Elon Musk | Owner of X and right wing man-child

moses said:
Well by your definition it basically is everyone who isn't a right wing activist. So that's too broad a definition to be of any use.





Colour me sceptical.

Also the The General forum is much more suited to shit stirring.
Click to expand...
The term is obviously broad but I clearly remember the fawning over oprah after she endorsed fetterman (and in general like when he endorsed Obama back in 2007) and it's not too far off to call a large portion of that group lefties which refuted your claim of left leaning people not fawning over billionaires.

And yes I should stop doing this.
 
Last edited:
Red the Bear said:
I have to preface that I don't like musk at all.

But the sheer amount of hate he's receiving from the left is hilarious considering how much the environmental libs loved him beforehand.

You would have thought he was the reincarnation of hitler or something.
Click to expand...

It’s almost like more information changes peoples minds?
 
Red the Bear said:
The term is obviously broad but I clearly remember the fawning over oprah after he endorsed fetterman (and in general like when he endorsed Obama back in 2007) and it's not too far off to call a large portion of that group lefties which refuted your claim of left leaning people not fawning over billionaires.

And yes I should stop doing this.
Click to expand...
Oprah’s a ‘she.’ And she’s pretty centrist politically.
 
Red the Bear said:
The term is obviously broad but I clearly remember the fawning over oprah after he endorsed fetterman (and in general like when he endorsed Obama back in 2007) and it's not too far off to call a large portion of that group lefties which refuted your claim of left leaning people not fawning over billionaires.

And yes I should stop doing this.
Click to expand...

You should definitely stop. You haven't a clue what you mean when you say left. You are using the incorrect, Fox News definition. Which they hold and spout for strategic purposes.
 
Red the Bear said:
Yes but That wasn't my point, I just find the sheer hatred spewed on him extreme.

Left is a broad term but let's go with a very general us based view of it and then you have folks fawning over someone like oprah not so long ago.

I'd say Musk was pretty popular among that section at least that was the impression I got, almost every coverage of him I saw was positive and he got to be in stuff like iron man and Saturday night.
Click to expand...
So not even slightly to the political left, then?
 
moses said:
You should definitely stop. You haven't a clue what you mean when you say left. You are using the incorrect, Fox News definition. Which they hold and spout for strategic purposes.
Click to expand...
:wenger:

Would you call a pro abortion, pro gun control, pro social safety nets, pro lgbtq voter left leaning or not?

If so then I saw a decent sized portion of twitter accounts admiring her, if not than fair enough, it's all semantics at that point.
 
calodo2003 said:
Oprah could be the only billionaire who is without much criticism.
Click to expand...

From a political spectrum POV Liberal capitalists love her because she's proof the bootstrap theory works. Like with Obama. If the president is black there can't be structual impediments to success. Lefties have nothing against her but she has no appeal for the political left.
 
Red the Bear said:
:wenger:

Would you call a pro abortion, pro gun control, pro social safety nets, pro lgbtq voter left leaning or not?

If so then I saw a decent sized portion of twitter accounts admiring her, if not than fair enough, it's all semantics at that point.
Click to expand...

No, the left has many of those people under its tent, and does as a whole hold those views, because the left is predominantly Liberal, but they are Centrist Liberal views too.

It's liberals you hate dude.
Probably lefties too, but definitely liberals.
 
Red the Bear said:
Oh I mistakenly quoted you, it was directed at @moses
Click to expand...

What was the question? The Dem Socialist one?


I'm a socialist who believes strongly in democracy.

And liberalism is on a different axis to the left right dichotomy in my opinion. We've had some very non liberal lefties in our back catalogue.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
They don’t. Because it’s irrelevant. And there are obviously no significant legal concerns with discussing the content of the laptop on a public forum because they spent most of the hour long podcast doing exactly that. And this is produced by the BBC, whose legal advisers will be far better qualified than you or I.
Click to expand...

It's not irrelevant at all. You can't compare a BBC documentary now to decisions companies made in the short time span just weeks before the election when Giuliani comes out with some wacko story to try to misdirect the public conversation with "news" irrelevant to the election that mainstream news wouldn't do what Trump wanted and social media blocked it before due diligence could possibly be conducted. Personally I don't find it troubling at all and wouldn't if it was reversed and it was Tiffany or barronn trump.

