Twitter is a Private Company
Just watch the documentary “what is a woman” and stop badgering people for specific reasons why it’s transphobic.
In Matt Walsh’s What Is a Woman documentary he completely disagrees with what the transgender community settles on as the truth. He sides with nature’s truth, which is the biological makeup of a person as their gender — as opposed to what one simply feels is their gender.
In other words he knows what transgender people are really feeling.
Douchenozzle.
Jaytee said:
In reality, if someone is agreeing with someone who is spreading bad things like lies and disinformation.. go check the Russian threads for some examples. Tucker Carlson thinks zelensky looks like a rat… in my reality, not yours, Tucker is a Putin stooge…. But that’s my reality, not yours, not all of us. The muskrat is the one spreading lies and disinformation…that’s reality for you.
How many lies before a person's future opinions should be disregarded?
I can point to lies told by each of the last four presidents and the current president, does that mean these five persons should be disregarded going forward.
Of course not. But what lies should be allowed to pass before disregarding future utterances?
Smedley said:
ridski said:
RealityForAll said:
Writing to memorialize the fact that you are embracing the concept of "guilty by association." Additionally, Jaytee, please confirm that a person can be "guilty by association" merely by associating with the "bad" person(s).
For someone who doesn't give two **** about Musk, you're oddly interested in this thread about Musk.
I agree that I have a relatively small amount of interest in Musk. I would not characterize my interest as odd. Instead,my focus is perhaps a bit different than most here on MOL.
My interest is in how opinions are formed here on MOL. I have rarely seen such enthusiasm and embrace of "guilt[y] by association" as demonstrated by Jaytee here on MOL (in Jaytee's recent post). I was raised to believe that "guilt by association" was a serious moral failing. Guilt by association was one of the methods used by Senator McCarthy in the 1950s during the red scare. Just my two cents.
RealityForAll said:
How many lies before a person's future opinions should be disregarded?
I can point to lies told by each of the last four presidents and the current president, does that mean these five persons should be disregarded going forward.
Of course not. But what lies should be allowed to pass before disregarding future utterances?
unreal….
Jaytee said:
Just watch the documentary “what is a woman” and stop badgering people for specific reasons why it’s transphobic.
In Matt Walsh’s What Is a Woman documentary he completely disagrees with what the transgender community settles on as the truth. He sides with nature’s truth, which is the biological makeup of a person as their gender — as opposed to what one simply feels is their gender.
In other words he knows what transgender people are really feeling.
Douchenozzle.
This is a public forum where ideas and opinions are supposed to be examined. If your position is so obvious with regard to evidence of transphobia in the What is a Woman documentary, then your evidence should be easily produced. The fact that you, Jaytee, refuse repeatedly to be specific as to the incidences of trans-phobia in the referenced movie gives rise to the conclusion that you have no evidence, your claims are nonsensical or you are unable to defend your POV. Please be specific.
PS Solely having a different opinion is not considered trans-phobia (by most).
RealityForAll said:
Smedley said:
ridski said:
RealityForAll said:
Writing to memorialize the fact that you are embracing the concept of "guilty by association." Additionally, Jaytee, please confirm that a person can be "guilty by association" merely by associating with the "bad" person(s).
For someone who doesn't give two **** about Musk, you're oddly interested in this thread about Musk.
I agree that I have a relatively small amount of interest in Musk. I would not characterize my interest as odd. Instead,my focus is perhaps a bit different than most here on MOL.
My interest is in how opinions are formed here on MOL. I have rarely seen such enthusiasm and embrace of "guilt[y] by association" as demonstrated by Jaytee here on MOL (in Jaytee's recent post). I was raised to believe that "guilt by association" was a serious moral failing. Guilt by association was one of the methods used by Senator McCarthy in the 1950s during the red scare. Just my two cents.
i wuz talking to ridski
Smedley said:
RealityForAll said:
Smedley said:
ridski said:
RealityForAll said:
Writing to memorialize the fact that you are embracing the concept of "guilty by association." Additionally, Jaytee, please confirm that a person can be "guilty by association" merely by associating with the "bad" person(s).
For someone who doesn't give two **** about Musk, you're oddly interested in this thread about Musk.
