171–180 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you don't have to deal with either, since you don't have the ear of the elites and can't cause damages by talking shit.
You think media matters has the ear of the elites and not the multi billionaire with direct ties to the US Government? That is an interesting take.
Also he made the team release community notes well ahead of schedule, and this is probably the best feature of Twitter. If that was created in 2017, I probably would still be addict.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think media matters has the ear of the elites and not the multi billionaire with direct ties to the US Government? That is an interesting take.
[flagged]
Doesn't follow which program? I can't believe this has to be said but billionaires are the elite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Clear calls for extreme violence are against our terms of service and will result in suspension. I don't disagree with this stance... I need some substantial proof that posting your opinion without calling for extreme violence is going to get your suspended.
I like how you quoted that part, but not the part where he clearly stated that the term decolonization necessary implies genocide. To my knowledge genocide pretty much requires "extreme violence". For the record, no, decolonization [1] does not mean Jewish genocide, that's his own fever dream, but he's clearly stated that X's position is it does. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization
At the same time: I don't think it's that straightforward to dismiss concerns about "decolonization", especially not with a simple link to Wikipedia. That decolonization could represent programs known to their authors as means of eradicating Jewish people (and, in particular, the plurality Mizrahim population of Israel) is not a fever dream. That doesn't make it true, but it's not a facially invalid concern.
That advocates of "decolonization" widely responded to the October 7th Hamas Al Aqsa Flood attacks with "decolonization is not a metaphor" does your "fever dream" arguments no favors; those attacks were overtly, expressly genocidal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like how you quoted that part, but not the part where he clearly stated that the term decolonization necessary implies genocide. To my knowledge genocide pretty much requires "extreme violence". For the record, no, decolonization [1] does not mean Jewish genocide, that's his own fever dream, but he's clearly stated that X's position is it does. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization
It in fact does not require extreme violence. For instance: the Indian Boarding School programs of the early 20th century didn't involve extreme violence (ostensibly, they didn't involve any more coercive force than any other mandatory schooling program; of course, in reality, that wasn't at all true) and didn't have as an organizing goal the death of students/inmates. At the same time, the program was clearly genoci…
Lots of terms have been used as euphemism for lots of things. It makes no sense to declare a word used in many contexts now means only this one thing, because one group of people used it this way. As I said in another thread I'm against allowing people to hide behind euphemism and dog whistles, by all means if someone is talking about decolonization of Israel, take action! But claiming this is the only meaning and a blanket ban is nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It in fact does not require extreme violence. For instance: the Indian Boarding School programs of the early 20th century didn't involve extreme violence (ostensibly, they didn't involve any more coercive force than any other mandatory schooling program; of course, in reality, that wasn't at all true) and didn't have as an organizing goal the death of students/inmates. At the same time, the program was clearly genoci…
Musk didn't say some radicals used the term as a euphemism for genocide. He said "Yes, “decolonization” necessarily implies a Jewish genocide". He didn't say it was banned in that context, he said it would result in suspension period, because again "decolonization necessarily implies a Jewish genocide" Lots of terms have been used as euphemism for lots of things. It makes no sense to declare a word used in many conte…
lol, lots of salty Twitter users in these comments It was a sewer long before Musk took over, that's why the previous owners were so happy to dump it on him, cash out and let him polish that turd
> let him polish that turd Not sure that is the right choice of words given how many advertisers and revenue has left the company. Even Musk himself has acknowledged that the company is now worth a fraction of what he paid for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Musk didn't say some radicals used the term as a euphemism for genocide. He said "Yes, “decolonization” necessarily implies a Jewish genocide". He didn't say it was banned in that context, he said it would result in suspension period, because again "decolonization necessarily implies a Jewish genocide" Lots of terms have been used as euphemism for lots of things. It makes no sense to declare a word used in many conte…
I don't much care. You made two claims I felt worth rebutting: that genocide was in practice always extremely violent, and that decolonization could be genocidal only in fever dreams.
The second, "that decolonization could be genocidal only in fever dreams." is not what I said. I can also think of a few instances of decolonization in history that certainly pushed those boundaries. What I said was that the word decolonization does not inherently mean genocide, much less specifically Jewish genocide, and the belief that it does is a Musk fever dream. I also acknowledge that it would have been clearer if I had clarified that some (Hamas, their supporters) are using it that way and that emotional language, as usual, does little to add to a conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you please name some right wing opinions that used to be banned, and is no longer banned? Be specific.
right wing or oppositional, you decide that covid came out of a chinese lab, or showing that the lockdowns didn't work as was shown by Jay Bhattacharya early on accounts that were censored, shadowbanned, and massively decreased in exposure. just look up the twitter files. since being owned by elon there's also been a rush of psychometricians into twitter, people who want to share and talk about their scientific data,…
I'll agree he changed the (flawed) covid misinformation policy; though there were absolutely people discussing Chinese lab leak theories or the effectiveness of lockdown without getting banned.
I don't know what you're talking about regarding psychometrician... there were always people talking about how some races are categorically dumber than others and drawing broad conclusions; they received social judgment but not bans.
Your comment about Southern is really telling though. You're clearly upset that people are _not_ banned for stating something true. You agree she shot blazing hot fiery incendiary devices at immigrants using a flare gun, and you think people should be muzzled from saying that, simply because you (very wrongly) believe that flares can't start fires or hurt people.
This last part makes clear that you don't actually have any love of free speech; but rather you simply want speech restricted in the way you personally prefer. It's refreshing that you don't bother pretend to have principles beyond a desire for power, and a love of oppressing those you hate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're saying that the lawsuit is meritorious, while conceding that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit? Am I missing something? No. Twitter is suing under the “who cares”, “shut up” and “no u” doctrine, which you can do in courts that do not have anti-SLAPP rules in place. >The company filed its lawsuit in Texas, which is neither its nor Media Matters’ primary place of business. As legal blogger Ken White note…
> which you can do in courts that do not have anti-SLAPP rules in place. No, this is incorrect. I believe you're unintentionally conflating two things. Not having an anti-SLAPP law just means that Media Matters won't have the luxury of quickly striking the complaint before having to respond to it. It does not mean that vexatious litigants are free to file a lawsuit without making actual legal claims recognized by the…