history where that has not been the case, though perhaps somebody can point one out. The level of control has been different depending on the owner, but there has always been a private entity in control.

Does one have the right to be heard by the masses? The masses don't think so. They only want to hear some selection. That's why we have spam filters.

----------


## sapator

> They have to be, actually. Language lawyering is a favorite pastime of a fair segment of the population. If you nail things down too specifically, you create much bigger loopholes than you realize. 
> 
> .


So in a way, you are telling that people should cheat.




> The clear local example is the profanity filter. All you have to do is type like Sapator, and you can get around it


I'm not doing it for that though. I don't like cursing or reading cursing but there is no other way to characterize some circumstances, like our prime idiot. If I did not use that typing it would be like our *** is a *** and has done that and *** and that **** did **** while *** of with that ***

----------


## sapator

> Does one have the right to be heard by the masses? The masses don't think so.


Yes and no. Are you putting yourself with the masses? Why should we trust the masses? Clearly they are 95% stupidity lurking around if you go, duuuh, what the masses said, duhhh and someone can't decide by itself.
The few times masses are good is when someone high up control them for an outcome. Also the masses in Greece are against the war in Ukraine, so clearly masses are not taken in considerations here. So, whenever it suits someone or not not to apply to the masses is not a good argument for me.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> So in a way, you are telling that people should cheat.


Not exactly. More like I'm saying that people WILL cheat. In fact, from a biological perspective, it's almost an imperative. One might say that it's what the immune system is all about, but it's also what sex is about, at the genetic level. 

In the case of the immune system, some virus comes along and hijacks a functioning system for it's own ends. The immune system recognizes the virus and goes after it. Any virus that the immune system wipes out is ineffective, so the effective viruses are the ones that evade the immune system in different dimensions (either get in and out before the immune system can react, or tolerate the reaction). Of course, effective viruses create a selective pressure on the immune system to be more flexible in how it attacks the viruses, and so on.

In the case of sex, I'm reminded of a gene in mice that causes babies to be larger. It's advantageous for males to have fewer, larger, offspring, so that they are more likely to survive. This is especially true since a litter can consist of offspring from multiple fathers. Any one male wants to be sure that his offspring dominate. For the female, more offspring is better than larger offspring, since her genes are in all of them, while the males genes are in only some fraction of them. Therefore, the male mice have that gene to increase the size of the babies, while there is a gene the females can express that suppresses the gene the males have. Naturally, this starts up an arms race as the male would benefit from a gene that either amplifies the one gene, or suppresses the suppression of the female gene. And on it goes...

So, whenever you have a system, so long as there is advantage to be had by cheating, then cheating will happen. Rigidity is the friend of cheating.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> I'm not doing it for that though. I don't like cursing or reading cursing but there is no other way to characterize some circumstances, like our prime idiot.


You are the very finest proof that the statement I just quoted is wrong. You have managed to concoct entertaining, evocative, descriptions that are more effective than swearing and don't violate any rule.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Yes and no. Are you putting yourself with the masses? Why should we trust the masses? Clearly they are 95% stupidity lurking around if you go, duuuh, what the masses said, duhhh and someone can't decide by itself.
> The few times masses are good is when someone high up control them for an outcome. Also the masses in Greece are against the war in Ukraine, so clearly masses are not taken in considerations here. So, whenever it suits someone or not not to apply to the masses is not a good argument for me.


Actually, no without yes. JMC put it more succinctly, but you had said that there are very few media that you can be read by millions. What I'm saying is two-fold:

1) There has never been ANY that were not controlled by some entity in some fashion, so none have been truly free.
2) Everybody wants to be able to filter out what they consider spam, so there may be a right to speak, but there is no right to be heard.

----------


## sapator

Well, it would be preferable to filter what you don't want to read and who you would like to follow without be forced to lose information...OH, wait!
I don't agree with the cheating description. Although a very good throughout description it's not the subject fault as would be to be cheating knowing you are doing so.
Also thanks for the comment on swearing. I try to diverse the curses, sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't but as you say it's going far from swearing.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Yeah, sometimes their more creative than others. That's natural. Pretty amusing every time, though.

Technically, 'cheating' in this case is being used in the way it is used in The Prisoner's Dilemma. It all comes down to playing within the intended system, or finding a way around it. One should always be at least considering both paths.

----------


## dilettante

It should be interesting.  Maybe more people will be exposed to "news news" like the court cases New York City and State are losing hand over fist regarding pandemic restrictions that led to public employee firings.  Those pave the way for private company and employee organization lawsuits, and they all establish precedents that can be applied nationally.

Taking off the gags the way Musk is doing here may end by opening a lot of ears to abuses and excesses all throughout the system.

I surprised we aren't seeing cartoons of a little Elon pointing and declaring that "the Emperor has no clothes!"

----------


## FunkyDexter

> The advertisers really want the eyeballs of the masses, who have been suppressed or silenced if they didn't toe specific political lines


I think it's interesting to parse out the implications of the first and last bit of that sentence because there's a huge contradiction that's key to this debate.  You say the advertisers want the eyeballs of the masses, that's undoubtedly a fact.  I think we can also agree, as a fact, that social media platform want the advertiser's dollars.

However, you go on to say that those masses have had their voices suppressed if they don't toe a political line.  So you're saying social media is suppressing the voice of the mases who the advertisers wish to attract despite that being self destructive on its face.  There's an obvious contradiction there.

I'm being overly pedantic with your argument there but only to highlight a point that others have touched on.  For the platform, the advertiser is king.  For the advertiser, the user is king.  So the motivator for the platform is ultimately the user.  This begs questions: Why does Parler fail?  Why does Truth Social fail?  Why does the Right Stuff Dating fail?  The answer is obvious: despite the advocates of political extremes being very vocal, the vast majority of people exist somewhere in the centre and really aren't interested in being bombarded with hateful crap.  When that's the offering a social media site offer, we blow a large raspberry and take our eyeballs elsewhere.

(I'd have liked to include some far-left social media sites but I honestly can't think of any.  I can think of a lot of moderate and perhaps even mildly left leaning sites that the far right would like to portray as far left.)

So that leads to a secondary conclusion:  if you're looking at the landscape of the internet and finding there's no home for you to express your opinions, that's because your opinions are the extreme ones.  You're the person that the rest of society doesn't want to hear.  *This is not a political phenomenon, it's a social one.*




As for the future of Twitter, I think it'll be interesting to watch.  Will Musk truly champion free speech or not?  He's actually shown very little inclination to actually put his money where his mouth in support of it and has just fought a lengthy lawsuit to _avoid_ having to support it.  That should come as a pretty large red flag to anyone cleaving to that particular hope.  On the other hand, Twitter is interesting because Musk can afford for it to fail, he does not require it to be profit making, thus breaking the chain of motivation from the user to the platform.  So if Musk truly wants to champion free speech, he can afford to.  Of course, Trump has deep pockets too but it hasn't resulted in Truth Social being consequential.

A benefactor can champion free speech, definitely.  But if "free speech" is being used as a smokescreen for "hate speech", nobody will listen regardless of how deep the pockets of that benefactor are.

----------


## sapator

Food for thought, who Musk overturn on shareholding:
https://www.investopedia.com/article...lders-twtr.asp

----------


## dilettante

> However, you go on to say that those masses have had their voices suppressed if they don't toe a political line.  So you're saying social media is suppressing the voice of the mases who the advertisers wish to attract despite that being self destructive on its face.  There's an obvious contradiction there.


I don't believe most people think "Hey, I'll go to Twitter to see some advertising shoveled at me." Ads are purely parasitic and just tolerated at best... aside from those that might trigger an endorphin release in addicted consumers.  For example Apple customers.

To have more eyeballs to ensnare for ad exposure their has to be something there to draw the rubes in.  Anyone alienated by an atmosphere of selective censorship is lost revenue opportunity.

But I'm not a Twit so I'll admit I'm only guessing how it works.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I don't believe most people think "Hey, I'll go to Twitter to see some advertising shoveled at me."


Of course they don't and I don't see anyone even implying that they do. What people think is "Hey, I'll go to this social media site that I pay nothing to use". No one wants to pay directly for anything on the internet that they don't have to but it's still got to be paid for, so ads are a given. No ads? No Twitter or pretty much any other free social media. For the advertisers, there are two main considerations. Firstly, is the audience big enough or targeted enough to make it worthwhile for them to advertise there. Secondly, is the image that they want to portray for their brand going to be adversely affected by being associated with that platform. Even of the audience at Twitter is big, if Twitter becomes known as a place that promotes or even accepts antisemitism or other hate speech, whether rightly or wrongly, then that is going spook advertisers and the platform become unsustainable. That's obviously why Musk is trying to calm the waters with those advertisers as his #1 priority. The question is, how much "free speech" will be able to allow before too many of those advertisers go back on their word and will it be enough to placate those who think that he really cares about them personally.

----------


## dilettante

Nah, just a platform for othering complete with accusations, trials, and convictions for projected offenses, hmm?

I wasn't the one claiming that suppressed speech is irrelevant because advertising owns the platform.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Nah, just a platform for othering complete with accusations, trials, and convictions for projected offenses, hmm?


Yet you seem to be against ToS that help prevent at least some of that happening.



> I wasn't the one claiming that suppressed speech is irrelevant because advertising owns the platform.


Neither was anyone else.

----------


## dilettante

When did I complain about ToS?  That was never the issue, the problem was the slanted and selective application of the rules and making new ones up on the fly.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> When did I complain about ToS?


In the sentence immediately following that one.



> That was never the issue, the problem was the slanted and selective application of the rules and making new ones up on the fly.


That's the ToS, which are obliged to be non-specific for the reasons Shaggy explained above. I don't think their application is slanted and selective as some people like to think. For instance, I saw a headline recently about a TYT host being banned from Twitter for insulting Ben Shapiro. To hear some tell it, that sort of thing just doesn't happen. I think that a large part of the perception is that right-wingers whine about it louder when they get pulled up for breaking the rules. Just look at the rather-right-leaning-in-many-ways-and-more-so-since-they-pay-salary Jordan Peterson and his highly produced and lengthy video whining about "what rules" as though there was no way he could have known that his tweet was breaking the rules but still refused to delete it when he did know. It's funny that right-wingers like to claim that left-wingers play the victim when "we're the real victims" is basically the right-wing position on everything these days while the "centrist" position seems to be "right-wingers are the real victims and the crazy left will be coming for us next".

----------


## dilettante

We can probably save a lot of time.  The issue here is selective censorship, and it sounds like most of you are on board with that and for largely the same reasons.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Ads are purely parasitic


I know what you mean but I wouldn't have gone with parasitic.  Without adverts the platform simply exist so, rather than being parasitic, they are the life support system of the platform.  That said, I friggin' HATE adverts so I'm not unsympathetic to your position on this.  I find banners embedded banners etc OK but anything that pops out or gets between me and the content feels obnoxious.  Of course, you can take that to mean that the advertising I really want is the sort I don't even notice which is a contradiction in itself :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 




> I wasn't the one claiming that suppressed speech is irrelevant because advertising owns the platform.


That's not my position.  1. Suppression of speech isn't irrelevant but rather inevitable in an advertising driven model because 2. it's not the advertisers that own the platform, it's the users.  The advertisers will follow the users to whichever platform they frequent and will abandon any platform the users abandon.  It is you and me that own the eyeballs the advertisers will pursue.

The examples of platforms that have catered to hate speech in the guise of free speech are manifold and universal failures from a business perspective.  They seem to be universally right wing orientated but I believe you would see exactly the same if similar sites were being set up by the left.  That's because it's not a political issue, it's social.  It's not the companies or the political parties that want the voices of hate speech supressed, it's the public.  The inconvenient truth is that the people who are arguing that people should be allowed to say hateful things are invariably the people who want to say hateful things... the problem they face is that the rest of us don't want to listen.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> The issue here is selective censorship, and it sounds like most of you are on board with that and for largely the same reasons.


I'm OK with certain things being censored and others not. I think the vast majority of people are, although exactly where they draw the line may vary. I guess the issue here is that the rules are being applied based on content while others think they are being applied based identity or political position/ideology. I'm seeing the claims but not really the evidence.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> We can probably save a lot of time.  The issue here is selective censorship, and it sounds like most of you are on board with that and for largely the same reasons.


Everybody is on board with that. If you think you are an exception to that, you're lying to yourself. If you think you aren't lying to yourself, then you're just delusional.

There is a line that every person will not cross. It's a different line for each person, but there's always a line.

----------


## techgnome

> I'm OK with certain things being censored and others not. I think the vast majority of people are, although exactly where they draw the line may vary.


To borrow a quote:
I couldn't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it.

-tg

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I was thinking of that quote, as well. That quote was in regards to pornography, but it applies to everything else controversial, as well.

----------


## TysonLPrice

OK....here we go:

That followed the Network Contagion Research Institutea social media research firmreporting that use of the N-word spiked 500% on Twitter in the 12 hours after Musk took control.

https://twitter.com/ncri_io/status/1586007698910646272

Anti-Semitic memes also jumped, and so did the word plandemicshorthand for a conspiracy theory in which elites are using the pandemic to gain power and profit off vaccinesaccording to Dataminr, which also analyzes social media, Bloomberg reported.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> That quote was in regards to pornography


The first time I heard it was in response to terrorism after 9/11.




> shorthand for a conspiracy theory


And Musk has already tweeted (and deleted) that the attack on Paul Pelosi was actually a lover's quarrel and not the result of 5 years of demonisation of Nancy by MAGA republicans.  So it looks like he's totally down with supporting free speech... by which I mean dangerous and hateful misinformation designed to foment violence.

----------


## sapator

So what?
Did they ruin anyone's day?
It was bound to happen as also the article states:
Evidence suggests that bad actors are trying to test the limits on @Twitter .

----------


## TysonLPrice

> So what?
> Did they ruin anyone's day?
> It was bound to happen as also the article states:
> Evidence suggests that bad actors are trying to test the limits on @Twitter .


Could you share that evidence with us?

----------


## sapator

Lol.
I quoted your tweet dude.

----------


## Niya

> (like the fakevid virus or whatever Niya imply by left-right fight )


Let me clarify what is actually going on. Since the world was shocked by the election of Donald Trump as President of the US, it directly led to the rapid evolution of the the left from a fairly benign even if slightly annoying group of people to an evil cult of degenerate lying authoritarians that seem to believe it's their god given right to force their cult-like beliefs upon the world. The have since largely taken over the social media space and the nearly all of traditional media like Hollywood and news outlets. They have had free reign for some time but people are finally catching on to what left has become and they are fighting back. Elon Musk buying Twitter is just one event that resulted from the counter-offensive against the radical left. There will be more counter offensive events like this in the near future.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> There will be more counter offensive events like this in the near future.


There's some wishful thinking mixed with a fair amount of self-deception. The counter offensives have been going on since perhaps the 1800s. They did fairly well for several decades, but have been losing ground fairly steadily, with an acceleration in the late 60s, and perhaps again in the 90s to present. 

Keep in mind that you don't have, or need, a counter offensive, when you are winning. Therefore, if you have a counter offensive, then you are losing, by definition. Whether or not a counter offensive will work is always in doubt until after the fact. When it comes to a culture war, 'after the fact' means decades.

The wishful thinking is that you know what Musk is going to do, and what the results will be.

----------


## wes4dbt

> a fairly benign even if slightly annoying group of people to an evil cult of degenerate lying authoritarians that seem to believe it's their god given right to force their cult-like beliefs upon the world.


Far left/far right, when you go far enough either way that's the group of people you get.




> taken over the social media space and the nearly all of traditional media like Hollywood and news outlets.


FOX News has the largest viewership in the US.  You think they are Left leaning.

----------


## Niya

> Far left/far right, when you go far enough either way that's the group of people you get.


True.




> FOX News has the largest viewership in the US.  You think they are Left leaning.


It's still only one network and it doesn't have the prestige that a far left news network like CNN has. FOX News was not too long ago, the network known for promoting the ideas of far right wackos and nutjobs, now they are among the few sane voices in a sea of insanity. Perhaps they have always been and I was just too brainwashed to notice. I wish I paid more attention to Fox News back in the day instead of outright dismissing them as the news network of crazy people.

----------


## sapator

In Greece is a little different.
There was left and right government since 1974 (after the end of the coup)  but in reality there was always left aligned after 1996 since a left traitor PM agent of Germany took control (you would think right but,no). In reality that party of (let's "swear") born out of an egg cell in and egg cell of evil twins of Matryoshka, traitors have since taken over public and private sector places and tyrannize people. Hopefully with the "covid" and "energy crisis" people woke up but will see what elections will bring.

----------


## Niya

> There's some wishful thinking mixed with a fair amount of self-deception. The counter offensives have been going on since perhaps the 1800s. They did fairly well for several decades, but have been losing ground fairly steadily, with an acceleration in the late 60s, and perhaps again in the 90s to present. 
> 
> Keep in mind that you don't have, or need, a counter offensive, when you are winning. Therefore, if you have a counter offensive, then you are losing, by definition. Whether or not a counter offensive will work is always in doubt until after the fact. When it comes to a culture war, 'after the fact' means decades.
> 
> The wishful thinking is that you know what Musk is going to do, and what the results will be.


We are kind of talking about the same thing and kind of not. Unfortunately, I've learned that trying to explain the culture war to those unaware is futile as it just leads to conflict and further misunderstanding. Instead, I'm going to list out other events that could be considered counter offensives to the far left radicals I'm talking about. The list is in no particular order, I list them as I recall them.

 It started with Donald Trump becoming the US president. The massive rise in popularity of Jordan Peterson. Elon Musk buying Twitter. The massive rise in popularity of Andrew Tate. The cultural relevance of Ron DeSantis Disney losing tax benefits in Florida.(I think, haven't followed up on these events. Don't know if it went through or not.) Fox News rise in prestige and viewership. The massive decline of the valuation of Meta(this one is only partially related to the culture war) Tulsi Gabbard leaving the Democrat party. The massive rise in popularity of Joe Rogan. The cultural relevance of someone like Alex Jones. The massive rise in popularity and cultural relevance of men's right groups. The explosion of mass shooter events. Alternative media and economic systems becoming more popular. Examples include Rumble as a foil to YouTube or TruthSocial as a foil to Twitter. Andrew Tate even went so far as to start his own bank. The massive rise in popularity of Ben Shapiro. The increasing cultural relevancy of Candace Owens. The massive rise and success of Kevin Samuels and the enduring life of his message even after his death. Italy electing a right wing head of state for the first time since Mussolini.
.
All of these things are directly related in one way or another to the war against the radical left's despotism and degeneracy. Unfortunately like I said, the culture war just cannot be explained to those who don't see it. Either someone figures it out or they don't. However, there's more than enough in that list for any person to figure out exactly what is going on provided they put the effort and approach with an open mind. Even I was blind to all of this once back when the left was less abrasive and still relatively reasonable but they over-played their hand by pushing too far and forced my eyes open.

----------


## wes4dbt

Yeah very massive, massive, massive, massive.  lol

But not really.  Just the typical back and forth.  Plus the usual extremist or con artist milking the dissatisfied. 




> Unfortunately like I said, the culture war just cannot be explained to those who don't see it.


I think the more accurate wording would be, "Unfortunately, anyone who doesn't see things my way is wrong or ignorant."

----------


## Niya

> I think the more accurate wording would be, "Unfortunately, anyone who doesn't see things my way is wrong or ignorant."


This makes no sense. I see it, Dilettante sees it, Olaf sees it, Jordan Peterson sees it, Andrew Tate sees it, Tulsi Gabbarb sees it, Candace Owens sees it, Ben Shapiro sees it, Matt Walsh sees it. It is not "my way". It is an intangible thing that just is and some of us see it and some of us don't. Think of it like colour. The blind don't see it and the sighted do. Colour isn't "seeing it my way"...it just is. Either you can perceive it or you can't.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> [*] The massive decline of the valuation of Meta(this one is only partially related to the culture war)


This has nothing to do with culture war in any way. Kids are moving away from it, and Apple has blocked tracking, which clobbered their earnings. So, whether you look at their decline based on users or market capitalization, it has nothing to do with any kind of culture war. Kids aren't moving away from social media, they're just going to different platforms...something that has happened to everything since trends were tracked: What your parents are doing is not cool, so do something else. FB has just been around long enough that old people are using it. 

The fact that they can't monetize their advertising quite as well as they used to has also hurt market share, but they are coming up with alternative means to identify and target ads, which was what they were really selling. If those alternative means work, they'll be recovering some market share. Not all of it, though, since their growth is in relatively poor countries, while they are declining in rich countries. They know why, though, and it isn't culture wars. It's Tik-Tok, and so they are trying to launch a competitor.


```
[*] The cultural relevance of someone like Alex Jones.
```

The guy who has lost a couple cases recently because he is flat out peddling lies? Yeah, that's cultural relevance alright. It reinforces the perception that the right is spiraling into delusional thinking. Their icons can't support their statements in court. Trump couldn't find a lawyer who would say that there was fraud in court. One after another, they stated that there was no fraud...at least in court. They might have said other things when they didn't have to back their statements with evidence, but when they did...no fraud. 



> [*] The explosion of mass shooter events.


Really? How do you figure that? You can find a few that are racially motivated. You can find a few that are religiously motivated (on one side or another), and you can find several that appear to be related mostly to severe depression (seems like most of the school shootings end up stemming from this). So, who are the culture warriors you are supporting?





> Unfortunately like I said, the culture war just cannot be explained to those who don't see it. Either someone figures it out or they don't.


Yeah, that's the tinfoil hat view of the world. Sorry you joined their ranks.

----------


## wes4dbt

> This makes no sense. I see it, Dilettante sees it, Olaf sees it, Jordan Peterson sees it, Andrew Tate sees it, Tulsi Gabbarb sees it, Candace Owens sees it, Ben Shapiro sees it, Matt Walsh sees it. It is not "my way". It is an intangible thing that just is and some of us see it and some of us don't. Think of it like colour. The blind don't see it and the sighted do. Colour isn't "seeing it my way"...it just is. Either you can perceive it or you can't.


It makes perfect sense.  Everyone has a view of the current culture.  If they choose to think about it.  Everyone posting here "sees it".  We're not blind to it.  We just got a different view of it.  But instead conceding our right to have a different view you want imply we're incapable of "seeing it".  When what's happening is we are disagreeing with your views and justifications.  We can see just fine.

----------


## Niya

> This has nothing to do with culture war in any way. Kids are moving away from it....


That's why I said partially.




> [*] The cultural relevance of someone like Alex Jones.[/CODE]
> 
> The guy who has lost a couple cases recently because he is flat out peddling lies? Yeah, that's cultural relevance alright.


Alex Jones would have remained confined to the fringes where he belongs but thanks to the massive void created by the radical left, Alex Jones was able to become a talking point in mainstream discourse. If people weren't so desperate for voices of reason because of leftist dominance and despotism, Alex Jones would not have been on blip on anyone's radar. 




> Yeah, that's the tinfoil hat view of the world. Sorry you joined their ranks.


I prefer to think of it as living in the real world.




> Really? How do you figure that? You can find a few that are racially motivated. You can find a few that are religiously motivated (on one side or another), and you can find several that appear to be related mostly to severe depression (seems like most of the school shootings end up stemming from this). So, who are the culture warriors you are supporting?


That's too long to get into and I've lost interest in trying to explain. There's just too much to explain and a lot of room for misunderstanding.




> So, who are the culture warriors you are supporting?


Andrew Tate tops my list but also Matt Walsh, Candace Owens and even though Ben Shapiro is a white supremacist, I cannot deny that I agree with a lot of what he says so I guess he has my support too.

And no, Alex Jones is not one of my favorites. Even I think he is crazy but I'll say this I will gladly take his crazy over leftist crazy any day of the week.

----------


## Niya

> Everyone posting here "sees it".


No. Dilettante sees it and I know Olaf sees it, at least to some degree. Baka and Eduardo see it to some degree. The rest of you don't see it at all. Unfortunately there is no combination of words I can use to convince you. Try to imagine what it would be like explaining colour to someone who was born blind. That is what it is like for me discussing such things with many of you or other leftists in general. There is just no way to make someone see, not with words at least. I've tried and failed and given up on that.

----------


## wes4dbt

> And no, Alex Jones is not one of my favorites. Even I think he is crazy but I'll say this I will gladly take his crazy over leftist crazy any day of the week.


He's not crazy.  He's a morally bankrupt con man willing to say anything for a dollar.  And he has made over 100 million doing it.  You think he is doing it for some political/social reason?  So you prefer people willing to rob the poor and dissatisfied.

----------


## Niya

> So you prefer people willing to rob the poor and dissatisfied.


Leftists are worse than Alex Jones in my opinion. I'd rather him than them if I had to choose.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Leftists are worse than Alex Jones in my opinion. I'd rather him than them if I had to choose.


Unfortunately, I believe you.

----------


## Niya

> Unfortunately, I believe you.


What do you believe? That's leftists are worse? Or that I'd prefer Alex Jones over them?

----------


## Niya

> He's not crazy.  He's a morally bankrupt con man willing to say anything for a dollar. And he has made over 100 million doing it.


I'd also like to point out that I tend to avoid forming my opinions of people based on nebulous statements like this. Calling someone "morally bankrupt" is more of an opinion than a fact as morality itself is nebulous. What might be morally right to one person could be evil to another. Instead, I listen to what they have to say and form my own opinions. 

I tried to listen to Alex Jones once, just to hear what he had to say and I formed the opinion that he is crazy. He makes a lot of bold claims without setting them upon a sensible foundation, similar to what leftists do. Basically he just says whatever he wants without providing a clear and reasonable argument as to why he says such things. I just think the man is nuts. I make no judgements as to whether he is good or evil nor do I care that he has made money off it.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I make no judgements as to whether he is good or evil nor do I care that he has made money off it.


lol,  thanks that brightened my day.

You make no judgements about people.  That all I ever see you do.  Even people you've never met or know anything about.  You've judged 95% of people to be idiots.   




> Calling someone "morally bankrupt" is more of an opinion than a fact


Of coarse it's an opinion, that's all any of this is.  Well, he has been found guilty in a court of law of knowingly making false statement.  I guess that's fact.  As for Left/Right/good/bad, it just opinion.

----------


## wes4dbt

> What do you believe? That's leftists are worse? Or that I'd prefer Alex Jones over them?


Now your just trolling.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I'm just worried that you might start creating an AI girlfriend.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I'm just worried that you might start creating an AI girlfriend.


Ha,

Or are you trying to use reverse psychology????

----------


## FunkyDexter

I'll add some extras to your list:-
The plan to kidnap Gretchen WhitmerThe violent insurrection on Jan 6th in an attempt to reverse a legitimate electionThe attack of Nancy Pelosi's 82 year old husband with a hammer and zip tiesThe intimidation of legitimate voters at legal drop boxesThe intimidation of election officials

I know that you're _trying_ to make the argument that the rise of extremism on the Right is somehow the fault of the Left but the argument you are _actually_ making is that elements of the Right, having failed to make their argument on its intellectual merits, are turning to extremism, denial of reality and political violence.

I actually agree that the rise in extremism we see on the Right is largely a reaction to the traction of Left but, frankly, extremism we see on the Left is a usually reaction to traction on the Right.  This cuts both ways and really doesn't stand as the anti Left argument you want it to.  It's an anti extremism argument, I'll give it that.

I'd also point out that "Look at what you made me do" is a gaslighting argument typically deployed by domestic abusers.

----------


## Niya

> I'll add some extras to your list:-
> The plan to kidnap Gretchen WhitmerThe violent insurrection on Jan 6th in an attempt to reverse a legitimate electionThe attack of Nancy Pelosi's 82 year old husband with a hammer and zip tiesThe intimidation of legitimate voters at legal drop boxesThe intimidation of election officials
> 
> I know that you're _trying_ to make the argument that the rise of extremism on the Right is somehow the fault of the Left but the argument you are _actually_ making is that elements of the Right, having failed to make their argument on its intellectual merits, are turning to extremism, denial of reality and political violence.
> 
> I actually agree that the rise in extremism we see on the Right is largely a reaction to the traction of Left but, frankly, extremism we see on the Left is a usually reaction to traction on the Right.  This cuts both ways and really doesn't stand as the anti Left argument you want it to.  It's an anti extremism argument, I'll give it that.
> 
> I'd also point out that "Look at what you made me do" is a gaslighting argument typically deployed by domestic abusers.


I find it very disturbing that you would classify the backlash against the madness of the left as "extremism".




> I'd also point out that "Look at what you made me do" is a gaslighting argument typically deployed by domestic abusers.


In other words, we should just be quiet and do as we're told. The Germans did that when Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany. Remember what happened next?




> You make no judgements about people.  That all I ever see you do.  Even people you've never met or know anything about.  You've judged 95% of people to be idiots.


If someone allows themselves to be convinced that men can get pregnant, then they are an idiot. There's just no other way to spin that. It's really that simple. The leftist cult preaches a lot of nonsense that are unjustifiable as anything other than stupidity.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I find it very disturbing that you would classify the backlash against the madness of the left as "extremism".


You don't think that attacking people with hammers, attempting to abduct government officials and violent insurrection qualify as extremism?




> In other words, we should just be quiet and do as we're told.


Not what I said.




> The Germans did that when Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany.


Godwins Law.  What you are facing is not comparable to the persecution faced by the Jews in 1930s Germany.




> The leftist cult


Be very careful about the language you choose to use.  Your leash is currently shorter than most and if I feel you're being inflammatory I'm going to act sooner rather than later.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> If someone allows themselves to be convinced that men can get pregnant, then they are an idiot.


I always find this argument rather silly and it's really just a strawman. Do you think that Elliot Page can get pregnant? I would wager that you do, and I would wager that you don't think that that makes you an idiot. The people you are talking about consider Elliot Page to be a man and it is men like him - trans men - who they are correctly convinced can get pregnant. The people you are talking are convinced all the same people can pregnant as you are. They don't think that someone born biologically male can pregnant any more than you do. If you have an issue with those people then you issue is with the definition they use for "man". You don't say it like that because quibbling over definitions is something that all sorts of people do over all sorts of things and that doesn't seem nearly crazy enough.

I recently heard Ben Shapiro say that a significant proportion of the population believed that they were a member of the opposite sex. This is blatantly false. Given that Shapiro is an outspoken transphobe and has been for some time, you'd expect that he would have a clear understanding of what he was arguing against. This statement makes it clear that either he doesn't understand what he's arguing against, even after all this time, or that he's a liar. Given that Shapiro is not an idiot and based on what else I've heard from him, it's pretty obviously the latter and this is just standard fare from the anti-trans brigade. Given that your gender identity not matching your biological sex is the very definition of being transgender, every transgender person must acknowledge their biological sex by definition. He can't accept that though, because then he wouldn't be able to paint transgender people as denying the reality of biological sex, which they clearly do not.

Basically, if you've got evidence that gender identity is not a real thing then you would present that. Lying about what transgender people and their allies believe just demonstrates you don't have such evidence. At best, you can claim that the word "gender" should be synonymous with "sex". Even if we were to grant you that, what we are calling "gender" now doesn't go away. It's the same argument just with different words and you still don't have any more evidence. It's kinda funny because, as an atheist, I see exactly the same thing with theists arguing about definitions. I say that I'm an atheist because I lack a belief if the existence of any gods and they often insist that "atheist" does and can only mean "one who believes there are no gods" and they'll spend a lot of energy on that. It's pointless though, because if I were to grant them that then all that means is that I'm not an atheist but I still don't believe in their god, so they've achieved nothing. If they had evidence that their god existed then they'd provide that instead of quibbling about definitions. Same goes here.

Before someone else brings it up, I know that some people like to claim that transgender people are akin to theists in that they both claim a personal experience that others can't verify. That's true as far as it goes but there's a big difference. Transgender people are only making a claim about themselves and not anything external to themselves, while theists are making a claim about something external to themselves. Theists claim knowledge of entities beyond themselves and often in direct contradiction with other theists - even those who believe in the same god(s) - while transgender people only make claims about themselves that seem to be consistent amongst pretty much all transgender people. I'm OK accepting that a particular theist has had a particular experience, but what they claim that experience means is another matter altogether. I certainly don't have to accept that it means that there's beardy sky wizard that created universe and hates butt sex, or any of the other conclusions that theists draw, most often before they have their experiences and after they've been told what conclusion to draw by other theists. Transgender people generally say that they knew there was something there even before they had any idea that being transgender was a thing and their descriptions of being transgender seem pretty consistent. For someone else to deny that their experience is real is the height of arrogance and that is the real denial of reality.

----------


## Niya

> I always find this argument rather silly and it's really just a strawman. Do you think that Elliot Page can get pregnant? I would wager that you do, and I would wager that you don't think that that makes you an idiot. The people you are talking about consider Elliot Page to be a man and it is men like him - trans men - who they are correctly convinced can get pregnant. The people you are talking are convinced all the same people can pregnant as you are. They don't think that someone born biologically male can pregnant any more than you do. If you have an issue with those people then you issue is with the definition they use for "man". You don't say it like that because quibbling over definitions is something that all sorts of people do over all sorts of things and that doesn't seem nearly crazy enough.


Elliot Page is just as much a man as I am a cat. Living her life as a man doesn't make her one. Womanhood and manhood are not a costumes that you can change at will. That being said, I have nothing against her lifestyle choices nor do I see a problem with referring to her as a man publicly as a matter of respect for her choices. There's no reason not to be courteous and respect her wishes so long as she isn't hurting anyone. I'm just not willing to deny the reality that she is in fact a woman.




> I recently heard Ben Shapiro say that a significant proportion of the population believed that they were a member of the opposite sex. This is blatantly false.


How would you characterize this "belief" as he called it?




> Transgender people generally say that they knew there was something there even before they had any idea that being transgender was a thing and their descriptions of being transgender seem pretty consistent. For someone else to deny that their experience is real is the height of arrogance and that is the real denial of reality.


There are people in prisons who have committed murders and made claims they did it because they were possessed by demons or compelled by God. We should free those people since it's arrogant to deny their experience was real.

----------


## Niya

Also, jmc, I want to ask you something. Your answer to this question would help me understand you a lot better. Lets say you're single and you met a woman that checks all your boxes in terms of the things you find attractive, whether it's her personality, looks or both. Lets say you're willing to go home with her and she told you that she was born a man and transitioned. Would you still go home with her? My answer would be no but what would you do?

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I would answer with: I'd need a lot more information. I'd feel that was uncharted waters that I didn't understand. My response to that is usually to investigate...unless I don't have time, which in this case we're pretty much assuming is not the case. So, I'd need a lot more information.

One thing I'd point out is that male/female is a pretty binary situation. As with everything else in biology, we aren't all that binary. We may not even be fixed into one state or another, as some recent advances have shown. After all, we all create the same hormones, just in different quantities. But even that is 'on average'. 

One might get to chromosomes, with X and Y, but that's misleading, as well. For one thing, we know there are more combinations than that, and the Y chromosome has fairly little on it, whereas everybody has an X....though fish can be created without one, so I'm not totally certain that's true for people, either. 

I was listening to an interview with Anthony Hopkins about creating the Hannibal Lecter character. He felt that the person was intensely certain that he was right. That led to a quote about Hitler having lots of books, but reading none of them because he felt that he was already right and had nothing to more to learn.

The point was: When you're sure you are right, you are most likely to make a mistake.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> There are people in prisons who have committed murders and made claims they did it because they were possessed by demons or compelled by God. We should free those people since it's arrogant to deny their experience was real.


If a trans person committed murder and said they did it because they were trans we would still lock them up.  Acknowledging somebodies experience does not require us to ignore their crimes.

----------


## Niya

> I would answer with: I'd need a lot more information. I'd feel that was uncharted waters that I didn't understand. My response to that is usually to investigate...unless I don't have time, which in this case we're pretty much assuming is not the case. So, I'd need a lot more information.


I find this answer very interesting. Most people would say no without thinking twice, myself included. 




> I was listening to an interview with Anthony Hopkins about creating the Hannibal Lecter character. He felt that the person was intensely certain that he was right. That led to a quote about Hitler having lots of books, but reading none of them because he felt that he was already right and had nothing to more to learn.
> 
> The point was: When you're sure you are right, you are most likely to make a mistake.


Unlike Hitler, I have listened to the "other side" and came to the conclusion that these people are quite mad.




> One thing I'd point out is that male/female is a pretty binary situation. As with everything else in biology, we aren't all that binary. We may not even be fixed into one state or another, as some recent advances have shown. After all, we all create the same hormones, just in different quantities. But even that is 'on average'.
> 
> One might get to chromosomes, with X and Y, but that's misleading, as well. For one thing, we know there are more combinations than that, and the Y chromosome has fairly little on it, whereas everybody has an X....though fish can be created without one, so I'm not totally certain that's true for people, either.


You are quite correct here. Unfortunately for the purposes of discussions like this, it's better to pretend that we are still primitive humans with no understanding of these things. It is simply not practical for us to live our day to day lives trying to rigorously test everything that becomes a cause for disagreement, especially when our knowledge is still very much incomplete. At some point we just have to go with our gut and choose a side. That's all any of us can really do at the end of the day.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Would you still go home with her?


My answer would be, I don't know, it's a hypothetical that has never come up.

It's sort of similar to something a gay freind of mine always says.  Tell him you're straight and he'll respond, "You just haven't met the right guy yet" and he's basically right.  Love isn't rational and can change in the moment.




> it's better to pretend that we are still primitive humans


That strikes me as a bad position.

----------


## Niya

> If a trans person committed murder and said they did it because they were trans we would still lock them up.  Acknowledging somebodies experience does not require us to ignore their crimes.


You missed the point.

Demon possession and gender dysphoria are both 100% subjective experiences. Yet we treat them unequally. If we did treat them equally then we would be forced to acknowledged that a demon possessed murderer is innocent as it was the demon that committed the crime and not the man. Why are these two subjective ideas treated so differently is the question I was getting at.

----------


## sapator

From now on, please consider my gender as a KILLER SPACE ROBOT!!!

----------


## FunkyDexter

> we would be forced to acknowledged that a demon possessed murderer is innocent


Try that defence in court and see how far you get.  Indeed, Alex Jones recently tried the equivalent of that defence.  He argued that he genuinely believed Sandy Hook was a false flag.  It didn't prevent him from being found guilty.  That our legal system does not disregard guilt due to belief is actually a fundamental part of it.

----------


## Arnoutdv

Maybe some interesting reading material about gender ideas by the native Americans and thus not being some modern woke sentiment:
https://www.ihs.gov/lgbt/health/twospirit/
https://indiancountrytoday.com/archi...t-five-genders

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> From now on, please consider my gender as a KILLER SPACE ROBOT!!!


I always have.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> I find this answer very interesting. Most people would say no without thinking twice, myself included.


I'm not particularly shallow. I find lots of women attractive to look at, but I have to know and like the person, too, so you've kind of proposed a scenario where I got to know the person well enough that I really liked them, already, at which point...well, there's a foundation on which to have a conversation.






> Unlike Hitler, I have listened to the "other side" and came to the conclusion that these people are quite mad.


Yes, and that's what's different. We all feel that way, and are still talking. I don't think anybody is changing their minds. Perhaps not even a little bit, but we're still talking. 





> You are quite correct here. Unfortunately for the purposes of discussions like this, it's better to pretend that we are still primitive humans with no understanding of these things. It is simply not practical for us to live our day to day lives trying to rigorously test everything that becomes a cause for disagreement, especially when our knowledge is still very much incomplete. At some point we just have to go with our gut and choose a side. That's all any of us can really do at the end of the day.


Yes, and you know what our guts are full of...

The point I made earlier applies here, though it can probably be simplified. We may well have to choose a side, but we should always keep in mind that we are wrong to some extent. We're just (I have to learn to stop using words with the letter J, or get the darn key fixed on this computer, it took me something like three tries to type that word) the blind men and the elephant, and as somebody on here said...you'd better hope that's the trunk.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Maybe some interesting reading material about gender ideas by the native Americans and thus not being some modern woke sentiment:
> https://www.ihs.gov/lgbt/health/twospirit/
> https://indiancountrytoday.com/archi...t-five-genders


I have heard that there was something like this in Pakistan, historically, and hints of it in China. 

However, back in what was probably the 90s, after the fall of the USSR, somebody noted that the evangelical movement had started focusing on gay rights. It was an issue they had largely ignored, and were no longer ignoring. The point they were making is that they are defined by their enemies. They needed somebody to fight against. Avowedly atheistic communism had been an excellent foil, but with it's demise, they needed something new. 

It (doggone it, I wanted to use a J word) seems like the right mostly wants to oppose somebody, these days. They don't seem to be FOR anything, (doggone it) JJJJJJust looking for something to be against, and picking on increasingly marginal groups as they lose fight after fight against more mainstream groups.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Yeah, that was some interesting reading.  So two spirits is kinda, sorta similar to our non-binary?  Except not quite, it's people who see themselves as both genders at the same time rather than existing along a spectrum?

----------


## sapator

Let me be clear here. I'm not in par with Niya rampage on the left right up down (from time to time) but haven't you figured out that he was setting a trap for some of you and you lost the argument?
...No?
It sums up as this, according to your answers:
Will you go with a sheep? No.
Will you go out with a transgender sheep? It depends.
That was completely DR Sbaitso. That was defending ideas for the sake of defending. I don't know if he did it intentionally but it was a checkmate.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Let me be clear here. I'm not in par with Niya rampage on the left right up down (from time to time) but haven't you figured out that he was setting a trap for some of you and you lost the argument?
> ...No?
> It sums up as this, according to your answers:
> Will you go with a sheep? No.
> Will you go out with a transgender sheep? It depends.
> That was completely DR Sbaitso. That was defending ideas for the sake of defending. I don't know if he did it intentionally but it was a checkmate.


Only if you equate a sheep and a transgendered person as equals.  Let's try and keep our comparisons in the same species.

In reality it doesn't matter what our answer was.  Whether I find someone attractive or not doesn't change who they are, what they feel or their right to feel that way.

----------


## sapator

You are missing the point but I'm 99,9% sure that no one that got Niyaed will admit what took place.
And that was the last I have to say on the matter.

----------


## dilettante

FBI Whistleblower: Capitol Police Letting Peaceful Protesters Inside Building On January 6 "Smelled Like Entrapment"




> SHARYL ATTKISSON: Now in the intervening time, theres a lot that came out with the trials of those individuals. What came out was that the FBI was driving the kidnapping plot through multiple informants and undercover agents. They included the militia group leader, Dan Chappel, an FBI informant who took the lead in plotting Whitmers kidnapping and offered up a credit card to buy bullets and supplies paid for by the FBI.


More there including video.

Even with the massive ongoing effort to censor and then push "alternative facts" around events many facts are still out there to be found and the controversy still is not settled (er, stifled).

----------


## Niya

> Try that defence in court and see how far you get.  Indeed, Alex Jones recently tried the equivalent of that defence.  He argued that he genuinely believed Sandy Hook was a false flag.  It didn't prevent him from being found guilty.  That our legal system does not disregard guilt due to belief is actually a fundamental part of it.


So legally speaking Elliot Page is not a man just because she believes she is. Tell me, does it work like that in this case as well?

----------


## Niya

> I'm not particularly shallow. I find lots of women attractive to look at, but I have to know and like the person, too, so you've kind of proposed a scenario where I got to know the person well enough that I really liked them, already, at which point...well, there's a foundation on which to have a conversation.


This kind of sounds like a yes to me. In other words, the later revelation that she was born a man would no bearing on your decision. This is what I find interesting since that bit of information would matter more than anything to most people.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Will you go with a sheep? No.
> Will you go out with a transgender sheep? It depends.
> That was completely DR Sbaitso. That was defending ideas for the sake of defending. I don't know if he did it intentionally but it was a checkmate.


First off, it was a question and it got an answer. I don't see how it proves anything one way or another. If it was a trap, you'd have to explain that quite a bit better. After all, a trap is suggesting that it's something that you actually notice, care about, or proves something in some way. That did none of the above.

But more importantly, why is it that the right immediately goes to livestock? They used the same argument about gay marriage, and did so quite publicly. It was always, "what would stop me from marrying X", where X is always some type of livestock. That was a frequently repeated public line. What is it with you folk and animals? Two consenting adults is quite a bit different from one and something that can't give consent one way or another.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> This kind of sounds like a yes to me. In other words, the later revelation that she was born a man would no bearing on your decision. This is what I find interesting since that bit of information would matter more than anything to most people.


Not NO bearing, but it would certainly be something that would have to be discussed at some length.

It's somewhat irrelevant, though. I've never been part of any casual hookup scene. I've never been to bed with a woman I hadn't known for enough time for the situation you describe to even be a possibility. I know myself. I know what I want and don't want. No two people fit all that well together, and I'm not into fooling myself. If it's not a good fit out of bed, it doesn't matter what it's like in bed, cause I won't be there.

----------


## wes4dbt

> FBI Whistleblower: Capitol Police Letting Peaceful Protesters Inside Building On January 6 "Smelled Like Entrapment"
> 
> 
> 
> More there including video.
> 
> Even with the massive ongoing effort to censor and then push "alternative facts" around events many facts are still out there to be found and the controversy still is not settled (er, stifled).


That was interesting.  Especially the part about the kidnapping plot.  But I haven't paid much attention to it.  

As for the headline.  Whether some people walked in peacefully or not isn't very interesting, sort of a non factor.  There was a violent attack on congress.  If your trying to say that the FBI was in the crowd actively promoting the attack, that article doesn't make that case.  

But your right, the controversy is not settle.  Probably never will be.  I'm still looking for the gunman on the grassy knoll.  lol

----------


## FunkyDexter

> FBI Whistleblower: Capitol Police Letting Peaceful Protesters Inside Building On January 6 "Smelled Like Entrapment"


You're turning to Stephen Fredin as a source?  A man who once claimed that it was impossible for a woman to become pregnant as a result of rape?  And Sharyl Atkinson who has published debunked theories linking vaccines to autism?  You need better sources than that given that _the parties involved have been found guilty in a court of law._




> legally speaking Elliot Page is not a man just because she believes she is


Legally speaking he cannot use his gender to absolve himself of a crime.  I'm not sure what you're trying to say beyond that.

----------


## dilettante

There is more here:

WNN Exclusive Interview with FBI Special Agent Steve Friend

Almost too much though, it is long and slow and agonizing to sit through.  Lots of meat there though.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Again, though: Steve Freind.

You need more than the word of a _suspended_ FBI agent if you're going to challenge the finding of a court of law.  What's the evidence?

----------


## Niya

> Be very careful about the language you choose to use.  Your leash is currently shorter than most and if I feel you're being inflammatory I'm going to act sooner rather than later.


Don't worry. This line of discussion and this thread is the last time I will participating in anything on VBForums. After that I'm never coming back here.




> Legally speaking he cannot use his gender to absolve himself of a crime.  I'm not sure what you're trying to say beyond that.


Let's make it simple then. Is Elliot Page a man or a woman?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Elliot Page is just as much a man as I am a cat. Living her life as a man doesn't make her one. Womanhood and manhood are not a costumes that you can change at will. That being said, I have nothing against her lifestyle choices nor do I see a problem with referring to her as a man publicly as a matter of respect for her choices. There's no reason not to be courteous and respect her wishes so long as she isn't hurting anyone. I'm just not willing to deny the reality that she is in fact a woman.


And that simply demonstrates why your previous comment is a strawman. Your issue is not that people are convinced that a man can get pregnant but rather that people refer to a person as a man in the first place, when you consider them to be a woman. You think it sounds crazier the other way though, so you use that because you want to think that those people are crazy, rather than that they just disagree with you.



> I'm just not willing to deny the reality that she is in fact a woman.


Except you are denying reality. You are denying the reality that words do not have inherent meaning but rather have usages. "Woman" is just a label that we put on something based on a set of characteristics. When you say that Elliot Page is a woman, you're saying that he has a specific set of characteristics. No one else is denying that. When we say that Elliot Page is a man rather than a woman, we are simply using a different set of characteristics to define those words. You might think that we shouldn't use those characteristics to define those words because that's not how they have been defined in the past, but plenty of words have changed meaning over time for various reasons, so there's nothing crazy about it. You might think that Elliot Page doesn't possess all those characteristics, but then you're making claims about his personal experience and that of other trans people that you simply can't back up. The reality is that you're policing language. I'm definitely not denying that reality.



> How would you characterize this "belief" as he called it?


I already answered that but just not listening seems to be a pattern, so let's try it again. I would characterise that belief as non-existent, i.e. trans people do not believe that they are members of the opposite sex. As I already stated quite clearly but you seem to have ignored, being transgender literally means that your gender doesn't match your sex, so acknowledging your sex is a prerequisite for being transgender. Elliot Page does not believe that his sex is male. Caitlyn Jenner does not believe that her sex is female. Etc. Ben Shapiro mischaracterises them for one of two reasons. Either he simply doesn't understand the topic that he spends so much time arguing about, or he does understand it and chooses to lie about it. I'm not sure which is worse.



> There are people in prisons who have committed murders and made claims they did it because they were possessed by demons or compelled by God. We should free those people since it's arrogant to deny their experience was real.


Once again, I already addressed the difference between being transgender and being religious but you seem to have simply ignored it. I wonder why that is. Firstly, those people are in jail for murder. Whether a god told them to murder someone does not change the fact that they murdered someone, so their experience is irrelevant to that. Secondly, as I have already clearly stated, trans people are making claims only about themselves. They make no claims about any being beyond themselves and yet their experiences all seem to be very consistent. Religious people are making claims about a being external to themselves, yet they have no good evidence that such a being exists. No one is denying that, in general, religious people have experiences. I fully accept that the religious experiences that many people have are real, but that doesn't mean that they map to anything beyond their own mind. If I have a dream about a unicorn, the dream is real, but that doesn't mean that the unicorn is real.

----------


## dilettante

Michael Howard:




> A common language is the most obvious binding element in any society.


No, you do not get to redefine vocabulary to fit your agenda.

Doublespeak

Languages already have words to adequately describe the cases and conditions you want to normalize by usurping other words.  I just hope that radical culture warriors don't push so hard that they trigger really bad reactions that hurt all of us.  Don't give so much oxygen, food, and fuel to radicals on the right.

It smells like the sort of crap we got out of the old South to justify the institution of slavery.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Michael Howard:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you do not get to redefine vocabulary to fit your agenda.
> 
> Doublespeak
> 
> Languages already have words to adequately describe the cases and conditions you want to normalize by usurping other words.  I just hope that radical culture warriors don't push so hard that they trigger really bad reactions that hurt all of us.  Don't give so much oxygen, food, and fuel to radicals on the right.
> ...


Don't think history supports that stance.  Language is constantly evolving.  Try reading Shakespeare.  lol

I think the slavery comparison is interesting.  At the core these issues are about human equality.  What's the importance of labeling which sex they are?  Not much really.  Maybe none.  I'm not going to spend my time trying to fine some necessity to do it.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> It smells like the sort of crap we got out of the old South to justify the institution of slavery.


We've had Hitler so I guess slavery was bound to come along soon after.



> Languages already have words to adequately describe the cases and conditions you want to normalize by usurping other words.


That's interesting because I've heard plenty of people assert that "gender" is synonymous with "sex" but I've never heard anyone state what we should be using to refer to what we are calling "gender". It's usually an implicit or explicit assertion that it doesn't actually exist. So, what is this word or words that we should be using to describe what we are currently referring to as "gender"? This ought to be good.



> No, you do not get to redefine vocabulary to fit your agenda.


People get to use words however they want for whatever reason they want. Some changes catch on and others don't. You don't get to tell people that they can't use words in a particular way because that's not how they've been used in the past. Lots of things are not how they used to be in the past and many for good reason. Are you one of those people who whine about how the homosexuals have commandeered the word "gay"? I could be wrong but I'm guessing not. I bet you've never once complained that someone used "gay" to indicate that someone was homosexual rather than happy and carefree. It's almost like you're just picking and choosing which words can and can't be redefined based on your ideology.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Don't worry. This line of discussion and this thread is the last time I will participating in anything on VBForums. After that I'm never coming back here.


If only that were true...

----------


## sapator

It's reverse psychology so you will stay.
Personally I wouldn't want anyone to live vbforums completely over an argument on chitchat. I would just ignore toxic posters.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> It's reverse psychology so you will stay.
> Personally I wouldn't want anyone to live vbforums completely over an argument on chitchat. I would just ignore toxic posters.


No it wasn't...it is my sincere hope.

----------


## sapator

Double reverse phycology.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Double reverse phycology.


Reverse phycology? Is that where you exude mushrooms?

----------


## dilettante

Sounds like a simple case of intolerance.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

So many words have changed their meanings in our own lifetimes. Sapator is not responsible for ALL of them, despite evidence to the contrary.

In fact, it's a bit interesting that he can still tell us the Greek roots of words when they have been so very malleable. That suggests that some of them change rapidly and radically, while some seem to change very little in thousands of years.


One further point is that sex and gender are not strictly synonyms, and that's a telling point. Sex has multiple meanings, and gender is only a synonym for one of them. Language is in no way precise, and the parts that are precise just means that we can argue about it.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Sounds like a simple case of intolerance.


  I do get intolerant with a constant barrage of attacking people.

----------


## sapator

Lol.
Thought that was a typo, I wanted to write psychology
.

----------


## sapator

> One further point is that sex and gender are not strictly synonyms, and that's a telling point. Sex has multiple meanings, and gender is only a synonym for one of them. Language is in no way precise, and the parts that are precise just means that we can argue about it.


For gender greek word "γενος - genos" . 

Sex is interesting. It's a Greek word comes from έξις "exis" but Latin translation because "Secus" . X - Greek "Ξ" was not in latin alphabet and so they added "x" after centuries thus Secus became  Sexus.

Here is a brief description for sex (it's google translate so don't pawn me with wrong words and meanings. If you can't make us something let me know)



```
The term "six"

Etymologically, this word is derived from the future subject of the verb "ἔχω" -have  and specifically from σεχ- < heχ- < ἑχ + the productive ending -σις, which denotes energy.
The original meaning of the word is to continually possess something one has acquired.
For Aristotle the word acquired a moral content: it is the permanent elements of our character, acquired through persistent practice and repetition of specific actions. "Hexes" are one of the "things in the soul". The other two are passions and powers. Passions (eg desire, anger, fear, joy, friendship, hatred) are those that result in pleasure or displeasure. Powers are the possibilities of participating in the passions, which are not sufficient in themselves to make one good or bad, but must become permanent elements of one's character. These permanent elements are acquired by the repetition of an act, which constitutes the "ἕxin" - exin. Precisely that "ἕxis"  -exis results from addiction and is not something innate is also shown by the use of the verb "become", which shows that "ἕxis" arises through a process, from a gradual way of shaping it and conquering it by the man.
Today the word has acquired a psychological content and is the habit as a result of repetition, learning or continuous influence of the same factor.
```

Hmm, ugly so I will just put it like this:

The term "six"

Etymologically, this word is derived from the future subject of the verb "ἔχω" -have  and specifically from σεχ- < heχ- < ἑχ + the productive ending -σις, which denotes energy.
The original meaning of the word is to continually possess something one has acquired.
For Aristotle the word acquired a moral content: it is the permanent elements of our character, acquired through persistent practice and repetition of specific actions. "Hexes" are one of the "things in the soul". The other two are passions and powers. Passions (eg desire, anger, fear, joy, friendship, hatred) are those that result in pleasure or displeasure. Powers are the possibilities of participating in the passions, which are not sufficient in themselves to make one good or bad, but must become permanent elements of one's character. These permanent elements are acquired by the repetition of an act, which constitutes the "ἕxin" - exin. Precisely that "ἕxis"  -exis results from addiction and is not something innate is also shown by the use of the verb "become", which shows that "ἕxis" arises through a process, from a gradual way of shaping it and conquering it by the man.
Today the word has acquired a psychological content and is the habit as a result of repetition, learning or continuous influence of the same factor.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

How does that end up with any of the definitions of sex? For that matter, how does it end up as a definition of six? 

That seems like a real stretch. I see that there was a word in the Greek, and it was changed in the Latin, but it doesn't appear to be the same word we are using, despite the similarity in spelling.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Don't worry. This line of discussion and this thread is the last time I will participating in anything on VBForums. After that I'm never coming back here.


That would be unfortunate, but it's also quite in line with this thread. The person who most stridently advocated for free speech has found it intolerable to be where his views are vocally disagreed with.

That's the problem Elon Musk has: People will simply decamp if they find themselves in company that doesn't agree with them. Doesn't matter whether it is polite, profane, or anywhere in the middle. 

In the social media world of today, if people disagree with you, find a place where they don't. It always exists. With a billion people online, you probably can't hold views so peculiar that you won't find a like-minded community in some corner of the internet. However, one should always keep in mind that, if they have to go to the shadows to find people who think like you...it may not be a conspiracy that is keeping you there.

----------


## sapator

> How does that end up with any of the definitions of sex? For that matter, how does it end up as a definition of six? 
> 
> That seems like a real stretch. I see that there was a word in the Greek, and it was changed in the Latin, but it doesn't appear to be the same word we are using, despite the similarity in spelling.


I wouldn't question me in that matter but I wrote "Greek word comes from έξις "exis" but Latin translation because "Secus"" then X was inserted and classically English speaking froked up the work made it a nickname "sex" . Like Nicolas - Nic. It was fortunate that it wasn't cut more made just "X" as the abuse of language in English seems like an extreme hobby of linguists.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I just hope that radical culture warriors don't push so hard that they trigger really bad reactions that hurt all of us


Again, this is the "Look at what you made me do" gas lighting argument put forward by domestic abusers.  You don't get to tell progressives not to be progressives just because reactionaries don't like progress.  If someone picks up a hammer because they don't like liberal policies it is not the fault of the liberal, it is the fault of the guy with the hammer and the people who told him that a hammer was an appropriate reaction to his dislike.




> It smells like the sort of crap we got out of the old South to justify the institution of slavery.


That's not very nice of you.  I use the word "nice" in both its modern sense and the older one - which meant "accurate".  Yep, words change.

I think you're misusing the argument about double speak.  Double speak in the Orwellian sense is the attempt to use words to deliberately obscure meaning.  What is happening here is that the word Gender is being distinguished from the word Sex to clarify meaning.  It is exactly opposite.

And let's be honest, the objection being made is not a failure to understand the difference.  It's discomfort with the concept.

----------


## wes4dbt

> That would be unfortunate, but it's also quite in line with this thread. The person who most stridently advocated for free speech has found it intolerable to be where his views are vocally disagreed with.


It does seem to be an overreaction.  It's understandable to leave the thread.  You said what you wanted and now you move on.  Yes, it would be unfortunate.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> I wouldn't question me in that matter but I wrote "Greek word comes from έξις "exis" but Latin translation because "Secus"" then X was inserted and classically English speaking froked up the work made it a nickname "sex" . Like Nicolas - Nic. It was fortunate that it wasn't cut more made just "X" as the abuse of language in English seems like an extreme hobby of linguists.


That would have been awesome. After all, we already use XXX as something like that (though it is also used in cartoons to indicate alcohol). We don't have a lot of single letter words in the English language, and X just doesn't get used enough, so this would be a real benefit. 

Now that I think about it, though, it would mostly help people writing in the Rockstar language. As it stands, the number of one letter words are so small that it limits the narrative side of that language. Having X be a word like sex, which is a couple different parts of speech while also being the topic of so many songs, would really enhance the language.

----------


## dilettante

> I do get intolerant with a constant barrage of attacking people.


Well perhaps you should ease up and relent in your attacks.

----------


## dilettante

Speaking of attacks, the Pelosi thing is getting bizarre as the thin tissue of smolletting by the media gives way.

----------


## sapator

> That would have been awesome. After all, we already use XXX as something like that (though it is also used in cartoons to indicate alcohol). We don't have a lot of single letter words in the English language, and X just doesn't get used enough, so this would be a real benefit. 
> 
> Now that I think about it, though, it would mostly help people writing in the Rockstar language. As it stands, the number of one letter words are so small that it limits the narrative side of that language. Having X be a word like sex, which is a couple different parts of speech while also being the topic of so many songs, would really enhance the language.


That's the marvel of Greek language. We have words, more like "feelings" that can be expressed on the vowels . I'm not all that proficient with that but I'm sure for O,O (Omega = Ω) ,A,E. O is like "the" or when you spill a drop of water..O, ok.. Omega is for bigger emotions like admiration   ,Ohhh gods! Ω Θεοί, or when you spill all the cup Ω!.. Well actually Ω sht! A is for understanding, Aaah, OK! E is for questioning. E?! What? (sound like ehhh probably ear e-ar) not sure for I's Y's H's tho. The thing is the language was build from the core up, something like assembly. The other languages just tapped words either lend from Greek words and changing them or imitating sounds like barf, blahh etc. But in their core the are just copycats of something else that will eventually root down to Greek. That is why I can break down so many words. 
Also what always triggers me is that phoenician  was first. It wasn't but I wouldn't go to that debate as you have to have an understanding of Greek in it's core to see the BS. Just to note that it had no vowels. So, how did they talked? Hsssfxfxxxvvvwtttkk? But let's not go that deep, it will get boring.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Speaking of attacks, the Pelosi thing is getting bizarre as the thin tissue of smolletting by the media gives way.


Yeah, the conspiracy theory squad is alive and well.  lol

It would be interesting if once in a while they were true.

----------


## dilettante

Reminds me of the Biden regime trying to take credit for the Social Security COLA being significant for the coming year.  Turns out this goes back to Nixon, and when that was pointed out they deleted their tweet without apology or acknowledgement.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Sapator, you are a cunning linguist.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Reminds me of the Biden regime trying to take credit for the Social Security COLA being significant for the coming year.  Turns out this goes back to Nixon, and when that was pointed out they deleted their tweet without apology or acknowledgement.


Every president gets blamed for bad economic things that they have no control over, and get credit for good economic times they didn't create.

----------


## sapator

8$ to get rid or bots or 8$ is preposterous?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Also, jmc, I want to ask you something. Your answer to this question would help me understand you a lot better. Lets say you're single and you met a woman that checks all your boxes in terms of the things you find attractive, whether it's her personality, looks or both. Lets say you're willing to go home with her and she told you that she was born a man and transitioned. Would you still go home with her? My answer would be no but what would you do?


Sorry, I didn't ignore this post. I just didn't see it earlier. This is a question that I have pondered at various times in my life. It's never actually been a real possibility, that I'm aware of, so what I think I would do and what I would actually do may not be the same.

What I will say is that the answer is not a blanket "no". I do think of trans women as women and trans men as men, so if I think of myself with a trans woman then I don't have the ick factor of thinking that I'm with a man. There are obviously a significant number of transphobes who claim that trans people will never be fully accepted by anyone as their gender rather than their sex but those people are simply wrong and should stop pretending that they know what's in other people heads. For me, it would depend on what stage of physical transition the person was at. I don't think that I could have a physical relationship with someone who hadn't had bottom surgery but I think I'd be perfectly fine with it if they had. I'm in my 50s and don't have children and have never really wanted children, so that would never have been a concern for me.

As I have said before, I think that gender and sex are related but different and I think that both are important. I wouldn't hold it against anyone that they don't want to have a relationship with a trans person and I don't think most trans people would either. There are a couple of trans women named Katy Montgomery and Arden Hart who I was exposed to on atheist shows who also host The Trans Atlantic Call-in Show (Katy is English and Arden is American - cool name, huh?) and I've heard them say numerous times that no one is obliged to be OK with having a relationship with a trans person. That's a separate issue as to whether you should accept someone as a man or woman socially. If you will only have an intimate relationship with someone who is biologically female then that is 100% your choice and I wouldn't try to change your mind or even criticise you for it. Outside of that is a different matter though.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> 8$ to get rid or bots or 8$ is preposterous?


What does this mean, and what is it in regards of?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Let's make it simple then. Is Elliot Page a man or a woman?


Whether deliberately or not, you're not making it as simple as you claim because there's the strong potential to equivocate. Your question is akin to whether or not Pluto is a planet. People argue that point as though they are arguing about Pluto but they're not. What they're actually arguing about is the definition of "planet", yet those who claim that Pluto is a planet rarely actually do so. They claim that Pluto is a planet mainly because that's the way it has been in the past, without actually being able to make an argument for why the definition of "planet" shouldn't change. If you have a definition of "planet" and you know the properties of Pluto then you have your answer as to whether Pluto is a planet without any opinion required.

In this case, we both agree that Elliot Page is biologically female. No one is denying that. By your definition, biologically female = woman and so Elliot Page is a woman. I accept a different definition so I accept that Elliot Page is a man. The argument here is over definitions, so while it might make you feel superior to pretend that people are crazy because they think a man can get pregnant, the men we're talking about are people who you also think can get pregnant, so there's obviously nothing crazy there. It's simply a matter of definitions. If those opposed to referring to Elliot Page and those like him as a man were to offer some realistic alternative then maybe we could have a reasonable discussion but it's obvious that the majority of the people who are vocal on this subject aren't interested in helping trans people but rather erasing them. That's obvious from things like people claiming to want to protect children who are "just confused" while showing exactly zero concern for those who aren't, even to the point of trying to deny them treatments as adults. As an example, you have Jordan Peterson originally coming to mainstream prominence by lying about Canadian law while claiming that he would personally respect trans people and now making a ridiculous fuss about how awkward it is to refer to Elliot Page as Elliot and calling those who operated on him criminals. There are some arguments that I do have some sympathy for but, when they come from people who have shown obvious bad faith elsewhere, it's hard to engage with them.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> haven't you figured out that he was setting a trap for some of you and you lost the argument?
> ...No?
> It sums up as this, according to your answers:
> Will you go with a sheep? No.
> Will you go out with a transgender sheep? It depends.
> That was completely DR Sbaitso. That was defending ideas for the sake of defending. I don't know if he did it intentionally but it was a checkmate.


That's kinda silly. Your basically saying that he tricked us into admitting that we'd be gay for a trans person. Actually, that's just plain stupid.

Attraction is partly physical and partly psychological. I guess you could say that it's all psychological but part of it is based on physical traits. There are plenty of men who would be physically attracted to plenty of trans women, based on physical traits. Some - possibly most - of those men would not be able to get past the psychological barrier of being with someone who is biologically male. That would even include a significant number of trans advocates. There's nothing wrong with that. There are some men who would be OK with being with a trans woman as long as they have had a full complement of surgeries. There are other men who would be OK with being a trans woman who had had hormone treatments but not surgery and there are still other men who wouldn't even need there to have been hormone treatments. There's nothing wrong with any of those. That doesn't make you gay because it's the feminine traits that you're attracted to. Even if you think it does make you gay, so what? There's nothing wrong with being gay. If we've been trapped into admitting something that we've never denied or tried to hide then it's a pretty lame trap.

Also, your use of sheep in your "analogy" is also pretty stupid. There are people who do have sex with sheep and they don't care whether the sheep is transgender or not. People who don't have sex with sheep don't change their mind because they find a transgender sheep. Have you ever considered making sense? Perhaps if you were to use a trans-species sheep, i.e. a sheep that basically looked like a human being but was still, biologically speaking, a sheep, then maybe you'd have a point. To be frank, I bet that there would be more men who would have sex with a trans-species sheep than a trans woman, because they are less afraid of bestiality than they are homosexuality. That's conjecture, of course, but I'd put money on it.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> What does this mean, and what is it in regards of?


It is presumably in reference to Elon Musk saying that Twitter might charge $20 a month for verified accounts and then suggesting maybe $8 when Stephen King said that he'd leave the platform rather than pay $20. I'm not sure what it's actually saying about that, but I think that's what it's referring to.

The problem is that I think that charging for verified accounts would actually hurt rather than help. There are obviously some people or entities that would be willing to pay to protect their brand and would be able to pay even $20 a month without noticing but there are plenty of people for whom it would make a difference and they would just not pay, thus they would not have verified accounts, thus there would likely be more fake accounts trying to drown them out. I'm not sure what's involved in verifying an account but I would think that it is a one-off task so I would think that a one-off fee would be more appropriate.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Whether deliberately or not, you're not making it as simple as you claim because there's the strong potential to equivocate. Your question is akin to whether or not Pluto is a planet. People argue that point as though they are arguing about Pluto but they're not. What they're actually arguing about is the definition of "planet", yet those who claim that Pluto is a planet rarely actually do so. They claim that Pluto is a planet mainly because that's the way it has been in the past, without actually being able to make an argument for why the definition of "planet" shouldn't change. If you have a definition of "planet" and you know the properties of Pluto then you have your answer as to whether Pluto is a planet without any opinion required.
> 
> In this case, we both agree that Elliot Page is biologically female. No one is denying that. By your definition, biologically female = woman and so Elliot Page is a woman. I accept a different definition so I accept that Elliot Page is a man. The argument here is over definitions, so while it might make you feel superior to pretend that people are crazy because they think a man can get pregnant, the men we're talking about are people who you also think can get pregnant, so there's obviously nothing crazy there. It's simply a matter of definitions. If those opposed to referring to Elliot Page and those like him as a man were to offer some realistic alternative then maybe we could have a reasonable discussion but it's obvious that the majority of the people who are vocal on this subject aren't interested in helping trans people but rather erasing them. That's obvious from things like people claiming to want to protect children who are "just confused" while showing exactly zero concern for those who aren't, even to the point of trying to deny them treatments as adults. As an example, you have Jordan Peterson originally coming to mainstream prominence by lying about Canadian law while claiming that he would personally respect trans people and now making a ridiculous fuss about how awkward it is to refer to Elliot Page as Elliot and calling those who operated on him criminals. There are some arguments that I do have some sympathy for but, when they come from people who have shown obvious bad faith elsewhere, it's hard to engage with them.


