(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.
Not an endorsement, but AI predictions range from $200 to $365 at the end of 2023.
Matt, Candace and Elon should probably watch Sapolsky's lectures on Youtube, if they're serious about getting an answer, but they need to prepare for a few hours of listening and some science that I don't think they're well equipped for.
My understanding of this is that Sapolsky attributes trans-sexuality as well as sexuality in general, to the "average" architectures of the brains of people according to the categories of male, female, homosexual and transgender.
This concept conflicts fundamentally with the experts who Matt Walsh was trolling with the question "What is a woman?" because all of those experts agreed that gender is not physiological, but a "social construct" ("what I believe"). This would appear to make Sapolsky an opponent of the same orthodoxy that Walsh opposed in the film but from a different perspective.
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.
I generally agree with this except I think that Walsh was disingenuous in that he received an answer to the question "What is a woman" early on from the therapist in Tennessee who said sex and gender are different categories -- sex is biological/physical and gender is a "social construct": how individuals see themselves. He could have left it at that.
Walsh's wife's definition of a woman at the end, which was portrayed as the "answer" -- "an adult human female" -- isn't much different than the Tennessee therapist's.
Matt, Candace and Elon should probably watch Sapolsky's lectures on Youtube, if they're serious about getting an answer, but they need to prepare for a few hours of listening and some science that I don't think they're well equipped for.
My understanding of this is that Sapolsky attributes trans-sexuality as well as sexuality in general, to the "average" architectures of the brains of people according to the categories of male, female, homosexual and transgender.
This concept conflicts fundamentally with the experts who Matt Walsh was trolling with the question "What is a woman?" because all of those experts agreed that gender is not physiological, but a "social construct" ("what I believe"). This would appear to make Sapolsky an opponent of the same orthodoxy that Walsh opposed in the film but from a different perspective.
Do you even recall Walsh having his lies exposed on The Joe Rogan Experience live with a simple Google search? Why lend him any credence in any of his absurd anti-LGBQT productions? Why believe Elon is great for re-tweeting hate speech? I just don't understand it. Are you for a promoter of peace for everyone while letting Walsh target a tiny section of the population for hate? Absurd. Spend more time sharing Sapolsky's lectures on Twitter and less promoting hate speech, maybe? Do good.
(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.
Not an endorsement, but AI predictions range from $200 to $365 at the end of 2023.
Huh. Not a comment on the future of TSLA, but if people are willing to believe a predictive text machine is simply predictive in general, looks like we're about to enter a whole new era of scams.
I generally agree with this except I think that Walsh was disingenuous in that he received an answer to the question "What is a woman" early on from the therapist in Tennessee who said sex and gender are different categories -- sex is biological/physical and gender is a "social construct": how individuals see themselves. He could have left it at that.
Walsh couldn't "have left it at that" because he wasn't making the film in order to find out what the answers are to the question.
"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.
hey, I apologize. I had no idea you were agreeing with me
Huh. Not a comment on the future of TSLA, but if people are willing to believe a predictive text machine is simply predictive in general, looks like we're about to enter a whole new era of scams.
not to mention that the range given goes from losing about a fifth of your money if you invested today, all the way up to about a 40% gain.
I mean, I could tell you that without knowing anything. "Hey if you invest in Tesla shares today you might make a lot of money this year! Or lose a lot of money. Or neither."
Walsh couldn't "have left it at that" because he wasn't making the film in order to find out what the answers are to the question.
exactly! It shows intent to demonize and disparage the LGBTQ community.
If people don't see Walsh's work as anti-trans there's not much convinicing them.
The "I'm just asking questions" gambit is as old as the hills as a tool for disparagent but with deniability.
Believe it or not, asking questions can also be a good way to learn more, explore different angles of a topic, and perhaps even challenge the status quo. I think in general that's a more constructive way to consider the asking of questions, rather than just shutting it down as a "gambit".
But I know the left party line is often must. not. ask. questions! must. accept. our. views.
Or else you are racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, etc etc. And you are subject to cancellation.
Believe it or not, asking questions can also be a good way to learn more, explore different angles of a topic, and even challenge the status quo. I think in general that's a more constructive way to consider the asking of questions, rather than just shutting it down as a "gambit".