I agree that I have a relatively small amount of interest in Musk. I would not characterize my interest as odd. Instead,my focus is perhaps a bit different than most here on MOL.
My interest is in how opinions are formed here on MOL. I have rarely seen such enthusiasm and embrace of "guilt[y] by association" as demonstrated by Jaytee here on MOL (in Jaytee's recent post). I was raised to believe that "guilt by association" was a serious moral failing. Guilt by association was one of the methods used by Senator McCarthy in the 1950s during the red scare. Just my two cents.
i wuz talking to ridski
OK.
Conclusion of this article about the film "What Is A Woman?" The whole thing is at the link.
"Men like Walsh, who portray themselves as defenders of Truth, Reason, and Science, do not actually to do the first things demanded by real scientific inquiry—namely to be humble rather than arrogant, to read widely, to fairly consider the opposing point of view, to put forward the strongest rather than the weakest version of the other side’s case, to question one’s own biases. They combine extreme ignorance with extreme arrogance, and while it is a cinch to demolish their talking points, it will be much harder to stop their social crusade. A horrible anti-trans backlash is brewing, resulting in cruel pieces of legislation and hell-bent on destroying the fragile progress that has been made toward LGBTQ acceptance. Slick propaganda like What Is A Woman? will cause real harm to trans people, and while I generally consider censorship counterproductive, we should not understate the toxicity of a film like this."
Smedley said:
I don't know if the reporting of the thread is legit - it seems like it might be. As to your nuts gone in 22 mins question, yes that's pretty incredible, however I think it's just as possible that it might be true as it might be false. If you believe it's 100% BS on the tweeter's part just bc it's an incredible number, then I think you're naive in how apparently you think it's beyond for-profit enterprises to do incredibly unscrupulous things to make a profit.
So I don't think the thread that Musk replied to is even anti-trans, let alone full-bore anti trans. When I hear full bore anti-trans I thought I'd see Musk tweeting about denying rights to trans people, or kicking trans people off twitter.
As for Walsh himself, I had never heard of him before today, and yes he does look like a right wing nut, the kind Musk too often associates himself with. But IMO this goes to the heart of cancel culture - just because a blogger / media figure has written and said loathsome things in the past, does that mean that person is incapable of producing non-loathsome, worthwhile content?
maybe before you criticize my reaction to this, you should familiarize yourself more with Matt Walsh. I'm certainly not naive about for-profit businesses (I'd think you've argued with me enough to know that). And I'm not stupid enough to disbelieve that even liars tell the truth once in a while.
but I'm also well aware of Walsh's entire purpose in life over the past few years. It's to demonize trans people as well as the health care workers who give them medical care. His work has led to threats of violence against trans people and facilities that treat them. So the chances that an "exposé" of his about gender affirming care are true and not further lies and propaganda are virtually nil. I mean, would you go to the grand wizard of the KKK for a story about the "truth" of BLM?
maybe if you had a trans person in your life you'd have a different reaction. It's hard enough for them to go about their lives, and violence against them has always been a risk. Over the past couple of years, the risks of just leaving the house have only gotten worse, thanks to people like Matt Walsh. So yeah, full on anti-trans is this guys rasion d'etre. That's how I came to my conclusion.
and that's the guy Musk likes to promote in his feed.
I can't believe you don't see this stuff as anti-trans. I can believe though that you'd disagree with me about whether the sun will come up in the east tomorrow if you felt like being argumentative.
and I'll add that I don't ask for anyone to be "canceled". I'm not calling for boycotts of Matt Walsh, or suggesting his audio programs or films be taken down from the internet. I'm not even suggesting that Musk doesn't have a right to promote Walsh or anyone else he pleases on Twitter.
let's recall this discussion started about why people on the left have a more negative attitude toward Elon Musk than they used to.
Progressives aren't going to react well toward Musk retweeting Walsh even if we acknowledge he has a perfect right to do so.
Just because people have the right to be bigoted or liars or conspiracy theorists, doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't judge them for their heinous views.
That should be self-evident even to the most eristic among us.
"let's recall this discussion started about why people on the left have a more negative attitude toward Elon Musk than they used to."