I'm jealous of your communication skills, in this forum.  In the programming forums they're a little harsh for my taste.  lol

I found this helpful,



> There are a couple of trans women named Katy Montgomery and Arden Hart who I was exposed to on atheist shows who also host The Trans Atlantic Call-in Show (Katy is English and Arden is American - cool name, huh?) and I've heard them say numerous times that no one is obliged to be OK with having a relationship with a trans person.


Because I couldn't give a honest Yes, no problem.  But I think some of that comes from absolutely no exposer to trans people(that I'm aware of).   I understand how biology can create the situation but I have no understanding of being in that situation.

----------


## dilettante

> Every president gets blamed for bad economic things that they have no control over, and get credit for good economic times they didn't create.


Biden took credit for something he did not do, and purely for electioneering purposes.  When called on it he scuttled back into the darkness, covering his trail.

We're seeing the same thing right now with Whitmer fabricating new positions.  For 4 years she and her cronies have done nothing about the Snyder Pension Tax accept take the money to reward corporate interests with tax breaks. Suddenly this week she's claiming she just discovered this injustice and [insert weasel words] might just start thinking about doing something about it maybe.

The point isn't that the GOP is any better, but that we have clear examples here of how crooked the other bunch is.  We shouldn't be singing the praises of any of them.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> The point isn't that the GOP is any better, but that we have clear examples here of how crooked the other bunch is.  We shouldn't be singing the praises of any of them.


Fair enough, but I don't think I've heard anyone here singing Biden's praises. If I were American, Biden is absolutely not the president I'd have chosen but I'd have voted for him in a heartbeat against Trump. This is something that is so annoying about Trump and his supporters. They talk about how many people Trump gets at rallies and how few Biden did and claim that that is evidence that Trump is too popular to have lost the election. He's always telling us that he got more votes than any other sitting president while implying that the fact that he got more votes against him than any presidential candidate, sitting or otherwise, is not only inconsequential but false. They can't seem to comprehend that, no matter how much his cultists love him, there's more people who loathe him would vote for his opponent almost any case. That is definitely because they hate the man to some degree but it's also because they hate his policies and they hate the man because of his policies, amongst other things.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> People argue that point as though they are arguing about Pluto but they're not. What they're actually arguing about is the definition of "planet", yet those who claim that Pluto is a planet rarely actually do so. They claim that Pluto is a planet mainly because that's the way it has been in the past, without actually being able to make an argument for why the definition of "planet" shouldn't change. If you have a definition of "planet" and you know the properties of Pluto then you have your answer as to whether Pluto is a planet without any opinion required.


Actually, I think this leads into another point. If I'm not mistaken, the word "planet" used to be defined such that stars were also planets and possibly moons and other heavenly bodies (asteroids, comets, etc) qualified too. The word was then redefined such that only certain of those still qualified. The word was later redefined again to exclude more of those bodies, including Pluto.

When people say that they have an issue with words being redefined, they are lying. This is clear from the fact that countless words have been redefined throughout history and these people have no issue with it. Many times, they use definitions that are not the original and yet they insist that the one they use is the only correct one. Sometimes words are redefined during their lifetime and they don't have an issue with it, "planet" being a case in point. The fact is that it's only certain words they have an issue with being redefined and it's because they don't like the reason for the redefinition.

On the subject of gender, it clearly isn't a 1:1 synonym for sex because languages like French, Italian and Spanish assign a gender to basically everything - English used to do the same - and those assignments clearly have nothing do with chromosomes or genitalia. I might be misremembering but I seem to recall that one of those languages had a feminine noun that was for something anatomical that only males would have and a masculine noun for something that only females would have. That's an interesting quirk if it's true but ultimately irrelevant either way because it's clear that gender based on a feeling about something has been with us for a long, long time. Why do you think that Abrahamic religions refer to their god, which has no chromosomes or genitals to speak of, as "he"? Their idea of what is masculine obviously isn't limited to the biological, so one has to wonder why they are so vocal in insisting that it does and must. Special pleading when it comes to their god is nothing new though.

----------


## wes4dbt

> The point isn't that the GOP is any better, but that we have clear examples here of how crooked the other bunch is. We shouldn't be singing the praises of any of them.


True, but you can't ignore how crooked your bunch is.  

The GOP is probably going to take control because of the current economy but I see no savior there.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Well perhaps you should ease up and relent in your attacks.


My God you have a lot of nerve...what a hypocrite!

----------


## dilettante

> True, but you can't ignore how crooked your bunch is.


My bunch?

While raking leaves out front I met a couple from the neighborhood out for a walk yesterday.  A veterinarian and her retired firefighter husband.  After complimenting my apple tree they went into political issues.  Hard to avoid since runners were still going up and down the street sticking campaign flyers into screen doors.  They asked why vocal extremists are so tolerated and mentioned the way they all have a "with us or agin' us" mentality.  They also noted where the money seems to be: Dem flyers outnumbered any for GOP candidates by at least 10 to 1 this year.

For most voters Bill Clinton put an end to blind partisanship as a safe default when all else fails.


I assume you meant the Republicans, who sure aren't my bunch.  Especially those like Rick Snyder and Mitt Romney... who not merely coincidentally backed Biden.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> assume you meant the Republicans, who sure aren't my bunch.  Especially those like Rick Snyder and Mitt Romney... who not merely coincidentally backed Biden.


More down with the Herschel Walker and Marjorie Taylor Greene types?

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I don't have the ick factor


I'll be honest, I do.  But this does not make the argument Niya wants it to make for a number of reasons.

1. His position is predicated on the assumption that a trans woman is the same as a cis woman. They're not and neither do they claim to be.  They share a gender but are of differing sexes.  This does not prevent them both being women.
2. Despite that knee jerk "ick" my answer to his question is still not a blanket no.  If I meet a trans woman who ticks all my boxes it's entirely possible (likely, even) that I will have gotten way past any reservations I have.  Surely that's in the nature of love isn't it?  It makes us accept and celebrate everything about our partner, even those things we might turn away from were we not in love.  If you find yourself answering No to that question, I suggest that you don't know what love means beyond lust.
3. (Sort of an extension of 2) still not a blanket No because it's never come up yet.  Re-citing my friend's fave line of "you haven't met the right guy yet", I don't _believe_ I'm gay.  I've never met a guy I want to sleep with and I don't feel any compunction to find one.  But if I ever happen across such a man you better believe I'm gonna dive right in and not question it.  I'm sure as hell not going to worry about whether I have the approval of a programming forum, I'll tell you that much.
4. (This one's the most important and the most obvious) *A woman being a woman is not predicated on my lusting after her*.  I am utterly repulsed by the idea of sleeping with my mum - she's still a woman though.  Indeed, I feel that Niya even phrasing his question in the way he did reveals a very deep misogyny.  It requires a world view that a woman is only a woman if men want to have sex with her.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> the thin tissue of smolletting by the media gives way


By that I'm _guessing_ that you're referring to some of the conspiracy theories that have come out around the attack?  E.g. That the attacker was Paul Pelosi's gay lover, that the window was broken out rather than in etc.

If that is what you're referring to you should know that DePape has confessed and told the police exactly what his motives and intent were.  He has not been shy about any of it, indeed he sees himself as a martyr.  His motivation was that he saw Pelosi as "the leader of the pack" of Washington "tyranny" (his words).  His intention was to break Nancy Pelosi's knees and drag her before congress as a warning to other congressmen if she lied to him.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> (This one's the most important and the most obvious) *A woman being a woman is not predicated on my lusting after her*.  I am utterly repulsed by the idea of sleeping with my mum - she's still a woman though.  Indeed, I feel that Niya even phrasing his question in the way he did reveals a very deep misogyny.  It requires a world view that a woman is only a woman if men want to have sex with her.


I think that this might be a bit uncharitable. I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that, had the question been asked to a women, it would have been the same about a trans man. I think it actually reveals a deep homophobia than a deep misogyny. I think there are a lot of men who are generally OK with homosexuality but still think, implicitly or explicitly, that being with a trans woman - even feeling an attraction to a trans woman - is gay. I would make a strong argument that it isn't if pushed but, really, who cares? It's all just labels again. You are what you are and if you're attracted to the feminine traits of a person then you're attracted to that person, whether they be cis, trans or otherwise. The two trans women I mentioned earlier - Katy and Arden - are definitely people I consider attractive so if that makes me gay or bi or whatever, so be it. It bothers me none. I think it does bother a lot of men though, which is why they are so fixated on trans women "tricking" them, as though a person being what they feel they are is something that they do to other people.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> By that I'm _guessing_ that you're referring to some of the conspiracy theories that have come out around the attack?  E.g. That the attacker was Paul Pelosi's gay lover, that the window was broken out rather than in etc.
> 
> If that is what you're referring to you should know that DePape has confessed and told the police exactly what his motives and intent were.  He has not been shy about any of it, indeed he sees himself as a martyr.  His motivation was that he saw Pelosi as "the leader of the pack" of Washington "tyranny" (his words).  His intention was to break Nancy Pelosi's knees and drag her before congress as a warning to other congressmen if she lied to him.


I hope you're not suggesting that an "enlightened centrist" would bandy about the sort of ridiculous ravings that right-wing extremists invent to defend other right-wing extremists? I mean, "enlightened centrists" have their own sensible, unextreme ideas and don't just parrot right-wing talking points, don't you know.

----------


## jmcilhinney

It would be interesting to see a graph of the cumulative number of right-wingers over time who have come to realise that Elon Musk cares more about money than he does about their supposed free speech. Not that he shouldn't care about money, but they don't seem to realise how much more he cares about money than he does about them. It's pretty obvious that significant reason for his recent change in political position is due to his opposition to unions and his concern for what they could mean to his fortune.

----------


## ChrisE

diversity Dresscode "Deutsche Bahn" this morning (03.11.2022) in the News.
It is possible for all Staff "Deutsche Bahn" to wear either the Suit or the Dress

I don't use the Train that often in Germany but I would find it very strang when a Guy with a beard wearing a Dress
would want to see my ticket. and serve a Orange juice later.  :EEK!: 

how times change

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> I don't use the Train that often in Germany but I would find it very strang when a Guy with a beard wearing a Dress
> would want to see my ticket. and serve a Orange juice later.


Maybe he's Scottish?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> diversity Dresscode "Deutsche Bahn" this morning (03.11.2022) in the News.
> It is possible for all Staff "Deutsche Bahn" to wear either the Suit or the Dress
> 
> I don't use the Train that often in Germany but I would find it very strang when a Guy with a beard wearing a Dress
> would want to see my ticket. and serve a Orange juice later. 
> 
> how times change


I would find it odd to see someone who looked male wearing a dress too but, really, why should how it makes me feel be a factor in what someone wears? There's really no reason that what chromosomes someone has or what genitals they were born with should dictate what clothes they should be allowed to wear. Here in Australia, pretty much all schools have a uniform that students are required to wear and it has long been an issue that girls have been forced to wear skirts and dresses when many would prefer to wear shorts for sport in particular but also just generally in warm whether and trousers other times. Many, if not most, schools allow girls to wear shorts and trousers now but there are still some - particularly private schools and probably Catholic schools - that aren't very enlightened. I'd say that there are very few that would not make some sort of fuss about a boy wearing a skirt or dress, but the number is probably growing. This is just part of the training that children get about what is correct and appropriate for boys and girls to do and be.

----------


## ChrisE

> Maybe he's Scottish?


yeah, you might call it the "Royal Tra(i)ns"

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> It requires a world view that a woman is only a woman if men want to have sex with her.


And if you think about it statistically, I think I'd go for about 5%, or so, of all the women I meet. It might be an even smaller percentage. After all, I'd rule out all children, a bunch that are too elderly for me, and so on. I'm not sure that I have the percentage right, but it would be in the ballpark. If you'd reject most women as sexual partners, does that say anything? Probably not. If every guy had the same taste, women would probably have about as much to differentiate them physically as female ducks. The same would be true for men. Basically, if only one type of person had ANY chance of reproducing, there would be only one type of person.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> And if you think about it statistically, I think I'd go for about 5%, or so, of all the women I meet. It might be an even smaller percentage. After all, I'd rule out all children, a bunch that are too elderly for me, and so on. I'm not sure that I have the percentage right, but it would be in the ballpark. If you'd reject most women as sexual partners, does that say anything? Probably not. If every guy had the same taste, women would probably have about as much to differentiate them physically as female ducks. The same would be true for men. Basically, if only one type of person had ANY chance of reproducing, there would be only one type of person.


Again, I think that this is a bit uncharitable. I don't think that Niya was saying that a woman is not a woman if men don't want to have sex with her. I think that it was basic ally a test to see whether we really consider a trans woman to be a woman. I think the point was that we, as cis men, would generally have sex with a cis woman if we found her attractive and she was willing but if we wouldn't with someone else who was the same in every respect except that they were trans then it's an indication that we don't really consider them to be women the same way we do a cis woman. Of course, this overlooks the fact that we consider gender and sex to be different things so we can still consider someone a woman while not wanting to have sex with someone who is biologically male. If my assessment is correct then it just shows, yet again, that the anti-trans argument doesn't even understand what they're arguing against. We can accept that someone is a woman while acknowledging that they are male. The fact that this has been explained here and elsewhere by so many people on so many occasions and yet still fails to sink in is very telling.

----------


## sapator

> diversity Dresscode "Deutsche Bahn" this morning (03.11.2022) in the News.
> It is possible for all Staff "Deutsche Bahn" to wear either the Suit or the Dress
> 
> I don't use the Train that often in Germany but I would find it very strang when a Guy with a beard wearing a Dress
> would want to see my ticket. and serve a Orange juice later. 
> 
> how times change


The issue is that women car wear a dress at work in my company but we can't wear shorts (well maybe in August when there is 1/10 of the staff present) at Summer and we are boiling if we go outside! I can wear some ripped jeans maybe but it's still hot....So in that case trans would be a good thing as I could wear a dress and be chill....
Also how do you learn to think like a woman? That would require more effort than been trans....The opposite is simple I guess.  :Big Grin:

----------


## jmcilhinney

> The issue is that women car wear a dress at work in my company but we can't wear shorts


The history of fashion and what constitutes formal or business clothing for men and women has a long history and was basically implemented by men, so it's another rod that we have created for our own back. So many of the things that men complain about now are the result of what men have done in the past. If women had just been treated equally from the start then there wouldn't be disparities like this now. They haven't been though, so it's going to take time to reach an equilibrium. For instance, I think that some family law may have swung a bit too far in women's favour but that only happened because women had to be protected from becoming destitute after being divorced when they were unable or even forbidden from providing for themselves or obtaining skills that would enable them to do so. The pendulum will oscillate a bit for while until we reach an equilibrium but, despite the fact that everything has favoured men for virtually our entire history, some men today expect everything to go from that to perfectly equal overnight or else feminism is evil. Men collectively have brought it upon ourselves for the most part.

----------


## techgnome

> Also how do you learn to think like a woman? That would require more effort than been trans....The opposite is simple I guess.


That's the thing ... you don't learn to think like that ... you already do... that's what leads to genderdisphoria. The literal "feeling like a woman/man trapped in a man's/woman's body" .... The next step is the transition so that the exterior matches the interior feelings.  There is no "learn to think [like the opposite]" ... it's already happening. 

-tg

----------


## sapator

It more simple to become men tho.
Drink beer and have sex with everything that moves...  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## jmcilhinney

> It more simple to become men tho.
> Drink beer and have sex with everything that moves...


I don't do either of those things so I guess I must be a woman. Who knew?

----------


## sapator

Yep, you learn something new every day.  :Big Grin:

----------


## techgnome

well, it's simple to think like a woman: men are pigs, all they want to do is drink beer and jump anything that moves.


-tg

----------


## sapator

> well, it's simple to think like a woman: men are pigs, all they want to do is drink beer and jump anything that moves.
> 
> 
> -tg


No it's: *All* men are pigs  :raccoon:

----------


## ChrisE

> I would find it odd to see someone who looked male wearing a dress too but, really, why should how it makes me feel be a factor in what someone wears? There's really no reason that what chromosomes someone has or what genitals they were born with should dictate what clothes they should be allowed to wear. Here is Australia, pretty much all schools have a uniform that students are required to wear and it has long been an issue that girls have been forced to wear skirts and dresses when many would prefer to wear shorts for sport in particular but also just generally in warm whether and trousers other times. Many, if not most, schools allow girls to wear shorts and trousers now but there are still some - particularly private schools and probably Catholic schools - that aren't very enlightened. I'd say that there are very few that would not make some sort of fuss about a boy wearing a skirt or dress, but the number is probably growing. This is just part of the training that children get about what is correct and appropriate for boys and girls to do and be.


I guess I'm just an "old Fart"

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I guess I'm just an "old Fart"


Hot on your heels, bud.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> The issue is that women car wear a dress at work in my company but we can't wear shorts (well maybe in August when there is 1/10 of the staff present) at Summer and we are boiling if we go outside! I can wear some ripped jeans maybe but it's still hot....So in that case trans would be a good thing as I could wear a dress and be chill....
> Also how do you learn to think like a woman? That would require more effort than been trans....The opposite is simple I guess.


I had a buddy who started wearing a kilt for that exact reason.

For a time, kilts were favored by male hikers, though they appear to have faded from fashion, of late. I haven't seen one on the trails in several years.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> It more simple to become men tho.
> Drink beer and have sex with everything that moves...


A surgeon was quoted as saying, regarding gender assignment surgery, "it's easier to dig a hole than build a pole."

----------


## Niya

> The person who most stridently advocated for free speech has found it intolerable to be where his views are vocally disagreed with.


That's not why I'm leaving. I'll get into that when ready to exit this discussion.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I don't do either of those things


Me neither... but I would if I still had the energy :big yellow:

----------


## Niya

> You might think that we shouldn't use those characteristics to define those words because that's not how they have been defined in the past, but plenty of words have changed meaning over time for various reasons, so there's nothing crazy about it.


So this group of people want to forcefully redefine a word to mean something different but then they get mad when people don't use it according to their definition? This is arrogance of the highest order. Language doesn't belong to anybody. It evolves naturally.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> It evolves naturally.


Yes.  But you missed the train.

But importantly, do you really expect us to believe that your objection is people's use of a word?

Edit> Do you remember writing this about Elliot Paige: "I have nothing against her lifestyle choices nor do I see a problem with referring to her as a man publicly as a matter of respect for her choices. There's no reason not to be courteous and respect her wishes so long as she isn't hurting anyone."  How does that square with your current assertion that your objection is simply to what you see as the misuse of a word?

It's almost as if you were lying when you said that.  As evidenced by your repeated misgendering of her in that very sentence :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Niya

> Yes.  But you missed the train.
> 
> But importantly, do you really expect us to believe that your objection is people's use of a word?
> 
> Edit> Do you remember writing this about Elliot Paige: "I have nothing against her lifestyle choices nor do I see a problem with referring to her as a man publicly as a matter of respect for her choices. There's no reason not to be courteous and respect her wishes so long as she isn't hurting anyone."  How does that square with your current assertion that your objection is simply to what you see as the misuse of a word?
> 
> It's almost as if you were lying when you said that.  As evidenced by your repeated misgendering of her in that very sentence


She is still a woman as far as I'm concerned. I'm saying that depending on the circumstance and for the sake of peace and I'm willing to pretend she isn't. The left doesn't want me to pretend, they want me to hold it as fact which I refuse to do. 

If she wants to live her life as a man and for me to refer to her as "him" I got no problem doing that if it makes her feel better. But none of that changes the fact that she is a woman and that I am pretending she is not. Do you understand what I'm saying?

EDIT:

I also wanted to make it clear that I have no problem whatsoever with how she chooses to live her life. Everyone should be free to live their life however they see fit. Just wanted to make it very clear that she and her life choices are not the issue here.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> If she wants to live her life as a man and for me to refer to her as "him" I got no problem doing that


...and yet you're still referring to him as her.

----------


## wes4dbt

> ...and yet you're still referring to him as her.


I don't have a real problem with that.  Niya has clearly stated that he thinks of Elliot as a women.  

What I have a problem with is calling people "idiots" who do call any one a "him" if they are capable of getting pregnant.

----------


## ChrisE

> I don't do either of those things so I guess I must be a woman. Who knew?


I was wondering why you wear a Dress in Chit Chat, never seen a Dress on you in the .NET Forum.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I don't have a real problem with that


It reveals the dishonesty of his position.  Elliot Paige has made it clear he wants to be referred to as he.  So you can't really claim that you're respecting that while referring to him as her.

It's an attempt to present as compassionate while failing to demonstrate compassion.

----------


## dilettante

Sentencing draws near:

Media Ignore Waukesha Parade Murder Trial Because It Exposes Democrats Deadly Criminal Justice Reform Policies




> At first glance, the trial of Waukesha Christmas Parade killer Darrell Brooks, Jr. seemed like a television news directors dream: A horrific, sensational crime, an unhinged defendant representing himself while delivering a near-constant stream of in-court outbursts, and a no-nonsense, charismatic judge trying her best to keep things from devolving into total chaos.
> 
> If ever there was must-see TV, this was it. Only it wasnt, because if there is one thing Americas national media desires more than covering a lengthy three-ring circus of a trial, it is suppressing anything that might reflect poorly on Democrats or their policies  especially this close to an election.

----------


## wes4dbt

> And if you think about it statistically, I think I'd go for about 5%, or so, of all the women I meet. It might be an even smaller percentage. After all, I'd rule out all children, a bunch that are too elderly for me, and so on. I'm not sure that I have the percentage right, but it would be in the ballpark. If you'd reject most women as sexual partners, does that say anything? Probably not. If every guy had the same taste, women would probably have about as much to differentiate them physically as female ducks. The same would be true for men. Basically, if only one type of person had ANY chance of reproducing, there would be only one type of person.


I was dealing with sort of this issue last night.  I was watching a documentary and one of the main people they were interviewing was a women who had a large mole (not sure what to call it but it stuck out like a pencil eraser) on her forehead.  I couldn't get past it, made it hard to pay attention to what she was saying.  I would definitely reject her as a sexual partner.  I don't like this about myself but I have always been like that.  And the stupid thing is, I'm no prize.  Not even close to tall, dark and handsome.  lol

I'm lucky I was able to find a women who wasn't as shallow as me.   :Smilie:

----------


## Niya

> ...and yet you're still referring to him as her.


Because as I said she is a woman as far as I'm concerned.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Sentencing draws near:
> 
> Media Ignore Waukesha Parade Murder Trial Because It Exposes Democrats Deadly Criminal Justice Reform Policies


Except that they didn't. I heard about it on NPR, so I guess it did get covered.

----------


## dilettante

I'm surprised how often Twtitter comes up in news reporting as a source, or at least a conduit to a source.  I guess it gets a lot more use than I had imagined.

----------


## Niya

> I couldn't get past it, made it hard to pay attention to what she was saying. I would definitely reject her as a sexual partner. I don't like this about myself but I have always been like that.


I find this extremely interesting. I never understand how people can be so quick to punish themselves for being who they are. You didn't like that big ole mole on her face and it made her sexually unattractive to you. You should be able to express such things with your head held high. You are who you are. Learn to accept it and don't let anyone tell you that you're a bad person because of it. This is a very sad way to go through life to be honest. There is NOTHING WRONG WITH YOU just because you'd reject a woman because of a mole. Stop letting others, society or even your own family make you feel you like you're a bad person for not wanting things that you don't want.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Because as I said she is a woman as far as I'm concerned.


And you also said that you'd respect his desire to be referred to as he.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I find this extremely interesting. I never understand how people can be so quick to punish themselves for being who they are. You didn't like that big ole mole on her face and it made her sexually unattractive to you. You should be able to express such things with your head held high. You are who you are. Learn to accept it and don't let anyone tell you that you're a bad person because of it. This is a very sad way to go through life to be honest. There is NOTHING WRONG WITH YOU just because you'd reject a woman because of a mole. Stop letting others, society or even your own family make you feel you like you're a bad person for not wanting things that you don't want.


This has nothing to do with what others or society thinks.  It has to do with not judging people visually.  Because I don't want people to judge me visually.  I don't like the fact I expect things from others that I'm not willing to do.  It's hypocritical and I don't like hypocrites.

----------


## TysonLPrice

I was looking for recent news about the Twitter buy out and this is a nice article on it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/01/t...vertisers.html

It is the beginning of the month and they give you five free reads per month before the paywall kicks in.  

Earlier in the thread it was mentioned Musk's relationship with the right meant something and he has a better relationship to making money.  He is meeting with representatives of the advertising industry trying to smooth feathers:




> IPG, one of the worlds largest advertising companies, issued a recommendation on Monday through its media agencies for clients to temporarily pause their spending on Twitter because of moderation concerns, three people with knowledge of the communication said. The Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a coalition of platforms, advertisers and industry groups that is fighting harmful content on social media, also said this week that it was monitoring how Twitter planned to deal with content moderation.


There are a few other interesting developments in the article. 

 Twitter blue is going up to $8.00

General Motors said last week that it was temporarily suspending its advertising on Twitter

A bunch of Civil Rights groups are petitioning to stop advertising.

etc...

----------


## FunkyDexter

> they give you five free reads per month


 it still requires you to create an account, though, which always chaps my doobies but from the part you posted... yeah.  I've been catching dribs and drabs including him courting advertisers but it sounds like that article has more detail.

It sounds like Musk is hoping to switch it to a paid service to free himself from advertiser pressure but I can't see that working.

----------


## Niya

> It reveals the dishonesty of his position.  Elliot Paige has made it clear he wants to be referred to as he.  So you can't really claim that you're respecting that while referring to him as her.
> 
> It's an attempt to present as compassionate while failing to demonstrate compassion.


It's called being accommodating.

I'll try to make it easier to understand. I'm agnostic. If anyone were to ask me what I think about God and the Bible and whatnot, I'd tell them I think it's a bunch of bronze age nonsense invented to control people. Yet if I were having a conversation about someone about lets say, changing my roof and he were to say, "I pray to God we don't get rain today". I would just accept it. I still don't buy into the idea of his God or whatever God he is talking about but to challenge right then and there would just be a waste of time. We are dealing with my roof and to steer the conversation in that direction would distract from the task at hand. I treat this gender stuff the same way.

If we were talking about Elliot Page is some other context where the focus was not her gender but something else like a movie she starred in or something, I'd call her a "him" for the sake of not derailing the conversation on account of someone being offended and making noise. But we are have a discussion about gender politics so as such my goal is not to be accommodating but to be honest and I honestly consider her a woman and not a man. If you're a believer in God, I have no problem with that but if you start preaching to me about him, then I will tell you exactly what I think about him. Does this clear it up any?

----------


## Niya

> It has to do with not judging people visually.


Yet you did.




> Because I don't want people to judge me visually.


Yet they will.

Who put it into your head that anything is wrong with this? You like what you like and the people judging you, they like what they like. You're not going to find every women attractive and there are women that won't find you attractive. It's healthy and normal.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Yet you did.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they will.
> 
> Who put it into your head that anything is wrong with this? You like what you like and the people judging you, they like what they like. You're not going to find every women attractive and there are women that won't find you attractive. It's healthy and normal.


It's not healthy.  It may be normal, I'm not sure what percentage of people can't get past visual judgements.  But I've met many people that don't place much importance on it and I've always found that admirable.




> Who put it into your head that anything is wrong with this?


You keep wanting to blame "others".  But it's really probably more selfish than anything else.  I have regrets about relationships I've passed up and I know I could have more quality emotionally healthy experiences.  So it bothers me that at my age I haven't made more progress.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> it still requires you to create an account, though, which always chaps my doobies but from the part you posted... yeah.  I've been catching dribs and drabs including him courting advertisers but it sounds like that article has more detail.
> 
> It sounds like Musk is hoping to switch it to a paid service to free himself from advertiser pressure but I can't see that working.


I forgot about that..I take the last email address I got from SPAM and create an account with that.  They get the NY Times spam and that is poetic justice to me...

----------


## wes4dbt

> I forgot about that..I take the last email address I got from SPAM and create an account with that.  They get the NY Times spam and that is poetic justice to me...


That's funny.  

Probably still more effort than I want just to read an article.  Maybe I will for the NYT.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> take the last email address I got from SPAM and create an account with that.


Ha! That is genius.

----------


## TysonLPrice

An email went out to the companys employees late Thursday notifying employees of plans to cut jobs, informing them that by 9 a.m. Pacific time Friday, workers would receive an email with the subject line: Your Role at Twitter.

Those keeping their jobs would be notified on their company email. Those losing them would be told via their personal email.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...itter-layoffs/

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Musk has a hell of a bill he has to cover. He has to make payments that amount to 20% of Twitter revenue, from what I heard. He has to cut costs and not cut revenue for a time.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Yeah, something I hadn't realised is that he's borrowed most of the money to buy it so the interest payments are huge.  So I guess what I said previously about him not needing it to be profitable was wrong.  The more I'm reading the more it sounds like he's bought a massive white elephant.  If he wants to maintain ad revenue he's almost certainly going to have to walk back his "Free Speech Regardless of Content" agenda because the advertisers are already leaving him in droves.  He's trying for a subscription model with the blue badge thing but 1. that will render the badge meaningless and therefore worthless and 2. No way he's going to get enough subscribers to make up for the lost ad revenue.

Mind you, I've thought Musk was a charlatan for years.  The only product he's actually delivered is the Tesla car (which is a great car but hardly remarkable).  Things he's failed to deliver: Hyperloop, Self Driving Cars (this one's 6 years late now), Hot-Swap Batteries for Electric Cars, People on Mars, Robots for the Home... the list is long.  He follows the same business model as Elizabeth Holmes: promise the moon, get investors, fake presentations, hope you don't get found out.

----------


## dilettante

Musk has other stuff that reached the market.  I'm not impressed or impacted by any of them though.

----------


## wes4dbt

Are Self Driving Cars off the market now?

He loves the media and the media are happy to give him tons of free publicity.  He's very good at it.

I don't know anything about how the Twitter deal was paid for but most of the time if Twitter goes belly up, the company would go bankrupt but Musk himself loses very little by comparison.  Probably take a hit on his credit rating.  I think he'll keep Twitter afloat but not like he promised.

Who knows, maybe there's enough people out there willing to pay $8 a month  so they can say anything they want.  That would be interesting to watch.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

He did have a little space program that has been pretty successful, and I think he made his money prior to Tesla from something that was pretty successful...don't feel like looking it up, though.

As for self driving cars, it has been shown that you can get 90% of the way there, the next 9% is REALLY tough, but whether or not the final 1% is even possible has been put in doubt.

----------


## wes4dbt

> He did have a little space program that has been pretty successful, and I think he made his money prior to Tesla from something that was pretty successful...don't feel like looking it up, though.
> 
> As for self driving cars, it has been shown that you can get 90% of the way there, the next 9% is REALLY tough, but whether or not the final 1% is even possible has been put in doubt.


I've never paid much attention, I knew I couldn't afford one.  But a couple of years back I'd see/hear news headlines of accidents involving self driving cars.  Also, I seem to remember talk about some type of self driving taxi in SF.

I guess they were using the term "self driving" loosely.

----------


## Niya

> I think he made his money prior to Tesla from something that was pretty successful...don't feel like looking it up, though.


Paypal.

----------


## sapator

So from what I'm reading and correct me if I'm wrong is:

1)Hopefully twitter will fail but Musk won't get a big financial impact
2)People will pay 8$ and float the twitter with Nazis
3)Twitter and Musk will go afloat
4)Musk bought twitter to bankrupt it. 
5)Musk bought twitter for some financial scheme not clearly explained here
6)Twitter was better the way it was before.


So the ideal scenario would be that twitter would stay as it was and-or go back on what it was before Musk did a very bad thing an bought twitter, when he fails?
I'm neutral concerning Musk (I don't like Tesla if that would be considered positive) nor do I care for twitter but from what I'm reading here I think I should be vouching for him. Or you can convince me otherwise.

----------


## wes4dbt

> So from what I'm reading and correct me if I'm wrong is:
> 
> 1)Hopefully twitter will fail but Musk won't get a big financial impact
> 2)People will pay 8$ and float the twitter with Nazis
> 3)Twitter and Musk will go afloat
> 4)Musk bought twitter to bankrupt it. 
> 5)Musk bought twitter for some financial scheme not clearly explained here
> 6)Twitter was better the way it was before.
> 
> ...


You seem to think people are hoping for bad things for Musk and Twitter.  that's certainly not what I meant by my posts.  The topic has been will Musk really lift all content restrictions.  Most here don't believe that's possible and still be profitable.

How you came to those other conclusions.  I have no idea.
As for the Nazis, best keep them in the closet.

----------


## sapator

Don't know. Maybe I misread. 
So is it a good or a bad thing that Musk bought twitter? For the common people that is. Will he lift restrictions? That is the whole 12 pages discussions? Really now.
Also it was not your posts in specific.

----------


## dilettante

Truth worse than most conspiracy theories.




> Today we bring you an update on the story about the U.S. government's direct portal to censor Facebook and Twitter. The doctor who exposed this portal through litigation is named Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai. Today he comes to Redacted to tell us what was left out of this story and how he thinks government sources might have published only part of it in order to get ahead of it. This means that the media is helping the government to hide its involvement with social media and this is the proof. Are you surprised?

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Paypal.



Yep...

----------


## wes4dbt

> Don't know. Maybe I misread. 
> So is it a good or a bad thing that Musk bought twitter? For the common people that is. Will he lift restrictions? That is the whole 12 pages discussions? Really now.
> Also it was not your posts in specific.


If Musk lifts all restrictions, my guess is that Twitter will become a toxic wasteland.  That will drive away a large segment of users.  Then it will start becoming more and more irrelevant.  But I also don't think Musk will lift all restrictions.

Is it a good or bad thing for the common people?  I don't know, I'm not a Twitter user.  It has no effect on me.  In the long run probably not much will change.  

As for the 12 pages of discussions.  I'm not going to even try and recap.  lol

It's Chit Chat, there is no steering wheel.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> How you came to those other conclusions.  I have no idea.


That would be deliberate cynicism and playing dumb for effect.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Musk borrowed the money to buy Twitter. He has payments of a billion a year, roughly, (those mortgage rates are killers). Twitter has revenues of about 5 billion per year. I believe that's gross. If you don't think it's gross, then what DO you think is gross?

His bid was based on 420, which is something that has gotten him into trouble before. Frankly, I don't think he meant to buy it, but once Twitter sued him, and it became clear that he was going to get thrashed in court (he was losing all his pre-trial maneuvers), he went ahead with what amounted to a MASSIVE impulse buy. Now he's got to make it...do something. As much as he talked it up, I don't think he ever really wanted it, didn't have a real plan for what to do once he got it, and now is trying to figure it out on the fly. He's a smart guy, so he might be able to figure something out, but Twitter lacks a very diverse potential. It is what it is, and that might not be good enough to be interesting.

So, to sum it up: My opinion is that he bought it as a joke, and has no real plan.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> It is what it is, and that might not be good enough to be interesting.


Twitter has been around for a while and wasn't really making money all that time - was actually losing money for much of it. It may well be that Twitter just isn't well-suited to maki8ng a significant profit and will have to become something else in order to do so, but doing so may drive away much of the current audience, regardless of political position - those who want free speech certainly don't want to have to pay for the privilege and the rest of us don't want to pay for the trash we expect to appear as a result of that freedom. If those championing free speech get what they want, I'd say that Musk goes broke as a result, which he's not going to let happen. For Musk to make a profit on Twitter, he's not going to be able to deliver what he "promised" and will have to make other significant changes, thus pissing off both sides. It really is a mess and I'll be surprised if he ever doesn't regret buying - having to buy - Twitter. Maybe this will be what convinces him that he ought to think a bit more before speaking.

It's also interesting that Musk has previously cautioned Jack Dorsey against taking on a lead role in other companies besides Twitter as it could spread him too thin and now Musk himself is taking on that same lead role in Twitter while also having lead roles in several other companies. I don't know whether someone has asked him about this specifically but I would be interested to hear what post hoc rationalisation he would make to justify the contradiction.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> He did have a little space program that has been pretty successful


But what's it actually _delivered_.  A few near orbit flights which the US navy was doing as long ago as what... the 60s I think.  It hasn't delivered anything of value.  It's attracted investment...

It's like his boring company.  It was _meant_ to enable the hyperloop.  He's got a company that can dig holes.  What he doesn't have is a company that can deliver mass transit in a vacuum sealed tube.

This has been the story of his career.  Grand ideas for which he solves one part of the problem (invariably one that had already been solved) and then... tumbleweeds.




> I don't think he meant to buy it, but once Twitter sued him, and it became clear that he was going to get thrashed in court (he was losing all his pre-trial maneuvers), he went ahead with what amounted to a MASSIVE impulse buy


Yep, that.  He didn't _want_ to buy Twitter, he was sued into it.

Ladies and Gentlemen, your champion of the little man and free speech.  Who sacked half of the Twitter staff with no notice, by email and forced victims of his sexual harassment to sign NDAs

----------


## wes4dbt

> But what's it actually _delivered_.  A few near orbit flights which the US navy was doing as long ago as what... the 60s I think.  It hasn't delivered anything of value.  It's attracted investment...
> 
> It's like his boring company.  It was _meant_ to enable the hyperloop.  He's got a company that can dig holes.  What he doesn't have is a company that can deliver mass transit in a vacuum sealed tube.
> 
> This has been the story of his career.  Grand ideas for which he solves one part of the problem (invariably one that had already been solved) and then... tumbleweeds.
> 
> Yep, that.  He didn't _want_ to buy Twitter, he was sued into it.
> 
> Ladies and Gentlemen, your champion of the little man and free speech.  Who sacked half of the Twitter staff with no notice, by email and forced victims of his sexual harassment to sign NDAs


Despite all that, he's one of the richest persons in the world.  lol

Crazy isn't it.  Unless he has a printing press, he's making a tremendous amount of money some how.

----------


## Niya

> Don't know. Maybe I misread. 
> So is it a good or a bad thing that Musk bought twitter? For the common people that is. Will he lift restrictions?


I already covered what this whole thing with Musk and Twitter is about here.

I also mentioned Donald Trump in that post but I didn't say why it was significant. You see before the election of Donald Trump, influential people didn't take social media very seriously. Most viewed it as just a place where people argued over trivial stuff that really didn't matter. Now at the time, the mainstream media machine was putting all of their efforts into making sure that Hillary Clinton won the election. Everyone thought she would win, I thought she would, even Trump supporters thought she would. But then it happened. Donald Trump won the election. It took everyone by surprise. How could this have happened? Well the short version, is that the powers that be that was setting up Hillary to win didn't account for how powerful social media was. It was then that the world learned that Twitter and other giant social media platforms have the power to affect the elections of the most powerful nation on Earth. 

So what followed was a battle for control over the social media space by very powerful business and political groups. This is why censorship has become such a huge talking point when it comes to Elon Musk buying Twitter. You see, if the mainstream endorses a specific presidential candidate or any candidate in the sphere of politics like a senator or whatever, the most effective way to make sure they win is by either silencing their opponents or selectively censoring information such that it makes their "chosen one" look good and the opponent look bad. They didn't do that when Hillary was running against Trump which is one of the main reasons she lost. They don't ever want an upset like this to happen ever again. 

This is what Elon Musk buying Twitter is really all about. They want to completely demonize and silence one side while covering up all bad stuff that the other side does to make them look good. This is unfair and dishonest and people are really starting to catch onto this and they don't like it. All of the leftist stuff I'm constantly ranting about also comes from their camp though it's really a lot bigger than just social justice issues.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Despite all that, he's one of the richest persons in the world.  lol
> 
> Crazy isn't it.  Unless he has a printing press, he's making a tremendous amount of money some how.


He started out with a lot of money and he has built or bought into valuable companies, but much of his wealth is on paper. There were people who were rich on paper during the dot com boom but, when people realised that their companies were actually worthless, that wealth evaporated overnight. That's not to say that that would happen to Elon Musk - not all of his wealth is on paper - but a highly-valued company and a profitable company are not necessarily the same thing.

----------


## wes4dbt

> but a highly-valued company and a profitable company are not necessarily the same thing.


This always sounds weird to me.  I hear people says things like, "company abc was never profitable".  But they were in business for 10yrs.  Everyone at the company got paid, execs and CEO made bunches of money.  Where did all that money come from?  Was it all paid for with investor losses?  How do they keep the doors open for 10yrs?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> This always sounds weird to me.  I hear people says things like, "company abc was never profitable".  But they were in business for 10yrs.  Everyone at the company got paid, execs and CEO made bunches of money.  Where did all that money come from?  Was it all paid for with investor losses?  How do they keep the doors open for 10yrs?


A profitable company is one that makes more than it spends. You can have enough income to pay all your workers and all your other expenses but if you have nothing left over then there's no profit. People will invest in a company that isn't currently profitable if they think that it will be profitable in the future. People will also invest in a company that they don't think will be profitable in the future if they think that enough other people will think that it will be for them to sell their share at a profit. Many companies will start out not making a profit because they invest in growth and that investment will reap rewards later on. Capitalism is largely built on speculation and confidence. Often that speculation works out but when people get too greedy and the confidence disappears, it all comes crashing down, hence the cycle of boom and bust. This is obviously a very simplified explanation and I don't claim to be a finance expert, but I think it serves its purpose.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Where did all that money come from? Was it all paid for with investor losses?


Kinda, yeah.  That's a bit of an oversimplification but it's closer to the truth than you might think.  It was certainly true of facebook for most of its life (it was taking enormous losses until they worked out how to monetise our data and advertising) but investors kept investing because the user base was growing at a massive rate so it was a good bet that the payoff would be huge when they did work out how to monetise it.  And it was.

You Tube is at the same crux point now.  It's never made a profit through services it offers and its entire income stream has been investment.  The user base growth has slowed, though, so future investment is tightening.  That's why its adverts have become more and more intrusive over the last couple of years and you're seeing more and more of a push to get users to subscribe to avoid the adverts.

Amazon is a fantastic example of a CEO deliberately choosing this strategy and making it work.  Bezos deliberately took losses and refused investors dividends for years, ploughing all profits straight back into the business to grow it.  When it he did finally monetize it, the payoff was massively more than it would have been had he not turned those profits inward.

It's tempting to portray this approach as a Ponzi scheme.  I think that's unfair but it does share a lot of characteristics. It relies on investors gambling on a company that does not provide a profitable service.  The difference is that the CEOs of these companies genuinely do intend to convert their user base into a profit-making service at some point in the future, sometimes they just haven't worked out how yet and sometimes it's a deliberate deferral of profit for other benefits.

Then you've got the businesses like Theranos.  I actually believe that Elizabeth Holmes started out with a sincere, if slightly delusional, proposition.  However, when that proposition turned out to be unattainable, instead of squaring up to her investors and admitting that this was going to be a failure, she started lying and faking her results.  That's when you tip over into outright fraud.

To me, companies like Space X are almost in that position now.  The proposition of Space X wasn't to ship Elon and a few of his mates into low earth orbit for a couple of hours at massive cost, we cracked that half a century ago.  The proposition was mass transit to space, including space stations and Mars.  We were supposed to be on Mars last year according to Musks' predictions... we're not.  Space X is profitable, not because of any service it offers, but because enough investors still believe in a future profitable service.  But that proposition is already massively behind schedule with little prospect of ever being achieved.

Don't even get me started on how much is wrong with the hyperloop.  That thing breaks more laws of physics than Superman and would be a death trap of anyone actually built it.  But folks are still investing into the Boring Company.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I don't quite agree with SpaceX. They are bringing in revenue because NASA can't get to space for anywhere near the same price. There's a valid business model for them based on the old fashioned approach of undercutting the competition. They can EASILY sell for less when the competition is NASA. Whether or not they are profitable yet, they WILL be profitable unless somebody else comes along to give them competition at the low price point.

----------


## TysonLPrice

Yeah...nothing to do with his actions and tweets.  It is everyone out to get him.   And nothing changed with content moderation...he fired half the moderators or more.  "They" are trying to destroy America.  I guess it is his shout out to his "Us".  That makes it obvious to me what direction that site us going.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Yeah...nothing to do with his actions and tweets.  It is everyone out to get him.   And nothing changed with content moderation...he fired half the moderators or more.  "They" are trying to destroy America.  I guess it is his shout out to his "Us".  That makes it obvious to me what direction that site us going.


Yes, the nebulous "they" is generally effective because the intended audience will always assume that it's referring to the same nameless, faceless people they hate regardless.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

"They" is also a tiny minority of nameless, faceless, yet incredibly cohesive and powerful people. Conspiracies need "They", because the alternative is too terrifying. Patterns can't emerge out of the chaotic input of millions, or else the world just doesn't make sense to them. There has to be an enemy to oppose, and it has to be small. 

Of course, it isn't just conspiracy theorists, as that is also the plot of so many Hollywood movies. Pretty much all action films have that premise. Whoever the forces of evil are, they have to be small enough and centralized enough that killing one person causes it to all unravel, or else even a six hour trilogy wouldn't be enough time, and the ending would just be a slog. Most progress is generational. Few people ever change their minds about anything fundamental, and rarely enough to shift the world with any speed on any subject that isn't very black and white...and for those that are, the world doesn't change anyways.

----------


## Niya

> Yeah...nothing to do with his actions and tweets.  It is everyone out to get him.   And nothing changed with content moderation...he fired half the moderators or more.  "They" are trying to destroy America.  I guess it is his shout out to his "Us".  That makes it obvious to me what direction that site us going.


Elon is showing those with eyes to see just how corrupt Twitter was. He offered to give them what they asked for but they refused because what they are asking for is not what they actually want. If that was too cryptic here's a clue.

Elon : Content moderation = content moderation
They: Content moderation = silence those we don't endorse.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Elon is showing those with eyes to see just how corrupt Twitter was. He offered to give them what they asked for but they refused


He's showing those with eyes just what an idiot he is. I'm pretty sure that "they" didn't ask for the CEO himself to tweet conspiracy theories that seek to deny the reason and responsibility for a violent attack. If he's tweeting that garbage himself, why should anyone believe that he has any appetite to implement any real content moderation?

----------


## wes4dbt

Elon: Content moderation = silence those we don't endorse.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-m...-flood-twitter

Well that was fast.




> If he's tweeting that garbage himself, why should anyone believe that he has any appetite to implement any real content moderation?


There will be content moderation.  Starting with anything he doesn't like.  After that, my guess is it will depend how he can turn a profit.  

It's already clear that Elon and his Muskateers are going to be blaming "them" when the utopia of free speech doesn't happen.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Elon: Content moderation = silence those we don't endorse.
> 
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-m...-flood-twitter
> 
> Well that was fast.


I'd heard that he was banning parody accounts, which I'm not necessarily opposed to, but I didn't realise that it was seemingly in response to accounts parodying him. Just more evidence of how thin-skinned he is. I imagine that he chose to do away with the warning so that he could ban those people outright to punish them for making fun of him while maintaining plausible deniability, however implausible it is.

----------


## fafalone

I love how Musk declared "Comedy is now legal on Twitter!" and it lasted all of a day or two until he decided to crack down on speech because he ego got bruised from people "impersonating" him with obvious parody. As always, it was never about free speech, it was about silencing the people *they* don't like. Freedom is the "freedom" for them to have a world where only their views are tolerated. 

See also: "Truth social" and Parler, other "free speech" platforms that showed they simply wanted to ban opposing views themselves, when the reality was Twitter and Facebook *already* was severely biased towards them simply because actually enforcing hate speech and harassment rules would get too many of them banned, and not because of being conservative either.

----------


## sapator

Isn't there a possibility that advertisers are actually been pressured to stop adverting to twitter?
I don't know but why rule out this completely?

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Isn't there a possibility that advertisers are actually been pressured to stop adverting to twitter?


They are but that's free speech for you.  The people who oppose Musk's stance get to boycott the advertisers if they want.  What seems to have escaped Musk until now is that free speech cuts both ways.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Isn't there a possibility that advertisers are actually been pressured to stop adverting to twitter?
> I don't know but why rule out this completely?


Technically, that is always true. Advertisers are advertising for a reason. Usually, that reason is to make money, but you can certainly find some other examples (not sure about Greece, but some of those other examples tend to knock on my door about once a month to invite me to one church or another). So, what is pressure in those cases? If you are trying to make money, then anything that you FEEL will cause you to make less money counts as pressure. I emphasize the 'feel' part because everybody is just guessing, so any decision will be based on their perception of the situation.

Given that, what kinds of pressure could there be? It could be boycotts, but that seems pretty unlikely to have worked out so fast. Boycotts generally take a bit of time to have any measurable impact. It could be simple uncertainty. That's certainly the case with GM, who said they were going to suspend advertising before Musk had a chance to do anything one way or another. There could also be internal pressure within the ad agency or the company being advertised. We likely wouldn't know about that, except to say that every person who has lived for at least twenty years knows that happens. Also, there could be external pressure from advocacy groups, which seems to be the "They" that gets tossed around. There are a couple problems with that. For one thing, "They" have no leverage unless the company or the advertising agency gives them some, so it can't be JUST "They". The other problem is that it's also a bit too quick.

Frankly, I think this is just the market. We see it all the time in the stock market: Somebody sees some event, thinks, "gee, this could go bad" and heads for the exit. Somebody else sees the first person going, the herd gets spooked, and a stampede ensues. The key question, though, is what happens next? 

We see this all the time in markets. "Oh my god, it's a catastrophe."....and a bit later, "oh, ok, I guess it's not THAT bad..." 

So, will it be a rout or will it just be a shift in equilibrium? Either one could happen. There are LOTS of platforms for advertisers, and they're all chasing a very large, but not unlimited, pool of money.

----------


## sapator

That was my point also.
Just to note that advertising in Greece for TV, when we had the lockdown went down 100%. There was no advertising on TV!
When government started to give out money to the media stations for the covid propaganda the advertising started to show up again. That seems that the money for advertising are mostly government centric and that was a bit of surprise since not all advertising "products" are government related. That really shows the decay of and dependency of our economy here, something that needs to change swiftly.

----------


## Niya

> I'd heard that he was banning parody accounts, which I'm not necessarily opposed to, but I didn't realise that it was seemingly in response to accounts parodying him. Just more evidence of how thin-skinned he is. I imagine that he chose to do away with the warning so that he could ban those people outright to punish them for making fun of him while maintaining plausible deniability, however implausible it is.


Wrong. 

I don't think you understand how easy it is to parody accounts on Twitter. It's not like say a forum such as this one where your name is unique and unchangeable:-


The above is my account parodying Elon Musk. If I were verified I'd have the blue check mark and I could also change that X image to the one Elon actually uses then my account would be practically identical to Elon Musk's actual account. The only think that gives it away is the barely conspicuous @VBNiya tag at the bottom of the image. Most people, even experienced Twitter users may not even notice the the @ tag. It's not the first thing you look at when reading tweets. This means bad faith actors can say a lot of distasteful things on your behalf and people are very likely to believe it on account on noticing the tag too late and if you're a famous person with millions of people reading your tweets, it could get way out of hand before anyone notices it's a parody account. 

Also and I'm not 100% sure about this one but I believe that it is also possible to parody the @ tag too so if you really wanted to go all out, you could completely fool people into thinking you're someone else.

The Twitter TOS has guidelines, which were in place before Elon's take over by the way, that specifically deal with parody accounts. Here:-
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-an...account-policy

Pay attention to what this says:-



> *Account name*
> 
> The account name should clearly indicate that the account is not affiliated with the subject portrayed in the profile. Accounts can indicate this by incorporating words such as, but not limited to, "parody," "fake," "fan," or "commentary. This language should be stated in a way that can be understood by the intended audience.
> 
> Please note, an account name is separate from the username (i.e. @handle).


and:-



> *What is in violation of this policy?* 
> Accounts that fail to sufficiently distinguish their account name and bio are in violation of this policy. Additionally, the following behaviors may also violate this policy:
>  Using language in the account name or bio that contradicts the required profile language (ex. official) Attempts to hide or obscure the required profile language through the use of excessively long account names or specialized fonts and characters
> 
> Please understand that an account that falls under this policy may be deemed not to violate our trademark policy or our rules regarding impersonation.


In other words, this has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. These crybabies deliberately violated a long standing policy at Twitter in order to martyr themselves so they can bawl their eyes out over what a bad man Elon for allegedly doing the same thing they have been doing to innocent people for years on Twitter. 

You guys need to do your research before just jumping on the bandwagon like this.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> this has absolutely nothing to do with free speech


It's absolutely an issue of free speech.  It just happens to be a form of free speech that we agree should not be allowed.  Copyright infringement is similar.  Free Speech means there's no such thing as intellectual property - again, I suspect we both agree that should be curtailed.

That's one of the problems you're failing to acknowledge, "free speech" has always been conditional.  Where we differ is on what those conditions should be.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> That was my point also.
> Just to note that advertising in Greece for TV, when we had the lockdown went down 100%. There was no advertising on TV!
> When government started to give out money to the media stations for the covid propaganda the advertising started to show up again. That seems that the money for advertising are mostly government centric and that was a bit of surprise since not all advertising "products" are government related. That really shows the decay of and dependency of our economy here, something that needs to change swiftly.


Why did advertising stop? In the US, I don't think ANYTHING can stop advertising. It might change, it might go elsewhere, but admen gonna ad.

Even if your products are government related, it seems like people would still be trying to sell them. Could your ads be 'labor intensive' in some way? Perhaps your beer commercials are just live streams of people drinking?

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> It's absolutely an issue of free speech.  It just happens to be a form of free speech that we agree should not be allowed.  Copyright infringement is similar.  Free Speech means there's no such thing as intellectual property - again, I suspect we both agree that should be curtailed.
> 
> That's one of the problems you're failing to acknowledge, "free speech" has always been conditional.  Where we differ is on what those conditions should be.


I was about to make the same point, but you beat me to it. All speech has rules. People just object when those rules get in their way.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I was about to make the same point, but you beat me to it. All speech has rules. People just object when those rules get in their way.


I don't know if the people screaming foul about censorship don't know that or just choose to be ignorant to that concept because it's a hurdle in claiming they are being discriminated against.

Now Musk is using Twitter to promote Republican voting.  

The only good thing about Musk buying Twitter so far is it makes reading the morning news more interesting.  lol

----------


## Niya

> It's absolutely an issue of free speech.  It just happens to be a form of free speech that we agree should not be allowed.  Copyright infringement is similar.  Free Speech means there's no such thing as intellectual property - again, I suspect we both agree that should be curtailed.
> 
> That's one of the problems you're failing to acknowledge, "free speech" has always been conditional.  Where we differ is on what those conditions should be.


This is wrong. You're confusing two separate issues.

Kathy Griffin impersonated Elon Musk and encouraged people to vote blue. The issue of free speech is about what is said in which case Kathy is free to say what she said. She wasn't banned for telling people to vote blue she was banned for impersonating Elon Musk while doing it. If this was about free speech then the ban would have been about what she said and not the conditions under which she said it. If she made that exact same tweet under her own name, nothing would have happened to her because she has the freedom of speech to voice support for whatever party she wants.

[EDIT]

If Kathy Griffin wanted to prove that she didn't have free speech on Elon's Twitter, all she had to do was make that exactly same tweet under her own name. If she was banned for it then we would know it was political bias. And this is why I despise leftists. You see Kathy Griffin knew what that she wouldn't be banned for just saying what she said, so what did she do? She said it while violating a very clear rule in order to bait the ban so she or the other leftists clowns could then claim it was because of what she said. This is par for the course for leftists. It's a disingenuous and disgusting practice.

----------


## wes4dbt

> This is wrong. You're confusing two separate issues.
> 
> Kathy Griffin impersonated Elon Musk and encouraged people to vote blue. The issue of free speech is about what is said in which case Kathy is free to say what she said. She wasn't banned for telling people to vote blue she was banned for impersonating Elon Musk while doing it. If this was about free speech then the ban would have been about what she said and not the conditions under which she said it. If she made that exact same tweet under her own name, nothing would have happened to her because she has the freedom of speech to voice support for whatever party she wants.
> 
> [EDIT]
> 
> If Kathy Griffin wanted to prove that she didn't have free speech on Elon's Twitter, all she had to do was make that exactly same tweet under her own name. If she was banned for it then we would know it was political bias. And this is why I despise leftists. You see Kathy Griffin knew what that she wouldn't be banned for just saying what she said, so what did she do? She said it while violating a very clear rule in order to bait the ban so she or the other leftists clowns could then claim it was because of what she said. This is par for the course for leftists. It's a disingenuous and disgusting practice.


But parody is a form of speech.  But that isn't really the point.

Some people broke a rule and got banned.  You seem fine with that.  

That just validates what FD and SH are saying.  There are always rules and people are Ok with rules until they hinder what they want to do.  

Now Musk is charge of setting the rules on Twitter but I'd say that our society will still have a major impact on what they are.  And there will be groups claiming other groups are ruining the world.  So what's changed?

----------


## TysonLPrice

WellI guess we have a better idea of who "They" are:




> New Twitter owner Elon Musk tweeted Monday encouraging independent-minded voters to vote Republican, marking a major departure for leaders of social media companies, who typically steer clear of partisan political advocacy.
> 
> Shared power curbs the worst excesses of both parties, therefore I recommend voting for a Republican Congress, given that the Presidency is Democratic, he tweeted.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...-musk-twitter/

Now Twitter is a republican campaign platform.

----------


## Niya

> Some people broke a rule and got banned.  You seem fine with that.  
> 
> That just validates what FD and SH are saying.  There are always rules and people are Ok with rules until they hinder what they want to do.  
> 
> Now Musk is charge of setting the rules on Twitter but I'd say that our society will still have a major impact on what they are.  And there will be groups claiming other groups are ruining the world.  So what's changed?


Not all rules are clear-cut and in these cases they have been abused by the previous regime. Two rules in particular come to mind, rules about disinformation and hate speech. The problem here is that these concepts are far too subjective. Who gets to decide what hate speech is? Who gets to define what disinformation is? The previous regime would label ideas they don't like as hate speech or disinformation as justification to censor it which is what this battle over Twitter is about.

However in the case of parody accounts, the rule is very clear and impossible to misinterpret. There is absolutely nothing subjective about telling people not to impersonate others without making it clear that it's a parody. 

It's like the difference between telling someone not to jump as opposed to telling them not to paint a wall in an ugly colour. Don't jump is very clear and cannot be misunderstood, however who decides what an ugly colour is? I might consider red ugly and you might consider blue ugly. This is impossible to resolve as is. There only two ways to resolve this, either allow them to paint in whatever colour they want which is analogous to what Elon claims he wants to do with Twitter. The other way to resolve it would be to explicitly ban a specific colour. Either way, when you create rules that have many interpretations you create opportunities for abuse.

----------


## Niya

> But parody is a form of speech.  But that isn't really the point.


No no no. If I were a Twitter user with a few hundred thousand followers and I impersonated Elon Musk while saying that I'm closing down Telsa, I could literally tank the stock price of that company since markets react very quickly to news like this. Impersonation is a very serious thing that could have real world consequences if it's not managed. There is a reason identity theft is illegal in most places on Earth.

----------


## wes4dbt

> No no no. If I were a Twitter user with a few hundred thousand followers and I impersonated Elon Musk while saying that I'm closing down Telsa, I could literally tank the stock price of that company since markets react very quickly to news like this. Impersonation is a very serious thing that could have real world consequences if it's not managed. There is a reason identity theft is illegal in most places on Earth.


Yeah, you could put some ones eye out doing that.

"tank the stock"  lol

----------


## wes4dbt

> Not all rules are clear-cut and in these cases they have been abused by the previous regime. Two rules in particular come to mind, rules about disinformation and hate speech. The problem here is that these concepts are far too subjective. Who gets to decide what hate speech is? Who gets to define what disinformation is? The previous regime would label ideas they don't like as hate speech or disinformation as justification to censor it which is what this battle over Twitter is about.
> 
> However in the case of parody accounts, the rule is very clear and impossible to misinterpret. There is absolutely nothing subjective about telling people not to impersonate others without making it clear that it's a parody. 
> 
> It's like the difference between telling someone not to jump as opposed to telling them not to paint a wall in an ugly colour. Don't jump is very clear and cannot be misunderstood, however who decides what an ugly colour is? I might consider red ugly and you might consider blue ugly. This is impossible to resolve as is. There only two ways to resolve this, either allow them to paint in whatever colour they want which is analogous to what Elon claims he wants to do with Twitter. The other way to resolve it would be to explicitly ban a specific colour. Either way, when you create rules that have many interpretations you create opportunities for abuse.


Not sure what your point here is.  that some rules are more subjective than others?  Ok, I agree.   Or that only rules that are impossible to misinterpret are OK?  I disagree.  

And in the end, it's still a fact that there has been and always will be rules.

----------


## dilettante

> All speech has rules. People just object when those rules get in their way.


I think the issue is selectively curtailing speech to suppress diversity of information and opinions to support an autocratic agenda's indoctrination.  When you can define "facts" as only information supporting that agenda you are more than halfway there.

So sure, the rules can "get in the way" of the perception of reality.  Especially when as biased as they have been for quite a while now.

Things got bad here under Reagan, then worse under Clinton.  By the time they were ready to invade Iraq they had disinformation, censorship, etc. pretty finely honed to the point that few would speak out against it.  The tide has turned against the neoliberal agenda now though.  More and more people are throwing off its yoke.  Things are even hotter in Canada than here right now, though if all you see is filtered through the corporate media you wouldn't have any idea.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

What is your information filtered through?

Oh yeah, Youtube videos. I forgot who I was talking to for a moment. 

We aren't there. You aren't and I'm not. Neither one of us has surveyed even a reasonable cross section of Canadians...or Americans, or anybody else, for that matter. So you are getting your information through something. As far as I can tell, the only way you decide whether or not some source is biased is whether or not you agree with what it has to say. After all, there really isn't any other criteria once you've decided that everybody who says what you don't like is either part of 'They' or misled by 'Them'.

----------


## Niya

> Or that only rules that are impossible to misinterpret are OK?  I disagree.


I gave exactly such an example using a rule about painting a wall. There are as many ways to interpret such a rule as there are colours perceivable by humans. It is the same with hate speech and misinformation. They mean different things to different people.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Wrong.


No, not wrong. At least, not based on anything you've provided. I heard many people talking about how sensitive Musk is to criticism and that he was going to use his position against people who mocked him if he bought Twitter and that certainly seems to be the case. Twitter has rules about parody accounts and, as i said, I'm not inherently against that. After having said that he is against permanent bans, Musk has now changed those rules so that parody accounts can be permanently banned without the warning that was previously given. He has literally made it easier for him to do what he said he was against doing and he's doing it. I have seen at least one example of a parody account that was clearly labelled as such but it was a parody of Elon Musk so it's outta here.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I gave exactly such an example using a rule about painting a wall. There are as many ways to interpret such a rule as there are colours perceivable by humans. It is the same with hate speech and misinformation. They mean different things to different people.


You're acting like people don't know that things like hate speech or misinformation have a subjective factor to them.  Though misinformation sometimes can be easily proven, hate speech lends itself more into the category of "I know it when I see it".  

I think you realize we know that.  I've said so,



> Not sure what your point here is. that some rules are more subjective than others? Ok, I agree.


So again, what is your point?  Are you advocating that there shouldn't be any rules regarding hate speech or misinformation because they're subjective?

----------


## wes4dbt

Speaking of misinformation, the Pelosi attack is the type of example that seems to be getting much worse recently.

https://news.yahoo.com/republicans-f...124154018.html

I'm not saying these types of people use to be saints, I just don't remember it being this wide spread.  And with all the various media and social platforms it just spreads like wildfire.

Plus it seems more acceptable.  I wonder, did any of these people apologize for spreading/amplifying lies.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Speaking of misinformation, the Pelosi attach is the type of example that seems to be getting much worse recently.
> 
> https://news.yahoo.com/republicans-f...124154018.html
> 
> I'm not saying these types of people use to be saints, I just don't remember it being this wide spread.  And with all the various media and social platforms it just spreads like wildfire.
> 
> Plus it seems more acceptable.  I wonder, did any of these people apologize for spreading/amplifying lies.


Something that stood out to me from is this about Tucker Carlson:



> Just produce the police bodycam  why is that so hard? Carlson demanded on his show Wednesday night. Addressing those criticizing the conspiracy theorizing, he added: Were not the crazy people; youre the liars. Theres nothing wrong with asking questions, period.


Firstly, it's patently obvious that he and those like him are not "just asking questions". They love to hide behind that but they are clearly not asking what happened - I'm doing that - but rather implying that something for which there is not actual evidence happened. He says "you're the liars" but this is just more of the nebulous "they". If he's talking about bodycam footage then the "you" that he's talking must be the very same law enforcement that he and his ilk wholeheartedly supported when there was actual video evidence of cops murdering George Floyd.

That Elon Musk would contribute to this is pretty disgusting too. he said "there's a tiny possibility that..." or the like and I'm sure he'd hide behind that language but there are a lot of things that there is a tiny possibility of that no one ever mentions because there's no good reason to believe they're true without a single shred of evidence to support them. There's a tiny possibility that Elon Musk is an alien reptile wearing human skin but I'm sure Musk himself would have something to say if prominent people started tweeting that.

----------


## Niya

> No, not wrong. At least, not based on anything you've provided. I heard many people talking about how sensitive Musk is to criticism and that he was going to use his position against people who mocked him if he bought Twitter and that certainly seems to be the case.


The TOS clearly states that if you're impersonating someone, there are some things you must do to make sure people know it's a parody account. Kathy Griffin didn't meet these requirements hence she violated the TOS and got banned for it. It is NOT personal.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> The TOS clearly states that if you're impersonating someone, there are some things you must do to make sure people know it's a parody account. Kathy Griffin didn't meet these requirements hence she violated the TOS and got banned for it. It is NOT personal.


Kathy Griffin is not the only person who has been banned. Like I said, I've seen one account that was banned that had parody literally written all over it. There's also the fact that Musk has said that he's not in favour of banning people and yet he has now made it easier to ban people in this specific circumstance by removing the warning that was previously issued. This is another one of those situations where I and many others don't necessarily have an issue with what he's doing but more that what he's doing goes against claims that he's previously made. It's much like I don't have an issue with Hershel Walker having paid for an abortion but if you're going to hold yourself up as some moral champion and then do the very things you're criticising others for then you deserve to be criticised that much harder.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> The Twitter TOS has guidelines, which were in place before Elon's take over by the way, that specifically deal with parody accounts.


Yes they do and yes there were. Presumably they have been working sufficiently well to deal with this issue all the while. Despite everything else he's got going on that the moment though, Elon Musk decided to change those rules so that accounts in violation could be permanently banned (which he claims to be against doing) without the warning that was previously issued. This happens to have coincided with an influx of accounts parodying Musk himself. Some might say that there's more than a tiny chance that there's more to this than meets the eye. You know, those eyes you tell us you have for seeing, while being conveniently blind to this.

----------


## FunkyDexter

You can continue to ignore inconvenient reality if you like but Musk did change the rules in order to ban these accounts.  Here is the statement he issued:-



> Going forward, any Twitter handles engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying parody will be permanently suspended.  Previously, we issued a warning before suspension, but now that we are rolling out widespread verification, there will be no warning.


This is a 180 from the position he expressed in May when he said Twitter should not have permanent bans.  He did not express any conditions, indeed he described himself as a "Free Speech Absolutionist".

Couple that with his assertion that the change is because they're rolling out "widespread verification"... which does not require the individual to actually verify their identity in any way but simply requires them to pay money and you you're jumping through some truly impressive mental hoops to pretend this isn't hypocrisy.

@JMc I think the account you're referring to was Ethan Klein.  He followed the rules, got banned:-


There was another one where someone actually scrawled "This is a Parody Account" on their profile pic but I can't find the details of that now.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> There was another one where someone actually scrawled "This is a Parody Account" on their profile pic but I can't find the details of that now.


I think that is likely the one I was referring to, as I saw that scrawling in a video by The Rational National. It would be interesting to know the stats on how many parody accounts have been banned just recently, what proportion of them were parodying Elon Musk and whether there were a significant number of similar accounts that were parodying other subjects that didn't get banned. Musk certainly has a history of being thin-skinned and this certainly does seem to be a continuation of that but it is possible that we're not hearing the full story and this policy is being applied fairly. That said, even if it is being applied fairly, that doesn't mean that it wasn't prompted by Musk trying to silence people ridiculing him. Someone was lauding his "let that sink in" joke on YouTube the other day and said that he doesn't take himself too seriously but he sure does when it's other people making the jokes about him.

----------


## sapator

Depends on what the account wrote and if it was active of just did a delete from ( well more of an update). I mean how would you like it if there was an account here that had you name and was trying to ridicule you? You would not ban him? If so I'm tend to make a couple of "parody" accounts...  :Wink: 
Also if he said he will not ban anyone making parody accounts of him, let us see a post or letter or something that proves it.
And again not defending him (seems so but not really) but creating an account of another just to bash him does not seem right for anyone.Having said that since I know little on how it works on twitter it may be allowed, I suppose there are plenty of Biden parody accounts in there or Obama or Trump that going on strong?
That should be interesting to know.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Also if he said he will not ban anyone making parody accounts of him, let us see a post or letter or something that proves it.