But I know the left party line is often must. not. ask. questions! must. accept. our. views.
Or else you are racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, etc etc.
that's a misrepresention of my point.
and anyone who has been reading my contributions to this board over these many years knows that doesn't describe me at all.
There is a difference between studying a topic to understand it better and "I'm just asking questions" to disparage.
I think you know that. But again you'd rather argue it.
There is a difference between studying a topic to understand it better and "I'm just asking questions" to disparage.
Yes, of course there is a difference between the two. That's stating the obvious. But the left's m.o. is to reflexively categorize any questioning they don't like into the latter category and thereby dismiss it. Even when the questioning is valid.
Believe it or not, asking questions can also be a good way to learn more, explore different angles of a topic, and even challenge the status quo. I think in general that's a more constructive way to consider the asking of questions, rather than just shutting it down as a "gambit".
But I know the left party line is often must. not. ask. questions! must. accept. our. views.
Or else you are racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, etc etc.
that's a misrepresention of my point.
That was apparent. Referring to “the ‘I’m just asking questions’ gambit” in no way suggests that asking questions is “just” a gambit or isn’t constructive in general.
Yes, of course there is a difference between the two. That's stating the obvious. But the left's m.o. is to reflexively categorize any questioning they don't like into the latter category and thereby dismiss it. Even when the questioning is valid.
unless you've got a definition of who comprises the "left", what are valid questions, and some examples of dismissing such valid questions, I can't disagree with you. Or agree for that matter.
Believe it or not, asking questions can also be a good way to learn more, explore different angles of a topic, and even challenge the status quo. I think in general that's a more constructive way to consider the asking of questions, rather than just shutting it down as a "gambit".
But I know the left party line is often must. not. ask. questions! must. accept. our. views.
Or else you are racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, etc etc.
that's a misrepresention of my point.
That was apparent. Referring to “the ‘I’m just asking questions’ gambit” in no way suggests that asking questions is “just” a gambit or isn’t constructive in general.
there are entire departments at universities devoted to asking questions about race, gender, discrimination, etc. So the idea that there are people on "the left" refusing to study such topics is pretty absurd.
Now if someone wants to accuse the "anti-woke" of not wanting to ask such questions, and point to Ron DeSantis, maybe they'd have a point.
Twitter let Matt Walsh speak. Some commenters on MOL countered his speech with more speech. Didn’t that follow Chait’s prescription?
Not really. The Walsh thread was deemed "full bore anti-trans" by at least two posters. I asked why specifically the content of the thread was full bore anti-trans, but got no response, other than the guy is anti-trans.
So to me, that's shutting down the content of an objectionable figure -- one of the exact things Chait warns about.
Not really. The Walsh thread was deemed "full bore anti-trans" by at least two posters. I asked why specifically the content of the thread was full bore anti-trans, but got no response, other than the guy is anti-trans.
So to me, that's shutting down of content by an objectionable figure -- one of the exact things Chait warns about.
You got a “See for yourself” response, which is not exactly like “Shut it down.”
In the article referenced above the author confuses asking loaded questions with straight-forward questions. The Hegelian dialectic is the essence of Western Civilization. Without questions and questioning, the process of thesis-antirhesis-synthesis cannot operate ( which is the very basis of reason and rational thought).
Can you just acknowledge that some person(s) and/or group(s) have great difficulty answering questions about sex and gender? IMHO, often answers are not forthcoming because there is no "good answer." Rather than the question(s) being loaded.
Twitter let Matt Walsh speak. Some commenters on MOL countered his speech with more speech. Didn’t that follow Chait’s prescription?
I read Baer's op-ed that Chait refers to. It really doesn't say what Chait says it does if one reads the entire column instead of taking a bit out of context. He isn't saying certain topics shouldn't be discussed, or questions asked. He's referring to how questions are framed, and he's saying that not every person or every topic deserves a university platform.
But I'll stipulate that there's no doubt there have been incidents of college students on the left shutting down speeches. How much that represents "the left" in the broader U.S., I don't know.
$54.20 was Musk’s offer for the Twitter.