Actually the discussion started around why Elon Musk's overall favorability rating is little changed since he got involved with Twitter 14 months ago.
You pivoted the discussion into how you wish to frame the issue.
As far as Walsh goes, noted, the guy seems like a d-bag, but again I judge the content first and the author second.
Regarding your ongoing argument that I'm too argumentative -- please. I just looked back, and in fact, the past half-dozen times we've debated started when I either brought up a topic, or replied to someone else -- and you subsequently jumped in to disagree on some level. It wasn't me responding to your post, or tagging you, or antagonizing you with a stealth remark.
Look it up for yourself -- in reverse chron order, (1) this debate; (2) the WaPo column about potential Trump-Biden '24 matchup; (3) Tim Scott / Kamala Harris; (4) Chris Christie; (5) the debt ceiling; and (6) the NYC subway killing. There's probably more but that's as far as I went back. 6-for-6 baby.
So either debate or don't --I personally enjoy debating you as much as anyone --but don't start arguments and then when the other person argues back, complain about that person being argumentative. It's not good form, and it's quite tedious.
Smedley said:
"let's recall this discussion started about why people on the left have a more negative attitude toward Elon Musk than they used to."
Actually the discussion started around why Elon Musk's overall favorability rating is little changed since he got involved with Twitter 14 months ago.
You pivoted the discussion into how you wish to frame the issue.
As far as Walsh goes, noted, the guy seems like a d-bag, but again I judge the content first and the author second.
Regarding your ongoing argument that I'm too argumentative -- please. I just looked back, and in fact, the past half-dozen times we've debated started when I either brought up a topic, or replied to someone else -- and you subsequently jumped in to disagree on some level. It wasn't me responding to your post, or tagging you, or antagonizing you with a stealth remark.
Look it up for yourself -- in reverse chron order, (1) this debate; (2) the WaPo column about potential Trump-Biden '24 matchup; (3) Tim Scott / Kamala Harris; (4) Chris Christie; (5) the debt ceiling; and (6) the NYC subway killing. There's probably more but that's as far as I went back. 6-for-6 baby.
So either debate or don't --I personally enjoy debating you as much as anyone --but don't start arguments and then when the other person argues back, complain about that person being argumentative. It's not good form, and it's quite tedious.
I don't have an issue with being disagreed with. I wouldn't be contributing here for 20+ years if I did.
But in the most recent example I just pointed out that whatever the topline numbers look like, Musk is now more popular among the right and less so among the left.
And you argued for quite awhile before you accepted that my point is correct. People on the left don't like Musk as much as they did a couple of years ago. Many polls have shown that. It's not really an arguable point.
That's what I'm taking about. Hanging on tenaciously past the point when it would have been quicker and easier to concede the point and move on. Easy peasy.
ridski said:
I blocked Musk, so I couldn't give two **** about him, but I think it's hilarious that people pay him money to flit around websites and message boards defending any posts that disparage him.
You blocking Musk on Twitter prevents Musk from seeing your posts but doesn't prevent you from seeing Musk's posts.
This suggests that your "not giving two ****s about Musk" is as credible as when you said you don't read my posts.
paulsurovell said:
You blocking Musk on Twitter prevents Musk from seeing your posts but doesn't prevent you from seeing Musk's posts.
This suggests that your "not giving two ****s about Musk" is as credible as when you said you don't read my posts.
If you "block" someone, the Twitter will ask you if you want to see their tweets before showing them to you.
nohero said:
If you "block" someone, the Twitter will ask you if you want to see their tweets before showing them to you.
PVW said:
It's also unclear why someone who is a "Musk hater" would wish ill upon Tesla.
[ Excerpted from your post https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/subforum/twitter-is-a-private-company/politics-plus?page=next&limit=2640#discussion-replies-3620567 ]
A couple of somewhat related comments:
(a) Hate can obscure rational thought, especially when the hate is induced by a demonization campaign by a media that the hater trusts.
(b) We have a Musk hater on the thread who has wished ill upon Tesla (despite his laughable denial) / image 1
(c) With regard to (b) / image 1, Smedley informed us that he made a modest investement in Tesla (image 2).