Yeah, lets see the police bodycam!!!!  lol




> And again not defending him (seems so but not really) but creating an account of another just to bash him does not seem right for anyone


Is this a parody???  Doesn't sapator believe there shouldn't be ANY content moderation.

Or is this the new, empathetic sapator.  No, this has to be a parody.  I'll let the moderators know.

----------


## FunkyDexter

@Sappy, I think there are some substantial differences you're overlooking.

1. We're not public figures.  There is a long history of parodying public figures stretching back to the Roman Emperors and beyond.  
2. The accounts being banned are not attempting to pass themselves off as Musk for the purpose of fraud.  They are clearly parody even where they have failed to explicitly state it.  All of them would pass the reasonable man on a bus test.
3. Yes we would ban you if you tried to impersonate another user (well, we _might_ let you off it was clearly a joke (and actually funny :Stick Out Tongue: ) but it'd be a subjective decision which might not go your way so I suggest you do not try it) but _we_ have not claimed to be paragons of free speech at all costs.  And _we_ have never declared that there should be no such thing as a permanent ban on VBF.

I think the most damning aspect of this, though, isn't really the banning of parody accounts.  It's that while he's going heavy handed on that he's simultaneously considering letting David Duke back on.  He values the free speech of the head of the Ku Klux Klan higher than that of a satirist.

He doesn't, of course.  He doesn't actually value _anyone's_ free speech.  But he's hoping that there's a business model in there.

----------


## TysonLPrice

I haven't seen any posts recently on the censorship in Europe, Middle Est, and China...he still has to deal with that also.

----------


## sapator

Of course it was a sarcastic post but what I wanted to denote is that Musk is been "hunted" just right when he stired the water (if that is the correct term). 
All was well in twitteland before. Was there the aforementioned parody accounts? I don't know who the people you talk about are, I just sit there as an observer and see him pommeled. 
Is this good or bad we will see but since you know that I mostly disagree with the known group of people here on, almost everything political wise, I think bushing him from day one makes me turn the other way around.
And yes I'm against any form of net control, sorry.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Musk is been "hunted"


I agree but I think that's because he invited it by his recent actions.  An imperfect metaphor: if you walk into the town square, tear your shirt off and yell "_Come and 'ave a go if you think you're 'ard enough_", you can't complain when someone thinks they're hard enough and has a go.

Buying twitter while loudly announcing that you'll champion free speech is going to invite people to challenge that.  Following that up by firing half the staff, with no notice, by email and then immediately removing an element of free speech that was in place... well that's just asking for it.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I haven't seen any posts recently on the censorship in Europe


Yeah.  You wait and see what Germany does when someone tweets a swastika.  And let's be honest, someone _is_ going to tweet a swastika.

----------


## sapator

> I agree but I think that's because he invited it by his recent actions.  An imperfect metaphor: if you walk into the town square, tear your shirt off and yell "_Come and 'ave a go if you think you're 'ard enough_", you can't complain when someone thinks they're hard enough and has a go.
> 
> Buying twitter while loudly announcing that you'll champion free speech is going to invite people to challenge that.  Following that up by firing half the staff, with no notice, by email and then immediately removing an element of free speech that was in place... well that's just asking for it.


I can agree with that. He should keep a low profile and do what he want to do. Been "sneaky" is a better way and if you take a look at the companies that owned twitter before you know that they are masters of been "sneaky". On the other hand I think he is always "loud" on his reaction but if, and that is a BIG if, he is correct, I won't mind loud reactions .

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> when he stired the water (if that is the correct term).


I was thinking it was, but after a bit of research, unless he was bobbling for apples, I believe what you wanted was "stirred". There seems to be some question about that, but at the very least, the Stire was a variation of old English apple.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Been "sneaky" is a better way and if you take a look at the companies that owned twitter before you know that they are masters of been "sneaky".


Yeah, considering that no other company appears to have owned twitter before, aside from Twitter, I'd have to say that they were VERY sneaky.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Of course it was a sarcastic post but what I wanted to denote is that Musk is been "hunted" just right when he stired the water (if that is the correct term). 
> All was well in twitteland before. Was there the aforementioned parody accounts? I don't know who the people you talk about are, I just sit there as an observer and see him pommeled. 
> Is this good or bad we will see but since you know that I mostly disagree with the known group of people here on, almost everything political wise, I think bushing him from day one makes me turn the other way around.
> And yes I'm against any form of net control, sorry.


Something you may not aware of because it is not exactly international news but the United States Congress has had a microscope on the big media companies for years now.   The government is thinking of revamping:




> Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230).


Which is a bedrock of how social media is governed.  Musk is on the front pages because of his own actions and now the topic is hot again.

Texas has their own way:




> A Texas law prohibiting large social media companies from banning users posts based on their political viewpoints will go into effect after a federal appeals court on Friday lifted a block placed on the statute.


https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09...ial-media-law/

So Musk's trouble's are not some new attack...

Ironic...the republicans Musk want his "twats?" to vote for want to hurt him...

----------


## dilettante

I think it's a mistake to think of Republicans as some lockstep solid block.  It was generally true before that backlash to Dubya when he joined arms with warmongers across the aisle.  I can't even remember the goofy label they used for themselves, but they got co-opted and basically disappeared.

By the time Trump came along there was a new populist anti-war group within their ranks.  When Supreme Warmonger Hillary was advanced as a candidate it drove a large faction of traditional Democrats over as well.  The ramping of the culture wars has only served to cement those changes.

We may be in a period of realignment that could alter the core of both parties.  They almost need new names, perhaps Romneycrats and Trumpets.

----------


## sapator

> Yeah, considering that no other company appears to have owned twitter before, aside from Twitter, I'd have to say that they were VERY sneaky.


What? No! How could you?!
I will act as I did not read that.

----------


## sapator

> I was thinking it was, but after a bit of research, unless he was bobbling for apples, I believe what you wanted was "stirred". There seems to be some question about that, but at the very least, the Stire was a variation of old English apple.


Well if you had to look it up, then I was close.For my defense multiple letters in English make no sense at all in  my Greek educated mind, so I try to follow the gibberish of the language.   :Smilie:

----------


## dilettante

Poor old John, reduced to communicating in sarcasm and innuendo.




He's feeling the Iron Curtain coming down.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> What? No! How could you?!
> I will act as I did not read that.


You can act as you wish, but I can't pretend to know what you are talking about here....cause I just don't. What in the wide wide world are you talking about???

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Well if you had to look it up, then I was close.For my defense multiple letters in English make no sense at all in  my Greek educated mind, so I try to follow the gibberish of the language.


You chose a particularly interesting word. I was thinking that "stired" was probably a real word, so I went to look up a definition so that I could make a joke about it, but Google produced some really odd results for that one. I thought I saw some online dictionary that had a definition for "stired" that was the same as "stirred", but when I went to look at it, the spelling was back to "stirred". There are several references that conflict as to whether or not the word is valid in Scrabble (does it surprise ANYBODY that there are multiple sites attempting to referee that game?), and a couple references to the apple, but most references just redirect to a definition for "stirred". 

I don't know that I've ever seen that before, and for such a perfectly reasonable word. It's kind of like "stoped" and "stopped", both of which are words, though their meanings are quite different (and Chrome seems to think "stoped" isn't a word).

----------


## sapator

> You can act as you wish, but I can't pretend to know what you are talking about here....cause I just don't. What in the wide wide world are you talking about???


La-la-la-la-la-la-la!!!!!Me not listening your Vanguardism.

----------


## sapator

> You chose a particularly interesting word. I was thinking that "stired" was probably a real word, so I went to look up a definition so that I could make a joke about it, but Google produced some really odd results for that one. I thought I saw some online dictionary that had a definition for "stired" that was the same as "stirred", but when I went to look at it, the spelling was back to "stirred". There are several references that conflict as to whether or not the word is valid in Scrabble (does it surprise ANYBODY that there are multiple sites attempting to referee that game?), and a couple references to the apple, but most references just redirect to a definition for "stirred". 
> 
> I don't know that I've ever seen that before, and for such a perfectly reasonable word. It's kind of like "stoped" and "stopped", both of which are words, though their meanings are quite different (and Chrome seems to think "stoped" isn't a word).


I probably can root down some but it's very late. Also I have to work tomorrow and in parallel comfort some NATO boys...So...

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> La-la-la-la-la-la-la!!!!!Me not listening your Vanguardism.


I understand you less with each reply along this side thread. I don't know what you are referring to, but then again, it has to be mighty late for you (as you just stated), so perhaps you need some sleep.

----------


## fafalone

> You chose a particularly interesting word. I was thinking that "stired" was probably a real word, so I went to look up a definition so that I could make a joke about it, but Google produced some really odd results for that one. I thought I saw some online dictionary that had a definition for "stired" that was the same as "stirred", but when I went to look at it, the spelling was back to "stirred". There are several references that conflict as to whether or not the word is valid in Scrabble (does it surprise ANYBODY that there are multiple sites attempting to referee that game?), and a couple references to the apple, but most references just redirect to a definition for "stirred". 
> 
> I don't know that I've ever seen that before, and for such a perfectly reasonable word. It's kind of like "stoped" and "stopped", both of which are words, though their meanings are quite different (and Chrome seems to think "stoped" isn't a word).


It's not just random websites either. There's multiple 'official' word lists. There's the Scrabble Player's Dictionary that most casual users use, then there's the NASPA Word List for American tournaments, and the Collins Scrabble Words list more commonly used in international tournaments. 'Stired' is in CSW but not the NWL or SPD. These lists are not without controversy either... NASPA decided it had to be politically correct and banned a long, long list of 'slurs', some of which were important 3 letter words, and a large number of which 99.999% of people have never even heard of and a number that are very mild and not really offensive even to their targets. I could maybe see banning the N word, but you seriously have to ban "bohunk" and "poncy"? The hell do those mean? Also they banned 'gyneocracy'... which is just bizarre, it's not even a slur, and no other obnoxious -ocracy words are banned. Then 'sluttishness' is banned, but 'sluttish', 'slut' and 'slutty' aren't. Also, "pepsi" is a slur according to them. Somebody should notify the soft drink company.

I like Scrabble  :Smilie:

----------


## sapator

> I understand you less with each reply along this side thread. I don't know what you are referring to, but then again, it has to be mighty late for you (as you just stated), so perhaps you need some sleep.


OK then.
You said no other company appears to have owned twitter before, aside from Twitter.
So the questions are.
Who owns twitter now?
Who owned twitter before?
The answer is in my gibberish.

----------


## sapator

> It's not just random websites either. There's multiple 'official' word lists. There's the Scrabble Player's Dictionary that most casual users use, then there's the NASPA Word List for American tournaments, and the Collins Scrabble Words list more commonly used in international tournaments. 'Stired' is in CSW but not the NWL or SPD. These lists are not without controversy either... NASPA decided it had to be politically correct and banned a long, long list of 'slurs', some of which were important 3 letter words, and a large number of which 99.999% of people have never even heard of and a number that are very mild and not really offensive even to their targets. I could maybe see banning the N word, but you seriously have to ban "bohunk" and "poncy"? The hell do those mean? Also they banned 'gyneocracy'... which is just bizarre, it's not even a slur, and no other obnoxious -ocracy words are banned. Then 'sluttishness' is banned, but 'sluttish', 'slut' and 'slutty' aren't. Also, "pepsi" is a slur according to them. Somebody should notify the soft drink company.
> 
> I like Scrabble


That is an issue. Calling a comity to approve words. 
That is crystal clear on the initial Greek words. You don't need a comity. The only time you might need one is on ancient Greek cursing words that even so, probably only 1% of the population can understand (p.e. "μέζεα" mezea aka human testicles. This was used from 1% of the population until it became famous from a Greek  philosopher-trashcan sold out politician https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qamw2zZ2Si4 )
Also gyneocracy? Ban gyneocracy?! Do they even study basic Greek  to become word controllers? Because that would be the first, second and third thing to do as a start.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> That is an issue. Calling a comity to approve words.


No it isn't. It's specifically for the purposes of the game of Scrabble. It's not telling people that they can't use the words outside of the game.

----------


## NeedSomeAnswers

Is anybody here actually on Twitter? 

Is it still relevant anymore?

----------


## sapator

> No it isn't. It's specifically for the purposes of the game of Scrabble. It's not telling people that they can't use the words outside of the game.


Are you disagree just to disagree or is there a point here? 

Edit. Do not want to start a fight, yet, so removed (that was not relevant to JMC post, let me note)...

----------


## sapator

> Is anybody here actually on Twitter? 
> 
> Is it still relevant anymore?


Here probably not...

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Is anybody here actually on Twitter? 
> 
> Is it still relevant anymore?


I wouldn't guess so...but, at last count, there are approximately 450 million monthly active users.  Is it relevant anymore...we are one post #531.  There are headlines on it everyday.  I'd guess so for many people.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Are you disagree just to disagree or is there a point here?


The point was that specifying what words are valid in a game is not policing language. I'm not sure whether that's what you were implying but it's not the first time I'm not sure what you're saying, and it seems that I'm not alone. There are some here who would make an issue of policing language, so I thought it was relevant.

----------


## sapator

Fair enough.
I was implying both the game and the policing, I probably could have explained it better.

----------


## conniegeiger34

Neither I nor my friends have ever used a Twitter. Therefore, it is difficult for me to imagine that it is very popular. Either way, Twitter is ranking in 15th place in terms of the number of users, Twitter falls behind platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and Pinterest.

----------


## dilettante

I think most people in the US are reasonably sane, but the amplified voice of the lunatic fringe is becoming a global embarrassment.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I think most people in the US are reasonably sane, but the amplified voice of the lunatic fringe is becoming a global embarrassment.


Some might be a little more embarrassed that the country that portrays itself as the paragon of democracy is currently justifiably being used by its enemies as a demonstration of why democracy is a failure, but you keep rearranging those deckchairs.

----------


## dilettante

How does any of that follow from resisting the banning of common words and phrases?

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

So...now the evidence we are using for our position is not just a video of somebodies opinion, but a video of somebodies opinion about another video that is looking for fringe positions to ridicule?

That's so meta.

----------


## dilettante

Yeah, because looking at somebody on the outside looking in tells you nothing about how things look to those outside.

And why accept video first-person information when it is so much easier to spin quotes by limiting "valid points" to those expressed as typed text?

----------


## techgnome

> Who owns twitter now?


Elon does... lock, stock, and both barrels... and now both checkmarks...




> Who owned twitter before?


The "public" and by that I mean the stockholders of the company.

Before that (before their IPO) then it would have been the initial investors and founders.


-tg

----------


## wes4dbt

> I wouldn't guess so...but, at last count, there are approximately 450 million monthly active users.  Is it relevant anymore...we are one post #531.  There are headlines on it everyday.  I'd guess so for many people.


I don't mind being irrelevant, but do you have to point it out???  lol

450 million monthly user is actually less than I would have guessed.  It seems to be a platform for public figures like politicians/the wealthy/sports figures/media/actors ....  and the people that follow these people for various reasons.  I though it was strange that over 100 million people follow Musk on Twitter.  I mean, there's no need, anything significant that he says or does will be in the news.  

But I'm old and don't like staring at a little cell phone screen.  So, Get off my lawn!!! lol

----------


## sapator

> Elon does... lock, stock, and both barrels... and now both checkmarks...
> 
> 
> The "public" and by that I mean the stockholders of the company.
> 
> Before that (before their IPO) then it would have been the initial investors and founders.
> 
> 
> -tg


How is one company public and another one private?A company is not public if not belong to the public sector, like water or electricity.
So if Musk has stockholders (I don't know if he does) then his company is public?
Am I missing something that is different in the US?

----------


## dilettante

Privately helps among select investors and "publicly" traded in the casinos (stock markets) are two different things.  Both are separate from public agencies like the post office.

----------


## techgnome

> How is one company public and another one private?A company is not public if not belong to the public sector, like water or electricity.
> So if Musk has stockholders (I don't know if he does) then his company is public?
> Am I missing something that is different in the US?





> Privately helps among select investors and "publicly" traded in the casinos (stock markets) are two different things.  Both are separate from public agencies like the post office.


pretty much.

There's privately held companies - which means the ownership (may or may not be stock) is held by a selected group of one or more individuals. Then there's publicly traded companies - these are the ones where their ownership is bought and sold on the stock markets (Wall Street, NASDAQ, etc) ... the stocks/shares can be bought and sold by anyone in the public. Privately held companies are not traded openly on the stock markets. This is where Twitter is now... it was publicly traded... EM offered everyone a price for their stocks. The offer was accepted, money and stocks traded hands, then EM filed to have the company delisted so that it can no longer be publicly traded. It's now solely in private hands.

-tg

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I don't mind being irrelevant, but do you have to point it out???  lol
> 
> 450 million monthly user is actually less than I would have guessed.  It seems to be a platform for public figures like politicians/the wealthy/sports figures/media/actors ....  and the people that follow these people for various reasons.  I though it was strange that over 100 million people follow Musk on Twitter.  I mean, there's no need, anything significant that he says or does will be in the news.  
> 
> But I'm old and don't like staring at a little cell phone screen.  So, Get off my lawn!!! lol


I'm old by any standard, sixty-eight.  I never even in a bored moment considered joining Twitter and I never looked at it.  I'm going to look at the site after I post this.  No chance I'll create an account.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> How is one company public and another one private?A company is not public if not belong to the public sector, like water or electricity.
> So if Musk has stockholders (I don't know if he does) then his company is public?
> Am I missing something that is different in the US?


You might be. The public sector companies you mentioned can be government, or private companies with government oversight, or regular companies. Utility companies are a strange patchwork quilt in the US. 

For all other companies, there are public and private. Public companies have publicly traded stock, while private do not. However, even that's not so simple. Take Meta, for example. It's a public company because it has publicly traded stock, but Zuckerberg has majority ownership, so he can tell the stockholders to go pound sand, if he wants to. That makes Meta a public company that can act like a private company (not responsible to shareholders). Alphabet is like that, as well, though the majority stake is smaller. Other public companies (for example, Microsoft and Apple), have nobody with a majority of the shares. They are responsible to the influence of their shareholders, as the shareholders could, in theory, vote for a different course of action.

----------


## sapator

Greece is somewhat different as most companies that are on stock are VERY large companies or Public companies. I mean...Well I think, our company now merged with one very big multinational company have no stocks.
In either way, Public or Private twitter was not owned by twitter as it had stocks available.

Edit, no I was wrong, we have stocks and owned by Saudi Arabs. Who knew!

----------


## jmcilhinney

> How does any of that follow from resisting the banning of common words and phrases?





> Yeah, because looking at somebody on the outside looking in tells you nothing about how things look to those outside.


I am somebody on the outside looking in. Just as in the US, there are different people with different points of view in every country but I would suggest that there are things going on in the US that should globally embarrass you far more than what you seem to be primarily concerned with.

----------


## dilettante

> There's privately held companies...


Yes, my post had an absurd typo there.

----------


## wes4dbt

Question,

Twitter was public, Mush bought it at a set stock price, now it's private.  So do all share holder have to sell their stocks at the Musk price??

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Mush


Not sure if that was deliberate but I keep making the exact same annoying typo and having to correct it.  Glad I'm not the only one :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 

As I understand it (which is not very well) the share holders can continue to sell their stock to whomever they want at whatever price they agree.  Once a company is taken off the stock market it no longer has a set share price as that's a function of the stock market's trading systems.  N.b. "set" is kinda the wrong word there as it's really just a suggested price - albeit the one that the trading system will use by default.  The share price is dictated by the trades that are made, not the other way round.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Not sure if that was deliberate but I keep making the exact same annoying typo and having to correct it.  Glad I'm not the only one
> 
> As I understand it (which is not very well) the share holders can continue to sell their stock to whomever they want at whatever price they agree.  Once a company is taken off the stock market it no longer has a set share price as that's a function of the stock market's trading systems.  N.b. "set" is kinda the wrong word there as it's really just a suggested price - albeit the one that the trading system will use by default.  The share price is dictated by the trades that are made, not the other way round.


Thanks,

I'm still feeling pretty dense about this.  So all the stock can still be owned by other people (I'm sure he owns a large chuck) and it can be traded.  But Musk has all the control of the company and no obligations to the stock holders.  Is that correct?

If not all the stock, then what did Musk get for $44 billion?   

The first one to answer this correctly will get to play the bonus round!!!

----------


## Niya

> Is anybody here actually on Twitter?


I'm on Twitter a lot but I don't tweet. As of this post I have only ever made one tweet and it was just to correct someone's bad math. I spend most of my time reading tweets in an attempt to keep up with what is going on in certain circles mostly related to the culture war. For example.

[EDIT]

Also, if you have a Gmail account, you're already on Twitter. You can log into Twitter using your Gmail account.




> Is it still relevant anymore?


It is more relevant than ever before. Twitter is by far the best place to go when you want to know what's going on in the present moment. The "old guard" new sources are much slower and a lot of news worthy events tend to not get reported. Also, it has become clear to many people that the old guard news sources put their own spin on events in order influence your thoughts in the direction they want. On Twitter, you get it raw so you can form your own opinions without these talking head jackals trying to tell you how to feel about it.

----------


## Niya

You know, I'm just starting to realize that the membership here don't really grasp just how monumentally important Twitter has become in the modern world. This is surprising since VBForums is filled with tech guys who should know this by default. Then again we worship 20 year old tech like VB6 and dying languages like VB.Net over here so maybe it's not that surprising. Anyways, Twitter is important guys, very very important. Elon Musk would not spend 40 billion on it if it weren't.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Yes, he would. The offer price was his second pot reference when it comes to stocks. The last one got him in trouble with the SEC. This one...just got him in financial trouble. I'm still not clear whether or not he really meant it. I'd say that it's pretty clear that he regrets it, whether he meant it or not at the time.

As for the relevance, that's in the eye of the beholder. There's a whole lot of chaff to get through on that one.

----------


## sapator

Tech has nothing to do with social media. I dislike social media and smirk seen people glued to a screen patting the glass without knowing what is going on in the real world. I'm thankful I was not born in this generation.

----------


## dilettante

I don't see the point of "verified" accounts for the rich and connected anyway.  Who really thinks a "Tony Blair" tweet didn't, at best, come from a PR firm rather than the man himself?  Corporate accounts make even less sense, since as even an idiot knows corporations are not people.

Does anybody really have much trust about online identities at all?  If they could be halfway trusted then even email spam filters would be far more effective than they are.

----------


## Niya

> Tech has nothing to do with social media. I dislike social media and smirk seen people glued to a screen patting the glass without knowing what is going on in the real world. I'm thankful I was not born in this generation.


Hey, I'm with you there. I wish we could go back to simpler times but the dark truth is, social media is very important and if we don't treat it as such, we will very quickly find ourselves we do not understand.

----------


## Niya

> I don't see the point of "verified" accounts for the rich and connected anyway.


Verified accounts on Twitter were actually for the most part the unofficial way prominent leftist thought leaders and their lackeys identified themselves on Twitter. They also enjoyed the privilege of being untouchable. They could say and do anything on Twitter the rest could not. Now of course it wasn't true 100% of the time. There are many non-leftists who were also verified but it was generally understood that if you were pious enough to the religion of the left, you were more likely to be rewarded with that blue tick as a sign that you're a member and not to be touched or critisized.

Elon Musk ended this elitist practice by making it $8 across the board for anyone to get verified. This is the real reason so many prominent leftists are angry about the change. They no longer get to lord over the common folk with their little blue tick.

This seems ridiculous I know but this is what the world is now sadly.

----------


## sapator

> Hey, I'm with you there. I wish we could go back to simpler times but the dark truth is, social media is very important and if we don't treat it as such, we will very quickly find ourselves we do not understand.


I wasn't arguing, I just walk around and see people in the glass and having lived through computers almost all my life it still does not look right to me. Social media have diverted so much but in the core is the same for the majority, to deceive people in a way that people high up can get their ruling. Now if Musk poses as a white knight, remains to be seen. Maybe he got bored, maybe don't like the BS US did with the war, covid ,climate change etc, maybe he just wants to get more money, all the money in the world.Rich people tend to do so. But as I said before, this "riot" is way more interesting than the boring tweet blocking.

----------


## sapator

On the other hand:

KFC in germany remembering the national socialist november pogroms against jews, the prelude to the shoah, with some tender cheese and crispy chicken

https://twitter.com/n1ckism/status/1...371203/photo/1

Sometimes you need the media to read something so idiotic.

----------


## Niya

> Now if Musk poses as a white knight, remains to be seen.


If he unbans any one of Jordan Peterson, The Babylon Bee or even Donald Trump we will know for sure beyond a shadow of a doubt he is the real deal and is truly about free speech.

Personally, I just want him to do it just so I can enjoy watching leftists lose their minds. Truth be told, Elon Musk buying Twitter is not nearly enough to break the leftist monopoly on thought policing.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Does anybody really have much trust about online identities at all?





> I don't see the point of "verified" accounts for the rich and connected anyway.


People don't really trust online identities and that is exactly the point of verified Twitter accounts. The reason that they have been reserved for prominent people is exactly because they are prominent and thus prone to being impersonated. I doubt anyone would care to pretend to be you or me on Twitter because it wouldn't and couldn't really achieve anything. There are people on Twitter who, for good or ill, have far more influence than us and so their being impersonated could have a significant impact. By Twitter verifying the identity of those people or entities, those reading their tweets can be sure that the information they contain accurately represents the position of those people or entities. It doesn't really matter whether a person has written it themselves or had a PR person do it for them. It's still their official position and that is what the blue check mark has represented up until now. I'm not sure what process is actually followed now but it seems like all the blue check mark verifies is that you've paid the fee.



> Corporate accounts make even less sense, since as even an idiot knows corporations are not people.


Corporate accounts make perfect sense. Just off the top of my head, maybe a retailer could tweet something about a special deal they were having, where someone impersonating that account and tweeting about a non-existent special could cause havoc for that retailer. A company might also tweet all manner of information that could affect their stock price either way, so someone impersonating that account could manipulate the market. Honestly, this all seems pretty obvious to me so I can't help but feel that you're purposely overlooking it in order to justify the changes that Elon Musk is making.

As for idiots knowing corporations are not people, it appears that you're wrong there too, given how hard so many idiots on the right fought to bestow legal rights on corporations that were previously limited to actual people.

----------


## TysonLPrice

Twitters content moderation head quits as departures alarm the FTC...he wasn't the only one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...-resignations/

----------


## sapator

Nice.
But I don't think he is stupid enough to quit and lose any severance. Probably "baptized" as quit as we are talking a LOT of bucks here for head managers. Or I'm missing some US law extravaganza .

----------


## fafalone

> If he unbans any one of Jordan Peterson, The Babylon Bee or even Donald Trump we will know for sure beyond a shadow of a doubt he is the real deal and is truly about free speech.
> 
> Personally, I just want him to do it just so I can enjoy watching leftists lose their minds. Truth be told, Elon Musk buying Twitter is not nearly enough to break the leftist monopoly on thought policing.


How can you still think he's the real deal and truly about free speech when he banned a bunch of obvious parody for making fun of him? LOL

The pretzels right wingers like Musk twist themselves into trying to ignore what massive flaming hypocrites they are about free speech.

Also "free speech" advocates on the right: Let's ban a bunch of books and regulate what people say! Also, let's ban men dressing to feminine! 

The *left* is the one thought policing? ROFL. Actual laws suppressing speech and trying to police ideas >>>>>>>>> social pressure.


Edit: Also,

Musk warns of Twitter bankruptcy as more senior executives quit

LOL yes this was a totally sound financial decision based on Twitter's monumental importance and Musk is a genius who will easily make back his money.

----------


## fafalone

> Verified accounts on Twitter were actually for the most part the unofficial way prominent leftist thought leaders and their lackeys identified themselves on Twitter. They also enjoyed the privilege of being untouchable. They could say and do anything on Twitter the rest could not. Now of course it wasn't true 100% of the time. There are many non-leftists who were also verified but it was generally understood that if you were pious enough to the religion of the left, you were more likely to be rewarded with that blue tick as a sign that you're a member and not to be touched or critisized.
> 
> Elon Musk ended this elitist practice by making it $8 across the board for anyone to get verified. This is the real reason so many prominent leftists are angry about the change. They no longer get to lord over the common folk with their little blue tick.
> 
> This seems ridiculous I know but this is what the world is now sadly.


There's a difference between the narrative OAN told you and what happens in the real world.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Also "free speech" advocates on the right: Let's ban a bunch of books and regulate what people say! Also, let's ban men dressing to feminine!


Also, don't say gay.  Let's not forget that one.

I completely agree with you.  Both sides try to police language.  The difference I see is that the left is usually asking for the ability to express progressive ideas.  The right, as often as not, seems to be defending their right to be cruel.

----------


## sapator

Depends what progressive ideas mean for someone and what cruel ideas mean to another one.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> I dislike social media and smirk seen people glued to a screen patting the glass without knowing what is going on in the real world.


Then what are you doing here? This IS social media. Yeah, it's a niche/limited form of social media, but it's still social media. Just look at the Post Race.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> If he unbans any one of Jordan Peterson, The Babylon Bee or even Donald Trump we will know for sure beyond a shadow of a doubt he is the real deal and is truly about free speech.


Not Trump. The other two, I think you could make your case, but when it comes to Trump, banning or unbanning him likely doesn't say anything one way or another about free speech. It might, it just would be very difficult to be certain. The billionaires club is it's own thing.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Nice.
> But I don't think he is stupid enough to quit and lose any severance. Probably "baptized" as quit as we are talking a LOT of bucks here for head managers. Or I'm missing some US law extravaganza .


Sort of. There's something of an 'old boys' club at the upper end of tech. Most likely, he won't be living in his car as a result of giving up his employment, so severance probably doesn't mean a thing to him. So, it's not a US law thing, it's a 'tech-bro culture' thing, more likely.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Depends what progressive ideas mean for someone and what cruel ideas mean to another one.


In the US, at least, the term progressive has replaced the term liberal. It's the same group, just a different label.

----------


## sapator

> Then what are you doing here? This IS social media. Yeah, it's a niche/limited form of social media, but it's still social media. Just look at the Post Race.


Do you also want me to leave? 

I was here before the social media spurge as you can remember and this is a programing forum last I checked, or is it tweetforums?If it was I wouldn't be here.I'm talking about tweet,face,tik tak tok and the lots.Not 10 people slidetrack in the forum and argue.
Plus I like to stay and piss you off!  :big yellow:

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Do you also want me to leave?


That's a loaded question and I won't answer it.  This is a programming forum that happens to have a sidebar of open chat.  Over the last year or so it gets hot when politics or social differences popup.  There have even been suggestions that Chit Chat should just go away.  Then it will be a truly programming forum.  I'd miss the Chit Chat piece.

----------


## sapator

I though is should write "Do you want me to live?" and get fed to the wolfs but US aficionados are mostly on bedtime

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I don't remember last week, let along whenever you showed up.

----------


## sapator

Says 2006 in Join Date.So hmmm, must have been 4 years after you showed up.
...Kind to think of it, i don't remember last week either.Had so much work...Something about Musk, screaming for 3 hours and eating pizza....

----------


## Niya

> How can you still think he's the real deal and truly about free speech when he banned a bunch of obvious parody for making fun of him?


Jordan Peterson etc were banned for wrong-think which is to say they refuse to tow the line and support the leftist narratives. These parody accounts are leftists that martyred themselves by blatantly breaking the TOS knowing full well they would get punished so they can make the exact same claims about Musk that you're making.

----------


## Niya

> LOL yes this was a totally sound financial decision based on Twitter's monumental importance and Musk is a genius who will easily make back his money.


It's better that Twitter burns to the ground than continue on the same path as it was pre-Elon Musk. But that's just my opinion.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> It's better that Twitter burns to the ground than continue on the same path as it was pre-Elon Musk. But that's just my opinion.


I thought you swore this site off...never to return!  Can we just assume your grand words are just BS every time you make grand statements?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Jordan Peterson etc were banned for wrong-think which is to say they refuse to tow the line and support the leftist narratives.


Jordan Peterson was banned for one specific tweet, in which, if I'm not mistaken, he deliberately misgendered Elliot Page, in direct contravention of Twitter's ToS. He was told that he could delete that one tweet and he would be welcomed back. In the ridiculous 15-minute, highly-produced video he made on the subject, in which he pretended that it was somehow awkward and confusing to refer to Elliot Page as "Elliot" and "he" and that Twitter weren't open about what he did not being allowed, he said that he'd rather die than do so. What a drama queen! At least he wasn't crying when he said it.

When Peterson came to mainstream prominence by lying about Canadian law, he literally said that he had no issue using someone's preferred pronouns but that he was against anyone being compelled to do so by law. He then realised that he could harness the right's hate of trans people for his own financial gain, so now we're at the stage where he's pretending that it supposedly being awkward and confusing is a valid reason not to refer to a trans person by even their preferred name, never mind their preferred pronouns, and calling doctors who performed legal surgery on a consenting adult "criminals".

Now that he's given himself brain damage in Russia by having treatment that actually would be criminal in the US or Canada, he seems to have forgotten that his positions were a grift and seems to think that he actually believes them. It always amused me when he said that he had found a way to monetise SJWs and right-wingers and centrist bros would smile and nod because they thought that that meant that those SJWs were stupid when it was actually they who were giving Peterson all the money. What he'd actually monetised was right-wing hate of SJWs and he's since added trans people to the list, despite his previous claims.

Maybe Peterson should leave Twitter altogether. He did "announce" that he was going to do just that, giving a big thumbs-up for personal responsibility when he said that he was going to have his staff hide his password from him. I guess he found their hiding spot. Maybe he should start his own social media platform with, instead of a bird logo, something lobster-themed. He can then bang on about how hierarchies are natural and good and suppressing them is wrong, except the sexual hierarchy in young adults, which must be suppressed with "enforced monogamy", as though Christianity doesn't already do that, at least in public. I'm sure such a platform would allow a healthy debate about what people mean by "do".

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Verified accounts on Twitter were actually for the most part the unofficial way prominent leftist thought leaders and their lackeys identified themselves on Twitter. They also enjoyed the privilege of being untouchable. They could say and do anything on Twitter the rest could not. Now of course it wasn't true 100% of the time. There are many non-leftists who were also verified but it was generally understood that if you were pious enough to the religion of the left, you were more likely to be rewarded with that blue tick as a sign that you're a member and not to be touched or critisized.
> 
> Elon Musk ended this elitist practice by making it $8 across the board for anyone to get verified. This is the real reason so many prominent leftists are angry about the change. They no longer get to lord over the common folk with their little blue tick.
> 
> This seems ridiculous I know but this is what the world is now sadly.


Thank you for telling me what I think, rather than asking me. While I can't speak for others, would you like me to explain what the problem is as I see it? I'll do so if you're interested but I get the felling that you prefer your strawman, so I'm not inclined to waste the time it would take by default.

----------


## dilettante

Interesting.  The "UAP" disinformation campaign and its role in suggesting some credible alien threat to justify establishing and funding Hillary's "Space Force" that still grates on her because Trump snagged her hobbyhorse and rode off on it.  And Twitter, Facebook, etc. were there to silence any voices opposing it all.





Longer conversation:

----------


## Niya

> I thought you swore this site off...never to return!  Can we just assume your grand words are just BS every time you make grand statements?


Go back and read what I wrote.

----------


## Niya

> Jordan Peterson was banned for one specific tweet, in which, if I'm not mistaken, he deliberately misgendered Elliot Page, in direct contravention of Twitter's ToS.


So speaking the truth is against Twitter's ToS?




> When Peterson came to mainstream prominence by lying about Canadian law, he literally said that he had no issue using someone's preferred pronouns but that he was against anyone being compelled to do so by law. He then realised that he could harness the right's hate of trans people for his own financial gain, so now we're at the stage where he's pretending that it supposedly being awkward and confusing is a valid reason not to refer to a trans person by even their preferred name, never mind their preferred pronouns, and calling doctors who performed legal surgery on a consenting adult "criminals".
> 
> Now that he's given himself brain damage in Russia by having treatment that actually would be criminal in the US or Canada, he seems to have forgotten that his positions were a grift and seems to think that he actually believes them. It always amused me when he said that he had found a way to monetise SJWs and right-wingers and centrist bros would smile and nod because they thought that that meant that those SJWs were stupid when it was actually they who were giving Peterson all the money. What he'd actually monetised was right-wing hate of SJWs and he's since added trans people to the list, despite his previous claims.
> 
> Maybe Peterson should leave Twitter altogether. He did "announce" that he was going to do just that, giving a big thumbs-up for personal responsibility when he said that he was going to have his staff hide his password from him. I guess he found their hiding spot. Maybe he should start his own social media platform with, instead of a bird logo, something lobster-themed. He can then bang on about how hierarchies are natural and good and suppressing them is wrong, except the sexual hierarchy in young adults, which must be suppressed with "enforced monogamy", as though Christianity doesn't already do that, at least in public. I'm sure such a platform would allow a healthy debate about what people mean by "do".


I could spend an entire week writing essays picking at all the things wrong in these 3 paragraphs this. But I can say this though, the more I read stuff like this, the more I'm convinced I'm right. My mind is just blown by how you process reality to be completely honest. It's actually quite fascinating.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> It's better that Twitter burns to the ground...


It's looking like you're going to get your wish.  Musk is already talking about folding twitter and has warned the staff that there's a risk of bankruptcy.  That you would celebrate that while espousing Twitter's importance as a platform for free speech smacks of hypocrisy.

Mind you, it's going to be fun seeing if Twitter under Musk can outlast a head of lettuce.




> he literally said that he had no issue using someone's preferred pronouns but that he was against anyone being compelled to do so by law.


...which is a position I actually agree with.  But, of course, this position is never really about the word, it's about people's discomfort with the phenomenon.  The refusal to use the word is a fig leaf for the phobia.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> So speaking the truth is against Twitter's ToS?


I'm sure that made you feel very clever but do you think that it really achieved anything?

Firstly, do you think it convinced me or anyone else of anything other than your inability be argue in good faith?

Secondly, it's a pretty poor argument when talking about Jordan Peterson in particular, given how malleable a concept truth seems to be to him. This is the guy who, when asked whether he believes in god, rather than saying "no" as is clearly the truth, he deflects by saying "what do you mean by 'do'". This is the guy who says that Christianity is "truer than true" because it's "metaphorically true". He'll stroke Christians who claim to communicate directly with a god that Peterson can't even say whether he believes exists or not yet he'll disregard people's claims about their own gender identity because biological sex and chromosomes and genitals are the only things that are or could be true?

Thirdly, even if he were speaking the truth, it really doesn't matter. You defend the banning of Kathy Griffin because she broke the rules but you're determined to completely overlook that when it comes to Jordan Peterson. Peterson deliberately misgendered Elliot Page. That is against the rules and he knew it, yet he whines about the consequences of doing so and even pretends that there's no way he could have known. Even if what he said was true, he knew that he wasn't allowed to say it and he said it anyway. Twitter is perfectly within its rights to make a list of true things that people cannot say and ban them if they do.



> I could explain why you're wrong but, instead, I'm just going to declare myself right.


Judging by the standard of your previous arguments, I doubt that any such picking would be at all worthwhile. Why don't you just try one thing though. Just explain one thing I got wrong. I'll admit that I made a couple of assumptions about Peterson's motivations, but I don't think they're too much of a stretch. I stand 100% behind most of it though.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Go back and read what I wrote.


I posted that in a moment of "weakness"   :Blush: 

I apologize...

----------


## wes4dbt

> ...which is a position I actually agree with. But, of course, this position is never really about the word, it's about people's discomfort with the phenomenon.


I agree and I can admit that I have a level of discomfort.  But it's pretty natural when you think about or experience something new to have some discomfort.  Not that being transgender is new, it's just not been talked about much before.  It's strange how that discomfort has such varying affects on people.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Up until this thread, I thought Elliot was a dragon. I suppose that's a different dragon.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Up until this thread, I thought Elliot was a dragon. I suppose that's a different dragon.


lol

Really, I'm right there with you.  Had never heard the name.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> ...which is a position I actually agree with.


The problem is that Peterson made it sound like people were going to be arrested on the spot for casually misgendering someone in conversation with their friends. I never did check this out but I heard that the province in which Peterson worked - and lived, presumably - had a similar law on the books and it wasn't causing an issue for him or anyone else but he tried to make out that the federal law was something else. I have no doubt that he lied about the law, but I'm not certain about his motivation. I would certainly not be surprised to learn that he did it to deliberately raise his profile among a particular type of people. If that was the reason, I think that it succeeded way beyond what he expected it would.

----------


## dilettante

Wait, I thought if we don't live in Canada we aren't allowed to express opinions.  Pretty sure that was the slick, superior, slapdown I was handed earlier by one of our Church Ladies here.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Pretty sure...


Pretty sure you're just whining, as per usual. Even if someone did say that - I remember some reference but I can't recall exactly what was said and can't be bothered to try to find it - we both know that that's just one person's opinion and neither of us are obliged to live by it. Perhaps you could actually address the issue for once, rather than deflecting with your faux confusion and outrage at being oppressed by the weight of the left.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Had never heard the name.


Really?  It's pretty common over here and I always just assumed it would be there too.  One of my nephews is an Elliot.  Handsome fellow.  Takes after his uncle. :big yellow: 




> I agree and I can admit that I have a level of discomfort. But it's pretty natural when you think about or experience something new to have some discomfort. Not that being transgender is new, it's just not been talked about much before. It's strange how that discomfort has such varying affects on people.


I think you hit on something really important here.  We all carry prejudices, discomfort etc with us throughout our lives.  It comes from evolutionary survival instincts which condition us to distrust things we're not familiar with.  To have those gut reactions is OK, it's human.

It's what we _do_ with those reactions in a civilised society that counts.  We have evolved our societies beyond the need to distrust and fear things that we're unfamiliar with.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Really? It's pretty common over here and I always just assumed it would be there too. One of my nephews is an Elliot. Handsome fellow. Takes after his uncle.


Oh, you have a handsome brother.  lol

I meant I had never heard the name, Elliot Page.  I do recognize the actor.

----------


## Niya

> The problem is that Peterson made it sound like people were going to be arrested on the spot for casually misgendering someone in conversation with their friends.


https://www.charismanews.com/world/7...trans-activist

https://fox11online.com/news/local/p...ng-fights-back

https://www.opindia.com/2021/03/cana...d-as-daughter/

You've just exposed yourself here. You never struck me as someone that talks about things he knows nothing about. I can therefore assume that the fact that you're willing to debate these social issues with me means you know about as much about these issues as I do which also means you would have known just as I do that they are already arresting people for this around the world. Therefore it follows that the statement you made which I just quoted is an attempt at deception. What am I to make of this?

So did you know they were already arresting people for this? And if so, tell me why is this kind of state tyranny justifiable in your mind?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> You've just exposed yourself here.


Have I really? Two of the cases you raised are not in Canada so have no relevance at all to what Jordan Peterson said about a specific Candian law. The only one that is in Canada is not a case of someone being "arrested on the spot for casually misgendering someone in conversation with their friends" so does nothing to refute what I actually said. We can discuss those particular cases if you'd like but if you're going to pretend that they have anything to do with the specific point I made - that what Jordan Peterson specifically said about a specific Canadian law was a lie - then you're being dishonest from the start. If you're going to defend Jordan Peterson as a paragon of truth, you're going to have to address what Jordan Peterson actually said, which you have not done.

----------


## wes4dbt

> https://www.charismanews.com/world/7...trans-activist
> 
> https://fox11online.com/news/local/p...ng-fights-back
> 
> https://www.opindia.com/2021/03/cana...d-as-daughter/
> 
> You've just exposed yourself here. You never struck me as someone that talks about things he knows nothing about. I can therefore assume that the fact that you're willing to debate these social issues with me means you know about as much about these issues as I do which also means you would have known just as I do that they are already arresting people for this around the world. Therefore it follows that the statement you made which I just quoted is an attempt at deception. What am I to make of this?
> 
> So did you know they were already arresting people for this? And if so, tell me why is this kind of state tyranny justifiable in your mind?


I don't know anything about the validity of those articles or the extent of the alleged harassment so I wont comment on that.  

But I don't believe that a minor should have transition operations.  I'm only talking about the operations, not their right the to live as any gender they chose.  A teenage brain is far from fully developed.  

I'm actually quite surprised that it's legal.  There are many laws for the protection of minors, I think this should be one.

----------


## FunkyDexter

I can't speak to the other two cases (the Fox news one doesn't even work for me) but I do remember the Kate Scottow one.  She wasn't arrested for misgendering, she was arrested for harassment.  The harassment was mainly focussed around gender, certainly, but was continuous and went on for a sustained period of time.  It was insulting in nature rather than being legitimate debate, e.g. her calling Hayden a "Pig in a Wig".

I think there's room for debate on whether harassment should be a criminal offence (I think it should) and exactly how you would define it (it's subjective by it's nature) but the portrayal of Scottow as someone who merely refused to respect someone's pronoun but was otherwise reasonable is a dishonest one.  She specifically targeted Hayden with insults over a period of time which was sufficient for one court to conclude that harassment had taken place (subsequently overturned at appeal).

We have no law in this country that requires anyone to use specific pronouns when referring to another person.




> I don't believe that a minor should have transition operations.


Broadly I agree though I've spoken to people who feel that the dysphoria can be incredibly damaging during teen years specifically.  Certainly there are cases of teen suicide where dysphoria appears to be the cause.  I think I come to the conclusion that operations should not be generally available but there should be _some_ path available in exceptional cases.  I don't know what that path would look like though.  I feel this is a problem without a "right" solution - just a variety of imperfect ones.

----------


## sapator

But is it really dysphoria (from Greek "suffocation" aka δυσφορία) or it's just overexposure to media that melt brains into I wanna do it also?
Do anyone of you remember back in your youth suicides from "dysphoria" ? Maybe there was no media covering this or maybe there weren't any. 
P.S. Not to bust your chops (that I will certainly do   :Big Grin:  ) but dysphoria is not a proper terms for what a teen might feel. If I eat I might get dysphoria, it's a light symptom to use here. So probably physical suffocation (with is the same but more "heavy" or something?

----------


## FunkyDexter

> But is it really dysphoria


Yes.  It is.  Dysphoria, in this case, is a medical term, regardless of the etymology and it leads to testably higher suicide rates,

----------


## FunkyDexter

Here's a very good article on Gender Dysphoria with a particular focus on adolescents.

If you want to get some understanding of the pressures it put on the individual, read the section on Psychiatric disorders among adolescents with GD and the following sections on Relationships (with both Peers and Parents) and then try and imagine yourself experiencing those feelings.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Yes.  It is.  Dysphoria, in this case, is a medical term, regardless of the etymology and it leads to testably higher suicide rates,


From what I can tell Dysphoria is "discomfort, distress, or unease".  I'd agree it contributes to teen suicide, actually all suicides.  But knowing what's the root cause is not always clear.  I have two kids and three grand daughter and they were all emotionally unstable as teens.  I remember my teen years, they were hard sometime.  

You said there's probably not a perfect solution for when transition should be allowed, I agree.  But as a parent, your instinct is to protect.  You can see the physical danger of a surgery, it's harder to see the danger of waiting.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Here's a very good article on Gender Dysphoria with a particular focus on adolescents.
> 
> If you want to get some understanding of the pressures it put on the individual, read the section on Psychiatric disorders among adolescents with GD and the following sections on Relationships (with both Peers and Parents) and then try and imagine yourself experiencing those feelings.


That article is about the problems associated with GD.  I didn't find a lot enlightening about it.  I've always believed the mental problems would be high.  But it didn't say anything about transition surgery solving that problem.  

Well, I did find the increased rate of autism surprising.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> From what I can tell Dysphoria is "discomfort, distress, or unease". I'd agree it contributes to teen suicide, actually all suicides. But knowing what's the root cause is not always clear. I have two kids and three grand daughter and they were all emotionally unstable as teens. I remember my teen years, they were hard sometime.
> 
> You said there's probably not a perfect solution for when transition should be allowed, I agree. But as a parent, your instinct is to protect. You can see the physical danger of a surgery, it's harder to see the danger of waiting.


Like I said, I broadly agree with your position.  I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea of teens being given gender reassignment surgery.  But I also acknowledge that there may be cases where a trained and qualified professional (probably some kind of psychiatrist) can identify that the dysphoria is both genuine and harmful and that such a treatment would be appropriate.  In those cases I'm inclined to allow a treatment to go ahead.  I think surgery should be a last resort but it should be a resort.  (I also would still want parental consent to be required for anyone below the age of consent.)

N.b. I don't feel I have the knowledge to lay out an objective set of rules around this but I do feel such a path should exist.  I feel we should be deferring to the medical profession to be defining the criteria.

I'm uneasy on this topic from both directions.  I agree that the adolescent mind is usually still developing (though I don't think there's some arbitrary cut off at 16 or 18).  On the other hand, I'm also aware that psychiatric assessments etc. could drift toward something similar to Aversion therapy which has been shown to be incredibly damaging.




> it didn't say anything about transition surgery solving that problem


I didn't mean to imply that it did.  My intention with that article was to highlight the pressures that it can place on teens in particular and that we shouldn't just be ignoring it or pretending that it isn't a thing.  As for what the correct way of helping is, like I said, I'll defer to the medical profession.



edit> I made quite a few amendments to the above while I clarified my thoughts.  Just in case my posting crosses over with anyone else's.

----------


## wes4dbt

> edit> I made quite a few amendments to the above while I clarified my thoughts. Just in case my posting crosses over with anyone else's.


Yeah, it's a tricky subject.  lol

I'm not disagreeing with you.  Just commenting.  You know, sharing my wisdom with the world.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Yeah, I got that.  I feel this is an area where we differ in the nuance rather than the substance.

----------


## sapator

Although I was not meant to break this to medical terms. I was discussing the philosophical view of the term, that in this case is not what I would get from the term.
If we want to get in deeper , dysphoria it actually breaks down to dys = dis that is a difficult situation and phoria = phero that break down to something I have , something I bring to. So it's translated as a difficult situation. Not merely  a powerful ancient Greek term. It's like eating a little bit more and have a slight dysphoria or more and have dysphoria (I think the magnitude of the term does not apply, p.e. huge dysphoria). A better term would be suffocation, mental suffocation. In medical terms if we want to push it up a notch, it's not something that will make you commit suicide in any way. I never heard someone commit suicide from Dysphoria even from , if you like, extreme dysphoria, it just does not blend. My guess is again the term got upgraded because there was not a suitable explanation and tend to be something that is not.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> In medical terms if we want to push it up a notch, it's not something that will make you commit suicide in any way.


The first sentence of the conclusions of the first medical paper I linked to reads "Conclusions: There are higher levels of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in people with gender dysphoria than in the general population."

----------


## fafalone

> https://www.charismanews.com/world/7...trans-activist
> 
> https://fox11online.com/news/local/p...ng-fights-back
> 
> https://www.opindia.com/2021/03/cana...d-as-daughter/
> 
> You've just exposed yourself here. You never struck me as someone that talks about things he knows nothing about. I can therefore assume that the fact that you're willing to debate these social issues with me means you know about as much about these issues as I do which also means you would have known just as I do that they are already arresting people for this around the world. Therefore it follows that the statement you made which I just quoted is an attempt at deception. What am I to make of this?
> 
> So did you know they were already arresting people for this? And if so, tell me why is this kind of state tyranny justifiable in your mind?


You're citing extremely biased extreme right sources in support of your bigotry.

-Kate Scottow wasn't arrested for "misgendering" someone. She creating numerous fake accounts to constantly harass someone. Calling someone a "pig in a wig" may be simply "misgendering" someone for a raging bigot, but most people would consider that creating multiple accounts to spam someone with speech like that going well beyond misgendering. I don't agree with the UK's "online bullying" laws, but pretending this was a "casual misgendering" or "arrested simply for misgendering" is a lie.

-While we don't know the full extent of the comments since schools don't release details of investigations into students, I've yet to see a case that *doesn't* look like above, where anti-trans bigots are concealing far worse behavior over complaints of censorship for "casually misgendering" someone. And middle school disciple for harassment isn't "arresting" someone.

-He was arrested for violating court orders in a dispute with the child's mother over gender identity. The mother is supportive of the new identity, the father is not. Courts, following the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion, sided with the mother. You may not like custody orders that reach into matters like this, but you're lying your ass off claiming this is "casual misgendering". It's violating a direct court order. 




> So did you know they were already arresting people for this? And if so, tell me why is this kind of state tyranny justifiable in your mind?


They're not and you're lying. It's really telling how you're using blatantly misleading propaganda to support a claim that doesn't exist. Like the people in your articles, you're engaging in transphobic bigotry and calling it "casual misgendering".

----------


## sapator

Alright alright alright. I missed the "gender" part. I really don't wanna go there and again it does not make sense in Greek. That fact of the matter that you are linking a paper while I actually don't need to see one to understand the term shows something but I'll give you the "gender" . I don't know how the heck one can have gender dysphoria as a Greek term, it does not add up and I stand by my point of something that was added because it was untranslatable and in scientific terms, they just made medical a booboo!  :Stick Out Tongue:  
But again I won't go to the gender part .

----------


## fafalone

> I don't know anything about the validity of those articles or the extent of the alleged harassment so I wont comment on that.  
> 
> But I don't believe that a minor should have transition operations.  I'm only talking about the operations, not their right the to live as any gender they chose.  A teenage brain is far from fully developed.  
> 
> I'm actually quite surprised that it's legal.  There are many laws for the protection of minors, I think this should be one.


It's a propaganda article. They used language to make you think they're talking about surgery on children, but they're not.

----------


## wes4dbt

> It's a propaganda article. They used language to make you think they're talking about surgery on children, but they're not.


Yeah, I didn't panic when I read that article.  lol

But it did make me start thinking about whether transition surgery on minors should be allowed.  Where I live a minor needs the parents permission to assess any medical treatment, I would imagine medical emergencies and unable to contact a parent are different.  Though I remember when I was @ 13 I ripped my hand/finger open really bad.  Had to sit in the Dr's office for @ 1 1/2hrs while they located my parents before they would start stitching it up.  But that was a loooong time ago.

Basically teens have a hormonal hurricane going on inside their body, so I'm for erring on the non surgical side.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Alright alright alright. I missed the "gender" part. I really don't wanna go there and again it does not make sense in Greek. That fact of the matter that you are linking a paper while I actually don't need to see one to understand the term shows something but I'll give you the "gender" . I don't know how the heck one can have gender dysphoria as a Greek term, it does not add up and I stand by my point of something that was added because it was untranslatable and in scientific terms, they just made medical a booboo!  
> But again I won't go to the gender part .


You really need to get over the Greek thing. We're speaking English, not Greek. These are English words. They are derived from Greek words but they are English words and their meaning is very likely going to be different from literal Greek. It's a waste of our time and yours complaining about that English words derived from Greek don't seem to mean the same as the Greek they are derived from. We know. You should know too.

----------


## jmcilhinney

Propagandists want to you to believe that children are being operated on willy-nilly just because the parents want them to be trans. It's patently ridiculous. Some may have seen a video of Joe Rogan talking to Matt Walsh recently where Walsh claimed that millions of children in America were on hormone treatments and puberty blockers but, when fact-checked, the actual number was about 1000 a year. Even then, Walsh still claimed that the real number was in the hundreds of thousands, based on nothing at all. If the number of children receiving reversible treatments like that is so small and so much smaller than these propagandists claim, do we really think that surgery is being performed on children the way they claim? He also claimed that double mastectomies on girls were very common, while also implying that many were prepubescent. Since when do prepubescent girls have breasts in the first place? It's all propaganda.

These people claim to be protecting children because they know it will tug at the heartstrings of reasonable people but they have no particular care for children because they want gender-affirming surgeries and treatments for adults banned as well. Jordan Peterson referring to doctors who treated Elliot Page as "criminals" is a fine example, when Peterson had previously purported to be fine with transgender people and only concerned with laws compelling speech. He lied about the law though, so why not lie about his position on trans people too? Of course, we'll never know whether that really was his position and he's just hardened his stance recently because of the self-imposed brain damage or a charade to further his right-wing grift.

I saw a video recently where Matt Walsh or someone like him showed a picture of a biological girl who had received testosterone treatment and was losing their hair as a result. He said "this is what happens when you give testosterone to a 16 year-old girl" and expects that to be a reason for no 16 year-old girl to receive testosterone. It's rubbish, of course. I'll assume that the picture is genuine and acknowledge that that is what happened to that 16 year-old girl when they received testosterone but that's a single case. I would be able to find a 16 year-old boy who was losing his hair too but Walsh doesn't seem to think that that's a tragedy. I could show the headstone at the grave of a 16 year-old girl who committed suicide because of gender dysphoria and say that that is what happens when you don't give a 16 year-old trans boy testosterone and it would have zero impact on them because they don't really care about children. If they did then they'd show some concern for trans children but they never do. They always talk about children who are just confused and imply that that constitutes the overwhelming majority of children thought to be trans but they never acknowledge that the existence and number of trans adults means that the majority of those children really are trans and that treatments as children can make their lives better. I've never heard someone like Matt Walsh even acknowledge that point.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Personally, I like the Greek thing. Sappy's etymology lessons are always entertaining.

----------


## wes4dbt

> They always talk about children who are just confused and imply that that constitutes the overwhelming majority of children thought to be trans but they never acknowledge that the existence and number of trans adults means that the majority of those children really are trans and that treatments as children can make their lives better. I've never heard someone like Matt Walsh even acknowledge that point.


My guess is the majority are trans and are having a hard time dealing with it.  And it's only a guess I've done no research.  But I also guess a teen can unknowingly convince themselves of something that's not true for a variety of reasons.  So the question is how to protect both.  If all kids had well adjusted, well informed, mentally stable, loving parents, I wouldn't have a problem leaving the issue up to them.  But that's not the case.

Like FD has said, there may not be a perfect solution.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> My guess is the majority are trans and are having a hard time dealing with it.  And it's only a guess I've done no research.  But I also guess a teen can unknowingly convince themselves of something that's not true for a variety of reasons.  So the question is how to protect both.  If all kids had well adjusted, well informed, mentally stable, loving parents, I wouldn't have a problem leaving the issue up to them.  But that's not the case.
> 
> Like FD has said, there may not be a perfect solution.


I agree, but if these people who claim to be trying to protect children were really doing so then they'd be trying to find the best solution for everyone, not just placing a blanket ban on trans healthcare. They don't really care about children for the children's sake. They care about them for their own sake. These people go on and on about crazy lefties supposedly convincing "normal" kids to be gay or trans for the sake of an agenda when the truth is that is orders of magnitude more common for gay or trans kids to be forced to pretend they're not for the sake of an agenda. It's an agenda based in religion, which makes it even worse. Despite claiming to be in favour of freedom, they want to force all children to conform to what they consider normal. It's like parents who claim to care about their children yet will throw them out of the house if they're gay. No one who would do that if they actually care about the child for the child's sake. Not all those who are anti-trans are as extreme as this but those who aren't are generally taking their lead from those who are and repeating the same talking points.

----------


## fafalone

> Yeah, I didn't panic when I read that article.  lol
> 
> But it did make me start thinking about whether transition surgery on minors should be allowed.  Where I live a minor needs the parents permission to assess any medical treatment, I would imagine medical emergencies and unable to contact a parent are different.  Though I remember when I was @ 13 I ripped my hand/finger open really bad.  Had to sit in the Dr's office for @ 1 1/2hrs while they located my parents before they would start stitching it up.  But that was a loooong time ago.
> 
> Basically teens have a hormonal hurricane going on inside their body, so I'm for erring on the non surgical side.


The people best suited to answer that are medical standards organizations. Currently it's only an option for 16-17 who've already been on hormones for years, puberty blockers before that, and have long, long history of being committed to their gender, and there's extenuating circumstances that make such an extreme measure a better alternative than not doing it. It's not a decision made by the child alone, you need a surgeon and multiple specialists to sign off on it, which involves extensive evaluations (which have been ongoing at every step, they're also required for puberty blockers and hormones, kids don't just get to walk in, say 'hey doc give me some hormones' and walk out 5 minutes later like the transphobic bigots claim). It's ridiculous to assert it's ever done as a result of impulsivity and hormones. It's at the end of a long, long road taking many years, and only when multiple medical professionals agree it's absolutely necessary. 

Of course to hear people like Niya describe that, "Kid wakes up one morning, decides they want their dick chopped off, and it's done by lunch."

----------


## fafalone

> My guess is the majority are trans and are having a hard time dealing with it.  And it's only a guess I've done no research.  But I also guess a teen can unknowingly convince themselves of something that's not true for a variety of reasons.  So the question is how to protect both.  If all kids had well adjusted, well informed, mentally stable, loving parents, I wouldn't have a problem leaving the issue up to them.  But that's not the case.
> 
> Like FD has said, there may not be a perfect solution.


You know who should handle serious psychological issues? DOCTORS. 

You don't get on serious medical treatments without serious evaluations. Social transitioning is done before puberty blockers or hormones, and it has to be long term and persistent, then there's psychological evaluations specifically aimed at identifying if they're committed and doing it for the right reasons. It's *not* some casual thing where you just pop into your regular checkup for 5 minutes and walk out with HRT, no matter how much conservatives love to lie about it. 

And the harm of treating has to be weighed against the harms of not treating. If someone does desist, there's little to no harm done (well, unless they have parents like a certain poster here who will torment, abuse, and disown them for it) in the vast, vast majority of cases. Meanwhile not providing affirming care when indicated is an *extreme* danger to life. So while there's no "perfect" solution, there's a reason every major medical organization supports affirming care... the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that's by far the least harmful path.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

One thing I wanted to clarify: My comment about the dragon wasn't anywhere near as flippant as people might think. I don't know this Elliot person, and I'd guess not a single one of you know them personally, either. So, is this a person? No. It's a cardboard cutout being waved in your face like a cape before a bull. 

The whole point of that waving is to get people to charge. The caricature is as actually threatening to you as the cape is to the bull. Lots of people see that and don't charge, but that's not the reason why the cape is waved. The point is to find the people who DO charge. They are valuable. They will throw money at the matador, at the one who wields the cape. If you can get them to charge, they will charge. They'll charge for all kinds of things.

This is where we are at in society. There is good in most everybody. I hang out with people who I strongly disagree with, and who strongly disagree with me, but only on certain things. I'm not induced into a blind rage because they don't agree with me. I know it, I accept it, and we don't destroy relationships fighting over it. But there are people who have gotten very rich off of conflict. They are the ones waving the caricatures, looking for ways to get people to rant and rave over people whose name they barely know, let alone much of anything else about them.

It is not the cape waving that is making you angry. It is not the matador that is making you angry. Not all bulls will charge such meaningless symbols, but those bulls don't make it to the arena. Those bulls don't make the matadors rich. The matador wants the one that will charge the cape because that's what gets them paid.

Elliot is the cape. If they make you charge, then you are the prize bull. Who is the matador?

----------


## wes4dbt

> It's ridiculous to assert it's ever done as a result of impulsivity and hormones. It's at the end of a long, long road taking many years, and only when multiple medical professionals agree it's absolutely necessary.


A lot of thing are done because of impulsivity and hormones.  Is this one of them I don't know, I doubt it.  I have no knowledge if it has or hasn't happened.  I'm not arresting it happens that quickly.  I know it doesn't.  Not sure why you read that into my comments.  




> You know who should handle serious psychological issues? DOCTORS.
> 
> You don't get on serious medical treatments without serious evaluations. Social transitioning is done before puberty blockers or hormones, and it has to be long term and persistent, then there's psychological evaluations specifically aimed at identifying if they're committed and doing it for the right reasons. It's *not* some casual thing where you just pop into your regular checkup for 5 minutes and walk out with HRT, no matter how much conservatives love to lie about it.
> 
> And the harm of treating has to be weighed against the harms of not treating. If someone does desist, there's little to no harm done (well, unless they have parents like a certain poster here who will torment, abuse, and disown them for it) in the vast, vast majority of cases. Meanwhile not providing affirming care when indicated is an *extreme* danger to life. So while there's no "perfect" solution, there's a reason every major medical organization supports affirming care... the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that's by far the least harmful path.


You have more faith in doctors knowledge than I do.  I had a cervical spine injure 45yrs ago.  I went to a regional spine injury hospital and the care was excellent.  But my injury is not cut and dry, it's an incomplete injury which means there no clear definition of what's damaged and what's not, along with things like spasticity, autonomic dysreflexia and many others.  Basically no two are the same.  I've lived in a city of 200,00+  for the last forty years and have not met  one doctor yet that has more than basic knowledge of what a spinal core injury involves, especially an incomplete injury.  There are no SCI specialist here.  So it's up to me to try and explain what's going on.  They don't have two hours so I keep it my most essential needs.   I see the transgender issue as having the same complexities and I doubt these people are all receiving the best advise from people who actually know what these person is experiencing.  If so, that's great but I doubt it.  How many transgender expert do you think there  are?

----------


## wes4dbt

> One thing I wanted to clarify: My comment about the dragon wasn't anywhere near as flippant as people might think. I don't know this Elliot person, and I'd guess not a single one of you know them personally, either. So, is this a person? No. It's a cardboard cutout being waved in your face like a cape before a bull. 
> 
> The whole point of that waving is to get people to charge. The caricature is as actually threatening to you as the cape is to the bull. Lots of people see that and don't charge, but that's not the reason why the cape is waved. The point is to find the people who DO charge. They are valuable. They will throw money at the matador, at the one who wields the cape. If you can get them to charge, they will charge. They'll charge for all kinds of things.
> 
> This is where we are at in society. There is good in most everybody. I hang out with people who I strongly disagree with, and who strongly disagree with me, but only on certain things. I'm not induced into a blind rage because they don't agree with me. I know it, I accept it, and we don't destroy relationships fighting over it. But there are people who have gotten very rich off of conflict. They are the ones waving the caricatures, looking for ways to get people to rant and rave over people whose name they barely know, let alone much of anything else about them.
> 
> It is not the cape waving that is making you angry. It is not the matador that is making you angry. Not all bulls will charge such meaningless symbols, but those bulls don't make it to the arena. Those bulls don't make the matadors rich. The matador wants the one that will charge the cape because that's what gets them paid.
> 
> Elliot is the cape. If they make you charge, then you are the prize bull. Who is the matador?


That's a great analogy.  (we need a thumbs up icon)

----------


## FunkyDexter

Haven't caught up with the thread yet this morning but...

 :EEK!: 


I've been banned from Twitter!!!

Given that I'm not actually _on_ twitter, that the email comes from first@davep.zyelisi.com, repeatedly advises me to mark it as not spam and wants me to click on a link where I can confirm my identity I have no doubt that this is 100% legit.  I think I might send them my bank details so they can withdraw $8 :Big Grin:

----------


## sapator

It kinda amazes me that our users have not been opening or reply to spams for years and they let us know.I think the thing, well, more of two things that made that happen was:
1)The encryption money threatening virus.Can't recall the name but some caught a virus that encrypted their PC and asked ransom.
2)The mp3 server killer. An electrical run mp3 "music" through a remote server, the virus somehow managed to get to the HO server, infecting all the PC's (that was before I came to the company), from then forth no one complained about antivirus blocking them stuff. Granted that was not spam but made them cautious.
I'm not really sure what will happen with the new merge as we might or might not join domains with the mother company and I'm not sure how they handle threads. Personally I have my important files at 3 locations, just to be sure.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Haven't caught up with the thread yet this morning but...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been banned from Twitter!!!
> 
> Given that I'm not actually _on_ twitter, that the email comes from first@davep.zyelisi.com, repeatedly advises me to mark it as not spam and wants me to click on a link where I can confirm my identity I have no doubt that this is 100% legit.  I think I might send them my bank details so they can withdraw $8


You've been caught.  Take your punishment and don't whine.

----------


## dilettante

This Twitter situation and reactions to it seem to reflect larger scale issues.  In the wake of the recent elections here people seem more divided than ever and both camps seem demoralized and convinced their woes can all be chalked up to "the other guys."

I don't really see a left/right thing going on here except on the surface.  The real differences seem more fundamental, only using those old labels for marketing purposes.

The only "peace" in discussions here comes when one side is allowed to make its outrageous statements without input or challenge.  The other side would never be granted that, though I don't see much value in it for either side of the divide.  There are already far too many echo chambers.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> both camps seem demoralized


By both camps you mean traditional conservatives vs Maga Republicans, right?  Because the Democrats and the Left more generally are laughing their asses off right now.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

That was my point. We are a whole lot more similar than we are different. Good people can find plenty of areas of agreement, and ALL people can find some areas of disagreement. People haven't found a good way to profit from the agreement, but people are making bank on those areas that further divide us. It's like a battery: Divide the positive from the negative and you can get work done with that potential. 

Those gaps could be crossed, but they won't be crossed so long as there is more to be gained from dividing us. Just look at Congress. A couple decades back, both parties would end up hanging out together at local parties. There would be joint recreational events, joint hosted parties, and so forth. That doesn't happen anymore. There are barriers created to keeping the two sides apart, some intentionally, some otherwise. The result is that the differences are highlighted, the similarities are not found.

----------


## wes4dbt

> By both camps you mean traditional conservatives vs Maga Republicans, right?  Because the Democrats and the Left more generally are laughing their asses off right now.


Yeah, I don't think the Dem's are feeling demoralized right now.  But I don't think the Dem's should be patty themselves on the back, saying "good job".  I think they should feel lucky that so many of the the GOP chose messaging unpopular ideas.  But it does look like the GOP will have the majority in the House, they did make some progress.