Escobar said:
He and his family were doxxed. And not his jet. There were photos too, and suddenly some freak follows your kids
Click to expand...

So you have sources that prove this claim that you can link here?
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
It's not irrelevant at all. You can't compare a BBC documentary now to decisions companies made in the short time span just weeks before the election when Giuliani comes out with some wacko story to try to misdirect the public conversation with "news" irrelevant to the election that mainstream news wouldn't do what Trump wanted and social media blocked it before due diligence could possibly be conducted. Personally I don't find it troubling at all and wouldn't if it was reversed and it was Tiffany or barronn trump.



So you have sources that prove this claim that you can link here?
Click to expand...
No need. It’s on Twitter.
 
africanspur said:
Please tell us more about how physicians on the front line felt about Covid?
Click to expand...



This is a link to the Twitter thread by David Zweig on Twitter's Covid censorship. I've listed those below referring to censorship of physicians or experts expressing contrary opinions.

Tweet 14 – “Twitter did suppress views – many from doctors and scientific experts – that conflicted with the official positions of the White House.

Tweet 19 – Inevitably, dissident yet legitimate content was labeled as misinformation, and the accounts of doctors and others were suspended for tweeting opinions and demonstrably true information.

Tweet 20 – Dr. Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School

Tweet 28 – This tweet was labeled “Misleading” even though the owner of this account, a physician, was referring to the results of a published study.

Tweet 29 – Andrew Bostom, a Rhode Island physician, was permanently suspended from Twitter after receiving multiple strikes for misinformation. One of his strikes was for a tweet referring to the results from a peer reviewed study on mRNA vaccines.

Tweet 31 – The one Bostom tweet found to still be in violation cited data that was legitimate but inconvenient to the public health establishment’s narrative about the risks of flu versus Covid in children.
 
Belisarius said:


This is a link to the Twitter thread by David Zweig on Twitter's Covid censorship. I've listed those below referring to censorship of physicians or experts expressing contrary opinions.

Tweet 14 – “Twitter did suppress views – many from doctors and scientific experts – that conflicted with the official positions of the White House.

Tweet 19 – Inevitably, dissident yet legitimate content was labeled as misinformation, and the accounts of doctors and others were suspended for tweeting opinions and demonstrably true information.

Tweet 20 – Dr. Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School

Tweet 28 – This tweet was labeled “Misleading” even though the owner of this account, a physician, was referring to the results of a published study.

Tweet 29 – Andrew Bostom, a Rhode Island physician, was permanently suspended from Twitter after receiving multiple strikes for misinformation. One of his strikes was for a tweet referring to the results from a peer reviewed study on mRNA vaccines.

Tweet 31 – The one Bostom tweet found to still be in violation cited data that was legitimate but inconvenient to the public health establishment’s narrative about the risks of flu versus Covid in children.
Click to expand...


I'm assuming the strike wasn't for referring to the results from the peer reviewed study (which as he said showed a rebound by 5 months), but for adding "does boostering add yet another decline?, followed by??". It might be a bit heavy handed, but vaccine denialism was extremely rampant. The death toll from it can probably be counted in the millions, if we're being honest.

Besides, doesn't that last tweet show that the system worked? An internal audit showed that they were wrong to suspend him, and they undid it and took steps to ensure it didn't happen again?
 
Belisarius said:


This is a link to the Twitter thread by David Zweig on Twitter's Covid censorship. I've listed those below referring to censorship of physicians or experts expressing contrary opinions.

Tweet 14 – “Twitter did suppress views – many from doctors and scientific experts – that conflicted with the official positions of the White House.

Tweet 19 – Inevitably, dissident yet legitimate content was labeled as misinformation, and the accounts of doctors and others were suspended for tweeting opinions and demonstrably true information.

Tweet 20 – Dr. Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School

Tweet 28 – This tweet was labeled “Misleading” even though the owner of this account, a physician, was referring to the results of a published study.

Tweet 29 – Andrew Bostom, a Rhode Island physician, was permanently suspended from Twitter after receiving multiple strikes for misinformation. One of his strikes was for a tweet referring to the results from a peer reviewed study on mRNA vaccines.