(d) With regard to (c) I hope that Smedley has been patient enough during the ensuing ups and downs to wait until his investment more than doubled today (image 3)
paulsurovell said:
ridski said:
nohero said:
If you "block" someone, the Twitter will ask you if you want to see their tweets before showing them to you.
That's right. And all you have to do is click the tweet that you want to see. Easy as pie. You can look at Elon's tweets whenever you want.
Which is never !
paulsurovell said:
ridski said:
nohero said:
If you "block" someone, the Twitter will ask you if you want to see their tweets before showing them to you.
That's right. And all you have to do is click the tweet that you want to see. Easy as pie. You can look at Elon's tweets whenever you want.
He said he didn't want to, and he won't see them if he doesn't "click the tweet". What's so hard to understand about that?
paulsurovell said:
(b) We have a Musk hater on the thread who has wished ill upon Tesla (despite his laughable denial) / image 1
A post from me is in "image 1". I should feel honored that something I wrote has been misrepresented by Paul the same evening he doubled down on misrepresenting something Nicholas Kristof wrote.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
ridski said:
nohero said:
If you "block" someone, the Twitter will ask you if you want to see their tweets before showing them to you.
That's right. And all you have to do is click the tweet that you want to see. Easy as pie. You can look at Elon's tweets whenever you want.
He said he didn't want to, and he won't see them if he doesn't "click the tweet". What's so hard to understand about that?
Given @ridski's track record -- his claim that he doesn't read my posts -- there's no reason to believe that he doesn't "click the tweet".
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
(b) We have a Musk hater on the thread who has wished ill upon Tesla (despite his laughable denial) / image 1
A post from me is in "image 1". I should feel honored that something I wrote has been misrepresented by Paul the same evening he doubled down on misrepresenting something Nicholas Kristof wrote.
@nohero Through the Looking Glass.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
(b) We have a Musk hater on the thread who has wished ill upon Tesla (despite his laughable denial) / image 1
A post from me is in "image 1". I should feel honored that something I wrote has been misrepresented by Paul the same evening he doubled down on misrepresenting something Nicholas Kristof wrote.
Between that and the Onion article, I think Paul simply doesn't recognize jokes.
PVW said:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
(b) We have a Musk hater on the thread who has wished ill upon Tesla (despite his laughable denial) / image 1
A post from me is in "image 1". I should feel honored that something I wrote has been misrepresented by Paul the same evening he doubled down on misrepresenting something Nicholas Kristof wrote.
Between that and the Onion article, I think Paul simply doesn't recognize jokes.
Interesting that you would say "I think Paul simply doesn't recognize jokes" instead of "I think that was a joke".
Edited to add: And you are so invested into disparaging Musk that you can't even see that image 1 was the setup, image 2 was the build and image 3 was the punchline.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
"let's recall this discussion started about why people on the left have a more negative attitude toward Elon Musk than they used to."
Actually the discussion started around why Elon Musk's overall favorability rating is little changed since he got involved with Twitter 14 months ago.
You pivoted the discussion into how you wish to frame the issue.
As far as Walsh goes, noted, the guy seems like a d-bag, but again I judge the content first and the author second.
Regarding your ongoing argument that I'm too argumentative -- please. I just looked back, and in fact, the past half-dozen times we've debated started when I either brought up a topic, or replied to someone else -- and you subsequently jumped in to disagree on some level. It wasn't me responding to your post, or tagging you, or antagonizing you with a stealth remark.
Look it up for yourself -- in reverse chron order, (1) this debate; (2) the WaPo column about potential Trump-Biden '24 matchup; (3) Tim Scott / Kamala Harris; (4) Chris Christie; (5) the debt ceiling; and (6) the NYC subway killing. There's probably more but that's as far as I went back. 6-for-6 baby.
So either debate or don't --I personally enjoy debating you as much as anyone --but don't start arguments and then when the other person argues back, complain about that person being argumentative. It's not good form, and it's quite tedious.
I don't have an issue with being disagreed with. I wouldn't be contributing here for 20+ years if I did.
But in the most recent example I just pointed out that whatever the topline numbers look like, Musk is now more popular among the right and less so among the left.