I'm really glad the headlines are not full of election deniers.  I was worried about that.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I don't really see a left/right thing going on here except on the surface.  The real differences seem more fundamental, only using those old labels for marketing purposes.


What do you think those fundamental differences are? I would agree that "left" and "right" are used in very general terms these days and often in a fairly different manner than they were originally coined - it's almost like the meanings of words can change over time and different people can use the same words in different ways. On one level, you could boil it down to individualism and collectivism but I don't really think that that works either, given that the side that claim to be about individualism are the ones who generally want to force their religion on others and want to stamp out those who they see as outside the accepted range of normal. There's been a lot of talk about gender in this thread and I think that it's telling that there are so many people who seem to consider it to be a greater hardship to say he/she instead of she/he than it is to live your life as a person you don't feel you are. There are many who say that people can live how they want but they won't refer to them other than by biology, which is one thing, but there are plenty who also don't want to let those people live as want either, despite being the very people who talk about individual freedom all the time.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Yeah, I don't think the Dem's are feeling demoralized right now.  But I don't think the Dem's should be patty themselves on the back, saying "good job".  I think they should feel lucky that so many of the the GOP chose messaging unpopular ideas.


Quite so. I would suggest that the overturning of Roe v Wade was probably the biggest factor in the result of this current election, rather than anything Democrats actually did. It was a high price to pay.

----------


## dilettante

This comes to mind:

Im the Head of Planned Parenthood. Were Done Making Excuses for Our Founder.




> What we dont want to be, as an organization, is a Karen. You know Karen: She escalates small confrontations because of her own racial anxiety. She calls the manager. She calls the police. She stands with other white parents to maintain school segregation. And then there are the organizational Karens. The groups who show up, assert themselves, and tell you where to march. Those who pursue freedom and fairness, but also leverage their privilege in ways that are dehumanizing.
> 
> And sometimes, thats how Planned Parenthood has acted. By privileging whiteness, weve contributed to America harming Black women and other women of color. And when we focus too narrowly on womens health, we have excluded trans and nonbinary people.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Quite so. I would suggest that the overturning of Roe v Wade was probably the biggest factor in the result of this current election, rather than anything Democrats actually did. It was a high price to pay.


I think the biggest factor was the independent votes going against the hate filled divisional messaging from the right.  Left voted left and right voted right.  The independents wanted to put the brakes on the republican party.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> SAN FRANCISCO  Elon Musk issued an ultimatum to Twitter employees Wednesday morning: Commit to a new hardcore Twitter or leave the company with severance.
> 
> Employees were told they had to a sign a pledge to stay on with the company. If you are sure that you want to be part of the new Twitter, please click yes on the link below, read the email to all staff, which linked to an online form.
> 
> Anyone who did not sign the pledge by 5 p.m. Eastern time Thursday was told they would receive three months of severance pay, the message said.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...m-termination/

I think I would have already been gone, before the first layoffs.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I would suggest that the overturning of Roe v Wade


I think that and the election denialism from many of the Repub candidates.  I think American democracy was genuinely being put at risk with multiple Rep candidates outright declaring they would refuse to certify anything other than a Rep victory in 2024.  That's a _crazy_ position to take in a democracy and a lot of the indy voters were turned off by that.  In fact, I think a lot of traditional Republicans were turned off by that.

Edit>  I'd be interested to hear peoples opinions on this, it might just be my imagination: I get the impression a lot of traditional Republicans are now referring to themselves as Libertarians.  I also think that the way "Libertarian" is used is changing.  10 years ago it felt it had become a bit of a fig leaf for "Hard Right" (n.b. not necessarily _Far_ Right) e.g. the Tea Party.  Lately I'm seeing it used to refer to something more close to it's original meaning, e.g. personal freedom _but also personal responsibility_.  That feels like a much healthier proposition to me.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I think the biggest factor was the independent votes going against the hate filled divisional messaging from the right.  Left voted left and right voted right.  The independents wanted to put the brakes on the republican party.


I'm not so sure that's the case, given how important the young demographics was to Democrats. I'm sure that what you're saying is true but, if it were the major factor, I think that we'd see more in other age groups voting that way too.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I think that and the election denialism from many of the Repub candidates.  I think American democracy was genuinely being put at risk with multiple Rep candidates outright declaring they would refuse to certify anything other than a Rep victory in 2024.  That's a _crazy_ position to take in a democracy and a lot of the indy voters were turned off by that.  In fact, I think a lot of traditional Republicans were turned off by that.


It's a fair point. I'm sure both were factors and which was more important is debatable. It blows my mind that someone like dilberry purports to be more embarrassed by woke lefties than by Trump and his election-denying cult. Your on the outside looking in too and I think it's safe to say which you think is more of an embarrassment to America. Of course, we're both woke lefties to begin with so i guess our opinion wouldn't count. He's probably only worried what other "enlightened centrists" and bible-thumping Nazis think.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Republicans are now referring to themselves as Libertarians.


The ones I know are calling themselves "conservatives".

----------


## dilettante

The ones I know have been distancing from that party for a while now.  A lot of people don't see either party as representative any more.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Of course, we're both woke lefties to begin with so i guess our opinion wouldn't count


I honestly don't see myself as Left anymore.  I've _been_ left in my younger days but, with a couple of exceptions, I've been voting Lib Dem since my 20s and they're our centre party.  In fact, I voted Conservative at the last election because I felt that the uncertainty around Brexit was more damaging than Brexit itself.

In Euro terms I reckon I'm a centrist with a _mild_ left lean.  Of course, in the US that pretty much makes me a communist.




> A lot of people don't see either party as representative any more.


I can understand that.  I see the Dems as more reasonable than the Reps which is why I usually find myself arguing their side in these debates but I certainly don't think they represent what we'd call the Left over here.  Even the likes of Bernie Sanders would be seen as a moderate over here.

----------


## wes4dbt

All these were obstacles,

Abortion rights
hate filled divisional messaging
election denial

And they still gained ground in the House.  So it looks like the Economy carries a pretty big stick with the Independents because they are the largest party.  They just don't elect their own candidates, go figure.

----------


## wes4dbt

> https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...m-termination/
> 
> I think I would have already been gone, before the first layoffs.


Yeah, everyone needs to work excessive hours, with no additional compensation because I made a stupid business move.  60+ hours a weeks for 40hrs pay.  yay!!!

----------


## TysonLPrice

> the Economy carries a pretty big stick with the Independents because they are the largest party


I  may misunderstand...they are a minority???

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I  may misunderstand...they are a minority???


I believe the implication was that there are more independent voters than there are Democratic or Republican but, by definition, independents aren't affiliated with a specific party and will, more often than not, end up voting for a Democratic or Republican candidate. It's just that they make the decision on who to vote for based on policy (or possibly perception of policy) rather than party.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I  may misunderstand...they are a minority???


Yeah, jmc was right.  More people registered as Independents than GOP/Dem's.

If we get another Trump/Biden I just might vote Independent.  Actually would seem like a great time for them to get organized and put a real effort into their candidate.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> If we get another Trump/Biden I just might vote Independent.  Actually would seem like a great time for them to get organized and put a real effort into their candidate.


I would suggest that ranked-choice (preferential) voting could be the best way to encourage independent candidates, particularly in the presidential race. I know that some states require a 50% majority to win, hence the run-off in Georgia right now. Ranked-choice voting would have meant that the time and expense of that run-off would not be required. Does the presidential race require a 50% majority? If not then that is a real deterrent to independent candidates, because everyone would fear splitting the vote on one side or the other and handing the win to the other side. Ranked-choice means that other candidates could split the primary vote as much as they wanted without affecting the actual outcome of the two-party race, if those two parties candidates were the preferred options.

I'm guessing that most people, if not everyone, here understand how ranked-choice (preferential voting works but, in case someone doesn't here's an example. Let's say that you have candidate D from the Democratic party up against candidate R from the Republican party and, head to head, R would get 60% of the vote and D would get 40%. Now, lets say that candidate L from the Libertarian party joins the race and now D still gets 40% but R gets 35% and L gets 25%. If you're just taking the highest percentage then D now wins. With ranked-choice voting, everyone who voted for L would rank R as their second choice. Because L has the fewest votes, they are removed from the race and their second preferences distributed to the other candidates. This means that R now wins with 60% over D with 40%, without the need for a run-off election wasting time and money. This demonstrates why Sarah Palin is lying about ranked-choice voting in Alaska being the reason she lost, as if we didn't already know. The only reason to not use ranked-choice voting is because you want to discourage candidates beyond those from the two major parties, so both major parties have motivation to not support it.

----------


## wes4dbt

It's different here.  We have what's called an electoral college (strange name).  Basically, every state has a certain number electoral votes.  you win the popular vote for that state you win the votes.  You need to win more than 50%, think it's 270.  So, you can win the presidency with way under 50% of the popular vote.  I think Trump actually had less popular votes than Clinton.  

The thing is, the electoral vote are not strictly proportional to the states population.  Pretty screwed up right.  lol

----------


## jmcilhinney

But does a presidential candidate need to get over 50% in a state to win that state? That's where ranked choices could make a difference. In each individual state, a third-party candidate could split the vote on one side without handing that state to the other side.

----------


## dilettante

How Electors Are Chosen




> The Constitution gave each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of representatives and senators who represent that state in the U.S. Congress. State legislatures are responsible for choosing electors, but how they do this varies from state to state. Until the mid-1800s, it was common for many state legislatures to simply appoint electors, while other states let their citizens decide on electors.
> 
> Today, the most common method of choosing electors is by state party convention. Each political partys state convention nominates a slate of electors, and a vote is held at the convention. In a smaller number of states, electors are chosen by a vote of the state partys central committee.





> Some among the Founding Fathers believed that direct nationwide election by the people would be the most democratic method. Others argued that a straightforward popular vote was unfair, as it would give too much power to larger, more populous states. They also worried that public opinion could be too easily manipulated, and feared direct election might lead to a tyrannical leader determined to grab absolute power for himself.

----------


## dilettante

From another source:




> Voters in each state choose electors by casting a vote for the presidential candidate of their choice. The slate winning the most popular votes is the winner. Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow this winner-take-all method. In those states, electoral votes are proportionally allocated.

----------


## wes4dbt

> But does a presidential candidate need to get over 50% in a state to win that state? That's where ranked choices could make a difference. In each individual state, a third-party candidate could split the vote on one side without handing that state to the other side.


I honestly don't know but I don't believe 50% is required .  But the winning party gets to choses the electoral voters.  In the past the electoral voters could still vote for whoever they wanted but now they are required to vote for their candidate, but I think there are still a few states where it's not required by law.  It seems an unfair and overly complicated process but it probably wont change.  Because there is always one side that sees the change as a disadvantage.

----------


## fafalone

> A lot of thing are done because of impulsivity and hormones.  Is this one of them I don't know, I doubt it.  I have no knowledge if it has or hasn't happened.  I'm not arresting it happens that quickly.  I know it doesn't.  Not sure why you read that into my comments.


We don't ban doctors from treating ADHD just because some impulsive teens think "Hey, I'll pretend to have ADHD and get some party drugs!". Because the doctor is *not* acting on impulsivity and hormones, and *they*, not the child, have the final say on whether they get it.





> You have more faith in doctors knowledge than I do.  I had a cervical spine injure 45yrs ago.  I went to a regional spine injury hospital and the care was excellent.  But my injury is not cut and dry, it's an incomplete injury which means there no clear definition of what's damaged and what's not, along with things like spasticity, autonomic dysreflexia and many others.  Basically no two are the same.  I've lived in a city of 200,00+  for the last forty years and have not met  one doctor yet that has more than basic knowledge of what a spinal core injury involves, especially an incomplete injury.  There are no SCI specialist here.  So it's up to me to try and explain what's going on.  They don't have two hours so I keep it my most essential needs.   I see the transgender issue as having the same complexities and I doubt these people are all receiving the best advise from people who actually know what these person is experiencing.  If so, that's great but I doubt it.  How many transgender expert do you think there  are?


As imperfect as doctors may be, they're infinitely better than people with zero medical knowledge, and definitely better than people using this issue as a political football getting their opinion from Fox News pushing the latest Republican electoral strategy to exploit their bigotry. 

And just like none of those doctors who don't know anything about spinal injuries won't be operating on your spine, they won't be operating on kids' genitals either.

----------


## fafalone

> I believe the implication was that there are more independent voters than there are Democratic or Republican but, by definition, independents aren't affiliated with a specific party and will, more often than not, end up voting for a Democratic or Republican candidate. It's just that they make the decision on who to vote for based on policy (or possibly perception of policy) rather than party.


The large majority of independents are reliable voters for one party or the other but just don't want to label themselves that way. The number of true swing voters who sometimes vote (R) and sometimes vote (D) is very small, not a majority. They're small enough they're not even the deciding factor... turnout is. But Democrats like using it as an excuse to push neoliberal centrist crap. (A larger number of Independents can decide to turn out, or not, based on candidate on policy, but that's not quite the same).

----------


## FunkyDexter

> As imperfect as doctors may be, they're infinitely better than people with zero medical knowledge, *and definitely better than people using this issue as a political football*


I think the second part of this was really important.

I have an immense amount of sympathy for e.g. parents who might make the wrong (I don't really like the word "wrong" here but I can't think of a better one) decision for their children out of either medical/psychological ignorance or even religious/social beliefs.  They may not arrive at the best conclusion for the child but at least they're motivations are good.  They _want_ what's best for the child even if they don't arrive at what objectively is best.

The people who cynically politicise issues like this, though, are awful people.

----------


## wes4dbt

> We don't ban doctors from treating ADHD just because some impulsive teens think "Hey, I'll pretend to have ADHD and get some party drugs!". Because the doctor is *not* acting on impulsivity and hormones, and *they*, not the child, have the final say on whether they get it.


And Dr's prescribe unnecessary ADHD drugs sometimes.

But that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.  I never said it was an impulsive decision, those are your words.  Just as you implied I thought it was a quick decision, I never said that.  If you think I'm blaming it all on hormones, your wrong.  The emotional state of teens is just one factor.  You seem determined to argue with me, well Ok.  But let's keep it about what's actually been said.




> And just like none of those doctors who don't know anything about spinal injuries won't be operating on your spine, they won't be operating on kids' genitals either.


That's true.  But usually the actual surgeon is the last person you see before the operation.  I have no knowledge of what the steps are leading up to transition surgery.  My guess is it starts with a primary care DR. then some type of mental health evaluation and counselling, from there it's going to depend on what the persons needs are.  I'd say there's a good chance that the decision has been made before they see the surgeon.  This seems like a decision based on a mental health diagnosis.  I'm not confident that there are enough fully qualified individuals making that decision.  Even though these are our best sources available, I question how well trained they are.  But as I said, that's just a guess.

If you have some actual first hand knowledge it would interesting to hear.

----------


## jmcilhinney

I'm now hearing that about 75% of Twitter's remaining workforce has accepted an offer to leave with 3 months severance. Not sure how true this is and, if it's true now, it may change but it's hard to see how the company could function after that. It seems to me that the smart move for Elon Musk would have been to do nothing for a while and just get the feel of the place. I guess that wasn't an option though, because he so vastly overpaid that he felt he had to make immediate changes to try to start bringing in more money. It's a good job he's so smart. Imagine what a mess a dumb person would have made of this. And that sink joke, right?

----------


## wes4dbt

I liked Musk's quote that, the best way to make a small fortune is to start with a large fortune.

But how much is he really risking?  If this goes belly up, the company may go bankrupt but that not coming out of his pocket.  Is it?  Aren't the lenders the ones that lose the money?  These weren't personal loans.  

He seems more than willing to let twitter go under if he can't make a profit.  Not that I blame him for that attitude.  But, after that "free the bird" BS he was spreading, it doesn't look like that was his goal.

----------


## jmcilhinney

If it does go under, you can bet that Musk will blame it on woke lefties chasing away advertisers and he won't be the only one, as though advertisers could be chased away if they thought that sticking with Twitter would be profitable for them.

----------


## fafalone

> And Dr's prescribe unnecessary ADHD drugs sometimes.
> 
> But that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.  I never said it was an impulsive decision, those are your words.  Just as you implied I thought it was a quick decision, I never said that.  If you think I'm blaming it all on hormones, your wrong.  The emotional state of teens is just one factor.  You seem determined to argue with me, well Ok.  But let's keep it about what's actually been said.


LOL knock off the bad faith arguing. 




> A lot of thing are done because of *impulsivity and hormones*.  Is this one of them I don't know, I doubt it.  I have no knowledge if it has or hasn't happened.  I'm not arresting it happens that quickly.  I know it doesn't.  Not sure why you read that into my comments.


You're playing a bad faith game here, trying to imply you have legitimate concerns about impulsivity while acting like then saying the opposite is some kind of disclaimer that means you can't be called out for your statement a sentence ago.





> That's true. But usually the actual surgeon is the last person you see before the operation. I have no knowledge of what the steps are leading up to transition surgery. My guess is it starts with a primary care DR. then some type of mental health evaluation and counselling, from there it's going to depend on what the persons needs are. I'd say there's a good chance that the decision has been made before they see the surgeon. This seems like a decision based on a mental health diagnosis. I'm not confident that there are enough fully qualified individuals making that decision. Even though these are our best sources available, I question how well trained they are. But as I said, that's just a guess.
> 
> If you have some actual first hand knowledge it would interesting to hear.


But why do you have concerns about *this*? Why not every other medical treatment? Yes that's, in some cases a problem, but it's a problem for every medical condition everyone of every age has to deal with. Yet you're concerned about trans kids specifically? How wonderful, I'm sure it's legitimate and not concern trolling.

----------


## fafalone

So anyway, over/under on Twitter actually reopening now that they've closed their offices and blocked all employee badges?

I wonder if the Elon fans will rewrite history so his "brilliance" was his plan to speedrun Twitter into bankruptcy the whole time.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> You're playing a bad faith game here


I get where you're coming from here but I think you're wrong in this instance.  Faux concern is certainly a tactic that's frequently deployed to hide anti-trans arguments behind but I don't think that's what Wes is doing.  I don't think he's expressed anything in this thread (other than perhaps this particular nuance) that could be construed as anti-trans and has, in fact, been defending their right to exist vociferously.

He's not arguing against treatment for adolescents, just that surgery would be a treatment too far for him.  Given the permanent nature of reassignment surgery and the fact that the adolescent mind is notoriously malleable, I get where he's coming from.  I don't necessarily agree with him but I don't think he's arguing from a position of bad faith.




> I'm now hearing that about 75% of Twitter's remaining workforce has accepted an offer to leave with 3 months severance.


I'm hearing it too and it seems to have prompted by him sending out an email to all the staff saying, paraphrasing, "We need to be hard core and that means you're going have to work more than 40 hours a week.  Click this link to confirm you agree with these terms."  The level of entitlement in that position is astonishing and, unsurprisingly, very few of the staff actually clicked.  It doesn't sound like they actively quit (though I don't doubt many have) but rather they haven't actively agreed to his ultimatum so they've kinda passively quit, assuming he follows through.

I think a really important point is the word "remaining".  That's after he sacked half the staff to begin with and doesn't include dribs and drabs (particularly higher up managers) who were quitting of their own accord over the last week or so.  So doing the maths, Twitter is running on about 10% staffing levels right now.

I started out thinking that most of this was just bad decision making by Musk but I'm less sure now and I'm starting to believe that he's deliberately driving into the ground.  I really don't think he's the great businessman some seem to laud him as but he can't be _this_ dumb.  The only possible motivation I can see is that he's bought a white elephant and wants to bankrupt it to get the liabilities off his hands.  Kinda the metaphorical equivalent of burning the building to collect the insurance.  I'm not sure where this would leave him with regard to possible law suits from investors.  Normally a limited company protects you from such liabilities but if share holders can demonstrate deliberate malpractice I'm not so sure.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Twitter closes offices after Elon Musks loyalty oath sparks wave of resignations


https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...h-resignations

It is too late to call it the beginning of the end.  We could be looking at a complete collapse.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Yeah, I'd heard about the office closures as well.  How the hell does that sit with his other recent demand that people wouldn't be allowed to work from home anymore and needed to return to the office? :Confused:

----------


## NeedSomeAnswers

> So anyway, over/under on Twitter actually reopening now that they've closed their offices and blocked all employee badges?



Why is it when I see Musk making dumb decision after ego driven dumb decision, am I reminded of Liz Truss !! 

Two people seemingly incapable of realising that their medicine for the problem is worse than the initial problem. 

Anyone else want to sign up for a load of extra unpaid work so Elon can get richer ?

----------


## dilettante

Wasn't the "initial problem" draconian selective suppression of speech and promotion of propaganda to further a global political agenda?  Sounds pretty bad to me.

And yes, I know that the responses to this won't address that problem but instead insist that the alternative under Musk will be cats and dogs living together and mass hysteria.  Just expressed in terms of apocalyptic rhetoric parroted from social media and corporate disinformation outlets.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

No, the response is probably going to be that it is only draconian if you want to live in a sewer. The alternative under Musk is looking like an empty niche in the social media ecosystem.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Wasn't the "initial problem" draconian selective suppression of speech and promotion of propaganda to further a global political agenda?


No.  That's what a bunch of reactionaries _wanted_ to portray it as when they were actually held accountable for the things they were posting.  That Musk has had people going through internal company communications and firing anyone who criticised him, even in private, should tell you that free speech was never the agenda.

----------


## Niya

> Have I really? Two of the cases you raised are not in Canada so have no relevance at all to what Jordan Peterson said about a specific Candian law. The only one that is in Canada is not a case of someone being "arrested on the spot for casually misgendering someone in conversation with their friends" so does nothing to refute what I actually said. We can discuss those particular cases if you'd like but if you're going to pretend that they have anything to do with the specific point I made - that what Jordan Peterson specifically said about a specific Canadian law was a lie - then you're being dishonest from the start. If you're going to defend Jordan Peterson as a paragon of truth, you're going to have to address what Jordan Peterson actually said, which you have not done.


You're missing the forest for the trees here. Let me be clear. "They" are trying to convince people that a dog is a cat and a cat is a dog when people stand up and say "No, I'm not accepting that", they punish them. Whether it's a Twitter ban or jail time. Jordan Peterson stood up to them. He refuses to submit to their agenda which is why I have the upmost respect for the man. I don't have the slightest care in the world about what he said about Canadian law that one time. He's not a lawyer and I'm not a lawyer. Maybe he lied, maybe he is wrong, maybe he was right and it's all spin to paint him in a bad light, I don't know. That stuff is above my "pay grade". I stick to the things that are clear to me and what is clear to me is that the man has stood up to tyrannical ideologues time and time again and I think that makes him worthy of respect.

I don't care what anyone else believes in. If you want to believe a cat is a zebra or a dog is a bird, good for you. I don't care. It's your right to live your life however you see fit and believe in whatever you want to believe in. When I start caring is when you starting telling me that I have to believe the same things and if I don't I'm a bad person that should be punished. No! Hell no! I will NEVER give in to this, not ever! This is why I like people like Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, Matt Walsh and so many others I can't recall right now. These people are standing up and saying no. Enough is enough. That's all my position has ever been about all this. The battle over Twitter is also about this. Whether Elon Musk is really fighting back against "the agenda" or not remains to be seen.

----------


## dilettante

So in newspeak anybody who doesn't espouse far-left doctrine is "reactionary."  Er, that would include conservatives then as well.  But isn't that the opposite of reactionary?

As for Musk and Twitter... what ever happened to the "private companies can do what they want" the left was claiming until this came up?

Spin, spin, spin.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Even that is totally subjective. You admire somebody who stands up, but only for a cause you care about. It shouldn't be terribly difficult for you to come up with a person you would not admire when they stood up for a position.

----------


## Niya

> So in newspeak anybody who doesn't espouse far-left doctrine is "reactionary."  Er, that would include conservatives then as well.  But isn't that the opposite of reactionary?
> 
> As for Musk and Twitter... what ever happened to the "private companies can do what they want" the left was claiming until this came up?
> 
> Spin, spin, spin.


Bingo!

----------


## Niya

> Even that is totally subjective. You admire somebody who stands up, but only for a cause you care about. It shouldn't be terribly difficult for you to come up with a person you would not admire when they stood up for a position.


No. I admire people that stand up to tyranny. Threatening to punish people for not accepting your faith is tyrannical.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Private companies CAN do whatever they want. They always do, and lots of them go bankrupt as a result of that. Nobody is required to pay that private company, nor is it required that the private company remain relevant, or remain either consistent or the same.

Just look at VB6. People were, and are, still pissed about what MS did there, but it hasn't changed anything. A whole bunch of people took their business elsewhere, or promised to. Had it happened to any great degree, MS might not be one of the most profitable companies. They certainly aren't making a huge amount of revenue selling VB6 anymore. Others have prophesized the demise of VB or .NET every few years, as well. 

People make their decisions based on the situation as they currently perceive it, and historians sort out the aftermath.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> No. I admire people that stand up to tyranny. Threatening to punish people for not accepting your faith is tyrannical.


Ah, I didn't understand that. I hadn't realized that you admire trans people. They stand up to a whole lot of physical and societal abuse. I hadn't realized that you admire them for it.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> So in newspeak anybody who doesn't espouse far-left doctrine is "reactionary."


No, but the likes of Jordan Peterson and Donald Trump sure as hell are.  Conservatives who engage in genuine discussion get disagreed with, they don't get banned.  See Adele or JK Rowling for examples.

This kind of strawman building seems a common tactic: "That guy over there got banned from twitter because he repeatedly posted misinformation and incited an insurrection, therefore anyone who questions Left politics is getting banned."  It's a hell of a logical leap.




> As for Musk and Twitter... what ever happened to the "private companies can do what they want" the left was claiming until this came up?


He can.  He did.

----------


## Niya

> Even that is totally subjective. You admire somebody who stands up, but only for a cause you care about. It shouldn't be terribly difficult for you to come up with a person you would not admire when they stood up for a position.


Thinking about what you said here more deeply. I think I get what you're trying to say. However, you're reading the whole thing wrong. You're looking at it in terms of we're fighting for something and they are fighting for the opposite and there's conflict. This is not what is happening.

In a just world, if I make an argument for the sky not being being blue, someone else would make an argument for the sky being blue. Both arguments would be heard and each man would be free to decide for himself which makes more sense. This is essentially what you think is going on.

Using the above analogy, what is actually going on is that I am making an argument for the sky not being blue while silencing others for making the opposite argument. I may invent words like "colourphobe" or "colourist" which I can then use to label my opponents in an attempt to paint them in a bad light so they can be censored without ever being able to make their argument. This is tyrannical and just plain evil.

----------


## FunkyDexter

That's exactly what's happening.  You're making your argument and people are disagreeing with you.  That you're arguing that you shouldn't be referred to in ways you find uncomfortable is... ironic.

----------


## dilettante

But does he have one hand in his pocket?

----------


## Niya

> That's exactly what's happening.  You're making your argument and people are disagreeing with you.  That you're arguing that you shouldn't be referred to in ways you find uncomfortable is... ironic.


That's not what's happening here at all. This is so wrong. I cannot believe intelligent people like yourselves still don't understand where I'm coming from. You all are so overzealous in your defense of this ideology that you've lost the capacity for understanding your fellow man. I'm at a lost for words that you can even say something like this.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I cannot believe intelligent people like yourselves still don't understand where I'm coming from


I cannot believe an intelligent person like yourself still doesn't understand where we're coming from

Edit>


> But does he have one hand in his pocket?


I could really use a knife.  (Actually, that might come across as some kind of threat if people don't get the reference so let me be clear, this is not a threat.  I guess I could have asked Dil to marry me while the weather was good but that seemed equally inappropriate.)

----------


## wes4dbt

> You're playing a bad faith game here, trying to imply you have legitimate concerns about impulsivity while acting like then saying the opposite is some kind of disclaimer that means you can't be called out for your statement a sentence ago.


No bad faith on my part.  You brought up impulsivity not me,




> It's ridiculous to assert it's ever done as a result of impulsivity and hormones. It's at the end of a long, long road taking many years, and only when multiple medical professionals agree it's absolutely necessary.


My response,



> A lot of thing are done because of impulsivity and hormones. Is this one of them I don't know, I doubt it. I have no knowledge if it has or hasn't happened. I'm not arresting it happens that quickly. I know it doesn't. Not sure why you read that into my comments.


Clearly says I doubt this is what's happening.  But you keep spouting the term as if I've made that claim.  There is bad faith at work here, just not from me.




> But why do you have concerns about *this*? Why not every other medical treatment? Yes that's, in some cases a problem, but it's a problem for every medical condition everyone of every age has to deal with. Yet you're concerned about trans kids specifically? How wonderful, I'm sure it's legitimate and not concern trolling.


I am concerned about all operation.  This concerns me more than most because of the severity of the operation.  This is a highly invasive operation.  I am concerned about trans kids but not specifically, that's just you again trying to justify using terms like "ridiculous" and "trolling".

If you don't think there should be any age limit, fine.   My goal here isn't to change any ones mind.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Back on topic, Twitter employees have now been instructed to come into the office.  Even if they have to fly in from abroad...

I mean...

Just...

----------


## Niya

> I cannot believe an intelligent person like yourself still doesn't understand where we're coming from


Oh I know where you're coming from. If I don't believe in the same things you do, then I'm some kind of -phobe or -ist and should be punished.

----------


## wes4dbt

> No, but the likes of Jordan Peterson and Donald Trump sure as hell are


I don't see them as "reactionary", it's far more simple.  They're con men.  The reactionary are just one of their prey.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I don't see them as "reactionary", it's far more simple. They're con men. The reactionary are just one of their prey.


Actually, that's probably closer to the truth.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Using the above analogy, what is actually going on is that I am making an argument for the sky not being blue while silencing others for making the opposite argument. I may invent words like "colourphobe" or "colourist" which I can then use to label my opponents in an attempt to paint them in a bad light so they can be censored without ever being able to make their argument. This is tyrannical and just plain evil.


Okay. I wouldn't say you were just plain evil, and I don't think you should call yourself that, but I agree with the general point. In this case, one is attempting to deny some group the right to exist, while the other side is certainly attempting to silence those who are attacking that group. Both sides are trying to silence the other side using whatever tools they have available, and they are probably trying to silence them because voice is virtually the only weapon either side has available. It's certainly the one being used.

It would be nice if it was just a debate about whether the sky is blue (a reasonable debate), but it is deeply personal to people on both sides. It's deeply personal to you, since you throw around words like hate. I'd also say that it ought to be at least somewhat personal, unlike something such as programming languages.

The point is that there are some topics that do not lend themselves to abstract debate. The existence of some group, defined by whatever metric you choose, is one of those topics.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> That's not what's happening here at all. This is so wrong. I cannot believe intelligent people like yourselves still don't understand where I'm coming from. You all are so overzealous in your defense of this ideology that you've lost the capacity for understanding your fellow man. I'm at a lost for words that you can even say something like this.


You've painted a clear picture over years. If we are misunderstanding you, then, unfortunately, you've had a decided hand in this. You've talked about enjoying being a troll, you've tossed about violent words regarding those who disagree with you, tossed around statements of support for people who are willing to distort the record to attack people who disagree with them.

This is just a snapshot, but it's all we have. You were once shocked that I described the place you lived as a hell hole, but that was only because you used relentlessly negative language to describe it. You never said a single positive thing about the place until somebody else accepted the picture you had painted.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Oh I know where you're coming from. If I don't believe in the same things you do, then I'm some kind of -phobe or -ist and should be punished.


Not the punishment part, nor does it have anything to do with whether you share my beliefs or not. I have my views. They are neither right nor wrong, they are just mine. I could probably be labeled with a -phobe or -ist, but there currently isn't such a term, so I'm not.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I could probably be labeled with a -phobe or -ist, but there currently isn't such a term, so I'm not.


I consider you "AntiNotHikingPhobic".  You telling me that's not a word.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Well, it's certainly a horrible acronym.

----------


## Niya

> They are neither right nor wrong, they are just mine.


No Shaggy, this isn't what I got from all this. I will bring up Jordan Peterson and Twitter once again as an example. Jordan Peterson does not hold it as fact that Elliot Page is a man so what did they do? They weaponized language against him by applying labels to him like "transphobe" and verbs such as "misgendering"(by the way my browser doesn't even recognize it as a word, it's got the red squiggly line under it) they then classify any rhetoric labeled with these words as hate speech which is then used as justification to silence him on Twitter. This is an absolutely disgusting practice and it's the real reason I despise leftists.

Elliot Page is not man in Jordan Peterson's eyes. You can either make an argument for why you think he is wrong or just leave the man alone. It's that simple. Instead, they label him with "bad words" and then silence him. Why do leftist ideologues feel the need to force compliance from the rest of us? What is Jordan Peterson supposed to do? Is he supposed to pretend he thinks Elliot Page is a man just so they don't silence him? This is the kind of world you guys want? Do you want a world where people are afraid to be who they are? 

It's actually frightening how easily you all just accept this. This is exactly how the atrocities committed by the Third Reich in Germany came to be. Ordinary people like yourselves just swallowing up whatever mainstream narrative is prevalent without ever question it or allowing it to be criticized. They tell you who to hate, who to love, who to silence and who to listen to and you all just go along with it without question. Mark my words, if you all continue to go down this path, the day will come when they will push too far for even your delicate sensibilities and you will remember me and the things I was saying here. It will not happen today or tomorrow. Perhaps in 10 years or even 20 years but it will happen and you will wonder then how it got this bad. I hope you remember when that day comes that there were voices trying to warn you and I'm not talking about me as much but more so the likes of Jordan Peterson, Matt Walsh and the few other voices that refuse to bow down to this tyranny.

----------


## Niya

> You were once shocked that I described the place you lived as a hell hole, but that was only because you used relentlessly negative language to describe it. You never said a single positive thing about the place until somebody else accepted the picture you had painted.


I vaguely remember this. Can you point me to the post where we talked about this?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> "They" are trying to convince people that a dog is a cat and a cat is a dog


No "they" are not. No one is claiming that anyone is a different species. No one is even claiming that anyone is a different sex. What we are saying is that gender is a thing distinct from sex and the terms "man" and "woman" are being used to describe people based on their gender rather than their sex. What you are saying is that gender doesn't exist and words cannot change their meaning if you don't approve of the reason. Why is it that you feel the need to build such a ridiculous strawman? If truth is on your side then you should be able to make a rational argument against the claim actually being made. That you are so unable to do that is very telling.

I didn't even bother reading the rest because, if it starts with something so utterly false and downright stupid, what could possibly be the point? If I want lies and propaganda I'll just go listen to Matt Walsh.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Oh I know where you're coming from. If I don't believe in the same things you do, then I'm some kind of -phobe or -ist and should be punished.


All aboard the victim train. Woo-woo! You're really getting the hang of being a right-winger.

----------


## dilettante

I think attitudes change a lot as soon as your fellow travelers turn on _you_.  I suppose that so far none of your own oxen have been gored.

When the time comes though and you stand and ask for reason to prevail don't be shocked when the whipped-up mobs that come by night turn on you.  Purity tests are easily failed and fringe group inclusion is fragile.


This has all gotten far too ugly already.  I'm not seeing anything close to a blueprint for conciliation yet.  Where the hell do we start?  Opening negotiations by demanding "everything, and a free wine bar" isn't serious at all.

Reactions to events have been disproportionate and innocents are suffering in the process.





The relevance there is twofold.  For one, the episode in question is about getting one's comeuppance when your policies overtake you yourself.  For another, the reacting host is probably some kind of "trans" but I don't question or poke at it nor do I shun the individual, much less spew trolling hate toward the person.  I enjoy the reactions to several old favorite shows.

I think there is far too much demonizing going on in these threads.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I think attitudes change a lot as soon as your fellow travelers turn on _you_.  I suppose that so far none of your own oxen have been gored.
> 
> When the time comes though and you stand and ask for reason to prevail don't be shocked when the whipped-up mobs that come by night turn on you.  Purity tests are easily failed and fringe group inclusion is fragile.


I don't disagree but that works both ways. Much of the resistance to trans people is rooted in religion so, when you oppose measures to make life better for trans people, you risk aligning yourself with religious fundamentalists and it's only a matter of time before that leopard eats your face.

I think that JK Rowling is a perfect example. I think I understand her initial motives and I respect them. She was focused on the struggles of women and she doesn't think that trans women share that same struggle - which doesn't necessarily preclude them from having a different struggle of their own - and so she doesn't really see them as part of the feminist movement. In principle, I don't have an issue with that. The problem is that, while she claims to be pro-women, she comes of as being explicitly anti-trans. I watched a video about here and who she has surrounded herself with lately and it's not a pretty picture. She claims to support womens' right to choose regarding abortion and also gay womens' right to marry each other, while also explicitly aligning herself with anti-trans groups and people that openly state that they are against abortion and same-sex marriage. By signal-boosting extremist groups like this, someone with JK Rowling's profile actually increases the chances of their succeeding in achieving goals that she supposedly directly opposes.

I think that the trans debate has definitely been a polarising one, and I think that that was by design from many on the right. The right do love a good culture war to distract from their lack of anything else. Niya spoke to me previously about people like him hardening their position because of things like the left using language as a weapon. Firstly, boohoo. The right are always telling us that words are just words and if someone says something you don't like then you should just get over it. Secondly, hardening your stance works both ways. I would just like to make life a bit easier for trans people and I think that that goes for most people on this side of that debate. There are those on the other side who say no, gender isn't a thing, being trans is a perversion and we won't hear anything more on it. When the opposition refuse to give an inch, it's no surprise that the other side just start pushing harder. If anti-trans people had been prepared to try to make trans people's lives better in some ways, I doubt that we'd see some on the pro-trans side going as extreme as they have.

Seriously, the fuss some people have made about using a different pronoun when they probably already call their gun "she" is just plain stupid. No one is telling them that the facts of biology aren't facts. We're just saying that there are other facts too and if you actually care about making people's lives better, there are things you can do. Of course, it's all about how the words make them feel and not about how others feel. If I refer to a group of people as "they" then no one has an issue but, as soon as it's a single person, we have to use the pronoun that tells us what chromosomes and genitals that person has. That is just ludicrous.

----------


## dilettante

I should also be clearer.  That Youtuber may well not be "trans" in any meaning of the word at all, but just putting on some flamboyancy as part of channel upholstery.  It is hard to be unique these days.

My point is that I don't judge or shun based on it.  The effect is definitely non-traditional and I leave it at that.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Reactions to events have been disproportionate and innocents are suffering in the process.


I agree.  I heard a new description the other night when I was watching the "Inside Man".  He called it the "Recreational Outraged"  Sounds very 21st century. lol

I don't think it's new but there are a lot more platforms and spreads much quicker.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

And, as I've said before, there's money to be made if you get enough bulls to charge.

Which means that they should just pay cash, of course. Bulls aren't good with debt, and the interest rates are barely bullievabull.

----------


## Niya

Well finally he did it! He brought back Jordan Peterson and the Babylon Bee. Elon is a man of his word after all. This has restored a bit of my faith in humanity. The rot is already too deep in my opinion but at least this is a beacon of hope for the future. Perhaps there will be more like Elon Musk who can see the madness and have some means to fight back against it. This is step in the right direction. Perhaps one day sanity would be restored to the world when more people like Elon Musk take action.

----------


## Niya

> No one is even claiming that anyone is a different sex.


I guess that's why we have men competing in women's sports now and utterly crushing them.....surely they are not a different sex right?. Do you even know what's going on in the world?

----------


## fafalone

LOL so the latest thing: Musk asked everyone "who actually writes software" to come show him up to 10 screen shots of their code "so he can understand the tech stack".  :LOL:   :LOL: 

Also you have to come in person unless you physically can't, and if you can fly there, you should.

Also Niya is hallucinating things that aren't happening again.

----------


## fafalone

> No bad faith on my part.  You brought up impulsivity not me,
> 
> 
> 
> My response,
> 
> 
> Clearly says I doubt this is what's happening.  But you keep spouting the term as if I've made that claim.  There is bad faith at work here, just not from me.
> 
> ...


Dude I literally quoted the post I took the "impulsive" and "hormones" from. Why are you continuing to lie and say you didn't post it? You didn't even edit your post to delete it. It's still there. You brought it up. You said you "don't know" if it's happening. This is the literal definition of concern trolling.

----------


## Niya

> I didn't even bother reading the rest because, if it starts with something so utterly false and downright stupid, what could possibly be the point?


This is also very revealing. It's yet another difference between us, I read and listen to everything "your side" has to say no matter how utterly stupid it sounds. Which of us do you think will be more informed? The one that listens to all arguments or the one that stops reading as soon as his emotions get triggered?

----------


## Niya

> Also Niya is hallucinating things that aren't happening again.


Which one? About Jordan Peterson coming back to Twitter or the comment I made about men competing in women's sports?

If it's about the former, Elon said it himself:-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1593673844996288512

And the tweet I linked was made by Jordan on the 18th of this month, 2022 . He wasn't technically banned but he prohibited from tweeting until he removed the tweet the previous regime considered offensive. Elon Musk lifted his restriction presumably without the condition mandated by that awful leftist regime that preceded Elon Musk's regime.

----------


## fafalone

> I don't disagree but that works both ways. Much of the resistance to trans people is rooted in religion so, when you oppose measures to make life better for trans people, you risk aligning yourself with religious fundamentalists and it's only a matter of time before that leopard eats your face.
> 
> I think that JK Rowling is a perfect example. I think I understand her initial motives and I respect them. She was focused on the struggles of women and she doesn't think that trans women share that same struggle - which doesn't necessarily preclude them from having a different struggle of their own - and so she doesn't really see them as part of the feminist movement. In principle, I don't have an issue with that. The problem is that, while she claims to be pro-women, she comes of as being explicitly anti-trans. I watched a video about here and who she has surrounded herself with lately and it's not a pretty picture. She claims to support womens' right to choose regarding abortion and also gay womens' right to marry each other, while also explicitly aligning herself with anti-trans groups and people that openly state that they are against abortion and same-sex marriage. By signal-boosting extremist groups like this, someone with JK Rowling's profile actually increases the chances of their succeeding in achieving goals that she supposedly directly opposes.
> 
> I think that the trans debate has definitely been a polarising one, and I think that that was by design from many on the right. The right do love a good culture war to distract from their lack of anything else. Niya spoke to me previously about people like him hardening their position because of things like the left using language as a weapon. Firstly, boohoo. The right are always telling us that words are just words and if someone says something you don't like then you should just get over it. Secondly, hardening your stance works both ways. I would just like to make life a bit easier for trans people and I think that that goes for most people on this side of that debate. There are those on the other side who say no, gender isn't a thing, being trans is a perversion and we won't hear anything more on it. When the opposition refuse to give an inch, it's no surprise that the other side just start pushing harder. If anti-trans people had been prepared to try to make trans people's lives better in some ways, I doubt that we'd see some on the pro-trans side going as extreme as they have.
> 
> Seriously, the fuss some people have made about using a different pronoun when they probably already call their gun "she" is just plain stupid. No one is telling them that the facts of biology aren't facts. We're just saying that there are other facts too and if you actually care about making people's lives better, there are things you can do. Of course, it's all about how the words make them feel and not about how others feel. If I refer to a group of people as "they" then no one has an issue but, as soon as it's a single person, we have to use the pronoun that tells us what chromosomes and genitals that person has. That is just ludicrous.


JK Rowling might have been able to play some of her first comments off in a 'concerned for women' way, but she's since escalated the rhetoric well beyond that, making it clear she is, in fact, anti-trans, rather than merely concerned about women's rights. This also makes more sense than aligning with people whose views are the polar opposite in most respects, simply because of mild disagreement about certain issues.

I spend a lot of time criticizing the left over gender and racial policies/rhetoric myself, but it would be a cold day in hell that e.g. because I disagree with activists and think men are entitled to due process when accused of sex crimes, that I ally myself and promote the people who are just looking for excuses to beat and rape women, just because they'd join me in opposing Title IX and criminal procedure reforms to eliminate it. Unless that was actually my belief but I was trying to not get completely cast out of polite society.

----------


## fafalone

> Which one? About Jordan Peterson coming back to Twitter or the comment I made about men competing in women's sports?
> 
> If it's about the former, Elon said it himself:-
> https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1593673844996288512
> 
> And the tweet I linked was made by Jordan on the 18th of this month, 2022 . He wasn't technically banned but he prohibited from tweeting until he removed the tweet the previous regime considered offensive. Elon Musk lifted his restriction presumably without the condition mandated by that awful leftist regime that preceded Elon Musk's regime.


Transwomen, not men, are competing but they're not "utterly crushing" the competition, the lies of bigots notwithstanding. The IOC has allowed trans competitors for years. How many medals have they won? How many other titles do they hold? What women's records belong to transwomen? This is extra true in K-12 sports where a state might have number of trans athletes you can count on one hand, none of whom have distinguished themselves. You're fighting an imaginary problem because you're a bigot.

----------


## Niya

Oh it gets better. Seems Elon also unbanned Andrew Tate.

----------


## Niya

> You're fighting an imaginary problem because you're a bigot.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL1XybPl5yA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D6btYpcgU0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BuV-s1SYLk&t=61s

Granted, three links is far from a comprehensive dissertation on the matter but this should not be happening at all! 




> Transwomen, not men, are competing but they're not "utterly crushing" the competition, the lies of bigots notwithstanding.


Humans are a sexually dimorphic species. You don't change this just by just wishing for it. This is very basic biology. It is nothing short of insanity to deny a reality that has been known since ancient times.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Dude I literally quoted the post I took the "impulsive" and "hormones" from. Why are you continuing to lie and say you didn't post it? You didn't even edit your post to delete it. It's still there. You brought it up. You said you "don't know" if it's happening. This is the literal definition of concern trolling.


You call me a liar.  Where did I say I didn't post it.  I actually referenced my post and posted the quote where I used the word in my response but yet you make the false claim that I say I didn't post it.  On top of that you ignore the fact that I said I doubt this is happening.  You leave that part out and quote "don't know", then claim that's the definition of concern trolling.  I hate to bust your intellectual bubble, but it's just an honest answer, I don't know.  How could I?  I have no experience with transgender teens and have not researched the subject.  I've already made that clear several times.   Would you prefer a I lied and said I know for a fact impulsivity has never been a factor, sorry I don't do that.  Though plenty of people do present their opinions as facts.   

And NO, your brought up the idea of "impulsivity" being a factor in post 623, when you claim it's ridiculous, which wouldn't bother me if you hadn't said it after quoting me.  Implying I had claimed that.  I had never made that claim and I still haven't.  Calling a person a liar to avoid responsibility for you own words is pretty weak.  

You implied I was saying impulsivity was a factor in post 623, I corrected you in post 626, because I had never made that claim or even used the word in regards to this subject, in doing so I used the word "impulsivity",  Here is the quote again,



> A lot of thing are done because of impulsivity and hormones. Is this one of them I don't know, I doubt it. I have no knowledge if it has or hasn't happened.  I'm not arresting it happens that quickly. I know it doesn't. Not sure why you read that into my comments.


no denial here.   

So lets be clear,

A lot of thing are done because of impulsivity and hormones.
Is this one of them I don't know, I doubt it.
I have no knowledge if it has or hasn't happened.
I'm not asserting it happens that quickly.
I know it doesn't.

Though I did notice I wrote "arresting" in stead of "asserting".  But I doubt that's the problem.  No matter how you try and dance around it or what names you call me, those are the facts.

So now your saying,




> Why are you continuing to lie and say you didn't post it?


Let me make this simple for you,

Where did I say I didn't post it.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I guess that's why we have men competing in women's sports now and utterly crushing them





> Granted, three links is far from a comprehensive dissertation on the matter but this should not be happening at all!


Can't you see one of the main problems here?  

When asked to support your opinion, you change from,
"utterly crushing"  to "this shouldn't be happening at all"

My guess is the latter is what you probably feel.  But the misinformation of "utterly crushing" kills your credibility.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Do you want a world where people are afraid to be who they are?


Do you genuinely not see the hypocrisy of you asking that question?

Answer me a simple question: Does how people view you matter or not?  It's a simple yes/no.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I read and listen to everything "your side" has to say no matter how utterly stupid it sounds.


If this is true then I can only conclude that you are incredibly dishonest. Not only is no one claiming that anyone is a different sex, it is literally impossible for them to do so and be supporting trans rights in doing so. I know that I've explained this to you directly at least once and countless other people have explained it countless other times and in countless other places so, if you actually are listening, you're just flat out lying about what they're saying.

I'll try to explain it one more time and we'll see whether you actually do listen. Speaking from the perspective of "them", sex and gender are two different things. They are related but they are distinct. Being transgender literally means that your gender identity doesn't match your biological sex. That means that, to claim that a person is transgender, one literally MUST acknowledge their biological sex. To say, for instance, that Elliot Page is a trans man, one must literally acknowledge that he is biologically female. When someone describes Elliot Page as a man or Caitlyn Jenner as a woman they are describing them based on their gender, NOT on their sex. This has been explained so many times that there's really no exclude for anyone who listens and has a functioning brain to not understand it. If such a person says that "they" are claiming that people are the opposite sex than they are, that person can only be lying.

Now, you could certainly make an argument that "they" are wrong. One has to wonder why, if you do indeed think that "they" are wrong, why you don't argue that instead of lying about the claims that "they" are making. If you think that the facts are on your side, why not go with those facts rather than a strawman? You could claim that gender doesn't really exist, although that would have to be based on your own opinion and not on the weight of scientific evidence. You could claim that, even if gender doesn't exist, it shouldn't be used to determine who plays sport against whom. That's even an argument that I'm not completely unsympathetic towards, although I don't think that a blanket "yes" or "no" is necessarily the best solution. I am, however, conscious of the fact that women's sport was segregated from men's primarily on the basis of physical differences, not psychological differences, so I think there is a discussion to be had there.

The problem is that transphobes don't want a discussion on this or any other subject regarding trans people. They have no interest in making the lives of trans people better in any way at all. They basically want to erase trans people; for them to just shut up and stay in the closet so they can pretend the world is clear cut, just the way their bible tells them their god made it. They harp on about women's sport all the time because they think that it's a subject that will get more moderate people to side with them and it appears that they are right. Congratulations on repeating the same propaganda as the likes of Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh. They lie to support their made-up religion. What's your excuse?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I read and listen to everything "your side" has to say no matter how utterly stupid it sounds.


One more thing I wanted to say was that you keep complaining that people are trying to redefine words and yet you conveniently ignore the definitions they propose. It's hard to see how that could not be deliberate. If "they" refer to, for instance, Elliot Page as a man then they are doing so on the basis of gender. You complain about that, then you turn around and pretend that they're actually claiming that he is biologically male. They're not. They're not denying that he's biologically female so they're not making any claims about sex that you don't agree with, so why pretend they are? If you're going to assume that they are using your approved definitions of those words, why are you complaining about them redefining words? You can't have it both ways and expect us not to point out the dishonesty.

----------


## wes4dbt

The Trump poll was a clever twist.  But I really enjoyed him saying,




> "Vox Populi, Vox Dei," a Latin phrase meaning "the voice of the people is the voice of God."


Seems like a good example of "cape waving"  SH has been talking about.  This should get the Twitter bulls up and running.  lol

----------


## TysonLPrice

> The Trump poll was a clever twist.  But I really enjoyed him saying,
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like a good example of "cape waving"  SH has been talking about.  This should get the Twitter bulls up and running.  lol


I guess Trump is officially restored...As of this entry he hasn't posted yet.

https://www.voanews.com/a/musk-resto...-/6842219.html

----------


## wes4dbt

> I guess Trump is officially restored...As of this entry he hasn't posted yet.
> 
> https://www.voanews.com/a/musk-resto...-/6842219.html


This should be interesting to watch.  Trump is acting like he's not interested in using Twitter.   I don't think he can resist.  

If he does come back to Twitter, we'll be seeing his Twitter quotes in the press on a daily basis again.     Elon will have some competition for the spotlight.  lol

----------


## FunkyDexter

> As of this entry he hasn't posted yet


He probably can't get passed the two factor authentication.

I think it's a given that Trump will post, he won't be able to resist (and probably doesn't really want to resist).  The question is whether Musk will have relegated Twitter's importance to that of Truth Social.

----------


## dilettante

More sour grapes.

Cognitive dissonance

Rather than admit his failure to reach the grapes, the fox rationalises that they are not really desirable. One commentator argues that the story illustrates the state of cognitive dissonance. The fox is taken as attempting to hold incompatible ideas simultaneously, desire and its frustration. In that case, the disdain expressed by the fox at the conclusion to the fable serves at least to reduce the dissonance through criticism. Jon Elster calls this pattern of mental behaviour "adaptive preference formation."
TDR is very pernicious.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Your describing Musk's behaviour for the last week, right?

To be honest I think there's alot of cognitive dissonance on both sides around this.  Both sides really, REALLY want the other to lose.

----------


## dilettante

Well if you mean one side desperately wants to control all messaging and the other wants free speech you might be right.

----------


## FunkyDexter

You're right, the Republicans are desperate to control what can and can't be talked about in schools.  When you reach the point when you're engaging in book burnings you _know_ you're on the wrong side of history.

----------


## Niya

> Answer me a simple question: Does how people view you matter or not?  It's a simple yes/no.


I'm sorry but this is not a simple question.

If you're someone I admire, respect, want to learn from or emulate then it's yes. If not, the answer is no.

----------


## Niya

About Trump not posting on Twitter, while I'm sure some people really want to see him come back, I believe the more important thing here for a lot of folks is the fact that Elon unbanned him. It's sends a very clear message that Twitter is no long under the control of authoritarian ideologues. Trump doesn't actually need to start posting there again.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I'm sorry but this is not a simple question.


I mean, it is.  Either you care about how people view you or you don't.  This is, of course, the hypocrisy of the position you're now trying to adopt.  You are asking for a courtesy to be extended to you which you are unwilling to extend to others.

----------


## Niya

> I mean, it is.  Either you care about how people view you or you don't.


How is my answer so difficult to comprehend? 




> You are asking for a courtesy to be extended to you which you are unwilling to extend to others.


Now you really lost me here? I have no clue what you're talking about. Does this have anything to do with the answer I gave to your question or about something I said previously?

----------


## Niya

> The question is whether Musk will have relegated Twitter's importance to that of Truth Social.


Now this is a simple question. The answer is a resounding no. Twitter is more alive than ever now.

----------


## wes4dbt

> It's sends a very clear message that Twitter is no long under the control of authoritarian ideologues.


I don't see how that's true.  Musk is an authoritarian.  You might like his ideologies better  But Twitter is still under the control of authoritarian ideologies.

I  don't see it sending a "very clear message" , so far it looks like Musk is trying anything he can to make Twitter profitable.  Lets give it some time, I think we'll have a much "clearer message" in a few months.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Now you really lost me here? I have no clue what you're talking about


Really?  You're going to try and play _that_ dumb?  OK, then I'll credit you with that level of dumbness: You are unwilling to view Trans people as they wish to be viewed.  Yet you wish us to view you as you wish to be viewed.  Do you respect Trans people?

Let's come at it from another angle.  There are multitudinous people on this forum who are pointing out to you that the position you are adopting is hateful and meets the definition for Transphobia.  Do you respect those people?

----------


## FunkyDexter

> so far it looks like Musk is trying anything he can to make Twitter profitable


Ha, I'd have to disagree with you there.  So far it looks like he's trying to do the exact opposite :big yellow:

----------


## wes4dbt

> Ha, I'd have to disagree with you there.  So far it looks like he's trying to do the exact opposite


Well, I didn't say he's doing a good job.  lol

But I admit, some of the things he has done recently made me think, is he trying to find a way to quickly bankrupt Twitter.

----------


## FunkyDexter

I actually keep going back and forward on that.  It's _possible_ he's got some weird scheme to reduce costs but - nah!  And he could just be monumentally incompetent but, though I'm no respecter of his business skill, I struggle to view him as _that_ incompetent.  The only other conclusion is that is deliberate.

If it is deliberate then I've got two theories.  1. He really does want to champion the Right and this is a monumentally expensive way of burying a "Left Leaning" platform (scare quotes because it's not Left leaning at all) or 2. He never really wanted to buy Twitter - he was just being boastful but he then got sued into.  Now he's stuck with it and, as long as he doesn't get shot, he's got further liabilities coming down the pipe (he's already in breach of GDPR and the fines for that are potentially huge) so he's driving it into the ground so he can justify a bankruptcy.

So far the last option seems most likely but, honestly, all of the above feel a little far fetched.

----------


## Niya

> Really?  You're going to try and play _that_ dumb?  OK, then I'll credit you with that level of dumbness: You are unwilling to view Trans people as they wish to be viewed.  Yet you wish us to view you as you wish to be viewed.  Do you respect Trans people?
> 
> Let's come at it from another angle.  There are multitudinous people on this forum who are pointing out to you that the position you are adopting is hateful and meets the definition for Transphobia.  Do you respect those people?


Oh my god FunkyDexter. After all this time you guys are still getting this wrong? Listen carefully, I do not care how other people want to live their lives. I don't care what god you worship or if you're an atheist. I do not care if you're a socialist or a capitalist. I don't care if you're a man that wants to become a woman or vice versa. I don't care if you're gay or straight.

None of these things bother me to the slightest degree. However, if you're theist that wants to tell me about how lost I am because I don't accept Christ into my heart, we're going to have problems. You're going to find out how much I think your beliefs are a bunch of bronze age superstitious nonsense.

The same thing goes for all this trans stuff. If you're a man that transitions to a woman for whatever reasons I have no problem with that. Hell, I'll even call you by whatever pronouns you like. But when the rubber meets the road, I still see you as a man. So the question is now, where does the rubber meet the road? There are two scenarios where this can happen. One, is if such a trans person were to express an sexual interest. If such a thing were to happen, I would refuse by giving some made up reason, but if you pressed me on the matter you would quickly find it's because I don't see you as a woman. The second instance where the rubber meets the road is if we are actually discussing gender issues such as we did in this thread. I see no reason not to be true to my beliefs since the discussion itself is about that. 

This is where I have a serious problem with leftists. Leftists are trying so hard to convince the world that a trans-man is actually a man and a trans-woman is actually a woman. I'm sorry but there are those of us that will not hold this to be true and when we say this, leftists get angry and starting throwing a fit. Like why can't leftists just let that go. I'm not out here telling people that they shouldn't transition. I'm not trying to deprive you of your right to live how you want. Live however you see fit, but I am under no obligation to change my beliefs for your comfort. It's exact same attitude I have with religion. Believe in whatever God you want, I have no desire to stop you but don't you dare start demanding I convert or tell me I'm a bad person because I don't want to.

As for how this all relates to this discussion with Twitter. Twitter is a public forum. You're going to get people that believe all sorts of different things. Jordan Peterson made a tweet that exposed his belief that Elliot Page is not a man. He had an opinion but this opinion rubbed certain people the wrong way and their response was ban him which is unjust. You may have seen me somewhat celebrating Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson being unbanned earlier in this thread. However, Kathy Griffin was also unbanned among them. As I understand it, she is a raging leftist lunatic that probably says and believe a lot of things I would disagree with yet you wouldn't see me complaining. Ethan Klein is currently banned from Twitter and he is a leftist that I have a very low opinion of. I don't think there is a leftist I despise more than Ethan Klein yet if he was also unbanned, you wouldn't hear me complaining about it. Ethan Klein has as much right as Jordan Peterson does to voice his opinions. I am not so arrogant and entitled to think that just because I despise someone or their worldview that they should be silenced. I want them to have a fair chance to discuss their worldviews however warped they might be to someone like me. The previous regime at Twitter took it upon themselves to silence those that didn't tow the line. This is not the kind of world we want. A large "public square" like Twitter should be willing to tolerate a wide variety of beliefs.

----------


## dilettante

I think it must be "invert the meanings of words days", because we sure are getting a lot of doublespeak.


Something I find hopeful is that many of the most moderate voices are now seeing through the BS and beginning to push back with recognition of reality.  This is a slow process since the mob still has influence over their careers and lives through news and social networking control and even physical threat and violence, but the grip is gradually being neutralized.

A nurse with my health insurance company got hold of me by phone for a routine "contact interview" last week.  I noted that I have a new doctor since my previous one was young and decided to leave practice and go into research.  She went on and on about the negative pressures faced by front-line health care workers from all of the far-left craziness and corporate shilling that's imposed on them, something very discouraging.

----------


## dilettante

BTW:

I think that polls to determine who is allowed to speak via a medium are not a good thing.  We already have far too much mob tyranny, especially when you consider bot farms and meat-bot farms in 3rd world sweatshops.

----------


## jpbro

> As for how this all relates to this discussion with Twitter. Twitter is a public forum.


Doubt I agree with some of what you say, disagree with most, but it's just an opinion to state that as fact (lmddgtfy)

----------


## Niya

> Doubt I agree with some of what you say, disagree with most, but it's just an opinion to state that as fact (lmddgtfy)


I do apologize if the phrase causes confusion. Try not to take it so literally. Try to grasp the essence of what I'm saying. Twitter is a space that is publicly accessible worldwide and as such will have people from a wide array of backgrounds and with varying beliefs. I don't mean that it's a public forum in the legal sense. If you could suggest a better phrasing to communicate the idea that would be helpful.

----------


## Niya

> BTW:
> 
> I think that polls to determine who is allowed to speak via a medium are not a good thing.  We already have far too much mob tyranny, especially when you consider bot farms and meat-bot farms in 3rd world sweatshops.


A number of people in the Twitter thread where Elon announced that Trump was unbanned also echoed similar sentiments. I hadn't thought about that before I heard this take on the polling but after reflecting on it a bit, I strongly agree. That fact that people have to vote on who is allowed to speak is a startling indicator of just how far the rot has spread.

----------


## Niya

> Something I find hopeful is that many of the most moderate voices are now seeing through the BS and beginning to push back with recognition of reality.  This is a slow process since the mob still has influence over their careers and lives through news and social networking control and even physical threat and violence, but the grip is gradually being neutralized.


Well they are going after the children now and there is nothing that motivates people to take action more than their love for their children. I think if they stayed away from the children, people would have continued to bow their heads and do as they're told.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Oh my god FunkyDexter. After all this time you guys are still getting this wrong? Listen carefully, I do not care how other people want to live their lives. I don't care what god you worship or if you're an atheist. I do not care if you're a socialist or a capitalist. I don't care if you're a man that wants to become a woman or vice versa. I don't care if you're gay or straight.
> 
> None of these things bother me to the slightest degree. However, if you're theist that wants to tell me about how lost I am because I don't accept Christ into my heart, we're going to have problems. You're going to find out how much I think your beliefs are a bunch of bronze age superstitious nonsense.
> 
> The same thing goes for all this trans stuff. If you're a man that transitions to a woman for whatever reasons I have no problem with that. Hell, I'll even call you by whatever pronouns you like. But when the rubber meets the road, I still see you as a man. So the question is now, where does the rubber meet the road? There are two scenarios where this can happen. One, is if such a trans person were to express an sexual interest. If such a thing were to happen, I would refuse by giving some made up reason, but if you pressed me on the matter you would quickly find it's because I don't see you as a woman. The second instance where the rubber meets the road is if we are actually discussing gender issues such as we did in this thread. I see no reason not to be true to my beliefs since the discussion itself is about that.


You start off saying how much you don't care about these things, then you go on to tell use you think they're wrong.  You even took the time to explain what you think of religion.  It seems clear you care about these things.  

What you really seem to be saying is, I am willing to tolerate these things.  Sort of a don't ask, don't tell.  

But I don't think that's true either.  Because many times I've seen others having a discussion, they weren't talking to you or about you, then you jump in and if you disagree, you tell them how wrong their views are or how wrong others peoples views are and point out the wrongs of the world as you see it.  So I guess, don't ask, don't tell isn't you either.

This is an open forum so there's nothing wrong with joining a conversation.

The picture of you I get is, you care a lot and your eager to convince people your right.

----------


## Niya

> You start off saying how much you don't care about these things, then you go on to tell use you think they're wrong.  You even took the time to explain what you think of religion.  It seems clear you care about these things.  
> 
> What you really seem to be saying is, I am willing to tolerate these things.  Sort of a don't ask, don't tell.  
> 
> But I don't think that's true either.  Because many times I've seen others having a discussion, they weren't talking to you or about you, then you jump in and if you disagree, you tell them how wrong their views are or how wrong others peoples views are and point out the wrongs of the world as you see it.  So I guess, don't ask, don't tell isn't you either.
> 
> This is an open forum so there's nothing wrong with joining a conversation.
> 
> The picture of you I get is, you care a lot and your eager to convince people your right.


Ok. This isn't going anywhere. It's just going in circles. All of this, for me at least, really started with the leftist hegemony in the media and big tech and what deceitful and evil authoritarians they are. I really didn't want to go this far down this path where we are now arguing about gender and pronouns and all this crap. Sure, gender politics is part of the leftist agenda but it's just a small part of it. The ideology touches on a wide variety of topics with lots of positions I strongly disagree with. I also disagree with the tactics they use to bully opponents into submission.

As such I'm done trying to explain anything as far gender politics goes. You have your views, I have mine and we are never going to reconcile. It's clear to me now that many of you are far left radicals for lack of a better term and as such I'm not going to comment any further on any of the specifics of your ideology except to say that I don't agree with most of it which is not just about gender and trans activism. For example, body positivity is another arm of leftist ideology I strongly dislike. I also don't agree with the rampant censorship and the cancel culture that arises from leftist hegemony. If I have any further comments on this topic I will try to stay away from the specifics of the ideology itself and only talk about the ideology as a whole or the behaviors of ideologues so we don't have to end up going in circles like this again.

----------


## jpbro

> I do apologize if the phrase causes confusion. Try not to take it so literally. Try to grasp the essence of what I'm saying. Twitter is a space that is publicly accessible worldwide and as such will have people from a wide array of backgrounds and with varying beliefs. I don't mean that it's a public forum in the legal sense.


Understood, but I think that is a very important distinction to make - the issue of whether or not Twitter is a public space in the legal sense can change things significantly. It's the difference between not being invited to any future get-together after being a particularly annoying party guest vs. being "silenced" under pain of fines, imprisonment, or worse if you continue to voice your opinion. 




> If you could suggest a better phrasing to communicate the idea that would be helpful.


Well that is the crux of the problem I think. What is Twitter? Is it a public forum (in the legal sense), or is it a private service with a more-or-less open invitation? Personally, I think it is a private service, and therefore I should have no expectation that I get to say whatever I want without the potential of being blacklisted from future participation. If I piss off the host (or anger enough of the guests to subsequently piss of the host), then I shouldn't be surprised when I'm not invited to participate in the future.

Granted, that's just my opinion, and I can see how Twitter might be deemed to be a public forum in the legal sense. But that does open a can of worms - as you say it's "publicly accessible worldwide and as such will have people from a wide array of backgrounds and with varying beliefs". That is unexplored territory legally, and entities vastly more powerful than us would decide what that means. It's also largely unexplored socially/culturally, and I think these are the turbulent waters that we're currently navigating. I wish I had a better answer.

----------


## Niya

> Because many times I've seen others having a discussion, they weren't talking to you or about you, then you jump in and if you disagree, you tell them how wrong their views are or how wrong others peoples views are and point out the wrongs of the world as you see it.  So I guess, don't ask, don't tell isn't you either.
> 
> This is an open forum so there's nothing wrong with joining a conversation.
> 
> The picture of you I get is, you care a lot and your eager to convince people your right.


I will say this. I had no idea just how far left many of you were. If I had known, I'd have stayed well clear of this discussion and any other like it. But as the saying goes, the cat's out of the bag so here we are.

----------


## Niya

> Understood, but I think that is a very important distinction to make - the issue of whether or not Twitter is a public space in the legal sense can change things significantly. It's the difference between not being invited to any future get-together after being a particularly annoying party guest vs. being "silenced" under pain of fines, imprisonment, or worse if you continue to voice your opinion.


My first instinct is that extremely large platforms like Twitter should be considered public spaces legally as it would certainly solve a lot of the problems with censorship and cancel culture. But something in me hesitates to fully support such a thing. I think it's because there's a part of me that believes this could transform the internet in such a radical way and pave the way for new kinds of abuses that in the end may have me wishing for the good old days. Your point about fines and imprisonment does make for a compelling argument against it.




> Granted, that's just my opinion, and I can see how Twitter might be deemed to be a public forum in the legal sense. But that does open a can of worms - as you say it's "publicly accessible worldwide and as such will have people from a wide array of backgrounds and with varying beliefs". That is unexplored territory legally, and entities vastly more powerful than us would decide what that means. It's also largely unexplored socially/culturally, and I think these are the turbulent waters that we're currently navigating. I wish I had a better answer.


Yea, I agree. But I think it's an important conversation that should be had. Perhaps there is some kind of compromise that we just haven't thought of yet. What I am sure about is that things cannot go on as they have been the past few years.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I will say this. I had no idea just how far left many of you were. If I had known, I'd have stayed well clear of this discussion and any other like it. But as the saying goes, the cat's out of the bag so here we are.


Well, I completely baffled that this is your response to my post.  My post  was about whether you cared about these issues.  Not if you were right or wrong.  I made no comment about that.  How does that make me far left?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Well, I completely baffled that this is your response to my post.  My post  was about whether you cared about these issues.  Not if you were right or wrong.  I made no comment about that.  How does that make me far left?


