Twitter is a Private Company

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Another adventure into over-the-top wokeness aborted, this time at the AP:

Nothing was aborted, other than a tweet. The AP continues to recommend, as it has for years, avoiding general labels starting with “the.”

This is another instance where giving serious thought to Paul's claim doesn't seem worth the effort.

That's an insult to @DaveSchmidt who confirmed and expanded on what I said.


paulsurovell said:

That's an insult to @DaveSchmidt

I can take an insult.

who confirmed and expanded on what I said.

And what I wrote can take this one.


DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

That's an insult to @DaveSchmidt

I can take an insult.

who confirmed and expanded on what I said.

And what I wrote can take this one.

What you wrote really wanted to contradict me but it couldn't and it didn't.


ml1 said:

and before you write this off as hating on Musk, I don't hate him. He acts like a jerk on social media for sure, and his ideas about "wokeness" are silly. But lots of CEOs are jerks. It often goes with the territory. I just find some of his behavior puzzling, particularly at at time when EV buyers are going to have many more options in the near future. So if a person can buy an electric Mercedes, Ford, Cadillac, VW or other, how many of them will leave Tesla out of their consideration set because Musk has spent a year or more insulting them?

The correct response to Paul's repeated attempts to talk about Musk's non-twitter ventures is nohero's:

nohero said:

Whatever Tesla's contribution to the fight against climate change is, it's irrelevant to the discussion of Musk's management of the Twitter.

But, as I'm feeling generous this morning, I'll indulge Paul a bit, and pick riff on ml1's observation above.

As I've several times already on this thread, I'm more than happy to give Musk credit for helping popularize EVs. And Musk's rebranding of himself (and, threatening to rebrand Tesla by extension) as a spokesperson for entitled male jerks I think totally goes along with that. My theory of politics is that a given policy or viewpoint has succeeded when it's no longer the subject of culture war. The Tesla customer base has a lot of different subgroups. That includes people concerned about climate change, but it's also included people who just like fast hi-tech cars. And in that latter group, some of those include people who actively dislike anything that evinces concern with the environment or any other "woke" issues.

If Musk wants to shrink Tesla's addressable market and alienate most of his customer base to cater to that latter group -- well, that doesn't strike me as sound business strategy, but I think it's overall good for the goal of decarbonizing. That goal succeeds when even rich entitled reactionaries switch their behavior to emit less carbon.


paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

That's an insult to @DaveSchmidt

I can take an insult.

who confirmed and expanded on what I said.

And what I wrote can take this one.

What you wrote really wanted to contradict me but it couldn't and it didn't.

This is a good example of an opportunity to take my own advice.


Anyone had coffee yet?


paulsurovell said:

What you wrote really wanted to contradict me but it couldn't and it didn't.

If the removal of a tweet with an apology for its offensiveness was your idea of aborting an adventure in wokeness, I applaud your progress. A lot of people would scorn such an action as wokeness itself.


DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

What you wrote really wanted to contradict me but it couldn't and it didn't.

If the removal of a tweet with an apology for its offensiveness was your idea of aborting an adventure in wokeness, I applaud your progress. A lot of people would scorn such an action as wokeness itself.

It's the Wokeness Kafka Trap.


paulsurovell said:

Who has Musk insulted?

you're too smart to be asking a question like this. 


DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

What you wrote really wanted to contradict me but it couldn't and it didn't.

If the removal of a tweet with an apology for its offensiveness was your idea of aborting an adventure in wokeness, I applaud your progress. A lot of people would scorn such an action as wokeness itself.

FYI, the aborted AP adventure into over-the-top wokeness, like the aborted exemplar of such adventures -- "The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative" at Stanford -- wasn't actually "aborted" it was "ended".

My apologies for luring you into this transgression.

https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf


paulsurovell said:

My apologies to luring you into this transgression.

No apology necessary. The word’s connotations did not escape my notice, so I weighed the implications of using it (for clarity in repeating your own language) or not using it. I chose to use it.

That, I gather, is how such guidance is supposed to work. It wasn’t hard.



Only people who don't understand what the "wokeness" debate is about would call the silly AP tweet about "the French" an example of "wokeness".


paulsurovell said:

Some "third party" handed a selection of internal communications to Matt Taibbi ("material may have been left out"), nobody knows how accurate the "journalism" is.


nohero said:

Only people who don't understand what the "wokeness" debate is about would call the silly AP tweet about "the French" an example of "wokeness".

Everyone knows the AP tweet mentioned “the French” because they were too scared of the globalist cabal to mention “the Jews.”


nohero said:

Only people who don't understand what the "wokeness" debate is about would call the silly AP tweet about "the French" an example of "wokeness".

Paul’s understanding of the AP matter, and usage guides in general, is incoherent.*

* That is, according to the first couple of common, non-linguist-specific definitions of “incoherent.”


DaveSchmidt said:

Paul’s understanding of the AP matter, and usage guides in general, is incoherent.*

* That is, according to the first couple of common, non-linguist-specific definitions of “incoherent.”