And you argued for quite awhile before you accepted that my point is correct. People on the left don't like Musk as much as they did a couple of years ago. Many polls have shown that. It's not really an arguable point.
That's what I'm taking about. Hanging on tenaciously past the point when it would have been quicker and easier to concede the point and move on. Easy peasy.
except I never argued against the notion that musk is more popular among the right and less so among the left.
In fact, i cited numbers from the yougov report that I posted that showed his unfavorability numbers were up (+6), as were favorability numbers (+4). And yeah, given the amplification of his microphone since he bought Twitter, it’s only common sense that the unfav move would be driven by Dems and the fav move would be driven by Rs.
So, please stop making stuff up. Thank you.
paulsurovell said:
PVW said:
It's also unclear why someone who is a "Musk hater" would wish ill upon Tesla.
[ Excerpted from your post https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/subforum/twitter-is-a-private-company/politics-plus?page=next&limit=2640#discussion-replies-3620567 ]
A couple of somewhat related comments:
(a) Hate can obscure rational thought, especially when the hate is induced by a demonization campaign by a media that the hater trusts.
(b) We have a Musk hater on the thread who has wished ill upon Tesla (despite his laughable denial) / image 1
(c) With regard to (b) / image 1, Smedley informed us that he made a modest investement in Tesla (image 2).
(d) With regard to (c) I hope that Smedley has been patient enough during the ensuing ups and downs to wait until his investment more than doubled today (image 3)
I have held. In general I try to follow Jim Cramer’s reco that you should “ring the register” when a stock doubles - sell half and let the rest ride. I’m considering doing that with Tesla, but I have not done so yet.
paulsurovell said:
PVW said:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
(b) We have a Musk hater on the thread who has wished ill upon Tesla (despite his laughable denial) / image 1
A post from me is in "image 1". I should feel honored that something I wrote has been misrepresented by Paul the same evening he doubled down on misrepresenting something Nicholas Kristof wrote.
Between that and the Onion article, I think Paul simply doesn't recognize jokes.
Interesting that you would say "I think Paul simply doesn't recognize jokes" instead of "I think that was a joke".
Edited to add: And you are so invested into disparaging Musk that you can't even see that image 1 was the setup, image 2 was the build and image 3 was the punchline.
Hint -- why did nohero pick that particular number for the "buy"?
The reason why the left doesn't like Elon Musk is because he stopped censoring people with opinions that the left doesn't like. Its really as simple as that.
The left liked it better when Twitter colluded with government to censor opinions outside of the official narrative. Its really pretty simple.
I don't really know that much about Matt Walsh, aside from what was written the clearly and severely biased hit pieces linked to on this thread. I can only comment on the film.
The film explored how highly credential experts in the field of gender studies, sex reassignment surgery, and pediatricians who advocate for gender blocking hormone therapy would stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Walsh didn't have to talk all that much.
He simply asked "what is a woman". Typically, the response he would get would go something like "anyone who identifies as a woman". To which he would reply "and a woman is"? And then there would be a long bout of silence. This one gender studies professor who apparently spends most of his time on this topic asked incredulously at this point why he was interested in this. He said he wanted to understand the truth. At that point there were allusions to the fact that he was transphobic. It illustrated how thin the thinking around this topic is by those who are making a living on it.
He had one transgender man(Scott Nugent) who regrets getting reassignment surgery as it has created all kinds of complications in his life. He is convinced it will shorten his lifespan in fact. He basically said that nobody discussed the risks to him. He also mentioned that it is a huge $$ maker for the pharma companies.
I don't recall Walsh criticizing or demeaning transgender people at all. He took aim at those who are selling these new and unproven drugs & procedures especially when it comes to children. You can disagree with his opinions IMO, but the movie does not demean transgender people.
paulsurovell said:
Interesting that you would say "I think Paul simply doesn't recognize jokes" instead of "I think that was a joke".
I think that was a joke.
Musk likes to prank with the number 420, which is code for weed. Hence, $54.20.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
He's a douchenozzle, and his 4Chanification of Twitter has only made it worse. It's a product I really liked back in the day, and I'm interested in discussing it, not him.