This is what happens when people who are so far right think that they are "enlightened centrists". They praise Elon Musk, who posted that meme about his position remain stationery while the left goes further left, while he's engaging in union-busting behaviour and telling his employees that they're going to have to do more with less to save his fortune. Frankly, Niyas a bit of caricature, claiming to be a centrist while parroting right-wing propaganda. He sounds rather that Tucker Carlson in a number of his posts, who is beloved of white supremacists and Russian propagandists for mainstreaming their beliefs far more effectively than they could. Like so many, he whines about cancel culture when that's pretty much a right-wing smokescreen. Elon Musk himself said that Trump's banning from Twitter didn't deny him a voice so how exactly is that being cancelled? It's not, but they can't see themselves as victims if they don't pretend it is. It's an observable fact that that Twitter and other social media platforms amplify right-wing voices through their algorithms, yet we're supposed to believe that they are also trying to silence right-wing voices by banning them. Makes perfect sense... to a certain type of person. Meanwhile, it's apparently radical to want to make life better for those who are demonstrably oppressed, simply by being who they are. Niya may not care how those people live their lives - at least, he might tell himself that - but there are other people who really do care and want to erase them and Niya would rather stand with them.

I should also point out that, when talking about left and right or, probably more accurately, liberal and conservative, we can talk in social terms or fiscal terms. I'm quite sute that Niya and at least one other person in this thread will scoff at the idea of saying that they are so far right but it's certainly no worse than referring to many of the rest of us as "far left radicals". That is, again, far right propaganda. I would suggest that we're not all that far apart on many fiscal issues but we have different ideas on some social issues. With regards to gender, it has basically no effect on my life. I know one trans woman personally and I refer to her as "she/her" and I think of her as a woman. It has zero impact on my life. I guess being radical just isn't what it used to be.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> After all this time you guys are still getting this wrong?


No.  We fully understand what you're saying.  We disagree with it and find it to be transphobic.

Here's the thing.  You keep _saying_ that you're happy to let people trans people live their lives while repeatedly going out of your way to publicly deny their existence.  You are not the passive observer you are pretending to be, you are an active voice.  You actually do have the right to do that and, contrary to your portrayal, nobody is saying you do not.  However, having adopted that position, you cede the right to claim victimhood when people point out that you are being transphobic.  If you actually were a passive observer you would be able to claim that victimhood with credibility.

You can't claim to be hard done by because people describe you in a manner you find uncomfortable in response to you describing other people in a manner they find uncomfortable.

----------


## Niya

> No.  We fully understand what you're saying.  We disagree with it and find it to be transphobic.


Firstly, what does transphobic even mean? Define that. Then tell me what I said specifically that you found to be transphobic.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Do you accept that an individual can genuinely and legitimately identify as a gender other than their biological sex?

I know in advance that you're going to pretend you still don't understand what Gender means.  Do you understand the meaning _I_'m ascribing to it?

----------


## Niya

> Do you accept that an individual can genuinely and legitimately identify as a gender other than their biological sex?


I don't know. Perhaps you can tell me.




> Do you understand the meaning _I_'m ascribing to it?


Not really. 

I know that a human can be born male, female or in very rare cases, they can be born as a hermaphrodite. 

If you're born a man, you will have a *****, you will generally be bigger and stronger, you will be more hairy, you will have a deeper voice and in most cases you will be sexually attracted to females. 

If you're born a woman, you will have a vagina, mammary glands, and a womb. You will generally be less hairy and smaller. You will also have a higher pitched voice and be sexually attracted to males.

I've never met a hermaphrodite so I can speak about what goes on there.

Now in some cases for reasons I won't pretend to understand, a man or a woman can find themselves sexually attracted to their sex in which case they would be homosexual. As for gender, well I can Google just as well as anyone and when I Google the word gender, what I find basically boils down to a myriad of competing or sometimes overlapping abstract ideas from social scientists and philosophers about how human behavior relates to the sex they were born to. Fascinating stuff but still very abstract and theoretical. As such for the sake of practicality and expediency, I think of gender and sex as more or less the same thing, as does everyone else in my part of the world.

This is the sum total of everything I know about gender and sex and all that.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I don't know. Perhaps you can tell me.


People who are trans are telling you.  Do you believe them?




> Not really.


It's been explained to you ad nauseum.

Answer the questions

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Not really.


Classic. You don't understand the argument that others are making but you sure as hell know that you disagree with it... vehemently! You may use gender and sex interchangeably but you know for a fact that other people don't so how can you possibly admit you don't know what they mean while also insisting that they're wrong and expect to be taken seriously?

----------


## Niya

Know what. Never mind. I'm not going down this road again.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Works for me

----------


## Niya

> Works for me


Cool  :Big Grin:

----------


## TysonLPrice

At this point I think Musk wants to bankrupt Twitter for the tax write off.

----------


## dilettante

Private company?

I like the reaction at CBS News when they pulled out and all it got them was being laughed at.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I thought post #738 (which I'm not going to quote, because it's kind of long) was pretty well written. I do see how that's a plausible point of view. I don't really want to hear people bang on about religion, either, so I get where you're coming from with that. Unfortunately, this is not quite the same situation.

It wasn't all that long ago in the US that there was a significantly large group of people who felt they had the right, and perhaps the duty, to kill others who didn't look like them if they dared to act in any way that wasn't subservient (it wasn't JUST racial, though that is what most people know it as). This group wasn't really a group of radicals, at the time. They were pretty mainstream. Those other people were allowed to exist, though only if they didn't mix with general society, didn't ask to be treated as anyone else, and didn't really object to being killed when they stepped over whatever line.

I'm not talking about whether either group was right or wrong as we see it today. If you look at the people in the time that they lived, in the places that they lived, they were right. Sure, there's the KKK, and there was a fair amount of overlap between them and the larger societal group that I'm talking about, but talking about the KKK would be talking about some minority segment of the larger group, and talking about a minority segment would absolve the larger group unjustly. People turned out for lynchings. They took photos of themselves smiling beside hanging bodies. There weren't just a few people in many of those photos, either. It wasn't a few bad actors acting in the shadows of society, it was society itself.

So, did they have the right to that opinion? Did they have the right to kill people for how they looked? Did they have the right to kill people for acting like anybody else? Today we would say no, but virtually none of them suffered any consequence at the time, or in their later lives, so it's hard to say that at the time they did not. They had the right because society gave them the right. Since that time, society has taken away that right. Those people still exist. They still harbor those beliefs. The only change is that there are fewer of them, and they have no illusion that there will be no consequences if they act on their beliefs and get caught.

This is society. We have diverse and ever-changing norms. At times society has condoned murder, and at times it has not. This is only a more extreme example of the same discussion over trans people. The same case could easily be made for religion, though you'd have to go slightly further back to find the time when there were parts of the US (and England) where you could be executed for being either Catholic or Protestant, depending on the exact location.

Your beliefs DO matter. They shape the society we live in. There isn't an absolute right or wrong, but a whole bunch of people pushing in one direction or another. Personally, I feel that we should push for a world where people are not killed for who they are, but I also realize that isn't entirely possible. Niya might be willing to say 'no thanks, I don't see you as a woman', but it seems likely that he also knows people who would kill for being asked. It has happened in the US, and in circles that he seems likely to know about. We're probably all aware that there are people online who don't simply refuse, they actively harass anybody who doesn't feel the way they do....on nearly any issue, too, since we've banned people for being too aggressive in their love for VB6 (seriously). 

If people don't push back, the other side will win. That very line could have been stated 100 years ago (and much more recently) in parts of the US where 'winning' was defined as not allowing us to murder them. 

We won't see eye to eye. We hold our positions. One must keep on pushing.

----------


## dilettante

So are you suggesting that censorship of views and speech is some sort of "pre-crime" control?

If so that doesn't explain all of the crimes that are being committed by those who aren't censored because their views and politics fall within an "accepted range."

If speech inevitably leads to crime I guess we should not let anyone communicate, hmm?  Is that the goal?  I can feel Klaus Schwab smiling from here.

----------


## sapator

Ye I think US still feel they have the right, and perhaps the duty, to kill others who don't look like them.
As much you won't ever admit it and as much I will never yeal to NATO side Ukraine and Afghanistan are the late examples.
Caution again, I'm not talking about the lovable US people, I'm talking about the leadership, unless someone is:
Insane in the membrane
Insane in the brain
Insane in the membrane
Insane in the brain
(  :Cool:  )

----------


## wes4dbt

> Those people still exist. They still harbor those beliefs. The only change is that there are fewer of them, and they have no illusion that there will be no consequences if they act on their beliefs and get caught.


Yes they do.  They definitely exist.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/21/us/co...day/index.html

You got to wonder what made this person believe these people needed to die.  What convinced him that these people are evil or a threat and need to be eliminated.  I don't believe your born hating a specific group.  Something or someone or some group, had to create this hatred.   I guess he could have been looking attention, his 15 minutes of fame.  IDK, it's always leaves me shaking my head.

----------


## wes4dbt

On a more light hearted subject, Trump and Twitter.

On Truth Social Trump has @ 4.7 million followers.  
On Twitter he has @ 87.4 million.

It would be interesting to know why his followers on Truth Social is so much lower.

----------


## szlamany

> On a more light hearted subject, Trump and Twitter.
> 
> On Truth Social Trump has @ 4.7 million followers.  
> On Twitter he has @ 87.4 million.
> 
> It would be interesting to know why his followers on Truth Social is so much lower.


Truth Social is a newer platform.  Trump got all those Twitter followers during the 2016 election and his 4 year term.

Do any of you actually use Twitter?  I do - fully.  And the changes made by Musk were noticeable immediately.

Here's an important one.  It was very difficult to previously report child exploitation to twitter - the form for doing so hard to find.  Active lawsuits against Twitter for not removing content that was reported as well.  That's all changed - checkbox for this type of bad activity right on the main "report post" page.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Private company?
> 
> I like the reaction at CBS News when they pulled out and all it got them was being laughed at.


I thought that is what Trump has been hiding.  Taking a huge loss in bankruptcy and not paying taxes for a while.  I don't know that as a fact.

----------


## Niya

> I thought post #738 (which I'm not going to quote, because it's kind of long) was pretty well written. I do see how that's a plausible point of view. I don't really want to hear people bang on about religion, either, so I get where you're coming from with that.


Finally! Some progress. You're starting to understand my point of view. It's small step but still a step forward. The rest of your post seems to indicate that you think it's all about being making society better and more tolerant but the truth is it's not. You seem to be the only one making an effort to understand my point of view so I'd like to try and make a case for why leftism is not the force for good you all seem to think it is. However, I want to avoid going down another rabbit where we end up chasing our tails in a never ending circular argument. I'd need to think carefully about how I could lay it so you could better understand why I'm so against leftism so I'll get back to that. I'm focused on something else at the moment so I can't put that much though into it right now. It warms my heart to know at least one of you is trying.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Finally! Some progress. You're starting to understand my point of view. It's small step but still a step forward. The rest of your post seems to indicate that you think it's all about being making society better and more tolerant but the truth is it's not. You seem to be the only one making an effort to understand my point of view so I'd like to try and make a case for why leftism is not the force for good you all seem to think it is. However, I want to avoid going down another rabbit where we end up chasing our tails in a never ending circular argument. I'd need to think carefully about how I could lay it so you could better understand why I'm so against leftism so I'll get back to that. I'm focused on something else at the moment so I can't put that much though into it right now. It warms my heart to know at least one of you is trying.


I don't think you really read or understood his post.  You read:




> I thought post #738 (which I'm not going to quote, because it's kind of long) was pretty well written. I do see how that's a plausible point of view. I don't really want to hear people bang on about religion, either, so I get where you're coming from with that.


and I think you stopped.  I think I read a repudiation of your position.  Not any kind of validation.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

No, it isn't about that, and it's a bit hard to imagine how you read that into it. Dil got it wrong, also.

The point is pretty simple: Free speech isn't entirely possible, because there are groups whose speech requires the silencing of other groups. It has always been this way, and continues to this day, because it has to. This isn't a problem that will be solved.

----------


## wes4dbt

> The point is pretty simple: Free speech isn't entirely possible, because there are groups whose speech requires the silencing of other groups. It has always been this way, and continues to this day, because it has to. This isn't a problem that will be solved.


Your probably right.  I've watched Star Trek and they don't have free speech.  lol

But I did think your post talked about more than just free speech.  

Seems clear there are still people who think they got the right to kill people for being different.  I don't just mean trans.  There's religion, ethnic reasons, which side of a border you were born, some still believe if someone brings shame to the family you have to kill them.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> You seem to be the only one making an effort to understand my point of view


So when do you extend that courtesy to us?

----------


## Niya

> I don't think you really read or understood his post.  You read:


He understood my visceral reaction to leftism by relating it to his own when it comes to people imposing their religious views on others, a connection none of you have made until now. It's not much but its progress towards common ground.

----------


## Niya

> So when do you extend that courtesy to us?


Oh I understand you better than you know. Believe that if nothing else.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Oh I understand you better than you know. Believe that if nothing else.


Do you not understand how this makes you sound? You keep telling us that we just don't understand what you're saying and, presumably, if we just did then we'd agree with you, yet you continually demonstrate that you don't understand where we are coming from - as demonstrated by the "cats and dogs" comment - and yet claim to understand us really well. Either you don't understand that this makes you sound an arrogant ass or you don't care. Either way, an arrogant ass you are.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> He understood my visceral reaction to leftism by relating it to his own when it comes to people imposing their religious views on others, a connection none of you have made until now.


This is just further demonstration of the fact that you don't listen and you don't understand nearly as much as you think you do. I have personally explained the difference between religious claims and gender claims to you but it seems that you've just discarded the whole thing. Let's try again.

I have no issue accepting that many religious experiences are real - I'm sure that many aren't but certainly wouldn't claim that about all - but their claims about the source of those experiences is what I dispute, or at least what I dispute there is evidence for. Transgender people, on the other hand, are not making any claims about anything external to themselves. Secondly, transgender people are not telling you how to live your life based on their experience, unlike religious people. The two are not nearly the same. We actually understand you better than you think. We just think that your position is a crock. If it wasn't, you would have to repeat stupid arguments you've heard from right-wing extremists to support it.

----------


## wes4dbt

> He understood my visceral reaction to leftism by relating it to his own when it comes to people imposing their religious views on others, a connection none of you have made until now. It's not much but its progress towards common ground.


You see people imposing their views on others as leftism.  You don't see the right doing the same thing?  Religion, abortion, books, racial equality...., you.  How convenient.

I don't like people trying to imposes their views on other.  But that happens on the left and right.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> You don't see the right doing the same thing?  Religion, abortion, books, racial equality...


Marriage equality for same sex couples. Sticking with trans issues, the denial of trans healthcare to adults as well as children. No one on the left is telling anyone to be trans. Plenty on the right are telling people not to be and, worse, not to accept those who are.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Marriage equality for same sex couples. Sticking with trans issues, the denial of trans healthcare to adults as well as children. No one on the left is telling anyone to be trans. Plenty on the right are telling people not to be and, worse, not to accept those who are.


Yeah, saying that trying to impose your view on other is leftism while trying to do the same thing yourself, that's a hard sell.  the next move is usually, you just don't get it.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Here's an important one. It was very difficult to previously report child exploitation to twitter - the form for doing so hard to find. Active lawsuits against Twitter for not removing content that was reported as well. That's all changed - checkbox for this type of bad activity right on the main "report post" page.


That's interesting.  I'm actually surprised they're able to make any changes given the exodus of engineers and I'm sceptical of whether they've got the infrastructure left behind it to review and deal with such reports but, if they have, it sounds like a positive change.




> Seems clear there are still people who think they got the right to kill people for being different. I don't just mean trans. There's religion, ethnic reasons, which side of a border you were born, some still believe if someone brings shame to the family you have to kill them.


My take on Shaggy's post was slightly different, though I also agree with what you're saying.  I _think_, when Shaggy was talking about people killing others with impunity he was referring to the US's troubled history with race.  We're only about a century out from folks openly touting their desire to lynch black people and the KKK marching to Washington.  We're only a couple of centuries out from the law enshrining that right.  (The point being made was that free speech is a conflictive right - my absolute free speech would necessarily require curtailment of other people's free speech.  And where we, as a society, draw the line changes over time)

I do think you're also correct, though.  There _are_ still people who want that right today, both toward people of colour and just about any other minority.  I don't think the motive for the recent Colorado mass shooting in a gay bar has been declared yet but it sure looks like it was a hate crime.  If it wasn't it's not hard to find manifold similar examples.

And let's be clear, the people who engage in these acts feel entitled, often even feel a sense of duty, because of the things that are being said.  When Boebert and others repeatedly refer to the queer community as "groomers" she is sending a message that queer people are a problem that needs to be dealt with, possibly violently, lest they abuse your children.  Her sending "thoughts and prayers" really doesn't cut it in retrospect.

Words matter and the opinions that are allowed to be expressed unopposed matter.  When people with hateful views find their opinion opposed, they frequently fall back on "free speech" as an argument but this is a misrepresentation of what's happening.  Nobody in the West is lacking free speech.  What they're lacking is free access to platforms and tacit approval of their opinions, neither of which they have a right to.

----------


## dilettante

The Scots who founded the Ku Klux Klan to 'serenade girls'




> Scots archaeologist and historian Oliver said he had often celebrated the disproportionate impact Scots have had on the history of other countries, but in the documentary he investigates a darker legacy and the links between racism today in the American Deep South and the Scots who first occupied it.
> 
> When their world was threatened, the southern states opted for Civil War rather than give up their slaves.
> 
> Following their defeat, six former officers, bored and fearful of the future now that black men had the vote, formed a fraternal society, and clan became Klan.


Don't look too hard for the origins of slavery in the US and the troubles that followed its downfall.  You'll find people originating in Ireland and the UK wherever you turn.

Historically the US has been of net German majority, with UK ancestry concentrated in New England and the old South.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Technically, you can't look too hard at the people in the US, either, with the exception of the natives. You'll find lots of English and Irishmen there, too.

I was avoiding the KKK, because that's hardly the whole story. They had a presence in the south, but the racial troubles went far beyond them. Saying that it was a result of the KKK would be the 'a few bad apples' excuse, when it very clearly was not. The pictures taken from lynchings show that it was a community exercise in which a wide range of people participated.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

One other point is that Twitter is being treated as a public square, in this discussion. It is not. It's a for-profit platform funded on...well, whatever funding source people can come up with. That has been advertising in the past, but perhaps Musk can find some other stream. He tried the paid 'verified' accounts, and that blew up on him, but at least he has shown that he is trying to figure out some viable revenue stream other than advertising. I'm skeptical that he'll find one, but I wish him well in that endeavor, because I'm a bit disturbed that so many useful resources are supported entirely by ad revenue. 

Still, it's not a public square. It's for profit, and if Musk doesn't want to drive Twitter into insolvency (it's not at all clear that such is NOT his goal), then he has to pander to his revenue stream to some extent. That isn't free speech, either. That is ultimately paid-for speech, even if the people who are paying are not necessarily the ones speaking.

----------


## wes4dbt

> My take on Shaggy's post was slightly different, though I also agree with what you're saying. I think, when Shaggy was talking about people killing others with impunity he was referring to the US's troubled history with race. We're only about a century out from folks openly touting their desire to lynch black people and the KKK marching to Washington. We're only a couple of centuries out from the law enshrining that right. (The point being made was that free speech is a conflictive right - my absolute free speech would necessarily require curtailment of other people's free speech. And where we, as a society, draw the line changes over time)


Yeah, I got that.  I just had something else on my mind.




> I do think you're also correct, though. There are still people who want that right today, both toward people of colour and just about any other minority. I don't think the motive for the recent Colorado mass shooting in a gay bar has been declared yet but it sure looks like it was a hate crime. If it wasn't it's not hard to find manifold similar examples.


This is what was on my mind.  

My daughter has a close friend that's gay.  He just got engaged and my daughter and one of her girlfriends were out at a gay club Saturday night with her friend celebrating his engagement.  It just makes the Colorado incident strike a little closer to home.

----------


## dilettante

I don't see how Twitter should be any different from newspapers of the past.  Newspapers and radio and TV today have been allowed to operate under cabals of private and "public" oligarchs based on wealth.

Any effort to bust them up and force diversity of expression is impractical.  Nothing less than declaring them public squares and requiring equal access can make them work.

I can't help but be suspicious of the effort spent arguing against that.  It reeks of authoritarians feeling comfortably in ascendency trying to squash other voices and clamp down the Iron Curtain of their narrative.

----------


## dilettante

Here's a short and timely video of the type the left doesn't want seen:

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> I don't see how Twitter should be any different from newspapers of the past.  Newspapers and radio and TV today have been allowed to operate under cabals of private and "public" oligarchs based on wealth.
> 
> Any effort to bust them up and force diversity of expression is impractical.  Nothing less than declaring them public squares and requiring equal access can make them work.
> 
> I can't help but be suspicious of the effort spent arguing against that.  It reeks of authoritarians feeling comfortably in ascendency trying to squash other voices and clamp down the Iron Curtain of their narrative.


In what way IS it being operated any differently?

As to feeling comfortable in ascendency, that's pretty much the point. Society is going to choose winners and losers. Everybody gets to pull as much as they can in whichever way they want, but there will be people pulling in the opposite direction. Who ever is ascendant now, should feel none too comfortable, as there will still be people pulling in other directions.

Sour grapes can make for good whine, but they're still sour grapes.

----------


## dilettante

The difference is that a "winner" platform with global reach inherently suppresses any opposition.  That's a far cry from yesteryear when a town might have 5 major papers and any number of smaller ones serving segments of the local society based on national origin, language, trade/profession, or community.

You can shout that equal access already exists, but it is pretty hard to compete with monopolies.  Especially those that get favored status via cash and messaging political "donations" (bribes) that gain them subsidies and special treatment.


It sounds like you are claiming it would be fair for someone like Musk to turn the tables and re-institute censorship but choose to support a different ideology and suppress those in opposition.  I'm sure that's not your meaning, but is that what it would take to change your mind?

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I don't see how Twitter should be any different from newspapers of the past.  Newspapers and radio and TV today have been allowed to operate under cabals of private and "public" oligarchs based on wealth.
> 
> Any effort to bust them up and force diversity of expression is impractical.  Nothing less than declaring them public squares and requiring equal access can make them work.
> 
> I can't help but be suspicious of the effort spent arguing against that.  It reeks of authoritarians feeling comfortably in ascendency trying to squash other voices and clamp down the Iron Curtain of their narrative.


Part of that is it was a new phenomenon.  Technology just exploded and social media was brand new.  It went worldwide in a flash.  Laws are way behind.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> The difference is that a "winner" platform with global reach inherently suppresses any opposition.  That's a far cry from yesteryear when a town might have 5 major papers and any number of smaller ones serving segments of the local society based on national origin, language, trade/profession, or community.


That's true, and you couldn't shout very loudly in a newspaper. I've said it before: A position that is a 0.1% minority means there might not be two people with that belief in a small town, but in a country of 330 million, it's many hundreds of thousands, who can all find each other now. 





> You can shout that equal access already exists, but it is pretty hard to compete with monopolies.  Especially those that get favored status via cash and messaging political "donations" (bribes) that gain them subsidies and special treatment.


I doubt that anybody would say that equal access exists. I'm not sure that anybody can suggest a means by which equal access COULD exist.






> It sounds like you are claiming it would be fair for someone like Musk to turn the tables and re-institute censorship but choose to support a different ideology and suppress those in opposition.  I'm sure that's not your meaning, but is that what it would take to change your mind?


Change my mind about what? It would demonstrate my point quite effectively. Totally free speech isn't possible. What we have is based on societal norms and majorities. There have been times throughout history when those societal norms and majorities have been quite appalling. We could go back there. For those who don't like the current norms and majorities, we're already back there. It doesn't change anything. If free speech isn't possible, then somebody WILL be censored. More censorship certainly doesn't prove that position wrong.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I don't see how Twitter should be any different from newspapers of the past.


Did everyone get to say whatever they wanted in those newspapers? Seems that Twitter is very different to me.

----------


## jmcilhinney

I understand that Elon Musk has made the explicit decision not to allow Alex Jones back onto Twitter. I'm wondering what our local free speech advocates think of that decision. Do you think that Alex Jones should be allowed back? It seems like a free speech absolutist, which Musk claims to be, would say "yes".

Further, do you think that anyone should be able to say anything on Twitter, as long as it's not illegal, or maybe even then? Is there a line and, if so, where do you draw it? Something I notice with the gun control debate in the US is that many people claim to want no restrictions on people's access to guns, as per the second amendment, but very few people actually walk the walk. Most people are OK with certain restrictions but not others. They have their own line but they draw it in a different place. Many people complain about restrictions and cast it as restrictions being bad but, when push comes to shove, they are actually in favour of certain restrictions themselves. It's really just a matter of what restrictions you're OK with and why.

----------


## Peter Porter

> Did everyone get to say whatever they wanted in those newspapers? Seems that Twitter is very different to me.


Nah... it was the same. Seems like yesterday this forklift dropped off my morning paper. I still have back issues from the 90s I haven't flipped through yet!

----------


## dilettante

Lots of fast tap dancing going on here, but nobody is being fooled.  Musk has turned on the lights and now the rats are in a panic.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Lots of fast tap dancing going on here, but nobody is being fooled.  Musk has turned on the lights and now the rats are in a panic.


Did you ever consider answering the actual question I asked? It seems you rarely do actually address a point anyone raises. I wonder why. It's a pretty simple question.

I really couldn't care less about Twitter. I don't use it and never have. It's not like I ever lobbied to get people banned from it. My involvement here is because Elon Musk is making claims that some people are taking at face value and I don't think they should. In the case of Alex Jones though, I would think that a free speech absolutist would be in favour of allowing him to speak, even if they disagree with what he says. It seems that Elon Musk really just draws the line in a different place, but he still draws a line. My question is whether you and others also draw a line or not. My guess is that you do but you don't want to admit it and that's why you won't answer the question. You may have thought that your gloating would deflect attention from that but it really just did the opposite.

----------


## dilettante

I don't care about Alex Jones one way or another.  Why should I?  He's a nut and doesn't have any impact on me one way or the other.  is he really that scary to you?

Any why is this all about me again?  Is this some sort of verbal trap tactic you use in making personal attacks hoping to silence voices that might let light into your bubble?  You sure like to do the same thing over and over again.  It isn't very effective, so you may as well try to make a point if you have one instead.

----------


## jpbro

> Did you ever consider answering the actual question I asked? It seems you rarely do actually address a point anyone raises. I wonder why. It's a pretty simple question.


From out here in the peanut gallery, it's clear who the tap dancers are. IMO You and Niya the only one who aren't tap dancing, you both deliver all your points with your heart on your sleeve. The rest of us are tap dancing to various degrees. That said, if there was a rainbow extending to the moon, Dilettante has tap danced his way there and back a few times. I tihnk it's his MO. 

Anyway, despite all I said, tap dancing is actually really nice:

----------


## dilettante

Are you calling me Bugs Bunny?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I don't care about Alex Jones one way or another.  Why should I?


Well, he's a terrible person and has a negative impact on society, so if you care about society then I think that you should care some at least.

There's also the fact that he's a person who is entitled to freedom of speech to the same degree as every other person and it seems that you think that that means he deserves access to Twitter. It seems that you should care about him to that degree at least, if you really do walk the walk that you talk. That is the basis of my question: should Elon Musk allow Alec Jones back on Twitter based on his supposed right to freedom of speech? If you do then it's simple enough to say so and at least you'll be being consistent. If you don't then the question is why don't you? In that case, you're really just deciding to draw the line between acceptable speech and unacceptable speech the same way we are but in a different place. That means that you could make an argument that certain speech that has been deemed unacceptable some should be deemed acceptable, but claiming that deeming speech unacceptable at all is wrong would be a contradiction.



> He's a nut and doesn't have any impact on me one way or the other.


How very right-wing of you; "It doesn't affect me so why should I care".



> is he really that scary to you?


It's not a matter of being scared but it's no surprise that you'd portray it that way. He's a terrible person and is a detriment to society and I care about society. I care about the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook and Jones does affect them, as just one example.



> Any why is this all about me again?


You made a comment that I inferred to be directed, at least in part, at me. It is hard to tell who or what you're specifically referring to at times though. You could do better in that regard.



> Is this some sort of verbal trap tactic you use in making personal attacks hoping to silence voices that might let light into your bubble?  You sure like to do the same thing over and over again.  It isn't very effective, so you may as well try to make a point if you have one instead.


Woop! Woop! Victim alert! I was expressly trying to get you to answer a question. How is that trying to silence you? Despite your obsession, no one here is trying to silence you. Telling you how much and why we disagree with you is not trying to silence you. Even insulting you is not trying to silence you, any more than calling others here tap-dancing rats is trying to silence them. I'd say that you need to get out the bubble you're in, where you all keep telling each other how much we're trying to silence you because we're so scared of you.

----------


## jmcilhinney

Back on the trans topic, which was not the original topic of this thread but it's CC so who cares, I just watched this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1XwTalYyzs

This is about Hershel Walker - someone who really does have brain damage, unlike John Fetterman - banging on about trans people, as usual, while having nothing of substance and barely anything of coherence to say. The original video features a female swimmer who "was forced to swim against a biological male" and she says that a man won the swimming title that belonged to a woman. That paints a particular picture but, as pointed out later in the critique, that picture is false and a quite blatant lie. Apparently, the woman speaking came equal fifth with the trans woman in that race. This is how trans women are supposedly CrUsHiNg women's sport and how right-wingers lie about it. We've all witnessed for ourselves how those who consider themselves "enlightened centrists" repeat those lies and others like them but, when push comes to shove, they can't actually back up their claims. As I may have mentioned previously, I'm not necessarily in favour of a blanket "yes" on the subject of trans women competing in women's sport but I'm also not in favour of a blanket "no". I don't consider myself to have enough information to make a fully-informed decision but I'm damn sure that Hershel Walker isn't and I doubt that most opponents of the idea are.

----------


## wes4dbt

That seems to be a major problem with free speech, especially on a world wide platform.  That would include allowing absolute lies that would directly lead to people getting hurt or others believing the lies and use that as justification for hurting people.  And hurting people has many forms.  I can't see the benefit in allowing that.  There's a lot of people full of hate/bias/bigotry and a lot of people that see a way to make money from feeding it.  

Now there is a difference between absolute lies and bias when making a statement.  Bias we see every day in the media,(actually it's everywhere), Alex Jones is an example of absolute lies, plus knowingly spreading absolute lies.  As a group it's much easier to tell the difference, as an individual it's much harder to make the effort to distinguish, if you have a built in bias.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Now there is a difference between absolute lies and bias when making a statement.


I would suggest that Donald Trump is an example of absolute lies as well. Not necessarily in everything he says but definitely in some important areas. There are many who would disagree though. Not sure how our local free speech proponents feel about that one. Not sure they specifically mentioned Trump as someone who should be allowed back on Twitter or not.

----------


## TysonLPrice

Ginger did all the same dance steps as Fred but in high heels...

----------


## dilettante

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/joe-...speech-3543343

Looks like Twitter is the place to be, it is becoming the only place you can see Biden's gaffes without filtering now.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/joe-...speech-3543343
> 
> Looks like Twitter is the place to be, it is becoming the only place you can see Biden's gaffes without filtering now.


I think you need to clean your filters. The simplest check would show that's not true. The tongue-in-cheek answer would be that there was a Biden gaffe chiseled in hieroglyphics in the tomb of Ramses II, but the more serious one would be: You probably can't do a search on Google that is so bad that you can't find numerous examples of Biden gaffes. Heck, Biden called himself a gaffe machine, so it's not like he isn't self aware in that regard.

In fact, a search on Biden calling himself a gaffe machine came back with so many references to it that you can choose whichever source you want for it.

----------


## sapator

Sure let's call it gaffe. Sure hope he doesn't gaffe with some "buttons".
I'm quite sure that google and in accordance youtube hides a lot. When we where vaxbying I could not find most of the articles or videos on google. I had to quack. Regardless if they where vaxbie unfriendly, they shouldn't have been censored.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I always figured you were quacked.

----------


## wes4dbt

> https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/joe-...speech-3543343
> 
> Looks like Twitter is the place to be, it is becoming the only place you can see Biden's gaffes without filtering now.


Can't see how you come to that conclusion.  I just Googled "biden steal pumpkin" and that same story popped up in all kinds of media outlets.

----------


## wes4dbt

For some reason when I was talking about free speech and the problem of absolute lies, I didn't think about how complex the issue is.  The Alex Jones example was straight forward.  This morning religion popped into my mind.  And the whole concept went into a blender.  Because, I don't believe in God,  then religious rhetoric would be an absolute lie to me.  But there is a large segment of society that do believe, so religious speech wouldn't be a lie.

So we're back to a stand off.  I should have known better than to listen to me.  lol

----------


## sapator

> I always figured you were quacked.


Lol, that was what I expected to read  :Big Grin:

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I wasn't sure if that would translate. "Quack" is such a strange word. It has several quite different meanings in the US, but is most commonly considered the sound that a duck makes. "Typical" animal noises seem to be quite strongly cultural. The way we say quack doesn't sound all that much like the noise a duck makes...unless you say it with a considerable accent.

----------


## sapator

I can do an average imitation of this lovely duck goin quackers





 but I can also talk about quakers that they don't quack and quackers that quack (see Russia subs)

So does one quack when he goes quack or a quack quacks when quack?

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I couldn't do that voice even with a whole tank of helium.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Can't see how you come to that conclusion.


That would be bias and a well-developed victim mentality.

----------


## wes4dbt

> That would be bias and a well-developed victim mentality.


There seems to be a lot of that.  I don't know if the number of these people are increasing or just more visible because of the increase in number of places people can voice their complaints and the huge amount of people it reaches.

----------


## dilettante

The Colorado shooter story looks quite different now that facts aren't being suppressed.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> The Colorado shooter story looks quite different now that facts aren't being suppressed.


Does it look quite different? I'm guessing that you're referring to the fact that the shooter is apparently non-binary, given that you've chosen to be deliberately vague yet again. They're still apparently racist and homophobic though, so I'm not sure how much has actually changed. As for facts being suppressed, you seem to be making that up. The fact that certain information didn't come to light immediately is not specifically an indication that anyone was hiding it. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying but then that would be your fault, for continuing to imply and insinuate rather than make a definitive statement. The plausible deniability I suspect you think you maintain by being vague is not plausible at all.

----------


## Peter Porter

> The Colorado shooter story looks quite different now that facts aren't being suppressed.


Very different! I never seen an interview like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6TXdNXcWk

Glad it wasn't suppressed.

----------


## dilettante

The reality is absurd beyond fiction.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> The reality is absurd beyond fiction.


Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously...

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-...carlson-2020-9

----------


## dilettante

That doesn't say anything about the actions of the morally bankrupt leftist media he lists there.

----------


## Peter Porter

Deleted

----------


## Niya

On a more lighthearted note:-
https://twitter.com/YoderSecreto/sta...95985063825410

I haven't confirmed whether this is true or just a meme but apparently some leftists stormed off to Mastadon in protest of Elon Musk taking over Twitter and got a dose of reality when they went over there with their childish nonsense. This would be hilarious if it's true.

----------


## Niya

> Can't see how you come to that conclusion.  I just Googled "biden steal pumpkin" and that same story popped up in all kinds of media outlets.


I haven't personally look into this but outlets I trust have made claims that the previous regime at Twitter were in the practice of suppressing harmful information surrounding certain events involving democrats. The one I keep hearing about was some story on Hunter Biden's laptop being heavily suppressed at Twitter because it was harmful to the Biden administration. I wasn't too interested in that specific event(I don't really find political scandals that interesting) so I don't know the details but like I said, I trust these outlets. Even if dilettante is wrong in this particular case, it's pretty much known by all that have eyes to see that Twitter under the previous regime was pretty much a leftist propaganda machine so there is nothing odd about what dilettante said.

----------


## Niya

> Lots of fast tap dancing going on here, but nobody is being fooled.  Musk has turned on the lights and now the rats are in a panic.


Comment of the week! Such an apt and effective way of describing this whole Twitter event.

----------


## Niya

> I don't care about Alex Jones one way or another.  Why should I?  He's a nut and doesn't have any impact on me one way or the other.


Interesting Alex Jones should be brought up. I feel pretty much the same way about him. His theories are a little too extreme, even for me. He bases a lot of what he says on too many assumptions. However, I have to say he earned my respect recently when he commented on Elon Musk's refusal to unban him. Not only did he say that he understood, he actually expressed support for Musk. I thought that was very mature of him and it made an impression on me. Most people, especially leftists would have lost their minds and started lambasting Musk in childish tirades but he didn't do that. The man's crazy but he acted like a man and took some responsibility for his current relationship with Twitter. He didn't lash out like some entitled brat and that is something I can respect.

----------


## Niya

> Back on the trans topic, which was not the original topic of this thread but it's CC so who cares, I just watched this video:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1XwTalYyzs


"The Young Turks"....all I needed to see to know what I was in for lol....

Anyways, I'm not going to go back and forth on this over statistics and who won this race or that race. My position is that in sports where physical performance matters, men and women should not be made to compete against each other because it's unfair to the women. That's my position, it will be my position till I die. I'm not interested in arguing it and if you believe otherwise, I'm fine with that. I just don't want to be told that I'm some kind of bigot or whatever because of this. Just accept that this is my position on the matter and lets move on.

[EDIT]

To be truthful, I am actually willing to debate it but you guys, like most leftists cannot help your judgmental attitudes and it won't be long before words like "bigot" and "transphobe" come out which tells me that it won't actually be a level headed debate but is in fact more akin to religious zealotry which is not something I'm interesting in participating in. So I'm nipping it in the bud. Just accept that this is how I feel and it's not something to fight over.

----------


## Peter Porter

DEleted

----------


## Niya

> Niya, you got it all wrong. Stux is annoyed at some Mastodon users reporting other Mastodon users. It's not a leftist thing, or did you want everyone to believe it was, hoping they wont actually click the link to read for themselves, just so you can use your favorite word, lefists? 
> *
> Update:*
> Stux didn't write what you read from a Photoshop you found on Twitter. But if you're interested on Stux actual thoughts on Twitter, here-ya go:
> https://mstdn.social/@stux/109371008852402554


I don't think this Stux guy knows or cares that he is in the middle of a culture war. He's just a guy trying to run his platform or whatever but those of us "in the know" so to speak know what is really happening.

This is not really a hill I want to die, I just found the thought of leftists fleeing Twitter only to get dose of reality to be quite hilarious. Whether it's true or just a meme, it still made me laugh.

----------


## Peter Porter

Deleted

----------


## Niya

> Niya, I didn't expect you to double-down on your story after my reply. LOL! 
> 
> Care to try to interpret this Photoshop again? Here's your original post:


Ok, you've genuinely lost me.  :Frown: 

My thing is, if it's a meme, it's hilarious. If it's actually true then it's even more funny. I just ran across it and it made me laugh. I didn't bother looking into it anymore than that. I really wasn't really poking for a debate when I posted that link. 

The reason it made me laugh is because very early in the Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter, a lot of leftists threw tantrums saying how they were going to leave Twitter for other platforms and I remember thinking how they would be in for a rude awakening so when I saw that image it made me laugh. I don't know if it's true or just a meme. It's just something I found funny.

Are you seeing something else here that I'm missing?

----------


## Peter Porter

> Ok, you've genuinely lost me. 
> 
> My thing is, if it's a meme, it's hilarious. If it's actually true then it's even more funny. I just ran across it and it made me laugh. I didn't bother looking into it anymore than that. I really wasn't really poking for a debate when I posted that link. 
> 
> The reason it made me laugh is because very early in the Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter, a lot of leftists threw tantrums saying how they were going to leave Twitter for other platforms and I remember thinking how they would be in for a rude awakening so when I saw that image it made me laugh. I don't know if it's true or just a meme. It's just something I found funny.
> 
> Are you seeing something else here that I'm missing?


Yes. I need more sleep!

I have insomnia, and probably something else since my sleep pattern is so out of whack. Last night I slept only 4 hours. I went to bed at 6am, and got up 4 hours later!

I'm kinda like a zombie during the day, but a playful one. And I sometimes go off the rails, playfully, normally on a Photoshop spree, and every once in a blue moon a comment spree, which sometimes being so tired I might get something wrong. Sorry about that.

I deleted my two previous posts.

I usually avoid threads like these, but my zombie self today couldn't resist the brains!

----------


## sapator

Aha. I hope you have seen fight club...Not like some people here that avoid the inevitable..  :Big Grin:

----------


## sapator

This will fit better here:
Russias State Duma approves bill to ban LGBT propaganda

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/24/e...ntl/index.html

The discriminatory law proposes to ban all Russians from promoting or *praising homosexual relationships or publicly suggesting that they are normal.*

That's a clever twist. You don't suggest that you are normal or homosexual. That could be used that normal people are also have some sexual issues. 
And I'm not taking sides as I've said , for this subject.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Russias State Duma approves bill to ban LGBT propaganda
> 
> https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/24/e...ntl/index.html
> 
> The discriminatory law proposes to ban all Russians from promoting or *praising homosexual relationships or publicly suggesting that they are normal.*


Are you sure that it wasn't Florida. Hard to tell the difference in some regards.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Anyways, I'm not going to go back and forth on this over statistics and who won this race or that race.


Of course you aren't, because that wouldn't actually support your position. My main point, though, was that this Republican political ad was lying about trans people in sport for political gain. The woman implied - in fact, I'd suggest that she flat out stated - that she should have won the race and only lost because a biological male won instead. Neither of those things are true but they wanted people to believe that they were. If they are on the right side of the argument then why do they need to lie? The same goes for you and your claim that trans women were "crushing" women's sport, which you immediately walked back when called out on it. If you think that the truth is on your side then why do you feel the need to lie?



> My position is that in sports where physical performance matters, men and women should not be made to compete against each other because it's unfair to the women.


And why is it unfair? It is unfair because biological males generally have certain physical advantages over biological females. Those advantages will not be present in trans women who have undergone certain medical treatments. If the physical advantages of being male are taken away, what is the actual issue?



> That's my position, it will be my position till I die.


It actually being your position until you die is not a problem in and of itself but it sounds like what you're saying is that you're not interested in hearing/considering any new information that could and maybe should cause you to change that position. That is you being unreasonable. It's your prerogative to be unreasonable but let's not pretend that it isn't the case.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Interesting Alex Jones should be brought up.


I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the actual question I asked either. You don't have to, of course, but it looks suspiciously like you're not because the answer won't sit well with your stated position. I'll ask one more time and then let it drop and, if no straight answers are provided, everyone can make up their own minds why that might be. For the record, "I don't care about Alex Jones" isn't really an answer to the question, because it's whether and how you care about Alec Jones being banned from Twitter that I'm asking about specifically.

Should Alex Jones have had his Twitter account reinstated? If not, on what basis is it OK to ban him but not various other people? If you're a free speech absolutist, as Elon Musk claims to be, then I'm not sure how you would justify banning - or not unbanning - Alex Jones, but perhaps there's something I haven't considered. If you are in support of his banning then it seems to me that you're basically supporting the position that you claim to be against, i.e. judging some speech to be OK and some to be unacceptable, but you're just drawing the line in a different place. I'm open to an explanation of how I'm wrong though.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I haven't personally look into this but outlets I trust have made claims that the previous regime at Twitter were in the practice of suppressing harmful information surrounding certain events involving democrats. The one I keep hearing about was some story on Hunter Biden's laptop being heavily suppressed at Twitter because it was harmful to the Biden administration. I wasn't too interested in that specific event(I don't really find political scandals that interesting) so I don't know the details but like I said, I trust these outlets. Even if dilettante is wrong in this particular case, it's pretty much known by all that have eyes to see that Twitter under the previous regime was pretty much a leftist propaganda machine so there is nothing odd about what dilettante said.


Your answer has nothing to do with my comment to Dil's post.  Your free to make comments on what you choose, no need to quote me then talk about something else.

Dil said,



> Looks like Twitter is the place to be, it is becoming the only place you can see Biden's gaffes without filtering now.


I pointed out I had no problem finding information on Bidens gaffes that matched Twitter.  So the statement seems false.  It has nothing to do with information suppression on Twitter.  

Anyway, now that there a new Republican House majority the Hunter Biden thing will probably be brought back to life.  And the Twitter world can have another shot at him.

----------


## Niya

> Your answer has nothing to do with my comment to Dil's post.  Your free to make comments on what you choose, no need to quote me then talk about something else.
> 
> Dil said,
> 
> 
> I pointed out I had no problem finding information on Bidens gaffes that matched Twitter.  So the statement seems false.  It has nothing to do with information suppression on Twitter.  
> 
> Anyway, now that there a new Republican House majority the Hunter Biden thing will probably be brought back to life.  And the Twitter world can have another shot at him.


I'll make it simple then. I understand where dilettante is coming from and find nothing odd in what he said.

----------


## Niya

> And why is it unfair? It is unfair because biological males generally have certain physical advantages over biological females.


Yes and I don't even need science to tell me this. I have half a lifetime of real life experience that tells me this is true. I won't deny my own eyes and my own experiences. It's common sense.




> Those advantages will not be present in trans women who have undergone certain medical treatments.


I guess this is my point of contention because I absolutely do not believe this. We like to think because we put a man on the moon, invented anti-biotics and have nuclear power that we are somehow so advanced. As a species we don't know anything about anything. We have barely scratched the surface of knowledge on anything, least of all biology. Sure, we cured polio and learned how to transplant a heart but even so, we still barely know anything about human physiology and biological systems in general, human or not. I am no where close to being convinced that our knowledge is so complete that we have a full understanding of the differences between sexes and can change one into the other. Maybe one day we would be able to change an actual man into an actual woman and vice versa but today is not that day as far as I'm concerned. No one can convince me otherwise.

----------


## Niya

> Should Alex Jones have had his Twitter account reinstated?


This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you guys make no effort towards understanding. If you did you wouldn't need to ask me this. You would know that I absolutely think he should be reinstated. I'm not so entitled to want the man silenced just because I think he is a little nuts. Even if I'm not so interested is what he has to say there are people who want to hear what he has to say so why in God's name would I want to impose my will upon those people by denying them his voice?

----------


## Niya

@jmcilhinney

At the risk of going down another rabbit hole of never-ending arguments, I have always found something disturbing about wanting to change who you fundamentally are in the biological sense. I could understand getting treatments for something that could kill you like a bad heart or cancer but changing your sex? Do we really know enough to say that attempting to do so is the right course of action? I'm not convinced we know enough it to be taking such definitive positions. For all we know 200 years from now we would discover that this so called gender dysphoria is the result of some kind genetic, hormonal or psychological glitch? It wasn't that long ago we believed that some illnesses were caused by evil spirits. Of course we eventually discovered there was such a thing as microorganisms and that they can affect our health. Our descendants might look at the things we are doing as barbaric. It is my view we are still stumbling around in the dark with no actual clue about what the hell we're doing and we should act accordingly. So far we have been acting as if we know everything and we're not wrong. This kind of arrogance just rubs me the wrong way.

My honest opinion is that this is all just a big con encouraged by surgeons and other medical practitioners so they can milk money from poor souls that think that there is something wrong with them and gender reassignment surgery is the only way to fix it. As much as I like capitalism, I think it brings out some of our worse tendencies. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps I'm not. I don't know so I'll err on the side of caution.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I guess this is my point of contention because I absolutely do not believe this.


And I don't imagine that you've made any actual effort to find out whether you're correct or not. You're making definitive statements based on limited information and understanding, assuming that your "common sense" is somehow more valuable than the many thousands of hours people have actually spent studying things. I recall a post you made not too long ago quoting George Carlin as evidence that climate change can't be real. What the actual fork?!

----------


## jmcilhinney

> This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you guys make no effort towards understanding. If you did you wouldn't need to ask me this. You would know that I absolutely think he should be reinstated.


Listen to yourself!  You're complaining that I won't try to understand you and he's complaining that I'm trying to silence him. Why do you think I asked the question in the first place? You think he should have been reinstated but Elon Musk apparently doesn't. You praise him for his position on free speech but he seems not to believe that speech should be as free as you do. He appears to be an example of someone who claims one thing but, when push comes to shove, simply draws the line in a different place. You apparently have no line, which is a different kettle of fish.



> I'm not so entitled to want the man silenced just because I think he is a little nuts. Even if I'm not so interested is what he has to say there are people who want to hear what he has to say so why in God's name would I want to impose my will upon those people by denying them his voice?


No one is silencing him. Banning someone from Twitter is not silencing them. Elon Musk himself said that banning Donald Trump from Twitter didn't deny him a voice so your great free speech hero obviously disagrees with you there too. This is just more playing the victim. Alex Jones has his own show and anyone who wants to hear him can watch or listen to that. No one is trying to silence Alex Jones because he's a little nuts. He's been banned from Twitter because he has ruined the lives of people whose lives had already been ruined. Are you aware of the Sandy Hook shooting and lies Jones told about the families whose children were killed there and the devastating impact that has had on their already shattered lives? Alex Jones is not a little nuts. He's an evil piece of garbage who is happy to destroy innocent people to make money conning right-wing idiots.

----------


## Niya

> You think he should have been reinstated but Elon Musk apparently doesn't. You praise him for his position on free speech but he seems not to believe that speech should be as free as you do.


So what? He unbanned Jordan Peterson, The Babylon Bee, Andrew Tate, Donald Trump and Kathy Griffin. That says more to me about his position than his refusal to unban Alex Jones. The fact that even Alex Jones himself still supports Elon despite this settles the matter in my mind.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Perhaps I'm wrong.


You're definitely wrong. I think you've really just summed up the issue here. You don't understand so it must be wrong. You complain that people won't make the effort to understand you but I really see no effort from you to understand this issue. I know a trans woman - she's the sister of my partner's best friend - and the idea that she was somehow recruited by money-hungry doctors is just beyond laughable. One of our favourite local comedians was Michael Workman, now Cassie Workman. She was a story-teller and one recurring theme was her poor relationship with her father, although an explanation was never provided. When we learned that she'd transitioned, the reason became apparent. I've also listened to what trans people online say about their own lives, both before and after transition, and I can say with utter confidence that you simply do not know what the hell you're talking about. It seems that, in your ignorance and arrogance, you have swallowed right-wing propaganda on this issue hook, line and sinker.



> I don't know so I'll err on the side of caution.


Spoken from a place of privilege. Trans children are committing suicide because their lives are a misery. Where's your caution for them? Again, you've swallowed the "protect the children" line but, in true right-wing fashion, it's children like you who you want to protect. People who aren't like you don't deserve the same consideration.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> So what? He unbanned Jordan Peterson, The Babylon Bee, Andrew Tate, Donald Trump and Kathy Griffin. That says more to me about his position than his refusal to unban Alex Jones. The fact that even Alex Jones himself still supports Elon despite this settles the matter in my mind.


Either all speech is free or not all speech is free. It's a pretty simple concept. Elon Musk apparently thinks that there's a line, beyond which speech is not free. I think there's a line, beyond which speech is not free. We simply draw the line in a different place. What part of this is confusing you?

----------


## Niya

> Alex Jones is not a little nuts. He's an evil piece of garbage who is happy to destroy innocent people to make money conning right-wing idiots.


That's your opinion. My opinion is that the man gets carried away with his conspiracy theories and his overzealousness blinds him to the negative effects of his rhetoric. I don't think he intentionally wants to hurt anyone. 

So what now? Do we play the game of my opinion is better than yours? Or do we just accept that we have different opinions and move on?

----------


## Niya

> Either all speech is free or not all speech is free. It's a pretty simple concept. Elon Musk apparently thinks that there's a line, beyond which speech is not free. I think there's a line, beyond which speech is not free. We simply draw the line in a different place. What part of this is confusing you?


My line is 4Chan....no moderation at all except for illegal stuff like kiddie porn. However, I am willing to accept some level of moderation because I understand that most people aren't emotionally equipped to deal with 4Chan's level of free speech. I'm just not willing to accept what existed before Elon's take over of Twitter.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> That's your opinion. My opinion is that the man gets carried away with his conspiracy theories and his overzealousness blinds him to the negative effects of his rhetoric. I don't think he intentionally wants to hurt anyone. 
> 
> So what now? Do we play the game of my opinion is better than yours? Or do we just accept that we have different opinions and move on?


We could look at the results of his actions and base our decisions off that. We could conclude that reasonable person should not and could not be blind to such an obvious and predictable outcome. I don't necessarily think that he wanted to hurt anyone either, but I think that he didn't care at all if he did hurt them. In some ways, that's worse.

----------


## Niya

> I've also listened to what trans people online say about their own lives, both before and after transition


I've also heard stories online where people said transitioning was the worst decision they ever made and they wished they weren't pushed into it. What's that old parable about hammers and every problem looking like a nail?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> My line is 4Chan....no moderation at all except for illegal stuff like kiddie porn. However, I am willing to accept some level of moderation because I understand that most people aren't emotionally equipped to deal with 4Chan's level of free speech. I'm just not willing to accept what existed before Elon's take over of Twitter.


Clearly, the majority don't want 4chan or that's where they'd be. Most people have a line that is not determined solely by legality. Now that Elon Musk owns Twitter, he can draw that line wherever he wants and the chips will fall where they will fall. Prior to that, the previous owners/executives of twitter could rdaw the line wherever they wanted. That was their right. Anyone else was free to create a competitor and several tried but failed to make much impact. Now that Musk is in charge of Twitter, it looks like it might fail too. I guess we'll see.

----------


## Niya

> You're definitely wrong. I think you've really just summed up the issue here. You don't understand so it must be wrong. You complain that people won't make the effort to understand you but I really see no effort from you to understand this issue. I know a trans woman - she's the sister of my partner's best friend - and the idea that she was somehow recruited by money-hungry doctors is just beyond laughable. One of our favourite local comedians was Michael Workman, now Cassie Workman. She was a story-teller and one recurring theme was her poor relationship with her father, although an explanation was never provided. When we learned that she'd transitioned, the reason became apparent.


I don't doubt anything you've said here. But it does little to convince me. Again, the parable of the hammer and nails come to mind.




> Again, you've swallowed the "protect the children" line but, in true right-wing fashion


Are you out of your mind? I am not willing to mutilate my children based on speculative theories about gender.

----------


## Niya

> Clearly, the majority don't want 4chan or that's where they'd be. Most people have a line that is not determined solely by legality. Now that Elon Musk owns Twitter, he can draw that line wherever he wants and the chips will fall where they will fall. Prior to that, the previous owners/executives of twitter could rdaw the line wherever they wanted. That was their right. Anyone else was free to create a competitor and several tried but failed to make much impact. Now that Musk is in charge of Twitter, it looks like it might fail too. I guess we'll see.


Well Elon Musk's line is much closer to my ideal than the previous regime. It's also far more acceptable to most people. Only far left radicals have a problem with where he wants to draw the line.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I've also heard stories online where people said transitioning was the worst decision they ever made and they wished they weren't pushed into it. What's that old parable about hammers and every problem looking like a nail?


As far as I'm aware, the majority of those who transition are glad they did and the most common reason for regret is societal reaction. Given that there are a significant number of people who would kick their own children out of the house for being gay, this is not a great surprise. I'm not denying that there may be people who regret it for other reasons but they are relatively uncommon but of course they are overblown by transphobes. I recall seeing a video by Matt Walsh showing someone who was transitioning from female to male and had lost their hair due to testosterone treatments. Walsh said "this is what happens when you give a 16 year-old girl testosterone" but that is misleading at best. That's what happened to that 16 year-old but I bet I could find examples of 16 year-old boys who had lost their hair as well. That is a possible outcome but it's very much in the minority. People die from taking aspirin but I don't hear Matt Walsh or his ilk recommending not taking it. They, and you, look for the negative outcomes and ignore the damage the positive outcomes and what denying treatment means for many. Matt Walsh being a prominent transphobe, I saw him again on Joe Rogan recently claiming that millions of children in America were on hormone treatments and, when it was actually checked, it turned out to be a few thousand. Even then he claimed that that must be wrong and it must really be hundreds of thousands, based on nothing but his own bias. That's children on puberty blockers and/or hormones (can't recall the actual specifics). Surgeries on children are almost unheard of. If this really is a case of money-hungry doctors recruiting kids to operate on then they appear to have failed miserably and must be going broke. Let's not facts get in the way of a good conspiracy though. They must be laughing it up with those climate scientists and their research grants, right?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Only far left radicals have a problem with where he wants to draw the line.


For someone who claims not to like words being redefined, you sure do play fast and loose with the words "far" and "radical". I guess we could include "crushing" in that list too.

----------


## Niya

> Matt Walsh being a prominent transphobe


This here is exactly the problem. Matt Walsh doesn't believe in these radical gender theories anymore than I do and when we say so you guys come out of the gates storming with words like this and go on this war path where you start hearing phrases like "hate speech" You think we will listen to anything your side has to say after that? You think we will just roll over and take it? No. We will push back hard. This is not how we make progress. If you're failing to convince people like me and Matt Walsh, then improve the science or make better arguments. When you go on the war path like this it makes us think that you really don't have a leg to stand so your only recourse is to force us to accept it through shaming tactics, censorship, demonization and sometimes actual force through the law. I will never accept that. Either convince me or leave me alone. You will not bend me by swatting me with words and phrases like "transphobia", "bigotry" and "hate speech". This will only antagonize me and make me want to fight back. Why are leftists so desperate to force their ideology on the rest of us?

----------


## Niya

I will also remind you that my problem with leftists is not just about their gender theories. That is only a small part of it. My views on their gender theories are not actually a primary concern for me but for some reason that seems to be a popular topic. There are aspects of their ideology that I dislike far more than just the gender stuff. Also, it's not even the fact that they believe the stuff they do but how fervently they want to enforce it on the rest of us through media propaganda, shaming language and censorship.

----------


## Niya

> For someone who claims not to like words being redefined, you sure do play fast and loose with the words "far" and "radical". I guess we could include "crushing" in that list too.


Here are a couple definitions of the word "radical":-



> a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist.





> thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms:


To most people the word "they" refers to a group of people. It is *not* a gender pronoun. Turning "they" into a gender pronoun is therefore a radical change and it's a change that leftists want to enforce therefore they are "radical leftists" because they believe in radical ideas...How is this so hard to understand?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> You think we will listen to anything your side has to say after that?


It's cute that you pretend that you might just listen if only we weren't mean to you. There are plenty of people who would explain anything you wanted to know about gender without ever calling you a transphobe or otherwise hurting your feelings and they have been doing so for quite some time. How much have you or Matt Walsh listened to them? What effort have you ever made to even find out what they have to say? Matt Walsh makes a living pedalling his aversion to transgender people and yet, when he goes on one of the biggest podcasts in the world, he is out by several orders of magnitude about how many American children are receiving puberty blockers and/or hormone treatments, even though gender-affirming treatment for children is probably the subject he talks about the most. What does that tell you about how much he actually knows or understands the subject he talks definitively about and how much he cares about honesty?

It's also funny that you criticise me for my ideology when Matt Walsh is literally driven by his religious ideology. He doesn't believe that gender exists but he does believe that people have souls. Wow, you really picked a winner there.

You also say that we should improve the science but you don't even know what the current science is. Why should we believe that you'd make any more effort to understand any further science on the subject?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> To most people the word "they" refers to a group of people. It is *not* a gender pronoun. Turning "they" into a gender pronoun is therefore a radical change and it's a change that leftists want to enforce therefore they are "radical leftists" because they believe in radical ideas...How is this so hard to understand?


I wish I could express just how dumb I think this is but the post would not be allowed. The fact that "they" is gender neutral is exactly the point. I just searched for "they definition" on the web and this is literally what I found:



> they
> [ðeɪ]
> PRONOUN
> 1. used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified:
> "the two men could get life sentences if they are convicted" · "interweave the cotton fibres so that they knit together"
> people in general:
> "the rest, as they say, is history"
> INFORMAL
> people in authority regarded collectively:
> ...


No one is turning "they" into anything that it isn't already. "They" has always been used to refer to a single person if you didn't know or didn't want to indicate their gender. That is exactly how you're being asked to use it in relation to non-binary people. The issue is that you don't want to accept that being non-binary is a thing. It feels weird to call someone "they" when you think you do know their gender - I feel that too - and so it comes down to whether you think how you feel or how they feel is more important. To be honest, I'm not sure that I really see being non-binary as equal to being transgender - maybe or maybe not - but it really is no skin off my nose to call someone "they" if it helps make their life better so I don't get bent out of shape about it. There are some people who say that pronouns aren't a big deal to them but then proceed to make a big deal about them, so what to think?

----------


## Niya

> You also say that we should improve the science but you don't even know what the current science is. Why should we believe that you'd make any more effort to understand any further science on the subject?


As far as I know a lot of this stuff is based on how people feel. That's all I hear about is that they feel this way and they feel that way. "I feel like I was born to the wrong body" "I feel like I'm the wrong gender" I feel I feel I feel. That is not science. They're going to have to do better than that to convince me. I don't want to hear about what you feel, I want the hard data. 

Let me put it another way. If a person could not speak, is there any test that could be performed on their body or their DNA that could tell us that this person has this so called gender dysphoria? If the answer is yes then we perhaps there is a path where I could possibly embrace this idea. If the answer is no then it's all speculative as far as I'm concerned and I am under no obligation to accept it as fact.

----------


## NeedSomeAnswers

> This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you guys make no effort towards understanding. If you did you wouldn't need to ask me this. You would know that I absolutely think he should be reinstated. I'm not so entitled to want the man silenced just because I think he is a little nuts. Even if I'm not so interested is what he has to say there are people who want to hear what he has to say so why in God's name would I want to impose my will upon those people by denying them his voice?


Alex Jones is not nuts, he knows exactly what he is doing. He has monetized outrage by lying about kids being killed, his actions directly caused the family's of those dead children to receive huge amounts of deaths threats and abuse both online and in person. 

Its not because Alex Jones has "crazy right wing views" that he should remain banned from Twitter, its because of the hate and abuse he has spouted and caused to be aimed at these families, and the fact he knew what he was saying was not true (we know this because he admitted it in Court, where he couldn't lie about it), yet not only kept saying it but monetized it via online donations from the people who believed him, benefiting him financially from his lies.

This is why the man is Scum, not saying supposedly nutty things !

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I am under no obligation to accept it as fact.


You're not obliged to accept anything as fact, of course, but one has to wonder why you wouldn't in this case. I believe it was FunkyDexter who earlier asked you whether you thought that trans people were lying when they described their experience and I'm not sure you ever answered but it seems like the answer must be "yes". You can say that gender identity is based on feelings and I'm not really going to try to refute that, but there's feelings and there's feelings. It's certainly not like someone feeling like chocolate cake with their tea or coffee rather than a biscuit or not feeling like going out today. By your standards, we'd have to conclude that love isn't real, but I'm not sure that many people would make that argument. Love is more transient than gender identity too. When trans people describe their gender identity, it appears to be consistent from person to person and it appears to be persistent within an individual. Those with expertise in mental and physical health who have studied transgender people have concluded that there's something there. I don't claim to understand exactly what it is but it's something so, to borrow a phrase, I'm going to err on the side of caution, which means I'm going to treat the people who say that they are transgender the way they want to be treated because to not do so appears to make their already-difficult lives worse and it literally has zero effect on me and my life. What reason do I have to not accept it?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Alex Jones is not nuts, he knows exactly what he is doing.


Maybe Niya doesn't know exactly what Alex Jones has said and done, not being American, but it's hard to believe that dilbert isn't aware. That they seem to care so little about the pain he has caused, both directly and indirectly, to people who had already endured the pain of the death if a child shows just how callous they are. It's my opinion that one of the defining characteristics right-wing thinking and left-wing thinking is how much you care about people who are not like you. I think we're seeing that play out on this issue, amongst others.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> As far as I know a lot of this stuff is based on how people feel. That's all I hear about is that they feel this way and they feel that way. "I feel like I was born to the wrong body" "I feel like I'm the wrong gender" I feel I feel I feel. That is not science. They're going to have to do better than that to convince me. I don't want to hear about what you feel, I want the hard data. 
> 
> Let me put it another way. If a person could not speak, is there any test that could be performed on their body or their DNA that could tell us that this person has this so called gender dysphoria? If the answer is yes then we perhaps there is a path where I could possibly embrace this idea. If the answer is no then it's all speculative as far as I'm concerned and I am under no obligation to accept it as fact.


That's a an interesting point, but you already said that it was wrong. I agreed with you earlier when you said that we were fumbling around in the dark on some of this. We can't currently show some chemical source for gender dysphoria, but that doesn't mean that such doesn't exist. In fact, there's a school of thought, which you might belong to, that EVERYTHING we are, everything we feel, everything we perceive, and so on, is just chemicals, in which case there pretty much HAS to be such a chemical basis for gender dysphoria. In fact, that would be technically true even if you don't believe gender dysphoria is real, since even a thought would have a chemical basis.

We have come a long ways. We certainly have a long ways to go. If we ever get there, I'm not at all sanguine as to what it will mean for humanity. If gender dysphoria is chemical, then how about conservatism? If you could change gender perception with a pill, would we then be able to change political views with a pill? Would anybody want that? 

Back in the early 90s, somebody tried to figure out the lineage of dog breeds (did corgis come from dachshunds, or dust mops, for example). The study failed because the level of technology was such that it wasn't possible to distinguish a corgi from a wolf. A decade later, our technological capability had moved so far that such a study would be possible (I have no idea whether or not it was ever done, though). We've moved on a couple decades from that. However, increasingly, it seems like people don't want to believe that. There are good reasons to want not to.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

One other point I'd make is that the opponent of everybody is a 'radical'. They're either radical right or radical left. In fact, that's a radical statement, because it's a bit of an exaggeration. 

In any case, though, these positions aren't radical anything. Their opinions shared to some degree by the vast majority of people (assuming both sides are aggregated together). This isn't some fringe position held by a few loons like the flat earth or tinfoil hats. This is a major filter issue used to divide the general population into with us and against us. Nobody on either side is radical because of their belief on this position. They might be radical because of their hatred for the other side, but they aren't radical because of this position.

Once some chemical basis is found, a group of people will then become science deniers on the subject. Those will be the radicals on the position. Until then, it's just opinions on the position.

Personally, I see a bit of both sides. Male/female has to do with the balance of a few hormones in the body. Note that women can start growing beards once menopause stops certain hormones, and men can grow breasts if they get a bit too much of some hormones. There is no set level for people, either. Everybody has some amount of testosterone, with men having somewhat more, but the amount changes daily, and in response to various events, and the variation is different in different people, and so forth.

With all that variability, does it surprise me that some people fall into some gap? No, it does not. Does it surprise me that gender isn't totally binary? Of course not. As a person who is fairly ambidextrous, it doesn't surprise me at all that a supposedly binary (handedness) distinction proves to be far more fluid when people look a bit more closely. 

In fact, I would expect that there would be a range of people. Some would feel gender dysphoria, and some who do should feel it only temporarily. That's what I would expect, and that's what we are seeing. This presents a very great legal/societal challenge, and some people will try to reduce it to a simple binary solution, but it's not that.

----------


## dilettante

That's your argument?  Two-headed chickens exist so we have to consider them normal?

----------


## wes4dbt

> In fact, I would expect that there would be a range of people. Some would feel gender dysphoria, and some who do should feel it only temporarily. That's what I would expect, and that's what we are seeing. This presents a very great legal/societal challenge, and some people will try to reduce it to a simple binary solution, but it's not that.


Everyone knows that no two people are the same, that we are non binary.  Our size, shape, color, views, mental skills.....  and we accept those differences.  But some deny this fact when sexuality/gender is involved.  

I wonder how many of these people that want proof that gender dysphoria exists believe in God.  Even if they don't believe in God it's clear they are holding sexuality/gender to a different standard.  Like it's some kind of monster hiding under their bed.

----------


## wes4dbt

> That's your argument?  Two-headed chickens exist so we have to consider them normal?


Please post pic's of two headed chicken and also some pic's of "normal" people.  lol

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> That's your argument?  Two-headed chickens exist so we have to consider them normal?


That's your rebuttal? Come up with something unrelated to anything I said, exaggerate it to the absurd, then pretend it is neither exaggerated nor absurd?

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Please post pic's of two headed chicken and also some pic's of "normal" people.  lol


That's a good point.

----------


## Niya

> You're not obliged to accept anything as fact


Interesting how you say and then go on in this very same post to make an argument for why I should accept it. 




> I believe it was FunkyDexter who earlier asked you whether you thought that trans people were lying when they described their experience


I already covered this ad nauseam. I treat it the exact same way I threat people's faith. I will give you a baseline level of respect and understanding but if you push me beyond a certain point, you're probably going to hear things you don't want to. Here's one such quote:-



> Listen carefully, I do not care how other people want to live their lives. I don't care what god you worship or if you're an atheist. I do not care if you're a socialist or a capitalist. I don't care if you're a man that wants to become a woman or vice versa. I don't care if you're gay or straight.
> 
> None of these things bother me to the slightest degree. However, if you're theist that wants to tell me about how lost I am because I don't accept Christ into my heart, we're going to have problems. You're going to find out how much I think your beliefs are a bunch of bronze age superstitious nonsense.
> 
> The same thing goes for all this trans stuff. If you're a man that transitions to a woman for whatever reasons I have no problem with that. Hell, I'll even call you by whatever pronouns you like. But when the rubber meets the road, I still see you as a man. So the question is now, where does the rubber meet the road? There are two scenarios where this can happen. One, is if such a trans person were to express an sexual interest. If such a thing were to happen, I would refuse by giving some made up reason, but if you pressed me on the matter you would quickly find it's because I don't see you as a woman. The second instance where the rubber meets the road is if we are actually discussing gender issues such as we did in this thread. I see no reason not to be true to my beliefs since the discussion itself is about that.