Tweet 31 – The one Bostom tweet found to still be in violation cited data that was legitimate but inconvenient to the public health establishment’s narrative about the risks of flu versus Covid in children.
Click to expand...


The total misunderstanding displayed by your message and this journalist's tweets is actually a good validation of twitter's censorship policy.

Total confusion between correlation and causation, cherry picking, misinterpretation of studies, congratulation you got the whole bingo.
 
Oly Francis said:
The total misunderstanding displayed by your message and this journalist's tweets is actually a good validation of twitter's censorship policy.

Total confusion between correlation and causation, cherry picking, misinterpretation of studies, congratulation you got the whole bingo.
Click to expand...

My post provided evidence that highly educated and qualified experts were censored by social media companies under pressure from the government. Nothing more, nothing less. If you think that this sort of censorship is commendable then that's your opinion. But, you can't deny that the censorship occurred.
 
Belisarius said:
My post provided evidence that highly educated and qualified experts were censored by social media companies under pressure from the government. Nothing more, nothing less. If you think that this sort of censorship is commendable then that's your opinion. But, you can't deny that the censorship occurred.
Click to expand...

Nobody denies censorship occured, it was written right under the restricted tweets, you didn't discover some elaborate plot.

And it's also very clear that some "highly educated experts" were just morons, and the tweet interpreting a graph from a study that says the opposite of what the accounts pretends it says is a great proof of that.

It also shows that twitter, instead of doubling down on the Bostom account's ban, took the appeal seriously and re-reviewed their decision. Unlike your pal Elon who pretty much does anything he wants and tries to spin it with ridiculous polls when he realizes his decisions are total non-sense. Free speech plateform my arse but good job on unbanning Andrew "human trafficker" Tate, his tweets were really necessary for mankind.
 
Oly Francis said:
Nobody denies censorship occured, it was written right under the restricted tweets, you didn't discover some elaborate plot.

And it's also very clear that some "highly educated experts" were just morons, and the tweet interpreting a graph from a study that says the opposite of what the accounts pretends it says is a great proof of that.

It also shows that twitter, instead of doubling down on the Bostom account's ban, took the appeal seriously and re-reviewed their decision. Unlike your pal Elon who pretty much does anything he wants and governs with ridiculous polls when he realizes his decisions are ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Well then we agree on something and that's a start.

As for your opinion that some experts are "morons", I don't disagree though I wouldn't use that word. It used to be widely understood that the purpose of debate was to expose ideas to sunlight and counter-arguments and see if they stand up. Because experts, even government experts and those who aren't morons, are sometimes wrong.

And I would agree that Twitter doesn't come off too badly as trying to make an effort to allow debate. The troubling part for me is the government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, leaning on the social media companies to suppress alternative viewpoints and as an intended consequence, criticism of their policies.
 
Belisarius said:
Well then we agree on something and that's a start.

As for your opinion that some experts are "morons", I don't disagree though I wouldn't use that word. It used to be widely understood that the purpose of debate was to expose ideas to sunlight and counter-arguments and see if they stand up. Because experts, even government experts and those who aren't morons, are sometimes wrong.

And I would agree that Twitter doesn't come off too badly as trying to make an effort to allow debate. The troubling part for me is the government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, leaning on the social media companies to suppress alternative viewpoints and as an intended consequence, criticism of their policies.
Click to expand...

But debate only functions when both sides are operating in good faith. The amount of absolute grifting and conspiracy bull shit spewing being done by vaccine/COVID deniers was staggering and the outcome is a death toll in the millions. Social media platforms, especially facebook, were complicit from not just an initial lack of oversight, but for the use of algorithms to push this content to people who were incapable of bringing contextual knowledge to the debate.

The amount of family/friends/acquaintances who brought this crap up to my wife and I and refused to listen when we pushed back was heartbreaking. Our combined 40 years of academic (PhD’s) and industry work with respiratory diseases was not enough to overcome the deluge of posts on Facebook/Twitter/etc. Those algorithmic echo chambers were not public squares of debate, they were the gallows.
 
MadDogg said:
To be fair, in the very early days when he started making his name he did seem to be a breath of fresh air. What with SpaceX and Tesla, he seemed to actually be pushing towards things that should have been done decades ago but had been let slide by the people in power.