Just an fyi, but "Imbecilic" is not on the Stanford list.


DaveSchmidt said:

nohero said:

Only people who don't understand what the "wokeness" debate is about would call the silly AP tweet about "the French" an example of "wokeness".

Paul’s understanding of the AP matter, and usage guides in general, is incoherent.*

* That is, according to the first couple of common, non-linguist-specific definitions of “incoherent.”

Why do you think the AP tweet and the Stanford website were "ended"?


nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Paul’s understanding of the AP matter, and usage guides in general, is incoherent.*

* That is, according to the first couple of common, non-linguist-specific definitions of “incoherent.”

Just an fyi, but "Imbecilic" is not on the Stanford list.

Why do you think the AP tweet and the Stanford list were "ended"?


paulsurovell said:

Why do you think the AP tweet and the Stanford list were "ended"?

This Stanford list?

https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf

It was answered here: https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/01/04/it-website-in-the-news/


paulsurovell said:

Why do you think the AP tweet and the Stanford website were "ended"?

Because the tweet and the initiative caused unintended offense. Acknowledging reasons for disapproval and acting on them, as the AP and the Stanford initiative did, is woke.

Do you endorse the tweet’s removal and the initiative’s decision? If you do, your thumb is up for woke. If you don’t, the implication is that you endorse the AP’s continuing guidance on “the” and the initiative’s original document. Also a thumb up for woke.

Yet you’re critical of wokeness.

The coherence eludes me.

(If you had said, “Yeah, I thought the AP had rescinded its guidance, too, but I was mistaken,” that would have been coherent to me.)


nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

Some "third party" handed a selection of internal communications to Matt Taibbi ("material may have been left out"), nobody knows how accurate the "journalism" is.

This is correct, in the sense that if data searches are incomplete the journalism may be understating the extent of interventions with Twitter by government agencies and officials to censor and suppress speech.


DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Why do you think the AP tweet and the Stanford website were "ended"?

Because the tweet and the initiative caused unintended offense. Acknowledging reasons for disapproval and acting on them, as the AP and the Stanford initiative did, is woke.

Do you endorse the tweet’s removal and the initiative’s decision? If you do, your thumb is up for woke. If you don’t, the implication is that you endorse the AP’s continuing guidance on “the” and the initiative’s original document. Also a thumb up for woke.

Yet you’re critical of wokeness.

The coherence eludes me.

(If you had said, “Yeah, I thought the AP had rescinded its guidance, too, but I was mistaken,” that would have been coherent to me.)

I'm not sure if you're intentionally distorting what I said or just being sloppy when you say that I'm "critical of wokeness" when I clearly said the AP tweet was an example of "over-the-top wokeness".

Which one is it?


paulsurovell said:

This is correct, in the sense that if data searches are incomplete the journalism may be understating the extent of interventions with Twitter by government agencies and officials to censor and suppress speech.

There's not enough information provided to draw that conclusion.


paulsurovell said:

I'm not sure if you're intentionally distorting what I said or just being sloppy when you say that I'm "critical of wokeness" when I clearly said the AP tweet was an example of "over-the-top wokeness".

Which one is it?

Call me incoherent.


nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

This is correct, in the sense that if data searches are incomplete the journalism may be understating the extent of interventions with Twitter by government agencies and officials to censor and suppress speech.

There's not enough information provided to draw that conclusion.

Yes there is. Each Twitter-file report documents government intervention. So more material could either reveal more intervention or no more intervention, but not less intervention.


paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

This is correct, in the sense that if data searches are incomplete the journalism may be understating the extent of interventions with Twitter by government agencies and officials to censor and suppress speech.

There's not enough information provided to draw that conclusion.

Yes there is. Each Twitter-file report documents government intervention. So more material could either reveal more intervention or no more intervention, but not less intervention.

There's not enough information to draw that conclusion.


ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

Why do you think the AP tweet and the Stanford list were "ended"?

This Stanford list?

https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf

It was answered here: https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/01/04/it-website-in-the-news/

But that answer was rejected by one of the guys who I asked the question (who liked your post)


nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

This is correct, in the sense that if data searches are incomplete the journalism may be understating the extent of interventions with Twitter by government agencies and officials to censor and suppress speech.

There's not enough information provided to draw that conclusion.

Yes there is. Each Twitter-file report documents government intervention. So more material could either reveal more intervention or no more intervention, but not less intervention.

There's not enough information to draw that conclusion.

Math.


paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

This is correct, in the sense that if data searches are incomplete the journalism may be understating the extent of interventions with Twitter by government agencies and officials to censor and suppress speech.

There's not enough information provided to draw that conclusion.

Yes there is. Each Twitter-file report documents government intervention. So more material could either reveal more intervention or no more intervention, but not less intervention.

There's not enough information to draw that conclusion.

Math.

It's not just arithmetic, Paul. 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.