When people of faith tell me that they felt the touch of God, I do not doubt that they had an experience. However, their characterization of that experience is nothing more than a subjective interpretation of that experience. As such it makes no sense to ask me whether I think they are lying or not. The experience is true to the person experiencing it but there is no objective truth to talk about so the that question is meaningless. I don't know what's actually going on in your head, I only know your interpretation of it.

[EDIT]

This is why I asked this:-



> If a person could not speak, is there any test that could be performed on their body or their DNA that could tell us that this person has this so called gender dysphoria?


I am looking for something objective to ground these gender theories for me. Because if it's all in your head, then it remains in the domain of religion and not science.

----------


## Niya

> Two-headed chickens exist so we have to consider them normal?


Sums up leftists pretty well.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> That's your argument?  Two-headed chickens exist so we have to consider them normal?


Average/normal in everyway and the chicken...

----------


## Niya

> In any case, though, these positions aren't radical anything.


This reminds me of meme I saw recently on Twitter:-



The implication here should be obvious.

----------


## dilettante

Well of course people vary along various spectra.

Some guy might be left-handed, need corrective lenses to see well, be shorter than average, missing toes due to an accident, grown up with one parent who died and left him orphaned at 9 years old, had to leave school to work at age 14, etc, etc.

All of those can be obstacles to one degree or another in most human societies.  Combined, things only get rougher for him.

But which of these can be singled out as positives?  Which get him any special considerations from society?

I guess I just don't understand this discussion.

----------


## Niya

> Even if they don't believe in God it's clear they are holding sexuality/gender to a different standard.  Like it's some kind of monster hiding under their bed.


Well when you leftists stop beating us over the head with it every chance you get, then you wouldn't have to hear what we think about it.

----------


## Niya

> Some guy might be left-handed, need corrective lenses to see well, be shorter than average, missing toes due to an accident, grown up with one parent who died and left him orphaned at 9 years old, had to leave school to work at age 14, etc, etc.
> 
> All of those can be obstacles to one degree or another in most human societies. Combined, things only get rougher for him.


I don't think leftists are aware of these things. They think the worst thing that can happen to a person is that they get "misgendered" or cat called in the street and if both happens then I guess it's time to declare a state of emergency and call in the army...I guess when you live a life of privilege in a first world country, you have the luxury of pretending these are actual problems.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Two-headed chickens exist so we have to consider them normal?


We can certainly consider them to be outliers but, as you say yourself, they do exist so we don't deny that existence because there only being one-headed chickens would make like simpler for us.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Interesting how you say and then go on in this very same post to make an argument for why I should accept it.


Why is that interesting? You seem to be implying that there's some kind of contradiction there but it's the complete opposite. If I actually thought that you were obliged to accept something as fact then there would be no reason for me to make any argument at all. The very fact that I'm making an argument is evidence that I don't think you're obliged. If I were forcing - or trying to force - you to do something then I wouldn't be trying to give you a reason to do it of your own accord.



> I am looking for something objective to ground these gender theories for me. Because if it's all in your head, then it remains in the domain of religion and not science.


As I pointed out earlier, you seem quite OK with things like love being real, even though that's just as much all in your head. I would suggest that you're applying a double-standard because there are numerous things that we all take for granted that don't have the sort of evidence you claim is required for you to accept something as real.

As I also pointed out on a number of earlier occasions, gender is not the same as religion in that regard. The experiences are objective in each case, or at least they can be. It's the explanation for them that is subjective. Religious people are generally claiming that their experience is caused by something external to themselves that they cannot actually demonstrate. Transgender people are not making any claims about anything beyond themselves. I think that you and I both believe that the experiences that religious people claim are generated by a god are actually generated within their own mind. When it comes to trans people, they and we are literally saying that their experience is generated by their own mind. Religious people also have obvious potential motivations to misinterpret or even lie about their experiences that simply do not exist for trans people. These are points that I have brought up before and you have never addressed them but just continue to equate transgender and religious experiences when they are not the same. But you sure do listen to everything my side has to say.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I don't think leftists are aware of these things. They think the worst thing that can happen to a person is that they get "misgendered" or cat called in the street and if both happens then I guess it's time to declare a state of emergency and call in the army...I guess when you live a life of privilege in a first world country, you have the luxury of pretending these are actual problems.


Says the person who recently complained about using "they" as a singular pronoun. Why are you here arguing with us about pronouns when you could be spending your time solving actual problems?

----------


## wes4dbt

> Well when you leftists stop beating us over the head with it every chance you get, then you wouldn't have to hear what we think about it.


Ah, you poor little victim.  lol

You never shut up about these subjects, then play stupid (I hope your playing) and wonder why you keep having to hear our responses.  You search out confrontation and then whine about being confronted.  Your no victim.

----------


## Niya

> You never shut up about these subjects


Well if leftists would shut up about oppressed they are every chance they get, then I will stop talking about it. You can't even watch a simple movie nowadays without being preached to about some ridiculous leftist cause.

----------


## Niya

> Why are you here arguing with us about pronouns when you could be spending your time solving actual problems?


Curiosity to some degree. The truth is in the real world, these things wouldn't even be a conversation. I could "misgender" Elliot Page all day long and nobody would even notice. No one would care. I actually find it a bit fascinating that privileged first world leftists like yourself actually think these things are a big deal. 

The other thing I'm curious about is why no one besides dilettante is able to see just how sinister leftist ideologues really are. I guess you could say all of this is my attempt at understanding the first world liberal mindset. I find it fascinating but also very disturbing and dangerous as well. I also find their dominance in Hollywood, social media and traditional media quite concerning as they seem to be so effective at selling lies to the world. Even if in the end we never agree or come to any kind of common ground, I did learn a lot about how leftist brainwashing works from having these discussions.

Don't worry though. My curiosity is almost satisfied so I won't be here for much longer and you guys can go in peace without me being a misogynistic racist homophobe misgendering transphobic right wing bigot.  :Big Grin:

----------


## wes4dbt

> Well if leftists would shut up about oppressed they are every chance they get, then I will stop talking about it. You can't even watch a simple movie nowadays without being preached to about some ridiculous leftist cause.


No you wouldn't, your not capable of not complaining.  If we all agreed with you, then you'd find something else that imposes on you.  The shear amount of time and energy you spend just on this forum should make that clear.  But it's an open forum so keep preaching to use about how you don't like being preached to.  You poor thing.

----------


## Niya

> No you wouldn't, your not capable of not complaining.  If we all agreed with you, then you'd find something else that imposes on you.  The shear amount of time and energy you spend just on this forum should make that clear.  But it's an open forum so keep preaching to use about how you don't like being preached to.  You poor thing.


If you say so.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I am looking for something objective to ground these gender theories for me. Because if it's all in your head, then it remains in the domain of religion and not science.


Contemplating this further, I think this demonstrates your continued inability/unwillingness to understand what we're talking about. We keep saying that sex and gender are not the same thing and you keep insisting that they are and insisting that they're not at the same time. Gender is in people's minds, but a person's mind is part of that person. If I have the concept of a unicorn in my mind then that concept doesn't map to anything outside of myself but that doesn't mean that the concept itself isn't real, i.e. that concept of a unicorn is part of me. Similarly, a person's gender identity is part of them. It also seems to be an absolutely inherent part of them.

Some people claim that being transgender means being mentally ill but that is an acknowledgement that it is real without there being some biological test for it. There are plenty of mental illnesses that no one expects to be able to cut someone open and see, but no one denies do not exist. They are only evidence through behaviour and communication. I'm willing to accept that being transgender could be considered a mental illness under certain definitions, but I'm not sure that those definitions are more legitimate than the alternatives. Those specifically responsible for these things don't generally seem to think so. Even if that were the case though, I still don't see that that means that the anti-trans side of the argument wins. It doesn't seem like a "treatment" telling trans people to deny their gender identity and "just be normal" is going to help any trans people. It doesn't seem like indulging a trans person and treating them according to their gender identity has any ill effects on anyone. I've done it with people in my life and people online and it has had exactly zero effect on me either way.

There's obviously a reason that trans people are trans but I don't know what it is. Maybe we'll be able to identify it some day but maybe we won't. Not knowing the reason doesn't change the fact that trans people exist now and interacting with them based on their gender rather than their sex helps them and hurts no one, so I'm happy to do that. You might point to women's sport and say that that is an example of someone being hurt, possibly literally in some sports, but that's only if you have a blanket "yes" policy, which I do not. The fact that you have lied about the state of trans women in women's sport in this very thread and we know that at least one cis woman who has competed against a trans woman is lying in a political ad to make a point that she can't by sticking just to facts, it's hard to have an honest conversation on the subject. The fact that people complain about male puberty being an unfair advantage in women's sport while also trying to force every trans girl to undergo male puberty, claiming that they're protecting children while also trying to deny gender-affirming care to adults and also ignoring the trans children who take their own lives without such care makes it very hard to take such people seriously.

----------


## Niya

@jmcilhinney

To add to what I said in my previous post about curiosity. There is another dimension to this outside of curiosity. You asked why I spend all this time arguing with you all about pronouns and stuff. Normally, I don't. I've tangled with leftists online before and my default attitude is just casual dismissal. For example, when I get hit with some idea I consider outrageous, I might say something like "you're insane and you need to have your head examined." and that will be the end of that. It certainly won't be a back and forth for like 7 or 8 pages like I did here.

The truth is that I've grown somewhat attached to you guys. I spent the last 10+ years posting here. We exchanged a lot of ideas and knowledge. It was thanks to you that I learned functional LINQ. Despite my many arguments with Olaf over the years, he has also taught me a lot. I felt you guys deserved more than casual dismissal considering the immense value you guys have provided to me over the years participating on these boards. I was just trying to understand you all. But to be honest, I still don't get it and I never will. You all are so absorbed in this poisonous divisive ideology and I don't get why none of you except dilettante can see it. I guess our backgrounds are just too different.

----------


## Peter Porter

So what did you guys think about the World Cup game today, the US vs England?

I didn't expect a draw.  :Smilie:

----------


## Niya

> So what did you guys think about the World Cup game today, the US vs England?
> 
> I didn't expect a draw.


I didn't see the game but yea I heard about it. I heard it was intense. I'm not really that much into the World Cup this year but I think I will want to watch when Germany or Brazil plays. I tend to enjoy their matches. Those teams play some top-notch football.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> You asked why I spend all this time arguing with you all about pronouns and stuff.


It was a rhetorical question. I don't really care why. I'm fine with you being here arguing or not. The point was that you were criticising us for fussing over (what you perceive to be) nothing instead of concerning ourselves with real problems while doing the very same.



> But to be honest, I still don't get it and I never will.


That I believe. My problem is that you are basically saying "I don't get it, therefore it's wrong". I don't claim to understand gender fully either but what I do understand is that transgender people (whatever that is) exist and their lives can be made better by my doing something that doesn't have any negative impact on me whatsoever.



> You all are so absorbed in this poisonous divisive ideology


If you're concerned about being divided then why don't you just give up your side of the argument and we can all get on? Is it maybe because you think you're right? Do you really think that we're just going to give up the argument because people disagree with us? If we're divided on this issue and it can be shown that you are lying about it, people like Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are lying about it, that female swimmer (can't recall her name) is lying about it, I'm not about to give up the argument for the sake of unity. It's really the American right who has made it such a divisive issue, because they love to stir their voters up with emotion to obscure the fact that they have no actual political platform to help people. It's also largely driven by religion - god doesn't make mistakes, you know - so it's ironic that you would help promote that cause. JK Rowling is a perfect example of someone who appears to have been hoodwinked by religion because she purports to be supporting women, including the right to abortion and the right for gay women to marry each other, while explicitly aligning herself with people and organisations that openly push to remove those rights in order to fight trans people. Clearly, being anti-trans is more important to her than being pro-women. i can agree with someone on a particular point but that doesn't mean that I'll fight alongside them when I know that it's my face they want to eat next.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> So what did you guys think about the World Cup game today, the US vs England?
> 
> I didn't expect a draw.


You obviously don't realise how bad England are at WCs. They always seem to underperform.

For the record, I'm not really a football fan but, while I live in Australia, I was born in the UK and do support England in cricket. It's not always an easy life  :Wink: . As a result, I tend to have a soft spot for England in other sports too. When it's football WC time, I'm glad I'm not an avid England supporter.

----------


## Niya

> If you're concerned about being divided then why don't you just give up your side of the argument and we can all get on?


I would absolutely love to but as soon as one of us slips up and "misgenders" someone, or we say that we want a traditional stay at home wife, or we want our boys to not play with dolls and wear skirts or we don't find 300lb women attractive or we dare to make make a sexual, race or gender based joke etc.....all hell breaks loose and people start getting flamed, banned from social media, fired from their jobs, their names destroyed and dragged through the mud. Just all kinds of madness.  You leftists absolutely lose your minds over the most asinine nonsense. It's like you think it's your God-given right to correct the rest of us. You complain about Jordan Peterson and Matt Walsh but the truth is, you created them. The overzealousness of your attempts to indoctrinate everyone had led to their rise in prominence. People are starving for some sanity and balance to return to the world so when thought leaders like Jordan Peterson rise up, they gain massive popularity very quickly. You think Elon Musk spent 40+ billion dollars on Twitter just for his personal amusment? No. He did so because it's getting way out of hand and he decided to try and do something about it. He may fail in the end but he has to try. Leftists need to learn to chill and stop being so triggered by every little thing that doesn't line up with their world view.

----------


## Niya

Well anyways. I think I've had enough of this. It's been interesting. No hard feelings.  :wave:

----------


## jmcilhinney

Needless to say that there's more lying and playing the victim in there. Let's take it point by point.



> as soon as one of us slips up and "misgenders" someone


Generally speaking, no one suffers any consequences for accidentally misgendering someone. It is deliberately and, more significantly, repeatedly misgendering someone that is the problem. You know, like Jordan Peterson did when he got banned from Twitter.



> we say that we want a traditional stay at home wife


I can't speak for everyone but I have no particular issue if people want their partner or themselves to fulfil a traditional gender role. My problem - the problem I think that most people have - is when it is assumed that people SHOULD fulfil those gender roles and there's something wrong with people if they don't want to. There are still a lot of men - some women too - that there's something wrong with a woman who won't fulfil a traditional gender role and those women who don't want to should just put on a smile and do it anyway. It's kinda funny that we are having this whole gender debate and yet there are people who insist that biological sex is the be all and end all but also that having particular chromosomes somehow means that you should want to be a stay-at-home wife and be protected by a man who provides for you. Can you show me something objective where I can see that men are supposed to fulfil one gender role and women another? It was practical when we were scratching around to survive but, in a modern society, there's really no practical purpose to those gender roles.



> we want our boys to not play with dolls and wear skirts


I'm happy to say that that's wrong. Why should any child not be able to play with and wear whatever they want to? What exactly do you think playing with a doll or wearing a skirt is going to do to a boy that would be bad? I've had discussions with people about the gender-based disparity in earnings and, pretty much every time, the other person will say something the effect that women choose lower-paid jobs than men and that accounts for much or even all of the difference. I don't dispute that that's true but my question is why is that the case? Usually, they've given it very little thought because they only look one layer deep. You're really just reinforcing the idea that boys and girls are trained from a young age how boys and girls are supposed to behave. Part of that training is what constitutes appropriate career paths for men and women. I can't prove it but I suspect that, without that gender-based training, women would not choose lower-paid jobs nearly as much as they do. I'm not sure that there wouldn't still be a difference but I suspect that it would be far less than we see now.



> we don't find 300lb women attractive


I don't care who you find attractive but I do have an issue with the idea that some people should hide themselves in shame because you don't find them attractive. As an example I'm sure you're familiar with, when Jordan Peterson commented on that SI model, he didn't say that he didn't find her attractive. He said that she wasn't beautiful. No one was telling him that he had to find her beautiful but he was telling us that we shouldn't. He didn't have to say a thing about her but he chose to wade in and then all his fanbois are upset that he's getting criticised for it. You can find someone attractive or not but you can respect them as a human being either way. The faux concern about their health doesn't cut it either.



> we dare to make make a sexual, race or gender based joke


I make and laugh at such jokes myself at times. I'm conscious of the setting though. No one's cancelling me.



> You complain about Jordan Peterson and Matt Walsh but the truth is, you created them.


Jordan Peterson got famous by blatantly and demonstrably lying about Canadian law. You even tried to justify it yourself and failed on all three attempts. Matt Walsh is a religious zealot. Jordan Peterson is a religious zealot too, but he has his own fake brand of Christianity. Those people needed no making. People like that made the likes of you by whipping you into a frenzy based on lies and propaganda. The fact that you keep repeating the same talking points they do is evidence of that. I keep coming back to "cats and dogs" thing which is blatantly parroting their propaganda and utterly false.



> You think Elon Musk spent 40+ billion dollars on Twitter just for his personal amusment?


I think he did it because a court forced him to. He suggested doing it in the first place out of hubris and ended up biting off more than he could chew. I don't doubt that he cares about free speech but I just don't think that he's the hero you think he is. I think that you and many others are overlooking a lot because you're so desperate to OwN tHe LiBs. I recall dilbert making a comment some time back implying that he was pro-labour but supporting Elon Musk is anathema to that.



> Leftists need to learn to chill and stop being so triggered by every little thing that doesn't line up with their world view.


This one really grates. I don't much care about the accusation but I really get steamed the way people throw around the term "triggered". Again, you claim to be against words being redefined but "triggered" means something very specific and to use it casually when someone gets annoyed or angry is extremely disrespectful to those people who have suffered actual trauma and genuinely do get triggered. It's almost like you don't really care if words get redefined or not, as long as the only definitions used are the ones you approve of. I'm not expecting any kind of consistency though.

----------


## Niya

> Needless to say that there's more lying and playing the victim in there. Let's take it point by point.
> 
> Generally speaking, no one suffers any consequences for accidentally misgendering someone. It is deliberately and, more significantly, repeatedly misgendering someone that is the problem. You know, like Jordan Peterson did when he got banned from Twitter.
> 
> I can't speak for everyone but I have no particular issue if people want their partner or themselves to fulfil a traditional gender role. My problem - the problem I think that most people have - is when it is assumed that people SHOULD fulfil those gender roles and there's something wrong with people if they don't want to. There are still a lot of men - some women too - that there's something wrong with a woman who won't fulfil a traditional gender role and those women who don't want to should just put on a smile and do it anyway. It's kinda funny that we are having this whole gender debate and yet there are people who insist that biological sex is the be all and end all but also that having particular chromosomes somehow means that you should want to be a stay-at-home wife and be protected by a man who provides for you. Can you show me something objective where I can see that men are supposed to fulfil one gender role and women another? It was practical when we were scratching around to survive but, in a modern society, there's really no practical purpose to those gender roles.
> 
> I'm happy to say that that's wrong. Why should any child not be able to play with and wear whatever they want to? What exactly do you think playing with a doll or wearing a skirt is going to do to a boy that would be bad? I've had discussions with people about the gender-based disparity in earnings and, pretty much every time, the other person will say something the effect that women choose lower-paid jobs than men and that accounts for much or even all of the difference. I don't dispute that that's true but my question is why is that the case? Usually, they've given it very little thought because they only look one layer deep. You're really just reinforcing the idea that boys and girls are trained from a young age how boys and girls are supposed to behave. Part of that training is what constitutes appropriate career paths for men and women. I can't prove it but I suspect that, without that gender-based training, women would not choose lower-paid jobs nearly as much as they do. I'm not sure that there wouldn't still be a difference but I suspect that it would be far less than we see now.
> 
> I don't care who you find attractive but I do have an issue with the idea that some people should hide themselves in shame because you don't find them attractive. As an example I'm sure you're familiar with, when Jordan Peterson commented on that SI model, he didn't say that he didn't find her attractive. He said that she wasn't beautiful. No one was telling him that he had to find her beautiful but he was telling us that we shouldn't. He didn't have to say a thing about her but he chose to wade in and then all his fanbois are upset that he's getting criticised for it. You can find someone attractive or not but you can respect them as a human being either way. The faux concern about their health doesn't cut it either.
> ...


There's so much nuance missing in all this but we're just going to end up going in circles again and I'm exhausted. Maybe one day you'll get it, or maybe you never will. Either way let's just agree to disagree and call it a day. Maybe we could revisit this discussion 10 years from now when we're both older and wiser.

----------


## Niya

I'll just touch on this point though.




> Again, you claim to be against words being redefined but "triggered" means something very specific and to use it casually when someone gets annoyed or angry is extremely disrespectful to those people who have suffered actual trauma and genuinely do get triggered.


They way leftists act out when someone pisses in their cornflakes, you might as well assume they have suffered actual trauma.

More to the point, there is a difference between forcing a word to take on a different meaning through shaming and threat of punishment and allowing it to evolve naturally in the language. I didn't think this nuance needed to actually be explained.

----------


## Niya

I'll also touch on this one as it's pretty straightforward and I have some actual personal experience to bear on this.




> I don't care who you find attractive but I do have an issue with the idea that some people should hide themselves in shame because you don't find them attractive.


No one is saying they should hide in shame. But they shouldn't be crying and moaning that people don't find them attractive while demanding that the world accept them as they are. I was extremely bony as a teenager and needless to say I got some flak for it. Teenagers can be really mean. I didn't demand that the world just accept me the way that I am. I got two buckets, filled them with cement and put a metal pipe through them to make a barbell which I then used to intensely work out for almost 2 years. By the time I was around 15-16 I had the body that I wanted and everything changed. I will never ever respect a grown man or woman complaining to the world that people are fat-shaming them or whatever when they have the power to change it themselves. If you're too lazy to do that then you deserve what you get. Take it and be quiet. I understood this as a teenager. In this life you get out of it what you put in. If you want an attractive body that others would admire then put the work in! You have zero excuses! I did it as teenager by myself with no money to buy gym equipment, gym membership or or a personal trainer!  Leftists can miss me with this body positivity nonsense. They just want to be excused for their laziness.

Right now I'm very out of shape with a big ol' beer gut and I get ribbed on it by friends from time to time. You think I get mad? You think I accuse them of body shaming? No, because I know that at any time I could choose to start doing something about it just as I did way back when I was a teenager. It is my fault that I let myself go and I take full responsibility for it.

[EDIT]

Forgot to comment on the issue of that SI model. I think that woman is beautiful. I find her attractive(I love thick curvy women) but she had no business whatsoever being in that magazine. It is an insult to the people that have worked hard and sacrificed to sculpt their bodies to get that recognition. She was held to a different standard. She just gets to come along and reap the same rewards for none of the work her contemporaries and predecessors had put in. I don't know if this was also Jordan Peterson's position but it certainly is mine.

----------


## dilettante

It's just a weird time in history that people will look back and psychoanalyze for a hundred years.  Very much like the antebellum South in the US, the McCarthy era, etc.

Everyone involved will pretend they were just misunderstood victims, the Devil made them do it, etc.

----------


## Niya

> It's just a weird time in history that people will look back and psychoanalyze for a hundred years.  Very much like the antebellum South in the US, the McCarthy era, etc.
> 
> Everyone involved will pretend they were just misunderstood victims, the Devil made them do it, etc.


If ever there was a solid argument for immortality it would be this. I'd pay anything to see what our descendants would think of our current times lol....

----------


## Niya

More on the topic of Twitter. I been browsing the thread where Elon raised a poll on whether to offer amnesty to suspended accounts:-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1595473875847942146

I was just soaking up the back and forth between leftist ideologues and normal people and found some truly hilarious exchanges. This one almost had me in stitches:-




> 42 billion and your grand vision is to outsource all decisions affecting user safety to all your little right wing fanboys





> Im confused. Are you not allowed to vote?





> Tell us, how exactly can anyone be comfortable that these polls arent mostly being responded to by right wing fanboys?





> Sounds like there is less of you then thought huh


Note: I used different colours to represent different people.

Even if Twitter goes under tomorrow, it was well worth it for this comedy.

----------


## Niya

Here's another hilarious exchange from the same thread:-



> When you say "men cant get pregnant" you are grammatically wrong. And scientically but we won't even get to that.
> A man is described as an adult human male, and a male is described as someone who has the gender identity that is the opposite of female. So yes, men can get pregnant





> O, the biology be damned brigade. I would much rather be grammatically incorrect, thank you.





> I'm purely talking about grammar here, not biology, so far I haven't mentioned biology once here. You are grammatically wrong.
> And also biologically wrong, but that's too hard for you to understand, you need to be at least 16 years old to understand these concepts.





> It is not biologically wrong to say a man can't get pregnant. Feel free to try it though, just not my thing.


This portion made me laugh but it was actually part of a much larger discussion which is basically just a rehash of the very same discussion I had with jmc earlier in this very thread. The only difference is that this leftist is not as eloquent as jmc. Poor fella tied himself into so many knots trying to explain why men could get pregnant that I wasn't even sure he was talking English anymore by the end of it. One minute he is talking about grammar then the next it's biology. I think the poor guy even confused himself. Fascinating thread though. 

You guys could probably school these poor Tweeters on how to argue their positions. Though I disagree with a lot of the stuff you guys said here, you actually explained your beliefs quite well, just not well enough to convince me.

----------


## Niya

Another hilarious meme floating around:-
https://twitter.com/iamraisini/statu...15069046382592

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I don't even need science to tell me this. I have half a lifetime of real life experience that tells me this is true. I won't deny my own eyes and my own experiences. It's common sense.





> We like to think because we put a man on the moon, invented anti-biotics and have nuclear power that we are somehow so advanced. As a species we don't know anything about anything.


I go away to a conference for 3 days and you descend into literal science denial.  You get that these are the arguments deployed by flat earthers, right?  Science doesn't claim to know everything.  That's fundamental to the scientific process.  It does claim, however, to produce the best currently available model for existence based on observed evidence.  By rejecting that model you are not demonstrating increased enlightenment but rather the opposite; you are demonstrating a "religious" fervour.

And that's kinda the point, isn't it?  You keep saying we haven't made the effort to understand your position but we _do_ understand your position.  You think that biological sex is binary, which is true (well, not strictly, but I think the rare edge cases that exist aren't particularly useful to this discussion) and that Gender as a concept separate from biological sex doesn't exist.  We fully understand your position but we _disagree_ with the second part of it.

We have observed testimonial evidence that there are people who see themselves as a gender other than their biological sex and, further, that there is observable data evidence of different outcomes for these people, including an increased rate of suicide.  On that basis we choose to acknowledge their experience, name it, and, in doing so, try to improve those outcomes.  However, you have made zero effort to understand that position.    When confronted with it, your repeated response has been to feign a lack of understanding in the face of evidence.  I assume it's feigned because you're plenty smart enough to be able to understand it.

All that is required for trans sexualism to exist is for a significant number of people to identify the phenomenon in themselves.




By the way, you've been steadily drifting back into danger territory with the tone of you posts, e.g. "between leftist ideologues and normal people" and the last few posts are clearly an attempt to troll.  Reign it back.  You won't get another warning.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Well anyways. I think I've had enough of this. It's been interesting. No hard feelings.


This was the last post I saw last night before I went to bed.  I thought that's good.  Then I remembered all the other times in this thread Niya made similar statements.  It's like a fish saying their giving up water.

----------


## FunkyDexter

I agree, but if I'm going to ask Niya not to provoke in this thread I want to be even handed.  This is an emotive topic and I'd ask _everyone_ to avoid provocation.

(Or to put it another way, Niya is allowed to say he'll move on as often as wants to)

----------


## wes4dbt

> I agree, but if I'm going to ask Niya not to provoke in this thread I want to be even handed.  This is an emotive topic and I'd ask _everyone_ to avoid provocation.
> 
> (Or to put it another way, Niya is allowed to say he'll move on as often as wants to)


Ok

I was going to say no problem but I don't want to lie.  But I will try.  lol

----------


## FunkyDexter

> You complain about Jordan Peterson and Matt Walsh but the truth is, you created them.


Nope, you did that.  They exist because there's a market for what they're peddling.  What you seem to miss is that, for them, this is a career.




> But I will try


All any of us can do :big yellow: .  I wasn't pointing at you in particular but I did use your post as a jump off.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I wasn't pointing at you in particular but I did use your post as a jump off.


You can't fool me.  This is actually all about the US/England soccer match!!!!!

----------


## Niya

> I go away to a conference for 3 days and you descend into literal science denial.  You get that these are the arguments deployed by flat earthers, right?  Science doesn't claim to know everything.


What we don't know dwarfs what we know significantly. As a species we have more questions than answers by far in all realms of science including biology. I'm not convinced our species has nearly enough knowledge about human physiology and psychology to be talking about gender and sex with such finality.




> By the way, you've been steadily drifting back into danger territory with the tone of you posts, e.g. "between leftist ideologues and normal people" and the last few posts are clearly an attempt to troll.  Reign it back.  You won't get another warning.


To be honest, I have zero idea why you find this offensive. This is the least offensive way I could express this idea.

----------


## Niya

> This was the last post I saw last night before I went to bed.  I thought that's good.  Then I remembered all the other times in this thread Niya made similar statements.  It's like a fish saying their giving up water.


Sue me.

----------


## Niya

Anyways. I'm out.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Sue me.


I'll contact my lawyers Dewey, Cheatem and Howe.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Nope, you did that.  They exist because there's a market for what they're peddling.  What you seem to miss is that, for them, this is a career.


Yep. Remember when Jordan Peterson said "I've found a way to monetise SJWs"? His fanbois laughed along thinking "yeah, stupid SJWs, he's monetising you". It never occurred to them it was they themselves who were paying him many thousands of dollars a month, not the SJWs. Now Ben Shapiro is paying him to make content that is pro-religion and anti-trans. He was psychology professor who wrote self-help books that provided fairly generic advice for the most part. He'd still be doing that if people weren't paying him to go off against SJWs and trans people and go on about religion. It's hard to say exactly how much he'd be crying but I'm guessing probably not as much. For the record, I have no issue with anyone crying in general but the frequency with which Peterson cries in public and the things he cries over are a bit ridiculous. The fact that it seems to be so much more frequent since his "treatment" overseas also seems telling.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Well of course people vary along various spectra.
> 
> Some guy might be left-handed, need corrective lenses to see well, be shorter than average, missing toes due to an accident, grown up with one parent who died and left him orphaned at 9 years old, had to leave school to work at age 14, etc, etc.
> 
> All of those can be obstacles to one degree or another in most human societies.  Combined, things only get rougher for him.
> 
> But which of these can be singled out as positives?  Which get him any special considerations from society?
> 
> I guess I just don't understand this discussion.


You aren't the only one. Go driving for a day...and over a full page of stuff gets written. Yeesh.

None of those are singled out as positives, but several of them do end up getting special considerations from society. Maybe not EFFECTIVE considerations, but they do get some in societies that have the technical capacity. For example, there are corrective lenses in societies that have the technology, so long as those lenses can be afforded. Another example would be Lionel Messi, who was going to be quite a bit shorter than average, but was given hormones, and is now somewhat shorter than average and somewhat richer than average, too, and partly because of those hormones.

Society reacts in various ways to various spectra. Lefties have long been stigmatized, shortsighted people have often been teased, though I can't say I've heard of any stigmatization, and the poor always take it in the shorts. Of course, that's all just a part of what I was saying. Society makes choices. They can be pretty brutal and quite unfair, but there are some situations where society will HAVE to make choices as to what it will tolerate and what it won't, because the spectra is sufficiently broad that it includes positions that are mutually incompatible.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> What we don't know dwarfs what we know significantly. As a species we have more questions than answers by far in all realms of science including biology. I'm not convinced our species has nearly enough knowledge about human physiology and psychology to be talking about gender and sex with such finality.


I'm not sure that this statement is true. Of course, it isn't possible to prove the size of the unknown, but there are some fields where there may not be that much left. Physicists thought they were getting close, though recent experimental results have suggested that there are flaws in the model, so there could well remain a much greater level.

Still, if we were to take that statement as given, then which position is more likely to derive from that: That there are only two genders assigned at birth and definitively identifiable, or that there is such a thing as gender fluidity?

Of course, gender fluidity exists to the extreme in some animals in the world. There are fish that can switch back and forth from male to female as the population requires, and if you go a bit further down in complexity, there are species that are both. We also know that there are options beyond simply XY and XX chromosomes, and that hermaphrodites exist (both sets of physical equipment) and in a wide range of capacities. More like a curve with two large peaks, but which never quite reaches the X-axis between the peaks. 

So, why would it be surprising if there are psychological variations as well? It shouldn't surprise anybody, but it's far more consistent with us not knowing all there is to know than the rigid binary position.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I'm not sure that this statement is true. Of course, it isn't possible to prove the size of the unknown, but there are some fields where there may not be that much left. Physicists thought they were getting close, though recent experimental results have suggested that there are flaws in the model, so there could well remain a much greater level.
> 
> Still, if we were to take that statement as given, then which position is more likely to derive from that: That there are only two genders assigned at birth and definitively identifiable, or that there is such a thing as gender fluidity?
> 
> Of course, gender fluidity exists to the extreme in some animals in the world. There are fish that can switch back and forth from male to female as the population requires, and if you go a bit further down in complexity, there are species that are both. We also know that there are options beyond simply XY and XX chromosomes, and that hermaphrodites exist (both sets of physical equipment) and in a wide range of capacities. More like a curve with two large peaks, but which never quite reaches the X-axis between the peaks. 
> 
> So, why would it be surprising if there are psychological variations as well? It shouldn't surprise anybody, but it's far more consistent with us not knowing all there is to know than the rigid binary position.


The whole, there's so must we don't know, argument seems like an excuse for when you can't justify your view.  We make decisions without 100% knowledge constantly.  

Unless you believe that everyones minds works the same and we all have the same body chemistry/biology (i know these aren't the best words to describe what I'm trying to say) then you have to except a person that's a male can identify as a women and a woman can identify as a male.  It's not a choice, it's what they feel, what their mind tells them.  you'd have to deny that some peoples minds don't fall into the norm.  I think we all know that not all peoples minds fall into the norm.  I'm not sure that people that are extremely talented coders have minds that fall into the norm,

I don't believe people with anorexia choose to not eat till they die by choice.  No, it's because no matter how thin they are they are compelled to be thinner.  If you think all people that are obese is because their lazy, your wrong.  Some have a mind that constantly tells them to eat.  Being active is great but not the solution to controlling your weight.   They simple can't control their eating.  No kid says I want to grow up to be obese or a drug addict or an alcoholic.  I'm always happy when people seek out help and are able to overcome these issues.  Most can't, it's just not a choice they are capable of making.

We're all born with our biology/genes and we work with what we got.  I've always been good at logic and problem solving.  I didn't do anything to make myself that way, it wasn't a choice I made, it came naturally to me.  But there are many things that I suck at.  
I think trying to explain how complex the human body is might be one one them.  lol

----------


## Niya

> I'm not sure that this statement is true. Of course, it isn't possible to prove the size of the unknown, but there are some fields where there may not be that much left. Physicists thought they were getting close, though recent experimental results have suggested that there are flaws in the model, so there could well remain a much greater level.
> 
> Still, if we were to take that statement as given, then which position is more likely to derive from that: That there are only two genders assigned at birth and definitively identifiable, or that there is such a thing as gender fluidity?
> 
> Of course, gender fluidity exists to the extreme in some animals in the world. There are fish that can switch back and forth from male to female as the population requires, and if you go a bit further down in complexity, there are species that are both. We also know that there are options beyond simply XY and XX chromosomes, and that hermaphrodites exist (both sets of physical equipment) and in a wide range of capacities. More like a curve with two large peaks, but which never quite reaches the X-axis between the peaks. 
> 
> So, why would it be surprising if there are psychological variations as well? It shouldn't surprise anybody, but it's far more consistent with us not knowing all there is to know than the rigid binary position.


Sounds to me like you're saying that the best we can do is form a hypothesis then proceed under the assumption it is either true or false. Both assumptions have equal merit as far as I'm concerned yet one is treated with more reverence that the other which is baffling to me.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Sounds to me like you're saying that the best we can do is form a hypothesis then proceed under the assumption it is either true or false. Both assumptions have equal merit as far as I'm concerned yet one is treated with more reverence that the other which is baffling to me.


We don't know what the cause is, but there are plenty of things that we don't know the cause for that you accept without issue. The fact is that trans people exist and all evidence we do have points to it being a real phenomenon, yet your position seems to be that we ignore and pretend it's not real.

----------


## dilettante

Sounds like something made up to me. Reminds me of the stuff I get as a retired person advising me on how to live.

One day it's all "Establish a routine and stick to it.  This is very important to mental well-being" blah, blah, blah.

Next day: "Find ways to vary your schedule.  Don't fall into a rut, add variety before it imprisons you within yourself."

There is a lot of trite and useless and often wrong pop psychology in common currency.  A lot of it is being used to cynically sway politics and control the population today.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Sounds to me like you're saying that the best we can do is form a hypothesis then proceed under the assumption it is either true or false. Both assumptions have equal merit as far as I'm concerned yet one is treated with more reverence that the other which is baffling to me.


I wouldn't have stated it that way, I think, but perhaps you could tell me what the hypothesis is, as I'm not clear on that. If the hypothesis is that gender doesn't fall into just two categories, then one is certainly demonstrably correct, but I'm not sure whether that's the hypothesis you were talking about.

----------


## Niya

> I wouldn't have stated it that way, I think, but perhaps you could tell me what the hypothesis is, as I'm not clear on that. If the hypothesis is that gender doesn't fall into just two categories, then one is certainly demonstrably correct, but I'm not sure whether that's the hypothesis you were talking about.


The hypothesis is that being born to the wrong sex is a real thing. To me it's a hypothesis but to many others, its an indisputable fact. 




> We don't know what the cause is, but there are plenty of things that we don't know the cause for that you accept without issue. The fact is that trans people exist and all evidence we do have points to it being a real phenomenon, yet your position seems to be that we ignore and pretend it's not real.


We don't know if gender dysphoria is real or if it's simply a subjective interpretation of a feeling the cause of which is unknown or poorly understood. We get the Salem Witch Trials when we're not careful and mix up subjective experiences with objective reality.

----------


## Niya

Dilettante might appreciate this:-

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> The hypothesis is that being born to the wrong sex is a real thing. To me it's a hypothesis but to many others, its an indisputable fact.


Ah, good, I was close. 

So, the null would be that you can't be born to the wrong gender. However, we know that hermaphrodites exist. We know that lower animals can switch genders. We know that XY and XX are not the only chromosome combinations. We know that homosexuality exists. And we know that virtually no situation in the brain is understood very well at all. Even depression, which might be the most studied and treated 'malady' of the brain isn't well understood, considering that recent evidence suggests that most of the medicines do what they are intended to do...but don't work for the situation they are treating.

Do I know which of those is true? Certainly not, but the null hypothesis seems too improbable to be considered likely.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Sounds like something made up to me.





> There is a lot of trite and useless and often wrong pop psychology in common currency.  A lot of it is being used to cynically sway politics and control the population today.


What efforts have you made to determine whether your first impression is reasonable? Have you actually listened to any trans people? Have you actually looked at any of the actual research? It seems to me that you're determined to lump it in with other stuff you think is rubbish because you're fixated on being controlled.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> The hypothesis is that being born to the wrong sex is a real thing.


That's not a hypothesis that any reasonable person is working with. Trans people themselves may describe feeling that way but for something to be wrong, there would have to be something that was right. That's getting into religious territory, where there's a particular way that a god intended us to be. This idea of being born in the wrong body is part of the reason that religious people are opposed to the idea of being trans at all - god doesn't make mistakes. I actually think that there's a very strong case to be made for trans people being real and actually specifically intended by god under the Christian religion, but I won't go into that unless someone is specifically interested. It's not a case of people being born in the wrong body. It's a case of the body people are born in not matching their gender identity and that leading to an unhappy life. If we can provide the ability to change them in one way or another to make their lives happier then why wouldn't we do that? Maybe there's a way to change their gender identity to match their biology but it doesn't seem apparent and I don't see anti-trans people making any effort to find it. I imagine that, if they did, it would be something like ex-gay therapy, which is pretty barbaric. It's really only something people would want to endure because they're told that being gay is wrong in the first place. It seems like changing them physically to match their gender identity is best means we currently have for improving the lives of trans people. It won't work the same way for everybody and it won't work at all for some, but that's an argument for making the process more open and improving it, not stopping it altogether.



> We don't know if gender dysphoria is real or if it's simply a subjective interpretation of a feeling the cause of which is unknown or poorly understood.


Of course we know it's real. We don't know what the cause is but there are real live trans people that you can see for yourself. The fact that we don't know the origin doesn't mean that we can't see the result and it doesn't mean that we can't do our best to mitigate the negative effects of that result. Covering our eyes and ears because we don't know the whole story is certainly not the way to make progress.



> We get the Salem Witch Trials when we're not careful and mix up subjective experiences with objective reality.


This is just a dumb comparison and really quite typical of right-wing arguments on a number of subjects. Take something that is pretty much universally considered bad, say that this other thing is like and thus that this other thing is also bad and consider the job done. In the Salem with trials, people saw things they didn't understand and feared in the natural world, blamed specific individuals for them and then killed them as punishment. With regards to trans people, we're listening to what they tell us about their own experience of themselves and we're trying to to what we can to make their lives better. Where exactly is the parallel here?

----------


## jmcilhinney

On the subject of Alex Jones, I believe that Elon Musk himself tweeted something like:



> Free speech does not mean free reach


I interpret that to be saying that Alex Jones has the right to free speech but Twitter is not obliged to provide a platform by which that speech can be propagated. I actually agree with that but, if that's the case, the same applies to everyone on Twitter, including Jordan Peterson, The Babylon Bee, Donald Trump and anyone else who was banned from Twitter under the previous management. You might be the sort of person to say that you don't care as long as the results are what you want but, whether you like it or not, it means that Musks claims about free speech and it being denied by Twitter were a lie. No one is being prevents from speaking by being banned from Twitter. You might argue that Twitter's position means that it should be obliged to provide a platform for everyone and anyone to say whatever they want but that doesn't appear to be the argument that Elon Musk is making. It also seems to fly in the face of what right-wingers generally want to be applied to businesses.

----------


## wes4dbt

> In the Salem with trials, people saw things they didn't understand and feared in the natural world, blamed specific individuals for them and then killed them as punishment


I've seen documentaries that also claim that people were being called a witch for other more self serving reason.  Like revenge or as a for personal benefit.  Can't remember the exact details but it wasn't because they actually thought the person was a witch.  Basically profiting off of peoples fears.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I've seen documentaries that also claim that people were being called a witch for other more self serving reason.  Like revenge or as a for personal benefit.  Can't remember the exact details but it wasn't because they actually thought the person was a witch.  Basically profiting off of peoples fears.


Yes, I'm sure that that was part of it. That also marks trans people as different. No one is pointing to people they don't like on the street and whipping up a mob to force gender-affirming surgery on them. This comparison is just a typically bad, emotion-driven argument on this subject, trying to scare people into being against accepting transgender people as they are. I mean, who'd want to call a biological male "she" if it will lead to people getting burned as witches?

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> I've seen documentaries that also claim that people were being called a witch for other more self serving reason.  Like revenge or as a for personal benefit.  Can't remember the exact details but it wasn't because they actually thought the person was a witch.  Basically profiting off of peoples fears.


Well, an angry mob is a terrible thing to waste. Angry mobs can be milked for cash, or directed against whoever you choose. Of course, at this point I'm repeating myself.

----------


## fafalone

> @jmcilhinney
> 
> At the risk of going down another rabbit hole of never-ending arguments, I have always found something disturbing about wanting to change who you fundamentally are in the biological sense. I could understand getting treatments for something that could kill you like a bad heart or cancer but changing your sex? Do we really know enough to say that attempting to do so is the right course of action? I'm not convinced we know enough it to be taking such definitive positions. For all we know 200 years from now we would discover that this so called gender dysphoria is the result of some kind genetic, hormonal or psychological glitch? It wasn't that long ago we believed that some illnesses were caused by evil spirits. Of course we eventually discovered there was such a thing as microorganisms and that they can affect our health. Our descendants might look at the things we are doing as barbaric. It is my view we are still stumbling around in the dark with no actual clue about what the hell we're doing and we should act accordingly. So far we have been acting as if we know everything and we're not wrong. This kind of arrogance just rubs me the wrong way.
> 
> My honest opinion is that this is all just a big con encouraged by surgeons and other medical practitioners so they can milk money from poor souls that think that there is something wrong with them and gender reassignment surgery is the only way to fix it. As much as I like capitalism, I think it brings out some of our worse tendencies. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps I'm not. I don't know so I'll err on the side of caution.


Yes, we have something called "science", which you might not believe in, but it works pretty good.

It's a simple question: What are the outcomes with the intervention, and without the intervention. 

If a procedure substantially reduces the odds a person kills themselves, decreases levels of stress, and increases life satisfaction, that procedure is the correct thing to do.

Also, for all your ravings about hormones and genitals and chromosomes, you ignore the entire field of neuroscience. We know there's gender differences in neuroanatomy and electrical activity. We know those who identify as trans fall closer to the gender they identify with for these. I think your mind, not your genitals, defines who you are.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Of course, at this point I'm repeating myself.


I think we're all guilty of that in this thread.  But that's ok I got plenty of free time.  lol

----------


## fafalone

> One other point I'd make is that the opponent of everybody is a 'radical'. They're either radical right or radical left. In fact, that's a radical statement, because it's a bit of an exaggeration. 
> 
> In any case, though, these positions aren't radical anything. Their opinions shared to some degree by the vast majority of people (assuming both sides are aggregated together). This isn't some fringe position held by a few loons like the flat earth or tinfoil hats. This is a major filter issue used to divide the general population into with us and against us. Nobody on either side is radical because of their belief on this position. They might be radical because of their hatred for the other side, but they aren't radical because of this position.
> 
> Once some chemical basis is found, a group of people will then become science deniers on the subject. Those will be the radicals on the position. Until then, it's just opinions on the position.
> 
> Personally, I see a bit of both sides. Male/female has to do with the balance of a few hormones in the body. Note that women can start growing beards once menopause stops certain hormones, and men can grow breasts if they get a bit too much of some hormones. There is no set level for people, either. Everybody has some amount of testosterone, with men having somewhat more, but the amount changes daily, and in response to various events, and the variation is different in different people, and so forth.
> 
> With all that variability, does it surprise me that some people fall into some gap? No, it does not. Does it surprise me that gender isn't totally binary? Of course not. As a person who is fairly ambidextrous, it doesn't surprise me at all that a supposedly binary (handedness) distinction proves to be far more fluid when people look a bit more closely. 
> ...


I disagree that the suffering people like Niya inflict on others is not enough to qualify as "radical right". Science denial is radical. Overt bigotry is radical. There's milder positions that would not so qualify, but that's not what he's expressing.

Meanwhile what him and dil call "radical left" is mainstream liberal centrism to the rest of the world, actual 'radical left' is the 'abolish capitalism and enforce communism' type, not 'Hey let's treat people decently'. And by that standard they're batshit insane right.

----------


## Niya

> I disagree that the suffering people like Niya inflict on others is not enough to qualify as "radical right".


That's a very bold claim bordering on slanderous. Tell us all what suffering I have inflicted on anyone? I really want to hear this.




> Meanwhile what him and dil call "radical left" is mainstream liberal centrism to the rest of the world


Stop right there because you don't know what you're talking about. I live in what you call the "rest of the world" amongst people from parts of the world many coddled liberals don't even know exist. Let me tell  you something, we laugh of some of this stuff because it sounds so crazy to us. You come out here talking about "non-binary" people or start accusing people of "misgendering" or "fat-shaming" people are going to think you're crazy. Stop letting CNN and MSNBC tell you what the rest of the world is like because they don't know squat. You know you 1st world liberals come out here, spend 2 weeks in a tourist resort with your tour guides and your brochures then you go back home to your privileged lives of wealth and prosperity and complain about how bad you have it because of all the misgendering and fat-shaming going on. You don't even take the time to appreciate how good you have it. I don't think you guys even know just how truly sinister the rest of the world is. Don't talk about the rest of the world my friend. You don't know. 2 weeks at some holiday resort in a foreign country doesn't qualify you to speak on the kinds of things that are really going on out here. CNN is not going to tell you the truth either. They will make you believe that we see the world they same way you do.....we do not.

You think the rest of the world are centrist liberals? Let me show you how little you know:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKI6qo3SWU4

Listen to that song. You're probably not going to understand the lyrics because it's in English dialect that I'm sure most of you will not be able to understand. But listen to it. Tell me what you think it's about. I can tell you that millions of people bump to that song. Not a few dozen, not thousands, millions of people across many many countries! Did you know that? Do you know how popular this song was back in the day? Tell me, what do you think that song is about?

----------


## Peter Porter

> You think the rest of the world are centrist liberals? Let me show you how little you know:-
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKI6qo3SWU4
> 
> Listen to that song. You're probably not going to understand the lyrics because it's in English dialect that I'm sure most of you will not be able to understand. But listen to it. Tell me what you think it's about. I can tell you that millions of people bump to that song. Not a few dozen, not thousands, millions of people across many many countries! Did you know that? Do you know how popular this song was back in the day? Tell me, what do you think that song is about?


Niya, it's a song calling for violence against homosexuals. Alot of people who danced to it, including my friends (some gay), didn't even know what it was about until I told them. Our local club fired the DJ after the owner found out what the song was about.

Chi-chi-man is a derogotary term for homosexual. And the song starts by saying they should get kicked in the face.

I know you don't agree with the song, but I don't think it was a good idea to link to it.

----------


## fafalone

> That's a very bold claim bordering on slanderous. Tell us all what suffering I have inflicted on anyone? I really want to hear this.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop right there because you don't know what you're talking about. I live in what you call the "rest of the world" amongst people from parts of the world many coddled liberals don't even know exist. Let me tell  you something, we laugh of some of this stuff because it sounds so crazy to us. You come out here talking about "non-binary" people or start accusing people of "misgendering" or "fat-shaming" people are going to think you're crazy. Stop letting CNN and MSNBC tell you what the rest of the world is like because they don't know squat. You know you 1st world liberals come out here, spend 2 weeks in a tourist resort with your tour guides and your brochures then you go back home to your privileged lives of wealth and prosperity and complain about how bad you have it because of all the misgendering and fat-shaming going on. You don't even take the time to appreciate how good you have it. I don't think you guys even know just how truly sinister the rest of the world is. Don't talk about the rest of the world my friend. You don't know. 2 weeks at some holiday resort in a foreign country doesn't qualify you to speak on the kinds of things that are really going on out here. CNN is not going to tell you the truth either. They will make you believe that we see the world they same way you do.....we do not.
> 
> You think the rest of the world are centrist liberals? Let me show you how little you know:-
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKI6qo3SWU4
> 
> Listen to that song. You're probably not going to understand the lyrics because it's in English dialect that I'm sure most of you will not be able to understand. But listen to it. Tell me what you think it's about. I can tell you that millions of people bump to that song. Not a few dozen, not thousands, millions of people across many many countries! Did you know that? Do you know how popular this song was back in the day? Tell me, what do you think that song is about?


People like you. People like you drive their children to suicide by refusing to provide care when they're trans, for example. I don't know if you've personally had the opportunity to inflict your hatred on anyone. 

As for the rest, stop lying. I'm not wrong about the range of political views across the world. I never asserted the entire rest of the world is liberal, and you're so desperate to act like a ** you didn't even read what I wrote and just launched into a irrelevant rant. I know there's plenty of pockets of intolerant bigots across the world. There's continents full of them. There's also a range of political thought that puts US progressives in the center-left. It's laughably pathetic you think a song demonstrates otherwise.

Perhaps you don't know this, in fact I'd bet all my money you don't, but the same groups behind the propaganda you're drowning in run operations in the US where they make comments like yours, for the far-right groups in places like Poland and Hungary, and in Africa where they assist in writing laws to execute homosexuals. So here's another example of how YOU, PERSONALLY hurt people: By spewing the bile of these groups, you support their message and their work: Killing gays and trans people. They only moderate their message where they know the prevailing views don't allow that. But when they have the opportunity, they go mask off. If you don't personally want gay and trans people put to death, reconsider bleating all their BS talking points at every opportunity.

----------


## sapator

I wouldn't really be compelled to rant to this pointless discussion but the same people on 3rd world that kill homosexuals, they also kill christian Jews and Buddhists they stone their multi wives and treat women like animals. 
So that part of the world is so fkd up that I wouldn't put it in a comparison with anything.

----------


## FunkyDexter

You know when a moderator tells you to reign the trolling and your immediate response is to post a mocking video followed by a homophobic one...

Have a month.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> and in Africa


I don't disagree with what you were saying but I just feel the need to stand up for my alma mater here.  The homophobia in Africa (or at least Nigeria where I grew up) is grossly overstated in the West.  There certainly _was_ some homophobia but I had gay friends and the most they ever experienced was some cat calling and even that was pretty rare.  Africa does have some homophobia and I certainly don't want to excuse it where it exists but it's really no worse than you find in the US and UK.  Nigeria was pretty liberal on the whole.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I wouldn't really be compelled to rant to this pointless discussion but the same people on 3rd world that kill homosexuals, they also kill christian Jews and Buddhists they stone their multi wives and treat women like animals. 
> So that part of the world is so fkd up that I wouldn't put it in a comparison with anything.


Unfortunately there's many parts of the world that fit that template.  The people in the US are not blind to this.

----------


## fafalone

> I don't disagree with what you were saying but I just feel the need to stand up for my alma mater here.  The homophobia in Africa (or at least Nigeria where I grew up) is grossly overstated in the West.  There certainly _was_ some homophobia but I had gay friends and the most they ever experienced was some cat calling and even that was pretty rare.  Africa does have some homophobia and I certainly don't want to excuse it where it exists but it's really no worse than you find in the US and UK.  Nigeria was pretty liberal on the whole.


I didn't want to get into a country by country breakdown, there's certainly perfectly tolerant countries within Africa, but Africa and the Middle East do have numerous countries with legal bans ranging from prison to death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_r...y_or_territory and this is not found elsewhere besides a couple south asian countries.

Nigeria specifically, for same-sex intercourse:




> Illegal under federal law since 1901 (as the Northern Nigeria Protectorate and the Southern Nigeria Protectorate)
> Penalty: Up to 14 years imprisonment.
> No Death in the states of Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Niger, Sokoto, Yobe, and Zamfara.[53][87][76]


It's wonderful if the prevailing opinion is to oppose those laws, but while they're on the books I don't think it's fair to consider Nigeria an example of a tolerant country.

----------


## FunkyDexter

All I can offer is my personal experience and I wasn't even aware those laws existed.  I've seen homosexuality practiced openly so I don't think they're rigorously enforced.  I agree with you that I'd like to see them removed from the books though.

----------


## dilettante

Geeze.  "Nihilism is joy, normality is aberration."

Even Disney is kicking nutbars to the curb.  I don't expect much of Iger though, he's as aligned with Communist China's destruction of the west as Chapek and the rest of the wokiverse.

What comes next for the agenda?  Global warming: dead.  Green salvation: dead.  Polysexuality: dead.  Pharmadoxy: dead.  Narrative control by muzzling opposing views: dying.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Are you saying we should support laws making homosexuality illegal?

(I'm genuinely struggling to understand the point you're making)

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I have no idea what that means, either. I don't pay much attention to Disney. They're...an interesting case all on their own, which is exactly how they wanted it to be and how they like it, as far as I can tell. Disney has always tried to create a fantasy land. Whose fantasy, has changed over the years, but it was always a fantasy land as the objective.

Beyond that, though, I don't have any idea what you are saying with that final paragraph. Whose agenda? What does dead mean in this context? I don't see an interpretation where those categories and dead seem to go together.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> It's wonderful if the prevailing opinion is to oppose those laws, but while they're on the books I don't think it's fair to consider Nigeria an example of a tolerant country.


There has always been a tension between laws that are on the books and laws that are enforced. Idaho has, or until recently had (I don't know if they were ever repealed, though I think possibly not), laws on sexuality that haven't been enforced for a very long time. It basically proscribed what acts were allowed between any couple, married or not, regardless of gender. They might also have outlawed sex outside of marriage, though that one came down to the changing interpretation of words.

----------


## dilettante

"Dead" means "no longer useful as a club to silence and control the population."

----------


## jmcilhinney

> he's as aligned with Communist China's destruction of the west


It may seem a small thing but, to me, the use of "Communist China" is quite telling too. It smacks of propaganda. We all know where and what China is. You can say China and we will all know what you're talking about. The qualification is an obvious ploy to generate not just an idea of the country but of the country being bad by association with something that we've been trained to think of as a bogeyman. That's not really going to work with us "far left radicals", because we're generally able to look at it a bit more dispassionately.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> "Dead" means "no longer useful as a club to silence and control the population."


By who? How are any of those dead as a tool? They all seem to be terms that are currently in play.

Though, I'd also be curious as to what silence or control means to you, since it seems like EVERYTHING is about silence and control. If all that were taken away, what would the world look like? What IS your utopia?

I've learned not to expect an answer to that, so it's pretty much rhetorical. The first questions aren't, though. Who is using those tools, and to what end?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Though, I'd also be curious as to what silence or control means to you, since it seems like EVERYTHING is about silence and control.


That seems to be dil's thing. I asked a question a little while back that was ostensibly posed to dil and Niya and dil's response was that I was trying to silence him and Niya's response was that I wasn't trying to understand him. I literally asked them to speak so I knew their position and one complained about not being able to speak and one complained about my not knowing their position. This is the level of victimhood they've raised themselves to.

----------


## dilettante

Fishing for a "slip" to dogpile onto.  Classic bullying strategy.

Every attempt to answer insincere "questions" is met with deflection, discrediting sources with no basis, or outright jamming fingers in the ears and "la la la-ing."  Then out comes another baited line.


Any yes, the embrace of a totalitarian regime speaks volumes about where you are coming from.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Fishing for a "slip" to dogpile onto.  Classic bullying strategy.


What I was actually trying to do was pin down exactly what your position was so I could argue against that actual position was rather than make assumptions and possibly make a strawman argument. I know you're not averse to that but I'd rather avoid it if possible.

In that specific case, I was interested to see what you thought about Elon Musk's apparent position that banning Alex Jones was not a violation of his free speech. Musk claims to be a champion of free speech and is venerated by many for that but I fail to see how banning anyone from Twitter is a violation of their free speech if doing so to Alex Jones is not. If you think that banning Alex Jones is a violation of his free speech then I would at least argue with you on that basis, whereas if you don't think it is then I'd argue with you on that basis.



> Every attempt to answer insincere "questions" is met with deflection, discrediting sources with no basis, or outright jamming fingers in the ears and "la la la-ing."  Then out comes another baited line.


I was shocked at your level of self-awareness for a moment, then I realised that you weren't actually talking about yourself.



> Any yes, the embrace of a totalitarian regime speaks volumes about where you are coming from.


Not a bait line at all. Do you really think that my thinking that there's no actual need to prefix "China" with "Communist" and that people actually do it to create bogeyman to deflect from their own failings means that I embrace the Chinese regime? This is not a rhetorical question. Do you actually think that?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> we want our boys to not play with dolls and wear skirts


Sounds like Niya won't be around for a while but I thought I'd address this for public consumption anyway. I've been thinking about this and I think that it's a bit more significant than I first gave it credit for.

I've long thought that it's funny that there is so much overlap between the group of people who will tell you that if you have XY chromosomes and a ***** then you're a man and that's the end of it, and the group of people who will tell you that you're not a real man unless you think and behave a particular way. It seems that what's in your head is what makes you a real man but it's not what makes you a man. Odd. This doesn't necessarily apply to all anti-trans people and I'm not sure whether it applies to our two most prominent anti-trans residents here but it certainly applies to many. I'm sure that many who would claim that it doesn't apply to them would still support Niya's idea above, demonstrating that it really does apply to them to some degree.

the claim is that having XY chromosomes and a ***** is what makes you a man but then why should having particular chromosomes and genitalia dictate what clothes you should wear and what toys you should play with? Why should it dictate anything about your life other than role you play in procreation? It seems that many people believe that having those biologically male traits should dictate what to should do and, more importantly, what you should want to do. If it is somehow fundamental to being male that you should not want to play with dolls or wear skirts and some boy wants to play with dolls and wear skirts, does that not mean that there's something fundamentally female about him? If not then it seems to me that you're really just training children to be what you think men and women should be and disregarding what they actually want. If boys and girls are trained as children to be different and then they are different when they become men and women, you can hardly claim that that shows some fundamental difference between men and women when it's just the result of training.

That's an example of why I bristle at the those who claim that the earning differential between men and women is largely the result of women choosing lower-paid jobs. That may well be true on the surface and these people rarely think any deeper than that, but I would ask why it is that women choose lower-paid jobs. My answer would be that, in large part, they have been trained all their lives to do so. Things are changing but it's pretty clear that boys and girls are still treated differently by most parents and much of what they grow up to expect from their lives is the result of training by their parents.

----------


## sapator

You overthink the whole thread. My personal interest in the opposite sex was when my organism wanted the opposite sex at 10 something , I can't recall of course, not because I was forced and nobody told me anything. Maybe in some parts of the world is different. Also I never wanted to play with dolls.
I think that Niya point was exactly what you proclaim but on the opposite.  Young children pushed to became something that they are not.
Anyhow I'm just answering as Niya is not here. I have a very low interest on that discussion and I guess Niya won't be back so this will steam off eventually.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Young children pushed to became something that they are not.


Niya was going waaaaaay beyond that.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I guess Niya won't be back so this will steam off eventually.


I think it was for just a month...unless he doesn't want to come back.

I just noticed I passed 20 years as a member  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## wes4dbt

> You overthink the whole thread. My personal interest in the opposite sex was when my organism wanted the opposite sex at 10 something , I can't recall of course, not because I was forced and nobody told me anything. Maybe in some parts of the world is different. Also I never wanted to play with dolls.
> I think that Niya point was exactly what you proclaim but on the opposite.  Young children pushed to became something that they are not.
> Anyhow I'm just answering as Niya is not here. I have a very low interest on that discussion and I guess Niya won't be back so this will steam off eventually.


That sounds very normal but this isn't about what happens when things are as expected, it about when your feeling and desires are out side the norm.  It's about what if you did want to play with dolls or wear skirts.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I think I either missed what Niya said or replied with some discussion about men wearing skirts...I mean kilts. I do remember writing about that as a trend that seems to have run its course for long distance hikers.

However, that line made me overlook something. Niya is from the Caribbean. There's a cultural stereotype for people from that area that has some basis in truth: An excessive machismo viewpoint. If he's from one of those cultures, where there's a fixation on a form of overt masculinity, that would explain a lot. It's not uncommon, so if that's his cultural norm, I'd say that his views are understandable. 

Some of that manifests in some pretty spectacular art, so it's not all bad. It certainly had some bad aspects, though. It seemed like there were things they weren't allowed to look at, and were required to pretend didn't exist. That sounds familiar, doesn't it?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I think that Niya point was exactly what you proclaim but on the opposite.  Young children pushed to became something that they are not.


I don't think that's the case at all. I'm not going back to find the exact words he used but he said something like "what if we want a stay-at-home wife" and then followed that with "what if we don't want our boys to play with dolls and wear skirts". That seems very much about the desires of him and people like him, not that others are trying to force wives and sons to be something they are not. If wives want to stay at home and sons want to play with trucks and wear trousers then they should do just that. I'm certainly not trying to force them to do otherwise and I'm not aware of many, if any, people who are. The point is that people should be able to do what they want to do, not just choose from what's approved for wives, sons or otherwise. The whole point of gender-neutral clothing and toys is that a person and, in particular, a child gets to express who they feel they are rather than learning to conform to what society thinks they should be based on their chromosomes or genitals. If Niya or you or anybody else thinks it's about forcing children to be something they're not then they could not be all wrong.

If some people get a bit overzealous in encouraging a child to express themselves and the child thinks they need to express something that isn't there just to please a parent then that is unfortunate and definitely not something that I want to happen. That said, just as Niya thinks that we need to take some responsibility for the rise of Jordan Peterson, Matt Walsh and their ilk, so he and others need to take some responsibility for situations like that. If people didn't have to fight so hard for children to be able to express an identity outside the accepted societal norm then they would be less likely to fight too hard. The same could be said about many areas. For instance, many people complain about feminism having gone too far but that is, at least in part, due to the fact that feminism has had to fight tooth and nail to make any ground at all for so long. They still have to fight to achieve equality is some areas so that spills over into fighting in other areas that maybe don't need so much attention. If more people had been reasonable in the first place then we could have reached a new equilibrium that was acceptable to all much sooner. You can bet that the people who complain loudest now about feminism having gone too far would, had they been born some decades earlier, be the ones complaining loudest about, for instance, women getting to vote in the first place.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> You overthink the whole thread.


I might say that the opposite is true of some others. If we're talking about issues that affect people's lives then it might be nice to put some thought into it.

----------


## wes4dbt

> However, that line made me overlook something. Niya is from the Caribbean. There's a cultural stereotype for people from that area that has some basis in truth: An excessive machismo viewpoint. If he's from one of those cultures, where there's a fixation on a form of overt masculinity, that would explain a lot. It's not uncommon, so if that's his cultural norm, I'd say that his views are understandable.


I have no problem understanding how he has those views.  I was raised in that environment and was perpetuating it further in my young adulthood.  I would have had a problem if my son wanted to wear dresses.  Thank goodness that wasn't an issue.  I probably would have made his life miserable.  I'd say there is still a significant segment of the US population that still carry those beliefs, maybe just watered down just a little.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I have no problem understanding how he has those views.


Indeed. We're all products of our environment and we each get trained to be a certain way to some degree and some of us break out of that training to some degree. I think part of the problem is that Niya keeps on complaining that we're not making an effort to understand him when I would say that the opposite is at least as true, if not more. Niya has attitudes that have existed for centuries so the idea that we don't understand them is a bit silly. We're supporting new ideas and he's the one who seems to be denying they can be true because they haven't been around for a long time. Every idea is new at some point and I'm sure there's plenty of things that Niya takes for granted that were resisted by many when they were new.

----------


## sapator

Would be nice to hear from him tho instead of speculations.
Maybe reduce the month a bit? Just saying..

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Would be nice to hear from him tho instead of speculations.
> Maybe reduce the month a bit? Just saying..


Just get Elon Musk to buy VBForums.

----------


## sapator

I'll call him. Should I give your love and kisses?

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Maybe reduce the month a bit?


No.

Niya has been repeatedly warned about the manner in which he posts.  He was warned again, in response to which he feigned ignorance about the provocative nature of his posts, made another provocative post (mild and something I would normally have let slide, but unacceptable _within a day of being warned_) and posted a link to an extremely homophobic song that advocates killing gay people.  He was lucky it wasn't permanent and, if he doesn't change, next time it will be.

I'm sure there are those who would like to portray this as suppressing his opinion.  It was not, as evidenced by the fact that he has been given plenty of oxygen to express that opinion and the fact that others arguing the same opinion have not been banned.

If a member repeatedly sets out to offend they will be warned, then banned.  This is not a difficult concept.

I will say to other members, though, that speculating on what Niya would or would have said/meant isn't particularly useful and can come across as gloating.  We should probably avoid it unless it is directly pertinent the debate at hand.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> No.
> 
> Niya has been repeatedly warned about the manner in which he posts.  He was warned again, in response to which he feigned ignorance about the provocative nature of his posts, made another provocative post (mild and something I would normally have let slide, but unacceptable _within a day of being warned_) and posted a link to an extremely homophobic song that advocates killing gay people.  He was lucky it wasn't permanent and, if he doesn't change, next time it will be.
> 
> I'm sure there are those who would like to portray this as suppressing his opinion.  It was not, as evidenced by the fact that he has been given plenty of oxygen to express that opinion and the fact that others arguing the same opinion have not been banned.
> 
> If a member repeatedly sets out to offend they will be warned, then banned.  This is not a difficult concept.


Given how he talks about Jordan Peterson, he'll probably make a 15 minute video about this ban now though.

----------


## sapator

Ye practically, even if the ban was lowered I wouldn't expect him to be back next day, even if provoked as some do now.
I was not aware of the song advocating killing gay people tho. And that is-was on youtube, I guess? If so then it probably is not a song saying to kill gay people as youtube has strict rules. Where is the song and the lyrics? Can someone show it, if it's not against the rules here.
Anyhow talking against a person not able to responded continually after a few days is cowardice at best, so I would kindly ask to cease the attacks.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> If so then it probably is not a song saying to kill gay people as youtube has strict rules


It absolutely is.  It's sung in a Caribbean Patois and You Tube's algorithm is probably not doing a good job of parsing it.  If you're really interested you can google for the lyrics.  They're still not the easiest to read due to the patois but it doesn't take that much effort.

----------


## sapator

I can certainly google the lyrics....If I knew the name of the song  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Peter Porter

----

----------


## wes4dbt

> I can certainly google the lyrics....If I knew the name of the song


Check post 937

I didn't click the link.

----------


## sapator

Ye I don't understand squat of the lyrics but if that was the post that raised the ban I think you overacted. From what I can read is that he said that people where dancing to this without knowing what it was about. If you hadn't say so I wouldn't  know. I might be wrong and then the thread escalated but I really don't want to read all the posts.
But if that is a "bad" song, I'm thinking of some songs that should also be offensive and everyone listens to them. For once all the AC/DC catalog (that they fkn rule!).
And you can click on the link it won't bite you, you reggaeophobic you (or whatever that is) , lol.