His mistreatment of his workers was the first sign things weren't as rosy as we hoped, and obviously he's just gone further and further off the rails as time has gone on.
Click to expand...
It was the racist working conditions for me. Prior to that I'd only heard about him but not paid attention other than knowing Tesla was big.
 
WI_Red said:
But debate only functions when both sides are operating in good faith. The amount of absolute grifting and conspiracy bull shit spewing being done by vaccine/COVID deniers was staggering and the outcome is a death toll in the millions. Social media platforms, especially facebook, were complicit from not just an initial lack of oversight, but for the use of algorithms to push this content to people who were incapable of bringing contextual knowledge to the debate.

The amount of family/friends/acquaintances who brought this crap up to my wife and I and refused to listen when we pushed back was heartbreaking. Our combined 40 years of academic (PhD’s) and industry work with respiratory diseases was not enough to overcome the deluge of posts on Facebook/Twitter/etc. Those algorithmic echo chambers were not public squares of debate, they were the gallows.
Click to expand...
I feel like this statement should be repeated a thousand times and tatooed on a few peoples heads. The right is intellectually and idealogically bankrupt, theres no productive debate based on anything resembling reality to be had with them. Politics in general is in a shit state but the right are just wrestling in their own feces, no ones interested in engaging with them and its not a free speech issue.
 
Being able to buy a blue tick has really decked up a lot. Replies now are full of nobodies that have bought a tick.
 
Belisarius said:


This is a link to the Twitter thread by David Zweig on Twitter's Covid censorship. I've listed those below referring to censorship of physicians or experts expressing contrary opinions.

Tweet 14 – “Twitter did suppress views – many from doctors and scientific experts – that conflicted with the official positions of the White House.

Tweet 19 – Inevitably, dissident yet legitimate content was labeled as misinformation, and the accounts of doctors and others were suspended for tweeting opinions and demonstrably true information.

Tweet 20 – Dr. Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School

Tweet 28 – This tweet was labeled “Misleading” even though the owner of this account, a physician, was referring to the results of a published study.

Tweet 29 – Andrew Bostom, a Rhode Island physician, was permanently suspended from Twitter after receiving multiple strikes for misinformation. One of his strikes was for a tweet referring to the results from a peer reviewed study on mRNA vaccines.

Tweet 31 – The one Bostom tweet found to still be in violation cited data that was legitimate but inconvenient to the public health establishment’s narrative about the risks of flu versus Covid in children.
Click to expand...


OK so one (potentially) front line physician and one epidemiologist?

My issue with this kind of argument isn't even the 'twitter files' which I had never even heard of previously or read. It's that this exact argument has been used so many times through the pandemic by people with a clear agenda, about all these supposed clinicians who have a contrary approach who've been shut down, as if they're anything other than a tiny minority.

First of all, it just categorically isn't true. I was on the front lines, a lot of my friends and colleagues were on the front line, in different countries across the world. Sure there may have been one or two people who had a different attitude to the prevailing one but they were in a tiny minority. Most people did not have issues with the general approach taken by most countries, with regards to restrictions or vaccinations.

Secondly, being on the front line certainly brings it's own perspective I agree. But public health is it's own totally distinct speciality and discipline, with its own training programme and skills. It doesn't mean they're right but just as I wouldn't go to a neurosurgeon to manage diabetes, I wouldn't be that bothered by what a neurologist has to think about a societal level public health approach to an infectious disease.

That isn't to say front line physicians don't have a huge role to play in public health campaigns (they do) but to dismiss the consensus because of a few front line physicians with a contrary opinion is quite strange to me.
 
Anglin is not just a "everyone knows I'm a nazi, even if I don't say it out loud" type. He's an actual self-proclaimed nazi, publishes "The Daily stormer" (inspired by "Der Stürmer"), complete with swastika, promoting literal fascism and advocating death to “enemies of the white race.”

It's genuinely disgusting that twitter has given him a platform.
 
Godfather said:
Shouldn't sane people just stop engaging on Twitter and delete their accounts at this point?
Click to expand...
Yes. To the point I’m starting to think a little less of those still staying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.