Elon Musk makes $43 Billion offer for private buyout of Twitter (17 Viewers)

[St. Widge]

Great. First, what's a white supremacist? Then, what's a fascist? Then, what is a racist?

They've just become worms, now, Roxanne. Worms.

I think it's pretty clear to the vast majority of people know what all those things are. It's people with agendas that try to cloud the meanings for their own purposes.

 

[St. Widge]

I don't disagree with that in the least. But, again, I've decided that for myself. I didn't ask you to tell me who the neo nazi is. Because, conversely, what if you tell me explicitly someone is NOT a neo nazi but they actually are? Does that help me to listen to you then if you turn out to be wrong? Nope.

I don't disagree with that. As I just posted above with regard to white supremacists, racist, and fascists, the vast majority of people know who is and isn't a Neo-Nazi. It's people with agendas that cloud the meaning for their own purposes. Often times by finding one or two people that have an unreasonable definition and then claiming that everyone like them thinks the same thing. Or put another way, it's gaslighting.

 

[Madmarsha]

I don't think anyone should blindly follow anything you read, but you can be informed on other points of view from reading the opinions of others. You can then either choose to accept or reject those opinions of fall somewhere in between. But, I don't see how reading the opinions of others is a bad thing.

I don't think I said you shouldn't read the opinions of others or that it's a bad thing. On the contrary indeed you SHOULD read things. Because I want to know why someone has that opinion. Maybe they will say something that is persuasive. Maybe they will say something that I still don't agree with but makes me understand them better. My point is that there are a lot of parrots who only repeat talking points without knowing any underlying data.

 

[SaintInBucLand]

I mean, I wouldn't go that far. But who is the little boy from Kindergarten Cop?

 

[St. Widge]

so you want to see it coming when it graduates from speech to action.

Id argue that if the folks who held those beliefs had no platform to coalesce and get frothy and coordinate, there would be no action to worry about.

These fringe folk have existed for centuries. Only now have a public place to congregate and share, while pulling in more meek-minded individuals, amassing a following that would have never happened if it werent for the platform itself.

Again, if the hate speech is removed, it never happened. 1000s of eyes never see it and no opportunity to amplify/engender others that may be easily manipulated.

I mean, that's all true, but their presence on social media does bring those things into public view and can alert law enforcement before they take action. In the past those things were still discussed and the meek were still recruited. But, it was all done in private where nobody knew it was happening. In some ways, I think it's better for it to be in public so we know about it, can do something about it, and can refute it in public. It's part of why although I get why people leave Twitter, I think rational people should stay there to call out the bullshirt.

Hate crimes have always existed. They certainly existed before social media and I'm not sure that social media has done anything to increase them as much as it has made people more aware of them. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there were likely many more racially motivated crimes and beatings in the 30s, 40, 50s, 60s, and 70s than there are now. We likely just didn't have the ability to keep track of them during those years because much of it was being done by authority figures.

 

[Madmarsha]

I think it's pretty clear to the vast majority of people what all those things are. It's people with agendas that try to cloud the meanings for their own purposes.

Oh, what those purposes are for is the problem.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[St. Widge]

Oh, what those purposes are for is the problem.

No doubt. It's usually all about gaining power over others. Or, in the case of Elon, getting people to like and worship him to feed his fragile ego.

 

[antipop]

My point is that there are a lot of parrots who only repeat talking points without knowing any underlying data.

that's exactly what the owner of Twitter does

 

[Madmarsha]

I don't disagree with that. As I just posted above with regard to white supremacists, racist, and fascists, the vast majority of people know who is and isn't a Neo-Nazi. It's people with agendas that cloud the meaning for their own purposes. Often times by finding one or two people that have an unreasonable definition and then claiming that everyone like them thinks the same thing. Or put another way, it's gaslighting.

That term gets used a lot but it IS really apropos.

Did you ever see the actual movie? All I do is yell at Ingrid Bergman, Stop being such a ninny! You know what you saw! You know what you did! Stop just listening to the sound bites to inform your opinions!!!

 

[Bleu Raeder]

For yourself it is. Just don't do it for me.

Fact checking?

 

[Madmarsha]

No doubt. It's usually all about gaining power over others. Or, in the case of Elon, getting people to like a worship him to feed his fragile ego.

I have no idea whether he has a fragile ego. I have no idea whether he has a strong ego.
I have no idea whether he wishes people to worship him or not. You all are saying he does like there is no question. I have a question.

 

[Madmarsha]

Fact checking?

These days, yes. I hear a lot of "facts" that I know are not.

 

[Madmarsha]

that's exactly what the owner of Twitter does

Elon doesn't have any original ideas?

 

[Madmarsha]

to Musk there is no Hate Speech, only "Free Speech"

Oh, see, you DO get it.