----------


## TysonLPrice

Oops...



> News of the meeting with Apple came after Mr Musk was told he faced "huge work ahead" to bring Twitter into compliance with new European Union rules on disinformation or face a possible ban.
> 
> EU commissioner Thierry Breton made the comments in a meeting with Mr Musk on Wednesday, saying the social media site would have to address issues such as content moderation, disinformation and targeted adverts.
> 
> Approved by the EU earlier this year, the Digital Services Act is seen as the biggest overhaul of rules governing online activity in decades, imposing new obligations on companies to prevent abuse of their platforms.
> 
> Major companies are expected to be in compliance with the law some time next year.


https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63816110

----------


## dilettante

That edge cuts more than one way though.  Once extremist views fall out of favor you could find your own ox gored.

The big story:




China is rolling tanks in its streets and Apple is acting as their minion.

----------


## dilettante

There are a lot of real scientists doing populist outreach these days, as opposed to fairly phony "celeb-science" mouthpieces like Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Many, if not most of them, don't get a lot of exposure.  Probably because of more moderate positions on issues and expressing concern about the rise of authoritarianism.  Because they operate from positions based less on doctrine and more on reality you can find them tilting at windmills on both the left and the right.


Here is one of them taking a swipe at your buddy Tucker in passing.  "Ball tanning" is hilarious but deprecating it has gotten people in hot water with extremists from both sides who are invested in body modification and gobbling down nutritional supplements.  You can find its fans both flying rainbow flags and wearing red or green hats.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> That edge cuts more than one way though.  Once extremist views fall out of favor you could find your own ox gored.
> 
> The big story:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China is rolling tanks in its streets and Apple is acting as their minion.






> You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers


https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye

That doesn't stop you though...

----------


## TysonLPrice

> There are a lot of real scientists doing populist outreach these days, as opposed to fairly phony "celeb-science" mouthpieces like Neil deGrasse Tyson.
> 
> Many, if not most of them, don't get a lot of exposure.  Probably because of more moderate positions on issues and expressing concern about the rise of authoritarianism.  Because they operate from positions based less on doctrine and more on reality you can find them tilting at windmills on both the left and the right.
> 
> 
> Here is one of them taking a swipe at your buddy Tucker in passing.  "Ball tanning" is hilarious but deprecating it has gotten people in hot water with extremists from both sides who are invested in body modification and gobbling down nutritional supplements.  You can find its fans both flying rainbow flags and wearing red or green hats.






> You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers


https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye

That doesn't stop you though...

----------


## TysonLPrice

> There are a lot of real scientists doing populist outreach these days, as opposed to fairly phony "celeb-science" mouthpieces like Neil deGrasse Tyson.
> 
> Many, if not most of them, don't get a lot of exposure.  Probably because of more moderate positions on issues and expressing concern about the rise of authoritarianism.  Because they operate from positions based less on doctrine and more on reality you can find them tilting at windmills on both the left and the right.
> 
> 
> Here is one of them taking a swipe at your buddy Tucker in passing.  "Ball tanning" is hilarious but deprecating it has gotten people in hot water with extremists from both sides who are invested in body modification and gobbling down nutritional supplements.  You can find its fans both flying rainbow flags and wearing red or green hats.







> You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers


https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye

That doesn't seem to stop you though...

----------


## TysonLPrice

> There are a lot of real scientists doing populist outreach these days, as opposed to fairly phony "celeb-science" mouthpieces like Neil deGrasse Tyson.
> 
> Many, if not most of them, don't get a lot of exposure.  Probably because of more moderate positions on issues and expressing concern about the rise of authoritarianism.  Because they operate from positions based less on doctrine and more on reality you can find them tilting at windmills on both the left and the right.
> 
> 
> Here is one of them taking a swipe at your buddy Tucker in passing.  "Ball tanning" is hilarious but deprecating it has gotten people in hot water with extremists from both sides who are invested in body modification and gobbling down nutritional supplements.  You can find its fans both flying rainbow flags and wearing red or green hats.






> You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers


https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye

That doesn't even  stop you though...

----------


## TysonLPrice

> There are a lot of real scientists doing populist outreach these days, as opposed to fairly phony "celeb-science" mouthpieces like Neil deGrasse Tyson.
> 
> Many, if not most of them, don't get a lot of exposure.  Probably because of more moderate positions on issues and expressing concern about the rise of authoritarianism.  Because they operate from positions based less on doctrine and more on reality you can find them tilting at windmills on both the left and the right.
> 
> 
> Here is one of them taking a swipe at your buddy Tucker in passing.  "Ball tanning" is hilarious but deprecating it has gotten people in hot water with extremists from both sides who are invested in body modification and gobbling down nutritional supplements.  You can find its fans both flying rainbow flags and wearing red or green hats.






> You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers


https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye

That doesn't stop ever  you though...

----------


## TysonLPrice

> There are a lot of real scientists doing populist outreach these days, as opposed to fairly phony "celeb-science" mouthpieces like Neil deGrasse Tyson.
> 
> Many, if not most of them, don't get a lot of exposure.  Probably because of more moderate positions on issues and expressing concern about the rise of authoritarianism.  Because they operate from positions based less on doctrine and more on reality you can find them tilting at windmills on both the left and the right.
> 
> 
> Here is one of them taking a swipe at your buddy Tucker in passing.  "Ball tanning" is hilarious but deprecating it has gotten people in hot water with extremists from both sides who are invested in body modification and gobbling down nutritional supplements.  You can find its fans both flying rainbow flags and wearing red or green hats.






> You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers


https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye

That doesn't stop you though.....

----------


## TysonLPrice

> That edge cuts more than one way though.  Once extremist views fall out of favor you could find your own ox gored.
> 
> The big story:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China is rolling tanks in its streets and Apple is acting as their minion.






> You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers


https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye

That doesn't stop you though........

----------


## TysonLPrice

> There are a lot of real scientists doing populist outreach these days, as opposed to fairly phony "celeb-science" mouthpieces like Neil deGrasse Tyson.
> 
> Many, if not most of them, don't get a lot of exposure.  Probably because of more moderate positions on issues and expressing concern about the rise of authoritarianism.  Because they operate from positions based less on doctrine and more on reality you can find them tilting at windmills on both the left and the right.
> 
> 
> Here is one of them taking a swipe at your buddy Tucker in passing.  "Ball tanning" is hilarious but deprecating it has gotten people in hot water with extremists from both sides who are invested in body modification and gobbling down nutritional supplements.  You can find its fans both flying rainbow flags and wearing red or green hats.






> You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers


https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye

That doesn't stop you though...............

----------


## sapator

What in the ninth hell of spam?!

----------


## FunkyDexter

Um, yeah.  Did you mean to post that 8 times or was that a forum glitch?

I agree that Carlson is to journalism what an enema is to dental hygiene and that the "Apple is a Chinese stooge" conspiracy is just bizarre (and only started after they pulled their advertising from Twitter - funny that) but I'm not sure it bore repeating _that_ many times.




> For once all the AC/DC catalog (that they fkn rule!).


They do indeed rule.  They've never advocated killing people though.  Mostly they just used lots of childish euphemisms and sung about the joy to be found in the love of larger ladies.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Um, yeah.  Did you mean to post that 8 times or was that a forum glitch?
> 
> I agree that Carlson is to journalism what an enema is to dental hygiene and that the "Apple is a Chinese stooge" conspiracy is just bizarre (and only started after they pulled their advertising from Twitter - funny that) but I'm not sure it bore repeating _that_ many times.
> 
> They do indeed rule.  They've never advocated killing people though.  Mostly they just used lots of childish euphemisms and sung about the joy to be found in the love of larger ladies.


I didn't mean to post that many times.  It is not a forum glitch.  It was a human glitch...cut and paste gone wild  :Embarrassment:

----------


## dilettante

The funny part is that one of those videos was a scientist making arguments against a Tucker Carlson story.  But when your knees are that jerky I guess you hit your own chin a lot.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Here is one of them taking a swipe at your buddy Tucker in passing.


Whose buddy is he exactly? I'm not sure that anyone here has given any reason to believe that they'd qualify.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> The funny part is that one of those videos was a scientist making arguments against a Tucker Carlson story.  But when your knees are that jerky I guess you hit your own chin a lot.


The sad part is that only one of them was, which means that you're still posting at least one video of Tucker Carlson as though he has anything worthwhile to say. That's significantly more than anyone should. Tucker has a lot of catching up to do to be right as often as a broken clock.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> The funny part is that one of those videos was a scientist making arguments against a Tucker Carlson story.  But when your knees are that jerky I guess you hit your own chin a lot.


I wouldn't know...I never read them.  My chin is a little sore this morning though!

----------


## sapator

> They do indeed rule.  They've never advocated killing people though.  Mostly they just used lots of childish euphemisms and sung about the joy to be found in the love of larger ladies.


And drinking...LOT of drinking with Bon and Hell.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> And drinking...LOT of drinking with Bon and Hell.


The difference between a Scottish wedding and a Scottish wake is one less drunk...

----------


## FunkyDexter

Depends on the cause of death

----------


## FunkyDexter

Oddly, I was up in Glasgow just last week.  I actually saw a man having a fight with a bus stop.  From what I could tell the bus stop was winning.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> I didn't mean to post that many times.  It is not a forum glitch.  It was a human glitch...cut and paste gone wild


How is that even possible? Don't you run into an issue with the time delay required between posts?

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Oddly, I was up in Glasgow just last week.  I actually saw a man having a fight with a bus stop.  From what I could tell the bus stop was winning.


I know somebody who, rather notoriously, got in a fight with a shrub, or small sapling. It didn't go well for the guy, and the shrub didn't seem to care.

----------


## sapator

> How is that even possible? Don't you run into an issue with the time delay required between posts?


Is it national glitch day already?

----------


## sapator

> I know somebody who, rather notoriously, got in a fight with a shrub, or small sapling. It didn't go well for the guy, and the shrub didn't seem to care.


There is a very funny video of a man "fighting" with it's own reflation in the mirror while drunk. I'm trying to find it...

Got i!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aESRbTup2o

(on a side note, this is actually a video of a song promoting violence, so I dare you to click it!...Or it's not....Or is it?)

----------


## TysonLPrice

> How is that even possible? Don't you run into an issue with the time delay required between posts?


Yes I did and duplicate posts.  I saw all those Carlson clips and was cutting and pasting.  I didn't realize I was doing them over and over again.  Just a brain fart.

----------


## wes4dbt

> The sad part is that only one of them was, which means that you're still posting at least one video of Tucker Carlson as though he has anything worthwhile to say. That's significantly more than anyone should. Tucker has a lot of catching up to do to be right as often as a broken clock.


I'd say the even sadder thing is his lack of credibility is well know but Fox keeps him on the air.  Which must mean he has a large following.  Actually I think that is more scary than sad.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I'd say the even sadder thing is his lack of credibility is well know but Fox keeps him on the air.  Which must mean he has a large following.  Actually I think that is more scary than sad.


Tucker Carlson is the most popular cable news host in US history...kind of pathetic.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I'm dating myself here, lol!


I have a twitchy middle finger that makes a lot of computer games pretty much unplayable.  I love the XCom series but I frequently spontaneously send my most valued psycher to stand one square in front of a  sectopod.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

You flip off computer games? Seems kind of pointless.

----------


## dilettante

> I saw all those Carlson clips and...

----------


## jmcilhinney

> 


It's hardly that with Tucker Carlson. You might argue that he really does believe what he says and the legal strategy of claiming that no reasonable person should take him seriously is just a legal strategy and no more but what, then, does that say about his level of honesty, to claim that at all? No one is simply ignoring Tucker Carlson. We're using logic and reason to conclude that the umpteenth wolf is at least as unlikely to be real as any that came before it and that, if he does say something worthwhile, it will be by the principle of the broken clock and there will undoubtedly be less punchable faces to get the same information from.

Of course, if you would actually provide some context for the videos you post then people might be more inclined to actually watch some of them. You actually did on one of those about Tucker Carlson but that is such an outlier that it's no surprise some people missed it. I'm not going to watch a video unless I'm given a reason to do so and I think that many others here are going to be the same, so if you expect us to watch anything then you should provide that reason. If you fail to do so almost every time, don't be surprised if people's experience leads them to believe that you've failed to do so again on the rare occasions that you haven't. You don't have to provide such information if you don't want to but it's then on you if people don't watch the videos you post.

----------


## dilettante

I was over at my neighbors' tonight and they brought freeing Twitter up.  They are 1st generation immigrants from India and getting old now too (she's in her late 60s, he's early 70s) but have been in the US since the 1970s.  The 1st President they voted for was Jimmy Carter and they're proud to support his charities, mainly Habitat For Humanity.

They don't care for the direction things are going, and see it as an attack on America.  Arjun suggests that the war on free speech stems from excess influence by the collapsed colonial empires i.e. UK and the rest of Europe, where people have no such right.

I guess old folks have turned to YouTube and alternatives like Rumble lately, disgusted with the fare offered by the corporate media.  They follow a lot of "cancelled" actors like this one:

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Arjun suggests that the war on free speech stems from excess influence by the collapsed colonial empires i.e. UK and the rest of Europe, where people have no such right.


This demonstrates pretty well how those who talk about free speech the most equivocate and basically just lie about it. The US right to free speech is very specific, relating pretty much only to the government. If you're talking about the US having a right to free speech and other countries not then that is what you're talking about. In that case, anything relating to Twitter and what it allows or doesn't allow has exactly zero to do with free speech. If you want to claim that Twitter banning people is an attack on free speech then you're talking about something else, so the US has no such right any more than any the country. I find it hard to believe that you don't know this so this equivocation is really just another dishonest tactic.

----------


## NeedSomeAnswers

> They don't care for the direction things are going, and see it as an attack on America. Arjun suggests that the war on free speech stems from excess influence by the collapsed colonial empires i.e. UK and the rest of Europe, where people have no such right.


They have no idea what they are talking about, and in fact sound like the tired old people who always say "it was better in my day" when we all know it wasn't. I would love to know what Free Speech rights we dont have in the UK & Europe that you have in the US ?


You have member of the republican party and the right in general in America trying to ban books in schools, how on earth does that marry up with the right to Free Speech ?

----------


## szlamany

> ...The US right to free speech is very specific, relating pretty much only to the government...


This was a simple Google for "Free Speech US vs UK".




> The First Amendment expressly prohibits laws limiting free speech. Britain and France's laws essentially say that citizens have free speech unless the government legislates otherwise, leaving those countries more room to bar certain types of speech explicitly.


#1A limits "laws" from being created - thus protecting people from Government rules against what we can say.  That's freedom of speech in the US.  That is not what you get in the UK, from my understanding of how you all write laws.

Of course, all I just said, does not stop a State in the US from making a law against some form of speech.  It just allows a challenge all the way to the Federal Supreme Court to say that State cannot do that.

That is how our Federation of States behaves in this current Union.

The "abortion distraction" is another great example of just that.  Where in the Constitution do the people see a connection to "abortion"?  Right to privacy?  Interstate Commerce rules?  #14A?  Latest ruling simply said it's not found in the document.

If it's not in the Constitution, that just means the States have to deal with it - and they are free to make laws that make happy the populations of those States.  Nice how that works.  

At least to one who adheres to a strict form of Constitutionalism.

I actively use Twitter.  I appreciate the changes made by Musk - and they are tangible and noticeable.  I also followed each step he made from day 1, interacting with coders, firing those who were doing things that Twitter ought not do (the list was huge).  Love these pics from a meeting Musk had with coders (after he fired all the non-coding coders, that purge was beautifully done).  I studied the details of that white board - very cool stuff.

----------


## sapator

It's not that we don't have free speech it's what get's to the instrument (aka media and tweet like mediums ) that control free speech.
I can go the the main square and bush the PM for how treacherous he is for hours and nobody will bother me but also no media reporter will come to ask me something.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> This was a simple Google for "Free Speech US vs UK".


I'm not sure whether you're trying to correct me or not, but let me clarify what I meant, just in case. I realise that the US has constitutionally-guaranteed free speech and other countries don't, but the freedom that refers to is freedom from the government limiting your speech. The supposed "war on free speech" that so many are complaining about right now doesn't relate to that at all. There is nothing in the US constitution that guarantees anyone the right to access Twitter. The free speech referred to in the US constitution and the free speech that Elon Musk claims to be promoting on Twitter are not the same thing at all, so this:



> Arjun suggests that the war on free speech stems from excess influence by the collapsed colonial empires i.e. UK and the rest of Europe, where people have no such right.


is equivocation. That said, upon second reading of that, I realise that I am inferring from the statement that the UK and the rest of Europe have no right to free speech is implying that the US does. That certainly seems to be the implication, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

----------


## szlamany

> I'm not sure whether you're trying to correct me or not, but let me clarify what I meant, just in case. I realise that the US has constitutionally-guaranteed free speech and other countries don't, but the freedom that refers to is freedom from the government limiting your speech. The supposed "war on free speech" that so many are complaining about right now doesn't relate to that at all. There is nothing in the US constitution that guarantees anyone the right to access Twitter. The free speech referred to in the US constitution and the free speech that Elon Musk claims to be promoting on Twitter are not the same thing at all, so this:
> 
> is equivocation. That said, upon second reading of that, I realise that I am inferring from the statement that the UK and the rest of Europe have no right to free speech is implying that the US does. That certainly seems to be the implication, but maybe I'm wrong about that.


I just thought I saw some confusion about how our laws work here, compared to UK and Europe.

When it comes to that finer point about companies such as Twitter, all I can say from a point of law is that a "carrier" is held harmless to what is "carried" on their medium.  For example, you cannot sue the phone company that gives you "copper" for the prank phones calls that you get.  Once you go from "carrier" to "publisher" those hold harmless law do not apply.  I've seen debates about how these public-software communication platforms might be "controlled", so to speak, through flexing of those laws.

The fact that "old twitter" had tons of so-called coders in charge of suppressing information in various countries, I find that interesting.  You might have to know what #TwitterJP means.  Can anyone say Shinzo Abe?

----------


## dilettante

Corporate rights don't trump individual rights in a free society either.  Chicken-flapping "Private company, private company, ba-bawk!" changes nothing.  You need a new script to parrot from.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> When it comes to that finer point about companies such as Twitter, all I can say from a point of law is that a "carrier" is held harmless to what is "carried" on their medium.  For example, you cannot sue the phone company that gives you "copper" for the prank phones calls that you get.  Once you go from "carrier" to "publisher" those hold harmless law do not apply.  I've seen debates about how these public-software communication platforms might be "controlled", so to speak, through flexing of those laws.


That's relevant elsewhere too. Here in Australia, the government tried to prevent Facebook profiting by reposting news from commercial sources without compensation and Facebook just banned all Australian news because we're too small to care about and they don't want to have to pay people for their work. Some agreement was reached but I never heard the terms. There has also been talk about holding social network sites liable for content they host. While I don't have all that much sympathy for rich individuals and companies that own these platforms, I understand that it might be difficult when you have people saying that anything should be allowed but then you also have governments trying to hold you liable for what other people put on your platform. Also, the motivation for that here was the right - particularly the Christain right - wanting to protect children. The Christain right are big on protecting children in the US too, but they're also big on free speech.

----------


## Peter Porter

Kanye West crossed a line today. Musk suspended Kanye from Twitter after he posted his 2024 campaign logo, a swastika inside the Star of David. He did this around the same time he went on Info Wars praising Hitler.

Before Kanye's account got suspended, he deleted his logo to try to hide the fact that he posted it, but several people screen captured it, as well as the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/02/b...uspension.html

----------


## jmcilhinney

Kanye West should buy his own social media platform. I wonder whether anyone has one they want to sell him. I think that deal's already fallen through since he lost his deal with Adidas.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Talk about free speech in the US is always an interesting and fluid discussion. We certainly ban some types of free speech, and always have. The courts have even upheld a certain amount of that, though it's a subject of active and constantly evolving debate.

However, Twitter was involved in a lawsuit in India that is much more complicated. If the government is seeking to suppress certain voices, what should Twitter do? More generally, if the state is approaching Twitter to assist in suppression of dissent, what is the appropriate response? Musk said that Twitter would conform to local rules, which suggests that he will allow suppression of speech and persecution of speakers, if that's what the government asks of it. Seems like he wouldn't do that, but if you fire everybody with a local understanding of what is behind a request, it seems likely that for a while, at least, Twitter == Sucker.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Corporate rights don't trump individual rights


This would be relevant if it weren't for the fact that you're arguing for an individual right you do not have.  The right to a platform.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> When it comes to that finer point about companies such as Twitter, all I can say from a point of law is that a "carrier" is held harmless to what is "carried" on their medium. For example, you cannot sue the phone company that gives you "copper" for the prank phones calls that you get. Once you go from "carrier" to "publisher" those hold harmless law do not apply. I've seen debates about how these public-software communication platforms might be "controlled", so to speak, through flexing of those laws.


One of the problems facing Musk, though, is that Twitter is international other countries laws do not necessarily work on the same distinctions as those of the US.  At present the EU does seem to view social media as a carrier but it's hotly debated and, if people start posting e.g. Swastikas which 1. is increasingly likely (whether it's left wing trolls or re-enabled far right posters) and 2. is expressly illegal under German law, I could see that ground shifting pretty quickly.  There have been several debates on this already and it's by no means a clear-cut situation.   There's also the issue of whether enabling that sort of post without moderation can be construed as a failure to act or even conspiracy which can make a party civilly liable in most countries and criminally liable in a few.

Then you consider countries which don't even pay lip service to free speech and you've got some real danger zones.

I think Musk is on a tightrope and it's not clear yet exactly where the tipping points are.

----------


## FunkyDexter

On Kanye West, after seeing the InfoWars interview, I honestly think the guy is seriously mentally ill.  Some bad actors, mainly on the right, have been taking advantage of that.  They thought they were getting a convenient star to champion their dog whistles and what they got was someone who was going to say the quiet part out loud and declare that he really likes Hitler and Nazis.  It's going to be interesting to see what those actors do now.  Will they simply continue to claim ignorance or will they actually condemn his statements.  They sure weren't able to condemn Fuentes who has said the same things but didn't have the same profile.

----------


## dilettante

> This would be relevant if it weren't for the fact that you're arguing for an individual right you do not have.  The right to a platform.


True enough, but that isn't a good thing.  It is even recognized as such based on several bills introduced over the last decade, though Dems have repeatedly voted them down or stalled them into failure.  It's just a matter of time.

This isn't North Korea or the UK.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> True enough, but that isn't a good thing


I'm not so sure.  The unfettered right to a platform conflicts with the right to refuse to offer service.  With businesses this means you do not have the right to refuse to bake a cake with a rainbow flag on... or a swastika.  Total straw man but, taken to an extreme: this means, if I have friends over for a bbq, I am required to allow entry to Neo-Nazis and anarchists lest I supress their voices.  It's in built to our legal systems that we do not require this of businesses or individuals for a reason.  It's a fundamentally intrusive requirement.  The _only_ restriction in the US system is that we require this of the government and even that does not apply elsewhere. 




> This isn't North Korea or the UK


Cute, but you overlook the fact that it operates in both.  So yes it is.

----------


## dilettante

Well, if as you say the company's whim is ascendant... then there isn't much to whinge about no matter what direction Musk takes Twitter.  This entire thread evaporates as irrelevant.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Well, if as you say the company's whim is ascendant... then there isn't much to whinge about no matter what direction Musk takes Twitter.  This entire thread evaporates as irrelevant.


Not sure there's been much debate about whether Musk has the right to take Twitter in any direction he wants.  Mostly about what he would do, what he is doing and whether he will be successful.  Lots of talk on free speech.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Well, if as you say the company's whim is ascendant... then there isn't much to whinge about no matter what direction Musk takes Twitter.  This entire thread evaporates as irrelevant.


The entire thread was built on irrelevant. Speculating about what will become of Twitter is a fun pastime for most everybody, and totally a chit-chat topic. 

The reasonable position is: We don't really know what will lead to profitability, but if Musk goes there, then Twitter will be profitable. If Musk doesn't go there, then it won't.

After that, it's all just bloviating. That's something we're all good at.

----------


## fafalone

> There has always been a tension between laws that are on the books and laws that are enforced. Idaho has, or until recently had (I don't know if they were ever repealed, though I think possibly not), laws on sexuality that haven't been enforced for a very long time. It basically proscribed what acts were allowed between any couple, married or not, regardless of gender. They might also have outlawed sex outside of marriage, though that one came down to the changing interpretation of words.


Under our legal system that's an example of a law that's legally null and void, just never removed from the books. If you were actually arrested under those charges, you'd have a slam dunk lawsuit for false arrest.

----------


## fafalone

> Corporate rights don't trump individual rights in a free society either.  Chicken-flapping "Private company, private company, ba-bawk!" changes nothing.  You need a new script to parrot from.


Sure but there's no individual right to force a company to do business with you or allow you on their property, with narrow exceptions for if they're excluding you based only on your membership in a protected class (e.g. race).

I don't even understand why people think the big "free speech" issue of our day is voluntary actions by private companies to decide what speech they do or do not want to carry when you have conservatives out there passing anti-speech laws using the full force of the government to suppress unfavored views. It's really a victimhood complex from people whose only actual objection, in most cases, is that they're not the ones getting to control the message; claims of censorship when they were already getting special treatment... Twitter, Facebook... they've been caught being biased *in favor* of conservative speech, yet right wingers still thought they were being silenced for mere opinion. Just look at what Musk is doing with Twitter... banning people for criticizing him, banning various left wing accounts simply because his fanboys ask... this is what "free speech" means to people like Musk... their "freedom" to ensure all speech conforms to their beliefs.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Well, if as you say the company's whim is ascendant... then there isn't much to whinge about no matter what direction Musk takes Twitter.  This entire thread evaporates as irrelevant.


No one here is claiming that we have the right to force Elon Musk to provide access to Twitter for anyone. Some have even expressly stated that we don't - I know I have. There are others here who do claim that certain people's right to access Twitter was being violated before he took over and Musk himself is basically saying so. The fact that we want to speculate about what will or should happen and express our opinion about what is happening in a forum that is pretty much intended to be irrelevant is completely in line with what you should expect.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> It's really a victimhood complex from people whose only actual objection, in most cases, is that they're not the ones getting to control the message


I concur. I post comments on news stories in my Microsoft news feed at times and they have a pretty aggressive automated system for filtering such comments. I obviously don't see every comment but I have seen many, many comments from people complaining that they were being censored for their right-wing views. I've had many comments rejected myself and many of those have been extremely tame. Knowing they won't get through the filter, I tend to keep the insults to a minimum and there have been several where I'm not even disagreeing with anyone and some are on sport rather than politics. That it's happened to me so often means that it has almost certainly happened to many others with left-wing views as well, but I haven't expressly complained about it and I've never seen anyone else without right-wing views complain that they're being censored for their political views.

I think a big reason for this is that, for the Christian right, being persecuted is actually one their main goals in life. Their holy book tells them that they will be persecuted so, if they can view themselves as being persecuted, they feel like they're doing Christianity right. This persecution complex has become so prevalent with the Christain right that it has now spilled out into the right in general and also those who don't consider themselves right-wing but constantly repeat right-wing talking points.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I concur. I post comments on news stories in my Microsoft news feed at times and they have a pretty aggressive automated system for filtering such comments. I obviously don't see every comment but I have seen many, many comments from people complaining that they were being censored for their right-wing views. I've had many comments rejected myself and many of those have been extremely tame. Knowing they won't get through the filter, I tend to keep the insults to a minimum and there have been several where I'm not even disagreeing with anyone and some are on sport rather than politics. That it's happened to me so often means that it has almost certainly happened to many others with left-wing views as well, but I haven't expressly complained about it and I've never seen anyone else without right-wing views complain that they're being censored for their political views.
> 
> I think a big reason for this is that, for the Christian right, being persecuted is actually one their main goals in life. Their holy book tells them that they will be persecuted so, if they can view themselves as being persecuted, they feel like they're doing Christianity right. This persecution complex has become so prevalent with the Christain right that it has now spilled out into the right in general and also those who don't consider themselves right-wing but constantly repeat right-wing talking points.


I went to check out Microsoft news feed...it is called Microsoft Start now.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> there isn't much to whinge about no matter what direction Musk takes Twitter. This entire thread evaporates as irrelevant.


As others have said, I don't think anyone's saying Musk doesn't have the right to do what he wants with Twitter.  The point is the potential schadenfreude. Don't pretend you're immune to that... we ALL love to see pomposity *****ed.  The only difference is what we regard as pomposity.




> conservatives out there passing anti-speech laws using the full force of the government to suppress unfavored views.


I agree.

----------


## FunkyDexter

OK, that got censored and I _guess_ I can see way.  Let's just say we all like to see pomposity get jabbed with a needle. :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## dilettante

As I pointed out earlier medical professionals are joining truckers, farmers, manufacturing workers, public safety workers, and a growing list of others in pushing back against the wokism religion.

Here's another doctor fed up with the decadence, overreach, bad science, and non-science that has taken hold in once-respected institutions like medical journals in the more screwed up parts of the world.  The only shocking thing here is the bold step of plain speaking, unlike fully-cowed UK counterparts who make do with sarcasm and other indirect ways of expressing their disgust.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> OK, that got censored and I _guess_ I can see way.  Let's just say we all like to see pomposity get jabbed with a needle.


I don't know what was said but I'd like inject we all just try and agree.  Let's not try and be too syringe our thoughts.  Not to poke fun and any one...or take any cheap jabs.

----------


## wes4dbt

Well, Musk certainly is doing everything possible to kept Twitter in the news.  My guess is Twitter  usage is up.  It will be interesting to see if that actually makes Twitter profitable.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Well, Musk certainly is doing everything possible to kept Twitter in the news.  My guess is Twitter  usage is up.  It will be interesting to see if that actually makes Twitter profitable.


Regardless of whether it's true or not, it seems to me that he might have waited until he had a clearer idea of what actually happened before suggesting that Twitter interfered in the Brazilian election. There's no small chance that that could lead to violence in Brazil so speculation is probably not ideal. As suggested though, he's probably just trying to generate traffic. A few Brazilians arrested, hurt or dead won't affect him though, so why not?

----------


## wes4dbt

> Regardless of whether it's true or not, it seems to me that he might have waited until he had a clearer idea of what actually happened before suggesting that Twitter interfered in the Brazilian election. There's no small chance that that could lead to violence in Brazil so speculation is probably not ideal. As suggested though, he's probably just trying to generate traffic. A few Brazilians arrested, hurt or dead won't affect him though, so why not?


From what I've seen Musk isn't concerned about the damage he does, it's all about success and attention.  He's starting to sound a lot like Trump.  "Twitter MAY have interfered"  "I've heard concerning reports"  sound familiar?

----------


## FunkyDexter

People are saying...

----------


## TysonLPrice

> From what I've seen Musk isn't concerned about the damage he does, it's all about success and attention.  He's starting to sound a lot like Trump.  "Twitter MAY have interfered"  "I've heard concerning reports"  sound familiar?


It could be HUGE!

----------


## FunkyDexter

I've been reading a bit more about the latest Twitter revelations.  From what I can gather the whole Hunter Biden "interference" was that the Biden campaign team contacted Twitter to get nude pictures of Hunter taken down.  So this wouldn't be covered by the First Amendment as the Biden Campaign != the Government, the images would have been in violation of the Twitter TOS anyway and this is entirely non-political.

----------


## dilettante

Nice try censoring a story about censorship.

Elon Musk and Matt Taibbi Reveal Why Twitter Censored the Hunter Biden Laptop Story




> On Friday, Elon Musk announced that he would release the Twitter Files: a behind-the-scenes account of why the social media site prevented users from sharing the New York Post's infamous Hunter Biden laptop story. That story, which was erroneously categorized by national intelligence experts as disinformation of dubious and possibly Russian origin, has become the archetypical example of social media moderation gone awry.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Nice try censoring a story about censorship.
> 
> Elon Musk and Matt Taibbi Reveal Why Twitter Censored the Hunter Biden Laptop Story


From the article:




> But given how massively Musk hyped the revelations, the results are a tad disappointing, and mostly confirm what the public already assumed: A (still unidentified) employee or process flagged the story as "unsafe" and suppressed its spread, and then Twitter moderators devised a retroactive justificationviolation of a "hacked materials" policyfor having taken such an extraordinary step.






> But we're essentially in the-butler-did-it territory: The mystery's explanation is exactly what everyone expected, and largely already knew.

----------


## szlamany

@tyson - It is clear news who did the suppressing and they were fired quickly upon take over by Musk.  What is the source of the article you posted?

----------


## TysonLPrice

> @tyson - It is clear news who did the suppressing and they were fired quickly upon take over by Musk.  What is the source of the article you posted?


The link dilettante posted in #1045.  Also in my post.

----------


## szlamany

> The link dilettante posted in #1045.  Also in my post.


I saw that - I was asking more about who was the source - and just a google away told me that Reason.com is a Koch Brother product.  

Later...

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

The Koch brothers are pretty interesting...or just one of them, I seem to remember that one of them died, so he's not quite so interesting.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> The Koch brothers are pretty interesting...or just one of them, I seem to remember that one of them died, so he's not quite so interesting.


He's boring to death...

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I saw that - I was asking more about who was the source - and just a google away told me that Reason.com is a Koch Brother product.  
> 
> Later...


I made the post to make fun of the poster.  His own post contradicted his point.  I do not subscribe to the link...

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Well, no, he's beyond that.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I've been reading a bit more about the latest Twitter revelations.  From what I can gather the whole Hunter Biden "interference" was that the Biden campaign team contacted Twitter to get nude pictures of Hunter taken down.  So this wouldn't be covered by the First Amendment as the Biden Campaign != the Government, the images would have been in violation of the Twitter TOS anyway and this is entirely non-political.


From what I've seen, it seems that the only revelation is that the Biden campaign and the Trump Whitehouse had direct lines to twitter to ask them to remove certain tweets. I'm not sure that that's too much of a surprise though. What hasn't been revealed is what Trump, who was actually in government, actually requested Twitter remove. Again, this whole affair is being cast as the left suppressing the right but it's just not. It's just content moderation. We have direct and explicit evidence that Twitter actually promotes right-wing points of view in its algorithm so the idea that they are simultaneously promoting and suppressing right-wing speech is just silly. I'm not naïve enough to discount the possibility that some individuals are doing things they ought not to but this theory that there's a left-wing conspiracy to suppress right-wing speech is exactly what it sounds like: a conspiracy theory. Elon Musk provided the motivation and access to find it if it was there and it wasn't found.

----------


## fafalone

In yet another stunning display of hypocrisy, all the right wingers are up in arms about the Biden *campaign* asking for things to be removed, but have no problem at all that government, in it's official capacity under Trump, was also asking for things for be removed. What was being asked to be removed was quite a bit different too... not that nuance matters when you're trying to own the libs.

And Twitter did have a hacked materials policy, they enforced it, and the NYPost et al were posting hacked materials (the idea Hunter Biden actually left his laptop in some random ass store nowhere near where he lived or worked, abandoned it, then the shop owner recognized it as his because it had a Biden campaign sticker... it's beyond preposterous. The files may be partially authentic, but they were clearly stolen and planted.) There's a good argument to be made major news outlets should be exempt from the policy, but until that's an established policy, conservative speech already got enough special treatment. Framing it as devising an excuse is not reflective of the contents of the posted documents.

Also remember when Twitter declined to implement hate speech/racism controls simply because it would ban too many right wing politicians? Lol.

Conservative: N* N* N* I'm going go to $liberal_politician 's house and kill them!
Twitter/FB: Banned for violating policy.
Conservative: Help muh freeze peach! They're censoring me simply for having conservative views!
Other conservatives on every social media site, Fox News, OAN, Newsmax, Breitbart, and dozens of other outlets: We're being silenced! You know we're being silenced because we're telling you all about it through endless platforms!
Other conservatives: Dems are suppressing free speech!
Republicans in Florida and other states: Pass laws banning speech they don't like, use the force of government to punish companies for speech they don't like.
Conservatives: ::crickets::

----------


## wes4dbt

Instead of working from home, Musk seems to prefer you make the office your home.  lol

https://fortune.com/2022/12/07/elon-...de-inspection/

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Aww, I was going to make a comment that beds aren't hard core, beanbags are, but the article beat me to it.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Aww, I was going to make a comment that beds aren't hard core, beanbags are, but the article beat me to it.


I remember lining up chairs to make a bed.

----------


## Peter Porter

> Instead of working from home, Musk seems to prefer you make the office your home.  lol
> 
> https://fortune.com/2022/12/07/elon-...de-inspection/


Those beds are not gonna make hell comfortable.

I doubt his employees would be able to sleep a full hour uninterrupted, since they're all floaters now to fill multiple duties each that they weren't hired for and have little to know knowledge of.

----------


## sapator

That's is funny. I have written this before somewhere. In Greece you are not only doing one duty per job, so I have taken duties from software and database to accounting and hardware. Even HR department duties.
So, BRING IT ON ELON!!

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> that's is funny. I have written this before somewhere. In greece you are not only doing one duty per job, so i have taken duties from software and database to accounting and hardware. Even hr department duties.
> So, bring it on elon!!


ha!!

Hmmm, my post got edited. How about  :LOL:  :LOL:  :LOL:  :LOL:  :LOL:

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I remember lining up chairs to make a bed.


I guess a fireman on a bed ready to slide down a pole tops IT on a bed in an office...

----------


## Peter Porter

> That's is funny. I have written this before somewhere. In Greece you are not only doing one duty per job, so I have taken duties from software and database to accounting and hardware. Even HR department duties.


I do about everything at my job, which has saved me from massive layoffs recently.

Were a private company, so I don't see us going under.

----------


## jmcilhinney

There's nothing wrong with people taking on multiple responsibilities and it's almost bound to happen in small company. In a big company, where people are hired with specific expectations though, it's far less acceptable, especially when the need for them to take on those responsibilities occurs because you already fired the people who were originally hired to fulfil them. I understand the need for Twitter to be profitable but one of the main drivers for that at the moment is the fact that Musk greatly overpaid for it, so he's now making the employees suffer for his hubris. Didn't he even state outright before taking over that there wouldn't be mass layoffs, or am I misremembering that?

----------


## wes4dbt

> There's nothing wrong with people taking on multiple responsibilities and it's almost bound to happen in small company. In a big company, where people are hired with specific expectations though, it's far less acceptable, especially when the need for them to take on those responsibilities occurs because you already fired the people who were originally hired to fulfil them. I understand the need for Twitter to be profitable but one of the main drivers for that at the moment is the fact that Musk greatly overpaid for it, so he's now making the employees suffer for his hubris. Didn't he even state outright before taking over that there wouldn't be mass layoffs, or am I misremembering that?


Whether he did say there wouldn't be mass layoffs or not, what a suck place to work.  Feel bad for the people that can't afford to leave.  Feel sad for the people that believe they owe Musk their servitude.  He wouldn't do the same for them.

----------


## dilettante

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."

Pretty much sums up Silicon Valley.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."
> 
> Pretty much sums up Silicon Valley.


Why? In what way? For one thing, you could EASILY find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. For another thing, it's a gross exaggeration to paint Silicon Valley as being a monolithic, homogenous, block, let alone being either scum or villainy. So you don't like the actions or views of some subset of a population, one that you are usually lumped in with by the way, since Silicon Valley isn't one area, but to say it's either wretched, scum, or villainy doesn't seem supported by...anything. 

A hive, on the other hand...well, that fits pretty well.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Why? In what way? For one thing, you could EASILY find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. For another thing, it's a gross exaggeration to paint Silicon Valley as being a monolithic, homogenous, block, let alone being either scum or villainy. So you don't like the actions or views of some subset of a population, one that you are usually lumped in with by the way, since Silicon Valley isn't one area, but to say it's either wretched, scum, or villainy doesn't seem supported by...anything. 
> 
> A hive, on the other hand...well, that fits pretty well.


I think your are beeing a little dramatic.  It was a honey of a post but I had to comb through some of it.  I hope my post doesn't sting you.  Your friends might swarm against me.

----------


## dilettante

You may be clover doing it.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Why? In what way?


Because they tend to lean left politically. I mean, what more do you need?

----------


## wes4dbt

In terms of Twitter, SF is not in Silicon Valley, it's north of Santa Clara county which is Silicon Valley.  Though people who don't live around here tend to use the term to include anything from San Jose to SF.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

The rest of the country makes little distinction. Silicon Valley is pretty much synonymous with software companies, and coders. Who is located where is not something I've ever heard anybody pay any attention to.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Who is located where is not something I've ever heard anybody pay any attention to.


Now you have.  No need to thank me.

When the term got started it had a lot to do with all the "hi tech" industry, not just software.  "hi tech" that's funny.  What we considered hi tech in 1982 was a $2,000 IBM PC with a 8088 chip and two floppy drives.  I moved away 37 yrs ago.  Only about 75miles but no traffic jams around here.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

When I said, "the rest of the country", I meant those outside of California. You are not outside of California, so you don't count in that grouping.

However, thank you for making some kind of sense out of that mess of a sentence that you quoted. I couldn't figure it out when I saw it in a quote.

----------


## wes4dbt

Maybe the real reason Musk bought Twitter is so no one can sensor him.  

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/ente...190730179.html

There's a Tesla plant close to here and I remember Musk refusing to follow the COVID guidelines at the plant.  

$44Bln is an awful lot to pay for a Bully Pulpit.  lol

----------


## TysonLPrice

The downward spiral continues...but I guess it is "free" speech:



> Over the weekend, Elon Musk called for the prosecution of Anthony S. Fauci, the leading infectious-disease expert in the Biden administration. My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci, Musk tweeted, mocking transgender people for good measure. Musk then endorsed a complicated right-wing conspiracy theory about Faucis role in the covid-19 pandemic.

----------


## dilettante

The truth is like holy water on a vampire, eh?

----------


## sapator

Vaxbies vaxbies living on the road.
Anyhow, how is this "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci, Musk tweeted, mocking transgender people for good measure" ,
a mocking of transgender people? That seems like: Oh I lost my keys...Hey!Stop mocking transgender people!  Does not make sense.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> The truth is like holy water on a vampire, eh?


For people that believe in things like that....

----------


## sapator

That reminded me of a scene in Erik the viking where the priest does not believe in Valhalla and he can enter through the closed door because it's not there.  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Vaxbies vaxbies living on the road.
> Anyhow, how is this "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci, Musk tweeted, mocking transgender people for good measure" ,
> a mocking of transgender people? That seems like: Oh I lost my keys...Hey!Stop mocking transgender people!  Does not make sense.


I'll assume that it's the fact that you're not a native English speaker that is to blame for this answer not being obvious. If Musk wants Fauci prosecuted, why can he not just say that? Why does he have to bring up pronouns in a context where they are not relevant? The words he specified are not pronouns. Pronouns are obviously an issue relating to transgender people but that's irrelevant in this context. This is clearly Musk trying to garner support form people who hate transgender people by letting them know that he hates them too. It might be considered a dog whistle if it wasn't so blatant.

----------


## sapator

I have to admit I had no idea because using the word, pronouns, as the phrase goes, makes no sense in Greek language. I would have never have guessed that it specify transgender and I'm still skeptical.What does Fauci have to do with transgender?
Anyhow if it's an American "slang" then OK.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> What does Fauci have to do with transgender?


Nothing, which is the problem in the first place. It is transgender and non-binary people who most often specify their preferred pronouns, so that people will use those rather than what they may otherwise assume, e.g. a non-binary person would generally say "my pronouns are they/them" so that people use they/them rather than he/him or she/her based on the person's appearance. Trust me, every native English speaker here knows exactly what he meant. Perhaps there would be one or two who might try to deny that, but they would be the ones who think that mocking transgender and non-binary people is a good thing and the very people that Musk was trying to get support from through that shared position.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> I have to admit I had no idea because using the word, pronouns, as the phrase goes, makes no sense in Greek language. I would have never have guessed that it specify transgender and I'm still skeptical.What does Fauci have to do with transgender?
> Anyhow if it's an American "slang" then OK.


It's not "slang" exactly...or maybe it is. As a person who frequently plays with words to make puns, even if they are a stretch, I somewhat appreciate the craft behind what Musk was saying, but he reached way too far. That's so much of a stretch that your confusion is understandable. It's largely a US cultural reference...strained to the extreme. 

It's like rock: Once you put it under enough pressure, it will transform into something else, which is related to what it was originally, but is not that. If you understand the chemistry and physics well enough you can kind of see where it came from, but otherwise it's something totally different.

That was leading up to a gneiss pun, but I never really went there.

----------


## TysonLPrice

I'm wondering where Musk's bottom is...




> Elon Musk escalated his battle of words with previous managers of Twitter into risky new territory over the weekend, allying himself with far-right crusaders against a purported epidemic of child sex abuse and implying that the companys former head of trust and safety had a permissive view of sexual activity by minors.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...ld-porn-qanon/

----------


## dilettante

I can't imagine where you have to be standing for concern about the sexual abuse of children to be "far right."

It explains a lot though.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I can't imagine where you have to be standing for concern about the sexual abuse of children to be "far right."


Concern about sexual abuse of minors is certainly not far right.  A concerted attempt to equate queer people with paedophiles, though, the far right's been all over that one for years.

----------


## dilettante

Caught in one lie, turn to another?

----------


## FunkyDexter

Confronted with reality, insert your own.

(Click your word of choice.  There was no shortage of material so I included a variety)

----------


## sapator

> It's largely a US cultural reference...strained to the extreme.


I can only think of the times I insulted someone due to "cultural reference"  :Stick Out Tongue: 




> It's like rock: Once you put it under enough pressure, it will transform into something else, which is related to what it was originally, but is not that. If you understand the chemistry and physics well enough you can kind of see where it came from, but otherwise it's something totally different.


I think you meant to use a paromoiosis for coal.I think rocks can change but not so much, unless they become magma and then cool down but that is not a pressure recreation.
Under pressure, people on streets dirariraraa.

----------


## wes4dbt

> It's not "slang" exactly...or maybe it is. As a person who frequently plays with words to make puns, even if they are a stretch, I somewhat appreciate the craft behind what Musk was saying, but he reached way too far. That's so much of a stretch that your confusion is understandable. It's largely a US cultural reference...strained to the extreme. 
> 
> It's like rock: Once you put it under enough pressure, it will transform into something else, which is related to what it was originally, but is not that. If you understand the chemistry and physics well enough you can kind of see where it came from, but otherwise it's something totally different.
> 
> That was leading up to a gneiss pun, but I never really went there.


It is strange how we can narrow a topic down to one word.  If you use the word "pronoun" we all know your referring to the transgender identity issue and free speech issue.  Until recently you hardly ever heard the word "pronoun"  except from an English teacher.  lol

Now it's one of those buzz words like Woke.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Agreed.  It's use definitely not limited to the USA either.  Everyone knows what it means.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> I can only think of the times I insulted someone due to "cultural reference"


We would say "cultural difference", not "cultural reference".





> I think you meant to use a paromoiosis for coal.I think rocks can change but not so much, unless they become magma and then cool down but that is not a pressure recreation.
> Under pressure, people on streets dirariraraa.


Metamorphic rocks. They can be quite weird. There are some rocks in Idaho where individual inclusions have been stretched and deformed into sausage shaped things...or maybe Amazon symbols. Perhaps the state was branded in the distant past? Anyways, they were pressured into it, as no self-respecting crystal would deform like that on their own.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> It is strange how we can narrow a topic down to one word.  If you use the word "pronoun" we all know your referring to the transgender identity issue and free speech issue.  Until recently you hardly ever heard the word "pronoun"  except from an English teacher.  lol
> 
> Now it's one of those buzz words like Woke.


Yeah, it's like we're separating into pronoun and antinoun.

----------


## sapator

> Yeah, it's like we're separating into pronoun and antinoun.


And just like that, a linguist hanged himself  :Stick Out Tongue:   ,but I get the "difference" you try to make.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Caught in one lie, turn to another?


Don't blame us for your determination to misunderstand what was said in the first place. Musk is doing what so many who claim to be centrists do, yourself included. He says that he's in the middle, yet consistently repeats right-wing - often far-right - talking points.

----------


## dilettante

And so the pattern of personal attacks continues while moderation fails to act.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> And so the pattern of personal attacks continues while moderation fails to act.


And so the pattern of playing the victim continues. I'm just calling your behaviour as I see it. There was no personal attack. It's pretty obvious that you took the least charitable interpretation of several comments that you possibly could when it was clear to me that the implication was something else. You then called two people liars based on that interpretation, so if I'm attacking you, you were attacking them. Get over it. As for the rest, it's a fact that so-called centrists often repeat right-wing talking points. You may not consider them right-wing because you're the one repeating them and you don't consider yourself right-wing, but that doesn't change the facts. Again, I'm not making a personal attack. I'm just making an observation about behaviour. If you don't want to be accused of repeating right-wing talking points, the best way would be to stop repeating right-wing talking points.

----------


## dilettante

There is nothing "so called" about the bulk of humanity.  The tiny minority of extremists from both ends of the spectrum are vocal far beyond their significance in society.

The best thing about the changes at Twitter is the exposure of societal rot.  Hopefully we get some appropriate prosecutions and then move on to clean up more of these pits of vipers.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> There is nothing "so called" about the bulk of humanity.


I don't dispute that. One question, though, is whether many who consider themselves to be part of that bulk actually are. I believe that you're American and, as Americans tend to do, you judge the world from an American POV. Niya has referred to many of us here as extremists and, while I don't think you have said so outright, I get the feeling that you agree. The fact is that, while I am definitely left of centre, I'm far from extreme her in Australia. i think the same could be said for FunkyDexter in the UK. The fact is that, politically, America is to the right from the outset, so what you consider the centre is already to the right. Speaking from an Australian perspective, we've had a right-wing prime minister not too long ago who was possibly to the left of Joe Biden and our most successful right-wing PM's crowning achievement was enacting strong gun control laws.

Another question is also whether that bulk is actually in what could be considered the centre. If you have a scale from 0 to 100 and you have a bell curve with a peak at, for instance, 75, does that mean that the centre is 75 rather than 50?

In short, you're not the "enlightened centrist" you think you are. You like to think that your positions are what's normal and what should be but they are just what you want, as is the case for everyone. I'm sure I agree with some of them but I obviously disagree with some too. We all reasoned ourselves to our positions one way or another and those whose reasoning is "it's in the middle so it must be right" are simply deluding themselves.

----------


## wes4dbt

> America is to the right from the outset,


Maybe to the right of Europe and Australia but not the world.  Unless places like China, India, Russia, South America ... are far more left than I believe.  I'd say the US is to the left of most countries.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Maybe to the right of Europe and Australia but not the world.


Of Western countries, which America generally considers to be the best countries and the ones that they're the boss of.



> Unless places like China, [...] ... are far more left than I believe.


I thought that "communist China" was the leftest of the left. Of course, whatever country we're talking about, there's a distinction to be made between social and fiscal positions. There's plenty of Democrats who would be considered socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Unless places like China, India, Russia, South America


I think you might be equating Right wing with Autocratic.  As JM said, I think most people would describe China as Left.  The same of large sections of South America.  Russia's pretty definitely Right and India... I don't know, kinda Centre.

Of course, all of this is an over simplification, particularly where social issues are concerned.  Economics can be separated fairly easily along a single axis, it's Keynes vs Hayek.  But social issues change from country to country.

----------


## sapator

Ye in Greece we have lefts with right pockets and rights with left believes.
The latest example the scandal in EU and Qatar (if you haven't noticed) that our "left" member of parliament and  one of vice presidents of the European Parliament has involved in a multi million dollar scandal. Good for her. Also she is gorgeous! https://www.subenelux.org/people/eva-kaili/  , PASOK party, creating scandals since 1974. Go grease balls!

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Yeah, she's certainly the type one would like to have a scandal with.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I think you might be equating Right wing with Autocratic. As JM said, I think most people would describe China as Left. The same of large sections of South America. Russia's pretty definitely Right and India... I don't know, kinda Centre.


You really think India is center.  With their treatment of women.  I equate right/left with social equality, individual freedoms, inclusion/acceptance and helping the disadvantaged.  So, I can't view China as Left.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I thought that "communist China" was the leftest of the left.


I know you don't believe China has a true "communist" government.  So your going to have to explain what makes China the "leftest of the left".  




> There's plenty of Democrats who would be considered socially liberal but fiscally conservative.


True, I probably fall into that group.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Communism is generally considered to be far left. However, true communism is mostly just totally unstable. It will devolve into some other form of government within days or weeks, if it doesn't start out that way. What it tends to devolve into is some form of autocracy, which have tended to be socially conservative and fiscally far left. Then the problems with being fiscally far left (state dictated economy) show up, and the economy will turn into either kleptocracy or increasingly capitalistic...or a bit of both. The social conservatism seems to be retained, though, with the result that they have the name "Communist", but are right wing on social issues and pretty nearly anywhere on economic issues.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Communism is generally considered to be far left. However, true communism is mostly just totally unstable. It will devolve into some other form of government within days or weeks, if it doesn't start out that way. What it tends to devolve into is some form of autocracy, which have tended to be socially conservative and fiscally far left. Then the problems with being fiscally far left (state dictated economy) show up, and the economy will turn into either kleptocracy or increasingly capitalistic...or a bit of both. The social conservatism seems to be retained, though, with the result that they have the name "Communist", but are right wing on social issues and pretty nearly anywhere on economic issues.


Thanks for your explanation.  I didn't know "state dictated economy" would be considered far left.  That's interesting.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

It's usually the only part of a communist system that survives for any length of time. It's ideal for state capture and kleptocracies, which might be why it tends to survive.

----------


## dilettante

There are other voices around the world speaking up for letting the daylight in to Twitter:

What Twitter Files brought to light is only the tip of the iceberg: Lessons India needs to draw to avoid being Titanic




> American billionaire Elon Musk bought social media giant Twitter in November 2022. You already know that. You also know he promised to bring transparency to Twitter and has allowed some journalists access to Twitters past operations. The information that has been exposed so far, dubbed Twitter files, is very worrying. It is a story of power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.





> Twitter plays an important part in the conservative electoral backlash of the 2010 decade in the west. This does not go unnoticed. Soon Twitter comes up with noble-sounding words like safety, protection of vulnerable populations, hate speech, even more subjective hateful conduct, special privileges for activists etc as excuses to censor speech. Censorship is kept completely opaque, highly subjective and unprofessionally biased. People are shadow-banned while Twitter executives hide behind technicalities to publicly lie about it. The company is staffed almost exclusively with leftist activists. Users who say things that Twitter employees do not like are summarily de-platformed. Tellingly, even humour challenging leftist ideas is curtailed. Elections are influenced. Like-minded far-left fact checkers are deployed to officially become the arbiters of truth. Twitter becomes a weapon of power control.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> There are other voices around the world speaking up for letting the daylight in to Twitter:
> 
> What Twitter Files brought to light is only the tip of the iceberg: Lessons India needs to draw to avoid being Titanic


You really dig deep for your crap...at least this time it wasn't a video..




> OpIndia is an Indian right-wing news website that frequently publishes misinformation. Founded in December 2014, the website has published fake news and Islamophobic commentary on multiple occasions, including a 2020 incident in which it falsely claimed that a Hindu boy was sacrificed in a Bihar mosque.


https://www.google.com/search?q=what...hrome&ie=UTF-8

----------


## TysonLPrice

I'm still waiting for the bottom...




> Twitter owner Elon Musks boosting of far-right memes and grievances has injected new energy into the jumbled set of conspiracy theories known as QAnon, a fringe movement that Twitter and other social networks once banned as too extreme.
> 
> Tech is not your friend. We are. Sign up for The Tech Friend newsletter.
> The billionaire has spread bogus theories about the violent attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband to his 120 million followers, and he called for the criminal prosecution of infectious-disease expert Anthony S. Fauci. He has thrown around baseless accusations about adults sexualizing children, helping stir up an angry online mob against Yoel Roth, a former Twitter safety executive Musk praised in October for his high integrity.


  :Smilie: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...vival-twitter/

----------


## dilettante

So when I quote the Washington Post it's "right-wing nonsense" but when you do it's supernaturally pure?  Face it, you won't accept anything that doesn't prop up your narrative.

So you want a video?

----------


## sapator

Oh they are doing it here too. No cross on the flag, no saints pictures at schools no stable with Christ etc.
For a country that is over 95% Christians they sure get by easily...Until the elections (hopefully). Soros play a big part with his organizations....The traitor of Jews the butcher of...Lol, I got the Niya's again  :Stick Out Tongue: 

Edit: Second time. When I write "Soros" we get an earthquake here.Is it random?I don't think so! :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  :big yellow:

----------


## TysonLPrice

> So when I quote the Washington Post it's "right-wing nonsense" but when you do it's supernaturally pure?  Face it, you won't accept anything that doesn't prop up your narrative.
> 
> So you want a video?


You have that wrong....After a couple of times wasting my time looking at the crap you post I stopped.  It has been a while since I opened any link you post.  At least I post the point I'm trying to make.  You make us wade through nonsense and leave it up to us to figure it out.

When the Washington Post gets something wrong the print a retraction.  I'm still waiting for yours.  Have you every heard of "projection"?

----------


## TysonLPrice

Heh heh...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...sweeney-talks/




> Jack Sweeney, a sophomore at the University of Central Florida, was a big fan of the billionaire industrialist Elon Musk. In 2020, Sweeney launched a Twitter account, @ElonJet, that used public air-travel data to map the flights of Musks private jet, thinking itd be cool to track how Musk managed his business empire.
> 
> But when Sweeney woke up Wednesday morning, he was stunned to see that the 530,000-follower account on Twitter, the social media platform Musk bought in October, had been permanently suspended without explanation. A notice on Sweeneys Twitter account said only that the company had, after careful review  determined your account broke the Twitter rules, without saying which rules it broke.


Another article points to this explanation by Musk and is not as critical of his decision.




> But Mr Musk tweeted on Wednesday evening: "Any account doxxing real-time location info of anyone will be suspended, as it is a physical safety violation. This includes posting links to sites with real-time location info."


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63978323

----------


## sapator

I'm at loss here.
Does twitter suspend accounts that post real time location of persons?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I'm at loss here.
> Does twitter suspend accounts that post real time location of persons?


I don't know whether they have done in the past, but it sounds like Musk wants to from now on. I'm not against it either. It doesn't sound like this particular person was being malicious but, regardless of the intention, the information could be used by someone who was.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I had heard that Musk reinstated the account, but took the position that no real time tracking would be allowed. Of course, in this case it's a bit pointless. Airplanes have trackers on them, and that is publicly available data. Whether that publicly available data is re-published to Twitter seems like splitting hairs, to me. I can understand Musk being uncomfortable with that data being out there, but he didn't change that. All he changed was one venue where it was republished, which really shouldn't ease his discomfort on the subject.

----------


## sapator

Nah, you're just afraid that I will hunt you down in the mountains an blabber you to death!  :LOL:

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I'm at loss here.
> Does twitter suspend accounts that post real time location of persons?


It is the location of the plane, not necessarily the person.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I don't know whether they have done in the past, but it sounds like Musk wants to from now on. I'm not against it either. It doesn't sound like this particular person was being malicious but, regardless of the intention, the information could be used by someone who was.


Maybe it shouldn't be public information anymore than.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Nah, you're just afraid that I will hunt you down in the mountains an blabber you to death!


You'd never be able to find me...but if you do, please tell me where I am...

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I had heard that Musk reinstated the account, but took the position that no real time tracking would be allowed. Of course, in this case it's a bit pointless. Airplanes have trackers on them, and that is publicly available data. Whether that publicly available data is re-published to Twitter seems like splitting hairs, to me. I can understand Musk being uncomfortable with that data being out there, but he didn't change that. All he changed was one venue where it was republished, which really shouldn't ease his discomfort on the subject.


I think it's still OK to not allow that sort of thing on Twitter. It's often the case that personal information is available publicly if people are prepared to look for it but most people are lazy and won't do so. If someone gets that information and puts it in an easily accessible place like Twitter then that can encourage people to use it nefariously who wouldn't do so otherwise. I'm not sure that there's a case to be made that providing such information is of genuine benefit to the public so I don't see an issue with disallowing it. It's probably less likely to be a problem when talking about planes but a blanket ban on real-time location data is the easiest way to avoid having to argue about grey areas.

----------


## Peter Porter

You know Elon's affair with Twitter is gonna cots him! It's gonna cots him alot!



https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022...him-tesla.html

----------


## jmcilhinney

> You know Elon's affair with Twitter is gonna cots him! It's gonna cots him alot!


I was going to aks about that.

----------


## Peter Porter

> I was going to aks about that.


The articles title is changed, but with the help of Firefox web developer tools, I restored it to what it was before so I could capture it.  :big yellow: 

I had to remove items from my browser's toolbar so the captured image would fit nicely on VBForums.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> The articles title is changed


We can all make mitsakes. At leats it was online and not in print.

----------


## Peter Porter

> We can all make mitsakes. At leats it was online and not in print.


True, but he could've deleted this pots to kill the URL, and repotsed the article with ist new title.

Thast what I would've done!

I never leave traces of misspellings!  :big yellow:

----------


## jmcilhinney

> True, but he could've deleted this pots to kill the URL, and repotsed the article with ist new title.
> 
> Thast what I would've done!
> 
> I never leave traces of misspellings!


I noticed the headline but not the URL. I guess they wouldn't have wanted to change the URL in case people had already linked to it.

----------


## FunkyDexter

I've never miss-spelt anything in my life.

On the aeroplane data thing, it seems the person who ran that account was publishing similar information for a whole bunch of famous people and was a big fan of Musk.  It wasn't malicious, he was just a bit of a techy geek with a nerdy hobby.  Musk had actually previously tweeted to the guy saying it made him uncomfortable but he was OK with it.  Then a couple of days ago he changed the Twitter rules to prohibit posting tracking data and banned the account.  Details of the reason are sketchy but it sounds like someone was seen stalking Musk's kid and it seems like Musk probably had an understandable change of heart.

I'm with JM that I don't think that stuff is really appropriate to collate onto Twitter but I'm also frankly amazed that this sort of data is publicly available in the first place.  I mean, the real time coordinates of Air Force One would seem to be a pretty big national security risk (although perhaps AFO is exempt, I don't know).

There is a revealing hypocrisy here though.  The Free Speech Absolutist position would surely be to allow that account.  And it gets worse.  As of this morning, Musk has started banning accounts of journalists who even reported on the story.  Couple that with previous decisions to ban parody accounts and anyone who's still arguing that Musk is a champion of the Second Amendment is lying to themselves.

----------


## TysonLPrice

Free speech?

"Musk suspends journalists from Twitter, claims assassination danger"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media...uspended-musk/

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I think it's still OK to not allow that sort of thing on Twitter. It's often the case that personal information is available publicly if people are prepared to look for it but most people are lazy and won't do so. If someone gets that information and puts it in an easily accessible place like Twitter then that can encourage people to use it nefariously who wouldn't do so otherwise. I'm not sure that there's a case to be made that providing such information is of genuine benefit to the public so I don't see an issue with disallowing it. It's probably less likely to be a problem when talking about planes but a blanket ban on real-time location data is the easiest way to avoid having to argue about grey areas.


That seems like a little bit of a stretch...that kind of information is posted all over the place.  You can probably go to most politicians  websites and see where they will be versus Twitter.  If someone is so unhinged if it isn't a Twitter post it would be a newspaper article that sets them off.  I don't see posting that as some kind of threat to Musk.  At least not over eat last two years it has been up.

----------


## Peter Porter

Elon Musk needs to look for better security after being stalked.

----------


## sapator

I'm just noticing people "twitch" when free speech is banned from the right wing "or whateveryouwanttocallit" but there was no problem before when free speech was banned from the left wing "or whateveryouwanttocallit see vaxbies"
Funny how times change.

There is a term for that, a lovely Greek word that my esteemed colleague Funky already used, hypocrisy. Hypo-crisy (Hypo = Greek υπό , down from, below zero, Crisy (no it's not crisis) = judgment) , so it was actually bad judgment, initially.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> arguing that Musk is a champion of the Second Amendment is lying to themselves.


The Second? What is his stand on that one?

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> I'm just noticing people "twitch" when free speech is banned from the right wing "or whateveryouwanttocallit" but there was no problem before when free speech was banned from the left wing "or whateveryouwanttocallit see vaxbies"
> Funny how times change.
> 
> There is a term for that, a lovely Greek word that my esteemed colleague Funky already used, hypocrisy. Hypo-crisy (Hypo = Greek υπό , down from, below zero, Crisy (no it's not crisis) = judgment) , so it was actually bad judgment, initially.


To be clear, I don't have an issue with people banning deliberate misinformation put out to harm people, which is what defined the anti-vax group.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> The Second? What is his stand on that one?


Sorry, brain fart.   :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## sapator

> To be clear, I don't have an issue with people banning deliberate misinformation put out to harm people, which is what defined the anti-vax group.


And how is to define misinformation that large parts of it later proved to be valid? Twitter group? OK so twitter group is also banning deliberate misinformation now by it's current standards that could be valid in the future.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Allow for corrections.  That's not hard.

----------


## sapator

I don't know what is that.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> I'm just noticing people "twitch" when free speech is banned from the right wing "or whateveryouwanttocallit" but there was no problem before when free speech was banned from the left wing "or whateveryouwanttocallit see vaxbies"
> Funny how times change.
> 
> There is a term for that, a lovely Greek word that my esteemed colleague Funky already used, hypocrisy. Hypo-crisy (Hypo = Greek υπό , down from, below zero, Crisy (no it's not crisis) = judgment) , so it was actually bad judgment, initially.


You don't listen. It has been said at least a couple of times in this thread that we think that Elon Musk can do what he wants with Twitter now that he owns it. Our issue the fact that he claimed to want free speech and those who go on about free speech all the time claimed to as well and lauded him for it, but he hasn't delivered that and those people still laud him. We said from the start that he wasn't going to do what he claimed he was and was actually likely to use his position to suppress those who criticised him and his fans and supporters jeered, but now that he's done exactly that they cheer. When they see speech suppressed on the other side, those who claimed to support free speech before call it "a taste of your own medicine", demonstrating that they didn't really care about free speech in the first place because speech is only free when free for all. Yes, there's hypocrisy alright, but not where you claim it is.

----------


## wes4dbt

This makes sense.  Musk is trying to get investors.

https://www.businessinsider.com/musk...-share-2022-12

He's been doing everything possible to keep Twitter in the news and keep people active on Twitter.

----------


## Peter Porter

> This makes sense.  Musk is trying to get investors.
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/musk...-share-2022-12


He should just create alot of NFTs for Twitter. I'm sure alot of Trump supporters would jump at it!  :big yellow: 

If Trump can sell-out his NFT trading cards in a week, his people will be all over NFT Twitter shares, which should sell-out within a month or two! All Elon has to do is stay Right, and maybe tease about throwing his hat into the 2024 election, having some rallies, in order to quickly sell his NFTs so the price stays close to $54.20.

Cash-out everytime he meets a set minimum of sells to lesson the impact of crypto down-turns.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Musk is trying to get investors.


I don't think I buy it.  If he was trying to get investors _at any price_ so he could off-load and cut his losses, that I could see.  But the article reckons he's hoping to achieve the price he paid for it.  He's got snowballs chance of that and he knows it.  He paid over it's value _before_ he went ahead and tanked that value even further.




> If Trump can sell-out his NFT trading cards in a week...


I wonder who would win in a fight between a Squirtle and a Trumpazord.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I don't think I buy it.  If he was trying to get investors _at any price_ so he could off-load and cut his losses, that I could see.  But the article reckons he's hoping to achieve the price he paid for it.  He's got snowballs chance of that and he knows it.  He paid over it's value _before_ he went ahead and tanked that value even further.
> 
> 
> I wonder who would win in a fight between a Squirtle and a Trumpazord.


He's managed to keep Twitter public interest pretty high.  The current share price is $53.70.  

There's only one way a fight between Musk and Trump could end.  They both would win.

----------


## szlamany

Why not join Twitter and ask Musk about his motivations.  He would debate you - he's debating lots of folk constantly.  I'm following it with tons of enjoyment!

----------


## wes4dbt

> Why not join Twitter and ask Musk about his motivations.  He would debate you - he's debating lots of folk constantly.  I'm following it with tons of enjoyment!


Why?  He has stated his motivations publicly several times.  Plus the fact I don't find him to be credible.  His words and his actions don't match.  So not much reason to listen to what he says.  Except as a fun distraction.  And I can get plenty of that from the daily headlines, no need to join Twitter.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> I wonder who would win in a fight between a Squirtle and a Trumpazord.


The Squirtle would win, but the Trumpazord would claim it was rigged.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Why not join Twitter and ask Musk about his motivations.  He would debate you - he's debating lots of folk constantly.  I'm following it with tons of enjoyment!


That does sound like good entertainment. Nothing like a good ol' brawl. We certainly enjoy them.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Why not join Twitter and ask Musk about his motivations


Because it's not worth $8 a month for me to do so while I can simply watch him crash and burn from the side lines.

----------


## szlamany

> Because it's not worth $8 a month for me to do so while I can simply watch him crash and burn from the side lines.


What makes you think it costs $8 a month?

----------


## TysonLPrice

> What makes you think it costs $8 a month?


Depends...you can join for free but...




> Twitter is increasing the price of its subscription service. Moving forward, Twitter Blue will cost $8 per month in the US, with pricing in other countries adjusted for the purchasing power of consumers in those markets, Twitter owner and CEO Elon Musk announced today. The $3 jump from Blue's current $5 per month fee amounts to a 60 percent price increase.


https://www.engadget.com/twitter-blu...180319987.html

----------


## wes4dbt

Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between Twitter Blue and the free version?

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between Twitter Blue and the free version?


On Blue, everybody posts naked.

----------


## wes4dbt

> On Blue, everybody posts naked.


Well I sure hope VBF doesn't start  charging for that.  I'm on a fixed income.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> What makes you think it costs $8 a month?


If you want your posts to be seen by anyone you need Twitter Blue.  If you don't have it your posts are deprioritised.  Musk has been quite explicit about that.  (Because nothing says free speech like shadow banning anyone who doesn't pay you $100 a year).




> He's managed to keep Twitter public interest pretty high. The current share price is $53.70


Yes and no.  Twitter was delisted when Musk took it over, meaning it's not actually being traded on the open market.  So the share price at present is whatever Musk says it is but that's not the same as anyone actually be willing to pay that.

Edit>Somethings else I meant to clarify, I learned more about the whole airplane data thing and it turns out Musk was being misleading again.  The data isn't his exact position, it's the city his plane would be in.  If that puts him at risk of assassination then someone really needs to investigate the danger Ticket Master are exposing every touring musician to.  As for the stalker incident, he claims someone jumped on the bonnet of the car his son was in.  Funny thing though, he didn't report it to the police.  Just tweeted it and used it as a premise to ban a load of journalists who, entirely coincidentally, had criticised him.  It's almost like he doesn't actually believe in free speech at all.

In further news, he's banned linking to other social media platforms because... free speech?  Tesla stock is tanking hard as he off loads a few extra billion because his money wasn't the first in and sure as hell ain't being the last out.  And he ran a poll asking if he should step down as a CEO and got a resounding "Yes!" because narcissists tend not to realise what everyone thinks of them.

----------


## TysonLPrice

Late Sunday, Musk launched a Twitter poll asking his 122 million followers, Should I step down as head of Twitter? He said he would abide by the results, later adding, As the saying goes, be careful what you wish, as you might get it.

I might pay $8.00 and vote go...

----------


## sapator

He is either playing everyone crowing like pawns or his intention are real.
Either way I  had a few backets of fried chicken (I don't like popcorn so I picket the next close option to artery clogging) comfortably seating on the couch and watching the match.

P.S. As I've said match. Argentina won the world cup, WTH? I rooted for them and voila! Now I root Musk keep playing with twitter.  :Smilie: 

Edit. WTH is ok but WT---F will show *** . Should I pay 8$ to vbforums?  :Big Grin:

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I had a few backets of fried chicken


_Now_ you're talking my language.

----------


## sapator

:Stick Out Tongue: 

Except here we consider it "garbage food". You know, Mediterranean cuisine, the best! But it doesn't hurt to swallow a couple of kentucky's here and there  :Wink:

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Except here we consider it "garbage food". You know, Mediterranean cuisine, the best! But it doesn't hurt to swallow a couple of kentucky's here and there


And wash it down with American Champaign - Coca-Cola....

----------


## NeedSomeAnswers

> I had a few backets of fried chicken





> Except here we consider it "garbage food"


I thought most people considered it garbage food, but sometimes garbage food is what you want.





> Why not join Twitter and ask Musk about his motivations. He would debate you - he's debating lots of folk constantly.





> Why? He has stated his motivations publicly several times. Plus the fact I don't find him to be credible. His words and his actions don't match.


Musk is like many powerful rich men, is so used to everyone just doing what he says or else, he seems to have forgotten how to interact with people who dont work for him, and he cant fire. He has such a thin skin and makes such knee jerk decisions, and he cant seem to see the hypocrisy of the positions he takes. 

If you say your a free speech absolutist, then how does that reconcile with banning Journalist from Twitter immediately for violating new rules you have just made up, and most of the journalist didn't even brake them any way.

If he truly believed in absolute free speech, he wouldn't be banning people that say things he doesn't like, what he really is is a free speech absolutist when he agrees with what is being said.

----------


## TysonLPrice

The poll has closed and 57% want him to step down as CEO.  Let's now wat he does...

----------


## jmcilhinney

> The poll has closed and 57% want him to step down as CEO.  Let's now wat he does...


I'm sure that Dinesh D'Souza will make a documentary explaining how that poll was rigged.

----------


## sapator

He can step down and move the strings from far away. This is business management 101 .

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> He is either playing everyone crowing like pawns or his intention are real.


I've listened to many a pawn, and many a prawn. Neither one did any crowing that I could discern. I'd say you mixed your metaphors, but if that's the case, you've done such a thorough job with the mixing that the constituent metaphors have become unrecognizable.



> Either way I  had a few backets of fried chicken (I don't like popcorn so I picket the next close option to artery clogging) comfortably seating on the couch and watching the match.


That would be a good way to go...unless you get too into it and start pelting your TV with greasy chicken bits.




> Edit. WTH is ok but WT---F will show *** . Should I pay 8$ to vbforums?


No, you should pay it to me. One of those is an acronym for a phrase that contains no words the censors object to, while the other one is discussing Wildly Transgressing Frogs, which was banned after the great Mendhak scandal of '08.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I was thinking that he might be WANTING to step down. I would expect that the joy has been sucked out of the experiment now that reality has reared it's frequently ugly head. Tesla shares are tanking, and it sounds like he's getting internal pushback from other endeavors (such as Tesla) that are feeling forgotten.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I was thinking that he might be WANTING to step down. I would expect that the joy has been sucked out of the experiment now that reality has reared it's frequently ugly head. Tesla shares are tanking, and it sounds like he's getting internal pushback from other endeavors (such as Tesla) that are feeling forgotten.


Your probably right.  He has put a huge amount of effort and time into Twitter.  He has managed to keep Twitter in the news but I'm not sure that will equate into profits.

----------


## sapator

> I've listened to many a pawn, and many a prawn. Neither one did any crowing that I could discern. I'd say you mixed your metaphors, but if that's the case, you've done such a thorough job with the mixing that the constituent metaphors have become unrecognizable.
> 
> 
> That would be a good way to go...unless you get too into it and start pelting your TV with greasy chicken bits.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you should pay it to me. One of those is an acronym for a phrase that contains no words the censors object to, while the other one is discussing Wildly Transgressing Frogs, which was banned after the great Mendhak scandal of '08.



OK you made my day!
First of...Eat metaphors suuckkkeeerrrssss!!! Muharahaaarrr!
Secondly I would rather kill myself rather than becoming a late White Goodman but that is just me.
And what was the...AH the big Ribbit,Ribbit of 08, those where the days...Although I think it was Wrongly Trespassing Frogbany but I might be wrong.

----------


## szlamany

> If you want your posts to be seen by anyone you need Twitter Blue.  If you don't have it your posts are deprioritised.  Musk has been quite explicit about that.


Nope - that is not the case at all.  Blue checks will not float higher - it's quality of content (curated by the users themselves).

All of the users of twitter are experiencing this now - both blue checked and not checked.

You all should stop listening to moderated news platforms that possibly could have an agenda.

They certainly are telling tall tales about Twitter...

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Secondly I would rather kill myself rather than becoming a late White Goodman but that is just me.


I didn't know who White Goodman was, so I had to look that up. I've never seen the movie, though I'm always up for a comedy, so perhaps I should. If I stumbled upon some reference to a scene in the movie in my reply, it was completely by accident.

----------


## sapator

No you did not stumble.It's a silly comedy but quite enjoyable.
And I think someone haven't seen fight club yeeeet...You know who you are....

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Well, it isn't me, as I did see THAT movie.

----------


## sapator

Yep.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I didn't know who White Goodman was, so I had to look that up. I've never seen the movie, though I'm always up for a comedy, so perhaps I should. If I stumbled upon some reference to a scene in the movie in my reply, it was completely by accident.


Yeah, it's a fun movie.  "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball"  lol

Or something like that.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Yeah, it's a fun movie.  "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball"  lol
> 
> Or something like that.


"Remember the 5 D's of dodgeball: Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge."

----------


## TysonLPrice

Heh, heh...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...uverify%20wall




> Twitter Inc. will restrict voting on major policy decisions to paying Twitter Blue subscribers, company owner Elon Musk said in one of his first tweets following a poll calling for him to step down.
> 
> Responding to a Blue member going by the name Unfiltered Boss, Musk agreed with the suggestion that only subscribers should have a voice in future policy and said, Twitter will make that change. A day earlier, the billionaire chief pledged to submit all future policy decisions to a vote and offered Twitter users a choice on leadership, asking them if he should step down.
> 
> More than 10 million, or 57.5% of the vote, were in favor of Musk relinquishing his role as head of Twitter. He committed to abide by the result when asking for the vote, but nearly a day later, he had tweeted more than 10 times without directly addressing the outcome. Musk responded to a tweet suggesting the poll may have been manipulated by bots with a single word: interesting.

----------


## Peter Porter

> "Remember the 5 D's of dodgeball: Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge."

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Nope - that is not the case at all. Blue checks will not float higher - it's quality of content (curated by the users themselves).


I'm not getting it from "moderated" news platforms, it's what Musk himself tweeted on 1 November:-
"You will also get:
-Priority in replies, mentions & search, which is essential to defeat spam/scam"
I'm just taking the man at his word.

I don't know, maybe he's changed his mind, maybe he was just lying or maybe that was posted by a bot impersonating him.  None of these option incline me to spend time and effort on his platform.

edit>


> Yeah, it's a fun movie. "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball" lol
> 
> Or something like that.


I don't think I'm a lot dumber than you thought that I think that I thought I was once!

----------


## FunkyDexter

I'll be amazed if Musk stands down in any meaningful fashion.  He might hand someone else the title but, as owner, he'll still be the decision maker.  So the whole poll thing's moot, in my opinion.  Just theatre that backfired.

----------


## szlamany

Kim Dot Com suggested that the Musk poll was just one big honey pot - a great way to farm for bots - that could be the whole reason for the poll.

Of course, until Musk too over, Kim Dot Com was banned...

And as for the priority - that makes total sense.  

Previously those tweets that floated to the top were moderated by hired hands.

Even those with "gifted" blue checks were shadow banned.

Now those who want power in their posts can get it for a token fee of $8 bucks a month - someone like Catturd who monetizes his experience on Twitter, this is a good thing.

Musk just introduced BLUE SQUARES for businesses that want certification.

These are all smart business moves, imo, made for a silly little chat platform like Twitter.

As @Jack said recently said, when he was in power, he made great decisions for Twitter stockholders, and really bad decisions for twitter users and the general public.  Those have been fixed by Musk - quickly and intelligently, imo.

----------


## dilettante

Aren't there "yellow checks" now for "news" organizations?

----------


## wes4dbt

Wow, Tesla stock down @ 65% YTD.  Musk's has lost more in Tesla stock value than he paid for Twitter.   I could see why he would like to hand off responsibility of running Twitter to someone else and get back to focusing on other things.

----------


## sapator

He can take a course on how Greek "businessmen" leave people at their place to get the heat. Or visit EU that seems to be full of crooks.But unfortunately you have some idiotic laws in US that needs you to be mostly "legit"  :Cry:

----------


## FunkyDexter

> that could be the whole reason for the poll.


Nah, the reason was that Musk thought it would go the way he wanted it to and he could use the result to thumb his nose at his detractors.  He did this with previous polls e.g. the one to reinstate Trump.  Those polls went his way and he assumed this one would too.

I think that this one didn't go his way when the Trump one did provides an interesting case study on the feeling of Twitter's users divided (lazily, on my part) into Left and Right.  I think most Left users actually care a lot less about Trump being banned than the Right users do, and understandably so.  For the Right, Trump being banned was an attack.  For the Left it was just one less unpleasant voice.  Personally I _don't_ think he should have been banned (I said somewhere up thread that I felt a policy of misinformation content warnings would have served better) but I didn't have a major problem with it given the events his posts precipitated.  I suspect most folks on the Left probably look a lot like me in this regard.

The CEO poll, on the other hand, didn't just attract those who feel his takeover of Twitter represents a threat, it was glorious red meat to anyone who wanted to pop his pomposity.  I'm pretty sure if an uncontroversial CEO (let's say Richard Branson) posted that poll they'd have had exactly the same outcome.  It's the Boaty McBoatface effect.

----------


## sapator

Question.
You are twitter CEO and you have a poll team under supervision on Waylen.H.Funky , the poll is turning left instead of right.
What can you do?

----------


## Peter Porter

> Question.
> You are twitter CEO and you have a poll team under supervision on Waylen.H.Funky , the poll is turning left instead of right.
> What can you do?


Blame the poll's outcome on an onslaught of bots, then ban every user that leans left, no matter if they participated in the poll or not (for good measure), and create new accounts runned by right leaning bots to make up for these exiles.

Polls will forever go the way you want... I mean I want them to!  :big yellow: 

A month of leaning right, the bots go liberal.  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## sapator

That would be awesome, except the supervisor is the notorious Waylen.H.Funky that only cope with polls so he cannot ban users etc.

----------


## Peter Porter

> Originally Posted by Peter Porter
> 
> 
> A month of leaning right, the bots go liberal. 
> 
> 
> That would be awesome,

----------


## FunkyDexter

Waylen H Funky recognises that businesses, unlike nations, operate best as autocracies.  Waylen H Funky has the courage of his convictions where his decisions are concerned. Waylen H Funky does not feel the need to hide behind a pretence of representing the voice of the people when he does something some people won't like.

So Waylen H Funky would not create such a poll in the first place.

----------


## sapator

Ahhh, I sense a relative interrelationship support here...Aunt, cousin?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):   :Big Grin:

----------


## FunkyDexter

Well, we've never met but I'm told he's a stand up guy.  Handsome too.

----------


## sapator

Yep, Musk would never have fired a stand up guy like Waylen H Funky (H for Handsome)  :Wink:

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> He can take a course on how Greek "businessmen" leave people at their place to get the heat. Or visit EU that seems to be full of crooks.But unfortunately you have some idiotic laws in US that needs you to be mostly "legit"


What are you on about? The US has some of the best shell corporation setups and tax havens in the world. We just like moralizing at you unwashed heathens. There are more corporations registered in the state of Delaware than there are people.

----------


## sapator

You might be right but let me write some "benefits" in Greece.
If you are rich, no court can touch you, period.No asterisks no this and that.
IRS will only fine poor people, corporations can get along with million or Euros debt and the IRS fines will be postponed for years. Our company owned to banks from close to 2002 , way before I was here. Final the dept have been washed because a the bank that we had the debt took over, "erased" the dept and sold us to our current mother company debtless.
What else. Ah football team owners control the press that sprout against Russia but sell their tankers do business with Russia (i think I've written that before). If you are rich or a politic slug, you can get a lawn from a bank for 0% interest rate while currently if you are a civilian you will get a finger from the bank, with 0% lubrication. You need more? Most of the companies have their main HO registered just outside of Greece (p.e. Bulgaria) so they can pay a lot less tax, while all the business is in Greece. Politics get's the word from rich tycoons, US and Germany. IRS will only IRS less than rich people, sites are controlled and censored at 99% by the government. We still have to do rapid test if we are not vaxbed to get to work (that was a bonus)....Now you...
Can you steal from IRS and not get fined if you are caught?

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> If you are rich or a politic slug, you can get a lawn from a bank for 0% interest rate


Well, I have 0 interest in my lawn, too.

----------


## sapator

Loan. Anyhow, all the benefits are there if you are rich.

----------


## Peter Porter

> If you are rich or a politic slug, you can get a lawn from a bank for 0% interest rate





> Well, I have 0 interest in my lawn, too.


Me to, and because of that, nutsedge everywhere!

Have a ton of work to do before spring next year, or maybe I'll ask my local bank for a new lawn.  :big yellow:

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Well, just as Sappy says, if I asked my bank for a new lawn, they'd likely give me the finger.

----------


## Peter Porter

> Loan. Anyhow, all the benefits are there if you are rich.


Loans, nice lawns... they have it all!

Shaggy, we need to start a company!

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

We can register it under Alonzo Green.

----------


## sapator

So what are the benefits of US banks and IRS? Or it's just Gardening?

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Compared to what you listed, I'd say we've got nothing.

----------


## sapator

There is more but you get the point.

----------


## Peter Porter

> There is more but you get the point.


I got the point alot from my huge rose bush this past summer.

I still need to trim that sucker down!

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I have a local shrub that I planted in my yard. I forget the name of it, and I might have always had it wrong anyways, but it makes my roses seem downright friendly. It has spikes whose sharpness is only surpassed by their strength. They go through anything I have tried wearing such that hacking back that shrub always results in bleeding. In the wild, it will grow in shaded areas, where the shade keeps it from running wild. In my yard...it runs wild. The birds love it, though. They can hide in there and duck down to the bird bath. Nothing sane would try to pursue a bird into that bush.

----------


## FunkyDexter

My first house had a Pampas Grass out front.  Those in the know will understand that this is a signal to other's that the occupier was open to a certain lifestyle and I wanted rid of it.  The thing felt like it was made of razors and was nearly impossible to kill.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I was not in the know, so I went looking. It appears to be yet another symbol supposedly used to indicate that people who live in the house are open to polyamorous relationships. I've heard of other such symbols, including some use of garden gnomes, but I rather suspect that all such stories are just rumors. They might be self-reinforcing rumors, though.

Still, it's an invasive that is of little use to the native wildlife, and it is known for being sharp enough to be painful, so getting rid of it certainly makes sense.

----------


## Peter Porter

> I have a local shrub that I planted in my yard. I forget the name of it, and I might have always had it wrong anyways, but it makes my roses seem downright friendly. It has spikes whose sharpness is only surpassed by their strength. They go through anything I have tried wearing such that hacking back that shrub always results in bleeding. In the wild, it will grow in shaded areas, where the shade keeps it from running wild. In my yard...it runs wild. The birds love it, though. They can hide in there and duck down to the bird bath. Nothing sane would try to pursue a bird into that bush.


My rose bush is extremely wild. Looks like a huge spider. I'm not sure what kind it is, but it's branches are around 10 feet long, with huge hooks, growing into another bush that has millions of syringe like needles, which is next to another bush that has over a hundred daggers. They were all planted by the previous owner in an area that till this day isn't fenced off.

He must've ran out of wood, and figured these plants would make a great barrier.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Still, it's an invasive


That's what I was worried about  :EEK!:

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I was not in the know, so I went looking. It appears to be yet another symbol supposedly used to indicate that people who live in the house are open to polyamorous relationships. I've heard of other such symbols, including some use of garden gnomes, but I rather suspect that all such stories are just rumors. They might be self-reinforcing rumors, though.
> 
> Still, it's an invasive that is of little use to the native wildlife, and it is known for being sharp enough to be painful, so getting rid of it certainly makes sense.


A red-light district is the extreme...

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

So, back on topic. I heard that Musk has announced that he'll be stepping down as soon as he finds somebody foolish enough to take over. He said it essentially like that, but I think he used a word other than foolish.

This makes sense to me. It's easy to go into something like social media with a utopian, idealistic, view of how it will work out. All you have to do is not think it through. In reality, there will be no right answer. Every choice will suppress some views and favor others, whether you use moderation or not, and regardless of what type of moderation you have. Humans are too messy and too diverse.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Humans are too messy and too diverse.


Yep Just look at keeping Chit Chat clean and most of us try and behave. 

I heard something that is old but struck me funny for some reason.  "You can tune a piano but you can't tuna fish".   That was the title of a REO Speedwagon album, released in 1978.  One I drop once in a while is "time flies like the wind and fruit flies like bananas"  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## wes4dbt

> So, back on topic. I heard that Musk has announced that he'll be stepping down as soon as he finds somebody foolish enough to take over. He said it essentially like that, but I think he used a word other than foolish.
> 
> This makes sense to me. It's easy to go into something like social media with a utopian, idealistic, view of how it will work out. All you have to do is not think it through. In reality, there will be no right answer. Every choice will suppress some views and favor others, whether you use moderation or not, and regardless of what type of moderation you have. Humans are too messy and too diverse.


I've always been messy.

It will be interesting to see if he actually removes himself from the decision making or not.

With Tesla stock down 68% ytd he isn't doing a very good job of earning the $56bln Tesla is paying him.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> It will be interesting to see if he actually removes himself from the decision making or not.


My gut reaction was that I'd be amazed if he did but after mulling it for a few days, I'm not so sure.  I think he came in very cocksure of himself but has suffered a public debagging since and distancing himself probably looks like a pretty attractive option right now.  I don't see a positive future for Twitter with it's current policies and I think it's going to have to change course or die, neither of which Musk will want to be seen as overseeing.




> With Tesla stock down 68% ytd


I think this is being a bit overstated, or at least, the amount that's attributable to the Twitter take over has.  The stock was already trending down before the takeover (though it did see two pronounced drops in April when he announced that he would buy Twitter and in September when it actually happened).  I think a large part of that downward trend is attributable to Tesla not being alone in the EV marketplace any more.  Pretty much all the big manufacturers now have an EV offering and most of them are considerably better than Teslas which are renowned for having low range and a terrible build quality.

The Twitter takeover has certainly battered the Tesla share price but it's not the whole story.  I'll be interested to see if it recovers if and when he steps down or whether it's permanent.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I think this is being a bit overstated, or at least, the amount that's attributable to the Twitter take over has. The stock was already trending down before the takeover (though it did see two pronounced drops in April when he announced that he would buy Twitter and in September when it actually happened).


I wasn't trying to imply buying Twitter was the cause of Tesla's stock drop.  It was interesting to me because it's another large financial blow to Musk.  Musk is the largest share holder and I had read he had lost $47bln in stock value.  And the stock is even lower now.

----------


## Peter Porter

> I recently have seen a Twitter post by Elon Musk where he generated a poll and asked the Twitter community whether they want him to be the CEO or not, and he mentioned that he would abide by the decision of the poll. Majority said he should not be. What's his take on that now? does anyone know? I could not take a proper follow up so please tell me.


You have the internet, and you couldn't follow-up? My first thought wouldn't be to ask programmers what's going on when I have access to every news network worldwide!  :Cool: 

And what's with the  :EEK!:  face? Is this news so important to you?  :big yellow:

----------


## FunkyDexter

Yeah.  Between Tesla and Twitter, his personal wealth is tanking hard.  He's no longer the wealthiest man in the world and I reckon he's slipping down the rungs pretty quick.

Of course, he's just delivered the Tesla truck and _maybe_ that'll turn Tesla but I'm not convinced.  He's quoting some pretty good 0-60 figures but truck drivers couldn't care less about that.  The thing truckers care about is the one metric he's studiously avoided talking about**: load capacity.  I smell a rat.

----------


## Peter Porter

> Yeah.  Between Tesla and Twitter, his personal wealth is tanking hard.  He's no longer the wealthiest man in the world and I reckon he's slipping down the rungs pretty quick.
> 
> Of course, he's just delivered the Tesla truck and _maybe_ that'll turn Tesla but I'm not convinced.  He's quoting some pretty good 0-60 figures but truck drivers couldn't care less about that.  The thing truckers care about is the one metric he's studiously avoided talking about**: load capacity.  I smell a rat.


I'm sure he can turn this all around if he gets back to Tesla, and gives a competent politically neutral replacement total freedom to manage Twitter.

----------


## wes4dbt

I was sort of chuckling to my today when I saw that Tesla was down another 11%   Then it dawned on me that at least one of my mutual funds has Tesla stock.  Maybe they all do.    lol

----------


## dilettante

How much of the drop is Tesla though and how much is the failure of EVs in the marketplace worldwide and the collapse of China's low-ball sector that underpins it?

Why Rivian, Lucid, and ChargePoint All Hit Record Lows Today

Probably the only thing keeping this market sector above water at all is government pressure on the insurance industry keeping it from setting fair market premiums for insuring these dangerous products.  Expect to see emergency services unions, local government employers, and taxpayer groups get involved as well.

Self-guided bombs on wheels, what can go wrong with that?

Even "news" organizations deep in the pocket of the WEF are reporting on the problem:

----------


## dilettante

Lots of hilarious weaseling there as expected though.

Teslas, with all of their woes and inherent inappropriateness as vehicles operated on public roads have far fewer fires, charging woes, etc. than for example the junk from China or Korea or other "US" automakers.  Even if Tesla manages to remain in the market I don't expect the quality to last long as subsidies from Musk, Wall Street, and governments dry up.

----------


## wes4dbt

I'm sure there's no shortage of examples of problems with Ev's.  The internal combustion engine had plenty of problems in the beginning and still does.  Pretty easy to find examples of gas powered car burning up because of electrical issues.  Should we go back to hand cranked cars

What's your point?  Lets stay with gas till oil runs out or till we fine a perfect solution.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Teslas, with all of their woes and inherent inappropriateness as vehicles operated on public roads have far fewer fires, charging woes, etc. than for example the junk from China or Korea or other "US" automakers


Not sure where you're getting that from.  Teslas have been consistently ranking lowest in reliability surveys.  And the most reliable at present is a Kia.

You're 100% correct that EVs in general are ranking much lower than other fuel types for reliability.  They've been hovering at just over an extra 50% of faults and time spent off road.  I don't think that represents an insurmountable hump for a new technology to get past and I think they will mature but, honestly, I wouldn't want to be one of the guinea pigs that buys one yet.

----------


## dilettante

> What's your point?


I'd have thought that's obvious.  Musk's competitors in this highly subsidized airy fairy fabricated market segment for the rich are as bad off if not worse than him.

You were the one who brought this up.  Whiz into the wind, wear it.

----------


## sapator

I'm not an lithium expert sniffer but from abandoned electric scooter farms I've see and articles I've read, we will most probably have to abandon the electrocarzz in the future as recycling is not affordable and the earth does not have that amount of material in contrast to oil. So hopefully we might find new means like sun of air or fart power for the future needs. Will see.

----------


## FunkyDexter

I wouldn't say that the fire risk or reliability is what's supressing the EV market though.  It's lack of range and charging infrastructure (something Musk has exacerbated by making his charging points proprietary) - basically, convenience.

Reliability issues certainly need addressing but shouldn't be insurmountable as manufacturers improve their tech.  I suspect it will need some level of legislation to ensure minimum standards are met though.  Manufacturers have a proven track record of not worrying about that sort of thing unless they're forced to.

And what alternative do you suggest?  As far as I know EV is really the only light on the horizon if we want to move away from fossil fuels.  I'm definitely open to alternatives if you can suggest any - EV is far from perfect.

----------


## sapator

Horse and a carrot in front?  :Big Grin:

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I realize that's not a serious suggestion, but if we were to run with it a bit: Consider the amount of manure that would be created if we were to try to move 8 billion people by horse. One thing seems fairly certain: You'd have a pretty thoroughly cushioned ride.

There are a few points that seem consistent:

1) There is no reason to think technology won't improve.
2) There's no reason to think we'd be better off sticking with fossil fuel based transportation.
3) America really sucks at making good cars when we don't have strong competition forcing us to pay attention to quality.
4) Dil is going to see every change as being a fad/scam foisted on an ignorant people that will ultimately be rejected once they wake up.

----------


## Peter Porter

> Horse and a carrot in front?


Hybrid sapator hamster wheeled powered buses!

----------


## dilettante

Well we had a better thread for this but it fizzled out.

One alternative might be hydrogen combustion.  It seems to be the current path forward for Japan.  Think of it as another way to package, deliver, and consume electricity without all of the woes of battery technology - not as a primary fuel.

There is also plenty that can be done in the interim.  Penalize excessively large and heavy personal vehicles, encourage use of non-plugin hybrid petroleum/electric vehicles that get more value from fuels and reduce demand.


Plenty can be done rather than bowing down like cargo cult worshipers around a false idol while the powerful wring their hands and smile.

----------


## dilettante

Ok, maybe I had that wrong: it sounds like Japan is looking at hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and not hydrogen combustion on the road.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I wouldn't say that the fire risk or reliability is what's supressing the EV market though. It's lack of range and charging infrastructure (something Musk has exacerbated by making his charging points proprietary) - basically, convenience.


It's going to be almost impossible to build the necessary infrastructure if we can't at least have a standard charging plug-in.  It's also time to start working on making the batteries easily recyclable.  We've proven the EV can work and people will buy it but I'm not convinced it's sustainable.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Ok, maybe I had that wrong: it sounds like Japan is looking at hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and not hydrogen combustion on the road.


They could go either way. Fuel cells might be a more efficient way to extract energy from hydrogen, but it's a bit hard to say. Hydrogen is another tech that's 'a few years out' and seems like it will always be. At least it's not three decades out, the way fusion remains. 

I'd like to see hydrogen work out, and don't think it's impossible, but there are several significant hurdles to generating, storing, and transporting. They may be solvable, but they do have to be solved.

----------


## sapator

> I realize that's not a serious suggestion, but if we were to run with it a bit: Consider the amount of manure that would be created if we were to try to move 8 billion people by horse. One thing seems fairly certain: You'd have a pretty thoroughly cushioned ride..


You are not thinking Mad Maxly here. Imagine the Methane!

Also by the time we finish the argument petrol would in some way have become recyclable...

----------


## Peter Porter

> You are not thinking Mad Maxly here. Imagine the Methane!
> 
> Also by the time we finish the argument petrol would in some way have become recyclable...


Since 2015, Nasa has claimed to have developed a technology to convert CO2 to fuel.

From the Wayback machine, in 2015:
https://web.archive.org/web/20151012...atent/TOP2-160

Page still available today:
https://technology.nasa.gov/patent/TOP2-160

----------


## wes4dbt

> They could go either way. Fuel cells might be a more efficient way to extract energy from hydrogen, but it's a bit hard to say. Hydrogen is another tech that's 'a few years out' and seems like it will always be. At least it's not three decades out, the way fusion remains. 
> 
> I'd like to see hydrogen work out, and don't think it's impossible, but there are several significant hurdles to generating, storing, and transporting. They may be solvable, but they do have to be solved.


Yeah, it would be nice.    lol

I saw a show about hydrogen fuel cells @ 20yrs ago.  They were talking something like $200,000 per car back then.  I don't know where the technology is at today.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Since 2015, Nasa has claimed to have developed a technology to convert CO2 to fuel.


Technically, plants beat them to it.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

This is probably a better review of the subject:

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsenergylett.0c00645

----------


## wes4dbt

Well, that's some nice light reading.  All I got to say is Ditto!!!

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

It's an interesting idea. If an economical device can be created that can turn CO2 and light into a usable fuel, that would change the energy calculus rather completely. For that to work, though, it has to be able to create a usable fuel for a reasonable cost. Since some of the more promising technologies can do that passively, it might create a different kind of farming, which could alter the economics of the land in dramatic ways.

----------


## wes4dbt

> It's an interesting idea. If an economical device can be created that can turn CO2 and light into a usable fuel, that would change the energy calculus rather completely. For that to work, though, it has to be able to create a usable fuel for a reasonable cost. Since some of the more promising technologies can do that passively, it might create a different kind of farming, which could alter the economics of the land in dramatic ways.


It would be awesome.  To use new technology to bail us out of the mess we've made using previous technologies.  AT A REASONABLE PRICE!!!  lol

I imagine it can be done.  But will it be done in time?

----------


## dilettante

> It's an interesting idea. If an economical device can be created that can turn CO2 and light into a usable fuel, that would change the energy calculus rather completely.


As far as I can tell we already have that available to us.  It works so well that in Europe theft of wood is out of control as it sinks toward its future of peat and dung.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Wow!  A chit chat thread that's generating real, sensible suggestions and discourse!  It's a Christmas miracle!




> One alternative might be hydrogen combustion. It seems to be the current path forward for Japan. Think of it as another way to package, deliver, and consume electricity without all of the woes of battery technology - not as a primary fuel.


A friend of mine was working on converting petrol cars to Hydrogen decades ago.  I think this would be the hydrogen combustion rather than the hydrogen fuel cells.  I don't know why that idea fizzled out.  I _suspect_ that it was to do with the lack of infrastructure again.




> Penalize excessively large and heavy personal vehicles, encourage use of non-plugin hybrid petroleum/electric vehicles that get more value from fuels and reduce demand.


Agree 100%.

I do have a question about hybrids that some on the forum might be able to answer though.  I looked at buying one last time round but decided not to because I live in a terrace house with on street parking so I know I would _never_ get to charge it directly, I'd always be relying on the petrol engine to charge it.  Under those circumstances, is it still more efficient than a petrol engine and, if so, why?  I'd have thought it would be less efficient as the energy is changing forms an extra time (chemical to electrical then electrical to motion rather than simply chemical to motion) so there would be an extra opportunity for energy to be lost.  I suspect I'm wrong about this and would like to know more.




> America really sucks at making good cars when we don't have strong competition forcing us to pay attention to quality


Ha!  You suck at making good cars when you _do_ have strong competition  :Stick Out Tongue: 




> It's going to be almost impossible to build the necessary infrastructure if we can't at least have a standard charging plug-in. It's also time to start working on making the batteries easily recyclable. We've proven the EV can work and people will buy it but I'm not convinced it's sustainable.


I wonder if you could make the batteries themselves "hot swappable" in a garage.  Obviously, given the weight, it's not something a little old lady could do manually but I do wonder if it could be automated by robotics in some way.  If you could drive an EV into a garage and have drive it away with a full charge in 5 minutes or less I reckon you'd see a much better uptake.  I imagine the infrastructure for that would be hellish expensive though.

Anyway, given recent news, I reckon we're only a few years out from fusion powered cars :big yellow:

----------


## Peter Porter

I mostly stay local, so a home recharge station that uses a stirling engine electric generator powered by the sun would work for me during the summer. I would only need my gas guzzler during the winter, or when the weather is crap for days.

It would only cost a couple of million to help me retire so I can get the project going. Anyone want to pitch-in?  :big yellow:

----------


## sapator

> It's an interesting idea. If an economical device can be created that can turn CO2 and light into a usable fuel, that would change the energy calculus rather completely. For that to work, though, it has to be able to create a usable fuel for a reasonable cost. Since some of the more promising technologies can do that passively, it might create a different kind of farming, which could alter the economics of the land in dramatic ways.


Depends, if we suck CO2 and dispose it slowly  then earth will be left without CO2, aka we are freaked. And I'm writing this as we will supposedly be using it in billions of vehicles sucking CO2.
So, so far the manure - methane solution is the best (thought I should break the sensible suggestions and discourse thread. What where you thinking?!  :Stick Out Tongue:  )

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> A friend of mine was working on converting petrol cars to Hydrogen decades ago.


How strange. A friend of mine was working on converting all forms of food into natural gas. He was really effective at it, too....though some of that gas was pretty unnatural, now that I think about it.




> I do have a question about hybrids that some on the forum might be able to answer though.  I looked at buying one last time round but decided not to because I live in a terrace house with on street parking so I know I would _never_ get to charge it directly, I'd always be relying on the petrol engine to charge it.  Under those circumstances, is it still more efficient than a petrol engine and, if so, why?  I'd have thought it would be less efficient as the energy is changing forms an extra time (chemical to electrical then electrical to motion rather than simply chemical to motion) so there would be an extra opportunity for energy to be lost.  I suspect I'm wrong about this and would like to know more.


I see better gas mileage for plug-in hybrids. This is likely due in large part to their having smaller engines overall.

Keep in mind that starting from a stop and accelerating are the two times when you are burning fuel at the fastest rate. You can see that in a car that has one of those instant consumption gauges. When maintaining speed, you use quite a bit less. When braking, you are converting kinetic energy into heat, which is then wasted. If you converted that kinetic energy into electricity, you can use that to partially recharge some storage (a battery, or something else), which can be used to offset the extra energy used during acceleration. If you then use a bit of the surplus engine power while maintaining speed to produce electricity (you always have, via the alternator, or else you'd be swapping batteries in your cars every few days, so this would just be a slight bit more), you can top off the batteries.

Therefore, you are using the batteries to boost power at the time when you are using the most of it, then gaining some of that back through regenerative braking, rather than turning it into waste heat. You are also siphoning off a bit while maintaining speed, which isn't getting something for nothing, but might allow the engine to run at a more efficient level. And on top of that, you can generally get away with a smaller engine for the same power. That's where I believe pretty much all the advantage comes in.


```
Ha!  You suck at making good cars when you do have strong competition :p
```

While I might make some comment about British automobiles, I'll just note that we were much worse before Japan showed people what reliable cars looked like. Our cars are vastly more reliable as a result of that.





> I wonder if you could make the batteries themselves "hot swappable" in a garage.  Obviously, given the weight, it's not something a little old lady could do manually but I do wonder if it could be automated by robotics in some way.  If you could drive an EV into a garage and have drive it away with a full charge in 5 minutes or less I reckon you'd see a much better uptake.  I imagine the infrastructure for that would be hellish expensive though.


This is what I have always thought would be ideal, but I've also realized it is currently impractical. For one thing, it would require battery standardization, which every car company would currently resists. Another problem is that batteries have to fill whatever space they can because they need to be as large as possible while allowing for other parameters of the car...such as needing room for the driver and passengers, for example. If batteries became considerably more efficient, such that you could get a good range out of a battery of standard, and reasonable, size, then swapping would make more sense. So long as your batteries are stuffed wherever they can fit, it wouldn't be so easy.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Depends, if we suck CO2 and dispose it slowly  then earth will be left without CO2, aka we are freaked. And I'm writing this as we will supposedly be using it in billions of vehicles sucking CO2.


We won't be able to do that. It won't be a case of cars generating their own fuel while driving. It would be a case of farms producing fuel that would then be accumulated, packaged, and sold in a fashion similar to how we currently buy fuel (though likely not quite the same). Also, CO2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, even in elevated levels. Generation would be most effective in high-CO2 environments, so recapture from industry would likely be the first place it would work. That would be win-win for lots of industries. If you can economically sell something you are producing...well, that's business. If it's something that used to be discarded as waste, then all the better.

However, we will always produce CO2, and it will always be consumed.

----------


## sapator

It was a trick question.
The new "story tale" is global warming due to CO2 levels, so by consuming CO2 we will reduce global warming.....
Tell about global warming to NYC btw.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Therefore, you are using the batteries to boost power at the time when you are using the most of it, then gaining some of that back through regenerative braking, rather than turning it into waste heat. You are also siphoning off a bit while maintaining speed, which isn't getting something for nothing, but might allow the engine to run at a more efficient level. And on top of that, you can generally get away with a smaller engine for the same power. That's where I believe pretty much all the advantage comes in.


That makes a lot of sense.

----------


## FunkyDexter

On "sucking" CO2, there have been some great advances in CO2 scrubbing over the last 10 years and it leaves me _cautiously_ optimistic.  If we can moderate out output for the next decade or so I think there's a possibility we could turn a corner and reach a point where we can recover more CO2 than we emit.  Of course, moderation is not something we've been very good at, historically.

----------


## wes4dbt

> On "sucking" CO2, there have been some great advances in CO2 scrubbing over the last 10 years and it leaves me _cautiously_ optimistic.  If we can moderate out output for the next decade or so I think there's a possibility we could turn a corner and reach a point where we can recover more CO2 than we emit.  Of course, moderation is not something we've been very good at, historically.


Your more optimistic than me.  Just because the technology exist doesn't solve much.  Implementing it worldwide isn't something that's going to happen in the next decade or so.




> While I might make some comment about British automobiles, I'll just note that we were much worse before Japan showed people what reliable cars looked like. Our cars are vastly more reliable as a result of that.


The funny thing is one of the leaders in the "Zero Defect" movement was an American.  American automakers only gave quality control lip service so he went to Japan and they seem to have listened.  lol

This American attitude wasn't just in the auto industry.  I spent two years as a reliability engineer in the high tech electronics industry and quality control was always the last thing they considered instead of the first.

----------


## sapator

BTW there are trillion of rich in the Greek Mediterranean region but our sold our politicians first try to create a treaty with Turkey so we get something like 15-15 and 70 for the companies in our own wealth. Meaning there is oil and gas for at least 100 years here, so I wouldn't really bother with time running our and such, we have at least 3-4 generations to discover...Something...

----------


## sapator

On another note, we have close to 20 Celsius in the mid of winter (Greece,meh). I continued using the sleeping sheets yesterday because it was a little colder last week and I still had them on the bed and I was bed spinning and sweating, vzzzinnn, vziiiin, hoooot, hot hot hot. No mistake today those sht sheets are outahere! CO2 be my guide.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Tell about global warming to NYC btw.


I don't think they need me to. Sea level rise is already impacting them.

----------


## sapator

Ye, it's called earth.
So anyhow, you are here most of you bashing Musk and at the same time you need a green environment and such. What I'm thinking is Musk initiative to start Tesla has brought eclectic cars to a popular lever a lot higher on what they where before. Truth be told no one in Greece had any interest in electric cars until Tesla. That, from a guy that dislikes Tesla. So you have to give credit to him even if he turns out to be another corporate lich.

----------


## dilettante

The funny part is that Musk was their hero until he showed interest in promoting civil rights.  When he failed to reinforce their narrative all of those posters of him in a speedo came right down... or at least got moved to the insides of closet doors.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Your more optimistic than me.  Just because the technology exist doesn't solve much.  Implementing it worldwide isn't something that's going to happen in the next decade or so.
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is one of the leaders in the "Zero Defect" movement was an American.  American automakers only gave quality control lip service so he went to Japan and they seem to have listened.  lol
> 
> This American attitude wasn't just in the auto industry.  I spent two years as a reliability engineer in the high tech electronics industry and quality control was always the last thing they considered instead of the first.


I always considered that deliberate as long as American auto makers could get away with it.  Planned obsolesce.  In the north they turned into rust buckets in just a few years.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> The funny part is that Musk was their hero until he showed interest in promoting civil rights.  When he failed to reinforce their narrative all of those posters of him in a speedo came right down... or at least got moved to the insides of closet doors.


Maybe to some...it was a S storm from the day he announced.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> What I'm thinking is Musk initiative to start Tesla has brought eclectic cars to a popular lever a lot higher on what they where before.


Musk was never sincere in this.  He's been selling his carbon off setting credits for years.  Indeed, it's only those sales and government schemes that have ever made Tesla profitable.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Yeah, I've heard that, too, but Sappy does have a point. Tesla made the electric car something of a status symbol, and that has certainly helped move the needle. As a car, they are interesting. I rode in one this summer and discussed the utility of it with the driver on a moderately long drive. I certainly do like the concept. Whatever motive Musk had is a bit irrelevant, in that regard. The result is that it sparked the imagination, whether he meant to or not. 

On the other hand, it has always felt a bit like the DeLorean, to me. More of a specialty concept car than a mainstream vehicle. Unlike the DeLorean, it's actually a pretty good car, so it might stick around for much longer.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Pfft, Musk does not get to take credit for the Tesla.  He bought into a company that already existed and turned it from being environmentally motivated to being profit motivated.  He holds exactly one patent on the Tesla: the proprietary charging point.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Pfft, Musk does not get to take credit for the Tesla.  He bought into a company that already existed and turned it from being environmentally motivated to being profit motivated.  He holds exactly one patent on the Tesla: the proprietary charging point.


I'd say his biggest contribution is his ability to make people buy the product.  He's very good at manipulating the press/people and creating an image.  A professional influencer.  lol

----------


## FunkyDexter

Yeah, I was thinking about that last night.  Why are we crediting Musk with technical advances in EVs?  Why are we crediting _Tesla_ for that matter?  If you're looking for the company that did most I'd say it was Toyota - although indirectly by pioneering the hybrid.

Tesla haven't really pushed the science at all.  What Tesla pushed was design.  They're kinda the Apple of the EV world (except that IPhones tend not to blow up and set your house on fire).  They produced a highly priced product aimed at techy elites.  It's the other companies that have brought EV's within range of the masses.

----------


## dilettante

Actually Honda was delivering hybrid cars to customers about 7 months before the first Toyotas.

There is actually little about hybrids that feeds into EVs though.  EVs are heavier, more expensive, have very limited operating range, do poorly in cool climates, and require a charging infrastructure that can barely support the few cars that rich folks have already.

Expect restrictions on charging and use to ramp up from here.  Both California and Switzerland have started such programs to clamp down on these guzzlers.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Yeah, I was thinking about that last night.  Why are we crediting Musk with technical advances in EVs?  Why are we crediting _Tesla_ for that matter?  If you're looking for the company that did most I'd say it was Toyota - although indirectly by pioneering the hybrid.
> 
> Tesla haven't really pushed the science at all.  What Tesla pushed was design.  They're kinda the Apple of the EV world (except that IPhones tend not to blow up and set your house on fire).  They produced a highly priced product aimed at techy elites.  It's the other companies that have brought EV's within range of the masses.


Yeah, but that's kind of the point. EVs have been possible for a long time, Tesla made them a status symbol. That does change perceptions. They are a bit like Apple, in that regard, but also more of a luxury item than Apple ever was. Apple was a higher priced, but still utilitarian, device. Tesla started as status symbol more than utility.

----------


## wes4dbt

There use to be all kinds of talk about the self driving feature but you don't hear much about it anymore.

Just read that Musk lost $200bln in 2022, poor guy only has around $130bln.  lol

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I thought I heard about it just a week or so back...mostly that the feds are investigating something about it, because it appears to have been involved in a few fatal accidents. Of course, it's only a suspect, at this time.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Tell about global warming to NYC btw.


Good lord! Are people still demonstrating their ignorance of the difference between climate and weather by making statements like this? Given how many times this has been explained by how many people in how many places, I doubt that me explaining it here will have much effect but let's have a go anyway. Global warming is about the climate. Average global temperatures are rising and that change in the climate has the effect of causing extremes in weather of all sorts. It may cause or worsen existing heatwaves, droughts, storms, etc. Excessive snowfall in certain places at certain times can absolutely be an effect of global warming or, more accurately, climate change. Even if it were the case that global temperatures were not rising, there's still no excuse for comments like this because the logic of how global warming can lead to extreme winter weather is sound and has been explained ad nauseum. If you don't understand it then because you haven't been paying attention or some other reason then you probably ought not to comment on the subject. We're all laypeople in that subject but at least be an informed layperson and know what it is that you're arguing against.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Good lord! Are people still demonstrating their ignorance of the difference between climate and weather by making statements like this? Given how many times this has been explained by how many people in how many places, I doubt that me explaining it here will have much effect but let's have a go anyway. Global warming is about the climate. Average global temperatures are rising and that change in the climate has the effect of causing extremes in weather of all sorts. It may cause or worsen existing heatwaves, droughts, storms, etc. Excessive snowfall in certain places at certain times can absolutely be an effect of global warming or, more accurately, climate change. Even if it were the case that global temperatures were not rising, there's still no excuse for comments like this because the logic of how global warming can lead to extreme winter weather is sound and has been explained ad nauseum. If you don't understand it then because you haven't been paying attention or some other reason then you probably ought not to comment on the subject. We're all laypeople in that subject but at least be an informed layperson and know what it is that you're arguing against.


It's not surprising, the oil companies have spent a lot of money spreading misinformation.  

What really surprises me is that the person that a lot of people choose to pay attention to and trust is a teenage girl.  Not the science or the data.  It's a silly world.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> What really surprises me is that the person that a lot of people choose to pay attention to and trust is a teenage girl.  Not the science or the data.  It's a silly world.


I'm not sure it's about that. She's just a figurehead or symbol. I think most people understand where the information is coming from but the fact that someone like her is so passionate about the future of the world stirs them up. What I find funny is the way the deniers attack her and her position. I saw something recently - probably a segment from Fox News but I'm not 100% sure - where they were saying that if climate change were real then it would be scientists who would be out there leading the movement and not a Scandinavian teenager. They seem willfully ignorant of the difference between activists and scientists and the fact that scientists are doing science, as scientists tend to do, and the data and information that they are publishing IS what's leading the movement because that's what activists are basing their action on. Of course, if scientists did become activists, they would be treated the same way anyway, as evidence by the fact that that's exactly what happens when scientists turned communicators, like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Brian Cox, actually do communicate the realities of climate change.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I'm not sure it's about that. She's just a figurehead or symbol. I think most people understand where the information is coming from but the fact that someone like her is so passionate about the future of the world stirs them up. What I find funny is the way the deniers attack her and her position. I saw something recently - probably a segment from Fox News but I'm not 100% sure - where they were saying that if climate change were real then it would be scientists who would be out there leading the movement and not a Scandinavian teenager. They seem willfully ignorant of the difference between activists and scientists and the fact that scientists are doing science, as scientists tend to do, and the data and information that they are publishing IS what's leading the movement because that's what activists are basing their action on. Of course, if scientists did become activists, they would be treated the same way anyway, as evidence by the fact that that's exactly what happens when scientists turned communicators, like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Brian Cox, actually do communicate the realities of climate change.


That's true.  But it makes no sense to me why so many people are so eager to deny the facts.  You get a winter storm and they go, SEE there's no global warming.  This is something that could lead to global devastation and they're willing to grasp at any other possible explanation no matter how factually inaccurate.  Is it fear, hatefulness or anger.

----------


## dilettante

Shouldn't there be organ music to accompany these hymns?

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Shouldn't there be organ music to accompany these hymns?


I guess the sound must be off because I don't here the farting and plopping sounds when you post either.

----------


## dilettante

Scary how much power a cult can have over small people.

----------


## Peter Porter

> Scary how much power a cult can have over small people.


But it's grip on you is loosening by admitting this!  :big yellow: 

Happy New Year!

----------


## dilettante

Toyota is getting ready to test its hydrogen combustion engine on the streets




> Toyota's strategy for achieving its carbon neutrality is to develop and provide a variety of technologies to reach net zero emissions by 2035. The company believes it is too early to concentrate on a single zero-emission solution; therefore, it is developing battery-electric, hydrogen fuel cell, and hydrogen combustion technology.


So I guess I had that right the first time.




> The flexibility to utilize current internal combustion engine technologies, rapid refueling times, and a pronounced decrease in the use and requirement of materials with finite supplies like lithium and nickel are some of the main advantages of hydrogen combustion. Hydrogen combustion could result in broad, affordable carbon-reduction solutions more quickly by modifying current technologies and maximizing current investments.


No telling yet if this will pan out, but it manages to avoid a long list of fatal flaws in EVs as widespread technology.

----------


## jmcilhinney

> Scary how much power a cult can have over small people.


Ooh yeah, that cult of... accepting the scientific consensus. If the scientific consensus changes, I'll change my position too. So cult-like.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I guess the sound must be off because I don't here the farting and plopping sounds when you post either.


That made me laugh out loud...

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Hydrogen has several problems that limit the applicability for transportation. None of them are clearly insurmountable, but they all exist. For example, the most efficient way to transport hydrogen is as a liquid, which requires exceedingly cold temperatures. Transport as a gas would require very high pressures for it to be moved efficiently. It's also exceedingly flammable. Natural gas will burn in air when at a 75% concentration. Hydrogen will do so with as little as 15% concentration. That means that a mild natural gas leak isn't going to explode (despite Hollywood trying to make it look that way). It has to get concentrated by some means. Hydrogen doesn't need to be concentrated much at all.

I'd love to see the issues with Hydrogen solved. It can solve a lot of problems. There's a reason why it isn't common, though, despite being a known viable fuel for at least as long as gasoline.

Fuel cells would be almost the best of both worlds, but since the catalysts are also fairly rare metals, it would just exchange one set of metals for another.

----------


## dilettante

The other issue with fuel cells is that they add one more conversion step between the capture of energy and the turning of wheels on the road.

A big problem with BEVs is sheer weight.  This means crashes become more hazardous, especially for pedestrians and cyclists, and then there is the issue of tires which require new formulations, construction techniques, and still they wear faster.  We barely have conventional tire waste in hand.

There is still a lot that could be done by limiting the size, weight, and height of most vehicles without taking other more drastic measures.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> There is still a lot that could be done by limiting the size, weight, and height of most vehicles without taking other more drastic measures.


Yeah, a WHOLE lot. We might be able to double the fuel economy of vehicles if we did that.

I'm not as unhappy about the conversion step problem with fuel cells. The fundamental problem with hydrogen is transport. Whether that's transport from production to distribution facilities (getting the hydrogen to the pump) or transportation on a vehicle, transportation is a problem with hydrogen. Fuel cells (or at least one definition of the term, now that I think about it) could be a better option for transport. If that comes at some efficiency cost, that might still be a reasonable tradeoff. 

Having done more reading on the subject, I'd say that hydrogen is the most promising future fuel technology. Unfortunately, I don't think it is 'in the next couple years'. I think that it will become prominent in certain areas where transportation isn't really an issue (static manufacturing, where the plant isn't moving around), and then begin to leak out into more conventional transportation as the technology improves. 

I don't believe we can do nothing while we wait for it. We went through eight tracks to cassettes to CDs. Each had an advantage over the previous one, but we probably had to go through those steps along the way.

----------


## dilettante

I'm not sure trying to force EV adoption is a viable path forward.

There are just so many known factors stacked against it.  We don't have the generation and distribution capacity required, let alone endpoint issues like public charging stations.  We may get there, but that takes investment and time.

In some ways the problems are similar to mandating that people go back to horse-drawn carriages.  Optimal for getting around town but the food, water, wastes, parking, and maintenance are real head scratchers.

That's where the HEVs came in: they make use of existing infrastructure while reducing fuel use.  A big chunk of that did come from deploying it in smaller vehicles, at least until recently.  Hybrid gas guzzlers are still gas guzzlers though.  Downsizing is the way to go, even if EVs become viable some day.

There needs to be more shame and social stigma to driving plus-sized vehicles.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Yeah, I'm not convinced on EV, yet, either. 

The current problems are solvable, though. The gasoline engine was adopted before the infrastructure to support it existed. It got there because the alternative pretty much sucked. In this case, the alternative doesn't suck. It's not like we are choosing between horse and buggy vs EV, as we were with the gas engine (there WERE electric vehicles back then, they were just inferior in so many more ways that they never caught on). 

Of course, that means that we could alter the playing field such that people chose EV. Personally, I rather like some of the issues with EV, as I see them as an interesting and not undesirable, challenge. That's because I'm weird in that way, though. The first time I biked for more than a day trip since grad school was a 1000 mile trip just to see if it was possible to travel the length of Idaho without touching the one North-South highway in the state. The thought of figuring out whether I could cobble together a very long EV trip is not one I'd find unwelcome. 

Still, they aren't yet there as a replacement. I feel the plug-in hybrid is the intermediate step, even though that means 'both technologies' at once. Couple that with economic incentives, technological progress, and the split might shift steadily towards the electric.

----------


## dilettante

Maybe it is like food.

With more healthy and affordable choices people might have incentives to adopt them over processed foods with an excess of sodium and carbs.  It doesn't have to mean Soylent Green or nothing.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Elon Musk Becomes First Person Ever to Lose $200 Billion
> The Tesla CEO has seen his wealth tumble in recent weeks after shares of the electric car maker tumbled.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...se-200-billion

If I lose $20.00 it stings  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## dilettante

This is just over 8 minutes long and it includes some very unflattering mentions of Musk, so even rabid Elon haters might take the time to listen.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Been away for a while.  Looks like there's been some interesting convo.




> While I might make some comment about British automobiles


If there's one country on the planet with a worse reputation than the US for car manufacturing... um, yeah, it's us :Blush:   We got a lot better after the 80s when we abandoned our nationalised manufacturers, though, and we do do niche rather than bulk manufacturing well.  Jag: Great; Aston: Great; Noble: frickin' Awesome; Rover:... not so much.




> What really surprises me is that the person that a lot of people choose to pay attention to and trust is a teenage girl. Not the science or the data. It's a silly world.


I'm no fan of Greta's personality (though her recent responses to Andrew Tate were priceless) but she does seem to be following the science.  She's perhaps a bit hyperbolic and pessimistic (though you can find plenty of scientists setting the same sort of timelines as she does) but she seems pretty accurate where her information is concerned.  Where do you feel she diverges?

Other than that, I agree somewhat with your pessimism about EVs but I am concerned this is a "perfection is the enemy of the good" position.  _If_ we could get people out of the worst gas guzzlers it would certainly help but 1. I'm not convinced it would be enough - we really need to get people out of gas cars altogether and 2. we've been trying the social engineering approach for at least a couple of decades and it hasn't worked - that makes me think we need to look for a scientific solution that makes not polluting the more convenient option rather than the cheaper or more socially acceptable one.  The evidence point to us not caring that much about the cost or stigma.  With that in mind I'll take EV's as a stop gap measure until we can find better.




> Elon Musk Becomes First Person Ever to Lose $200 Billion


I know he's still ridiculously wealthy but I think that means he's lost roughly half his wealth in a month, hasn't he?  That's extraordinary.

----------


## dilettante

I have a Honda where the engine and drive train and much of the other "guts" were made in Ohio and Indiana, then shipped to Swindon for final assembly.  No idea how many subassemblies and parts were UK made (body panels?  seats?).

But it has been pretty reliable.  Nothing has required repair, recall work seemed related to engine design/engineering issues rooted in Japan as far as I can tell.  By March I'll have had it 5 years.

As far as I know Honda closed and sold off its Swindon facilities a while back though.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> If there's one country on the planet with a worse reputation than the US for car manufacturing... um, yeah, it's us  We got a lot better after the 80s when we abandoned our nationalised manufacturers, though, and we do do niche rather than bulk manufacturing well.  Jag: Great; Aston: Great; Noble: frickin' Awesome; Rover:... not so much.


Nobody copies the French, and the French don't copy anybody.

I know where I heard that quote, though I don't know whether or not they originated it. Still, it's a ringing endorsement...of some sort.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I'm no fan of Greta's personality (though her recent responses to Andrew Tate were priceless) but she does seem to be following the science. She's perhaps a bit hyperbolic and pessimistic (though you can find plenty of scientists setting the same sort of timelines as she does) but she seems pretty accurate where her information is concerned. Where do you feel she diverges?


You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make.  It's not what she says (I've never listened or read what she said).  It's the fact that people place more importance on what she says than what the actual experts say.

A lot of people seem to find it easy to ignore or minimalize the experts but if a spunky teenage girl says the same thing it's applauded.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Oh, I see.  Yeah, I get that.  I guess it's because 1. charisma is not a pre-requisite for expertise but it is for being a media figure head and 2. Scientists are, at least in theory, supposed to keep their heads down and just serve up their findings.  We don't have time to digest raw scientific findings so we rely on the versions that's filtered through activists and the media.  You're right, though, that we'd all be better off if we could find the time to go back to the source.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Oh, I see.  Yeah, I get that.  I guess it's because 1. charisma is not a pre-requisite for expertise but it is for being a media figure head and 2. Scientists are, at least in theory, supposed to keep their heads down and just serve up their findings.  I guess it's also that we don't have time to digest raw scientific findings so we rely on the versions that's filtered through activists and the media.  You're right, though, that we'd all be better off if we could find the time to go back to the source.


Or people could just ask me, I enjoy giving advise and telling people what to do.  Just ask my kids.  lol

----------


## FunkyDexter

An expert in your own field.  By "field" I mean front garden :Smilie:

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

I tried being out standing in my field, but my feet got tired.

----------


## Peter Porter

> I tried being out standing in my field, but my feet got tired.


Maybe you should look for another field. Your neighbors garden!

----------


## FunkyDexter

In the UK that would be cause for war!

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> In the UK that would be cause for war!


It nearly caused a war between the US and UK:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859)

----------


## FunkyDexter

Oddly, I already knew about that.  OverSimplified did a YouTube episode on it.  I honestly can't recommend his stuff enough.  A good dose of history with a really daft sense of humour.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

My sister has a place overlooking Rosario Strait. Nice place. Very wet.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I tried being out standing in my field, but my feet got tired.


Were they acre-ing?

----------


## FunkyDexter

_Hec_k, that was a _tare_ible pun

----------


## sapator

I have a question here, since I'm not a twitter user.
There is an article here by CDC on vaxbies implications . Normally that would have been removed in old twitter  but as I don't have an account I want to ask if this has been let to pass, as I see no comments.

https://twitter.com/judyheffron825/s...ea9cea4ce97%2F

P.S. I don't want to start anything again, this is for my personal info, so let's not start the so what's. Thanks.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I have a question here, since I'm not a twitter user.
> There is an article here by CDC on vaxbies implications . Normally that would have been removed in old twitter  but as I don't have an account I want to ask if this has been let to pass, as I see no comments.
> 
> https://twitter.com/judyheffron825/s...ea9cea4ce97%2F
> 
> P.S. I don't want to start anything again, this is for my personal info, so let's not start the so what's. Thanks.


That article isn't by the CDC.  You don't need a Twitter account to find out what reports the CDC has released.  But you know that.  You know how Google works

If you don't want to talk about the subject then why make up a phony excuse to post.  The answer is easy to see.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

What information are you looking for? That there's misinformation being allowed back on Twitter? Your link proves that. It's really quite stupid, but you have to be able to do math and to have a bit of background information to know that. They aren't going to help you with either one. Instead, they just try to make people scared so that they won't think.

What's wrong with the article? Pretty nearly everything, but we won't be getting into that here, right? So, what is it that you are looking for 'for your own information'?

----------


## sapator

Ignore the article.
What I want to know is if it's been moderated or not. I don't have twitter, there are no comment in there, so is it moderated or just no comments? I don't really know how twitter works since I don't have an account or use it.
Thanks.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Ah, that. My guess is not moderated, but I don't know, either. After all, what would moderated mean? Here, it means that it has either not been reviewed (only the first few of most posters get reviewed), or it has been approved. If it is visible, then either nobody reviewed it or somebody did and approved it. The latter seems unlikely, though it's harder to say now. 

Frankly, by this time, I don't even know what the current story is with Twitter. Musk bought it, laid off a bunch, hired back a bunch, laid off others, asked for a vote, got voted out, said he'd leave...and since then has gone pretty quiet. So, where are they at these days? I assume he still owns it, but is he running it? If not, then who is, and with what objective?

----------


## sapator

Well before, articles where posted and the removed, probably most of anti covid related, so I'm trying to compare with something I kinda sorta knew how it worked before, again with no account then, no account now.
I'm not sure if it let's it fly but with no opportunity to post comments or, how it's called, the thing that you re post it to others.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Perhaps it can be added ins some kind of locked state such that no comments can be added until after...something. What that something might be, I can only speculate.

----------


## sapator

I'm bored with the voting thread,so.
Facebook and Instagram Flag Tucker Carlson Virus Posts while twitter does not.
Which one is right?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/b...rus-posts.html

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Did you just link us to a Greek video on Youtube? You might be the only person on here who can understand that.

----------


## sapator

LOL. WTH?! I fixed the link.
Remember it's not as much as the info as the flag of the social media.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Sadly you replaced it with one behind a paywall.  I reckon it's a conspiracy.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I'm bored with the voting thread,so.
> Facebook and Instagram Flag Tucker Carlson Virus Posts while twitter does not.
> Which one is right?
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/b...rus-posts.html


Even Fox's lawyers say a reasonable person would not believe Tucker Carlson:




> You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers


https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye

----------


## sapator

Interesting. Yesterday I could read the article from my home PC but from work I can't. Don't have a clue.
Also as I see people shifting more to the data rather than the regulation of the media, I'll just write a "pfff" and let it go.

----------


## Peter Porter

> Sadly you replaced it with one behind a paywall.  I reckon it's a conspiracy.


If you disable Javascript in your browser, you'll be able to read the article.  :big yellow:

----------


## TysonLPrice

> If you disable Javascript in your browser, you'll be able to read the article.


Google incognito mode gets around some.  I sign up with the email address of the last SPAM I got as an ID.

----------


## sapator

It Kinda works if you press the X while the page loads.
Here:

----------


## dilettante

It's funny how as more of the truth leaks out people once considered quite moderate are now being marginalized and censored when they dare to speak out as they awaken.  This seems to be worse in the UK, which resembles Communist China more every day.

----------


## wes4dbt

> It's funny how as more of the truth leaks out people once considered quite moderate are now being marginalized and censored when they dare to speak out as they awaken.  This seems to be worse in the UK, which resembles Communist China more every day.



What truths are coming out?  Who's marginalizing and censoring the moderates.  Some events must have happened for you to make that statement.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Sadly you replaced it with one behind a paywall.  I reckon it's a conspiracy.


Definitely a conspiracy, it's the only thing that makes sense.  lol

----------


## dilettante

I was thinking of Dr. John Campbell who is losing patience at having videos blocked as conspiracy theories and having to couch so much information in winks and nudges to get by the censorship at all.

----------


## FunkyDexter

Have you got any examples?  I haven't watched any of his stuff recently so I did a quick google search for "Dr John Campbell Frustrated" and got tumbleweeds.

----------


## dilettante

Well most of the "offending" vlogs on the pandemic have been removed.  One of the few left that even references his frustration is Chinese massive spread where he gives a reminder about his downloadable PDF posters such as "I Think... When I'm Allowed."

----------


## FunkyDexter

I watched the video.  All good info and the WHO being more open minded than they have been was certainly interesting (though not really ground moving - they're just arriving fashionably late to the party).  I didn't get the same "frustrated" take away as you though.  Maybe that's a product of seeing the bulk of his videos recently.  As I said, I haven't seen many.

----------


## dilettante

So when censorship is permitted, it works.  Nothing surprising there.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> So when censorship is permitted, it works.  Nothing surprising there.


Doesn't that go without saying? Censorship certainly doesn't work when it is NOT permitted, and if it didn't work, would it even be a thing?

----------


## Peter Porter

> So when censorship is permitted, it works.  Nothing surprising there.


What about when it doesn't work when it's not allowed?  :big yellow:

----------


## Niya

> Well most of the "offending" vlogs on the pandemic have been removed.


Small tip. Check on Rumble if the vids you're looking for are likely to offend the hivemind that drives the mainstream propaganda machine. YouTube is a part of this machine just like CNN, MSNBC, ABC etc. You'd be surprise at just how much stuff is there you will never find on YouTube. Recent example, I was looking for the video where the Russian media commented on the US/Russia Brittney Griner prisoner exchange and all I could find on YouTube is a bunch of propaganda clips about the exchange from ABC and CNN. However when I searched on Rumble I found it instantly. Seems YouTube didn't want me to know how the Russian media actually felt about the exchange.

----------


## sapator

Nobody noticed the titles. Good,good  :Cool: 
Anyhow, welcome back, till the final one.

----------


## dilettante

Rumble is a useful alternative source.  It is one of the few you can also watch on a smart TV, Roku box, etc.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

HA! Niya's riding in the Rumble seat.

----------


## Peter Porter

> HA! Niya's riding in the Rumble seat.


The driver didn't want his luggage getting wet.  :big yellow:

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

My grandfather rode from Indiana to New Hampshire in a rumble seat...during the winter. Must have been a bit brisk.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> My grandfather rode from Indiana to New Hampshire in a rumble seat...during the winter. Must have been a bit brisk.


A chilling experience, I shiver just thinking of it.

----------


## dilettante

This is 20 minutes long so most here won't see it.




Nothing there dooms the concept, but may dampen enthusiasm.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> This is 20 minutes long so most here won't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing there dooms the concept, but may dampen enthusiasm.


No...you posted it.  Most won't see it.  At least FOX isn't in the URL  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Niya

> This is 20 minutes long so most here won't see it.


I watched it. Seen other videos making this same point. Personally I believe nuclear is the only way forward for us. It's the holy grail of not just clean energy but abundant energy.

Also, my contribution to the climate change topic:-



This is pretty much my view on this whole thing but expressed in a way that won't trigger the delicate sensibilities around here.

----------


## dilettante

I guess I was hoping that hydrogen might work as a means of storing, delivering, and carrying _power generated elsewise_ as an alternative to hoping for magic batteries and the Power Grid Fairy to address those issues.

----------


## dilettante

It sounds like the cabal has quite an agenda set for Davos next week.

----------


## sapator

Funny how people where ripping their clothes on Trump documents and now they are whistling seamlessly.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Funny how people where ripping their clothes on Trump documents and now they are whistling seamlessly.


Oh really? So, there's already a special investigator for the Biden papers, just as there is for the Trump papers, and it's not the same person. Can't be much more fair. With Biden, it was much quicker.

----------


## sapator

No, I meant here.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Funny how people where ripping their clothes on Trump documents and now they are whistling seamlessly.


There's the same amount of ripping and whistling.  The Reps and Dems just changed sides.  Which is pretty sad because now they all have torn clothes, not a good look.  lol

----------


## wes4dbt

> Oh really? So, there's already a special investigator for the Biden papers, just as there is for the Trump papers, and it's not the same person. Can't be much more fair. With Biden, it was much quicker.


Yeah, I was surprised how quick the investigator was appointed.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I guess I was hoping that hydrogen might work as a means of storing, delivering, and carrying _power generated elsewise_ as an alternative to hoping for magic batteries and the Power Grid Fairy to address those issues.


You left out unicorn farts...

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Oh really? So, there's already a special investigator for the Biden papers, just as there is for the Trump papers, and it's not the same person. Can't be much more fair. With Biden, it was much quicker.


And he is a Trump appointment...I'm pretty sure that was deliberate.

----------


## wes4dbt

> And he is a Trump appointment...I'm pretty sure that was deliberate.


That's true but I'm not sure I see the wisdom in that.  The Rep's will still cry foul if they don't get the result they want.  Or the Dem's could have to deal with an over zealous prosecutor.

----------

