Opinion For the richest man in the world Elon Musk acts pretty dumb

[RoastBeast]

Well, first, criticizing him is one thing. That's freedom of speech (what you guys don't seem to appreciate). But second, the criticism isn't that Musk has banned people; it's that he's using gov't force to silence critics off his site (i.e., he's not just banning people on Twitter, he's trying to coerce them into silence everywhere).



No, you're just lying about what other people are saying.

He can ban anyone he wants to, and people can criticize him for doing it if they disagree. That's freedom of speech both ways. But when you call on the gov't to silence people, that's an attack on freedom of speech.

You are insanely untruthful. It's crazy how manipulative you can be. I feel bad if you have a significant other. Your gaslighting probably has them in a padded room somewhere.

I posted an article where the Biden Administration got smacked down by the courts for "coercing and intimidating" social media companies and you guys deflected from that like crazy.

Sad, sad tactics from a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Ah I see


It's sad/pathetic that you identify me as a right winger. I like to observe and digest information and form conclusions, not form conclusions and then stand from where I can see my own opinion the easiest.

I linked a good piece here: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/20...to-sue-media-matters-to-silence-their-speech/

 

[Jack V Savage]

You are insanely untruthful. It's crazy how manipulative you can be. I feel bad if you have a significant other. Your gaslighting probably has them in a padded room somewhere.

I posted an article where the Biden Administration got smacked down by the courts for "coercing and intimidating" social media companies and you guys deflected from that like crazy.

Sad, sad tactics from a bunch of hypocrites.

I know, I know. I don't always agree with GOP talking points so I'm the devil, but make an effort to understand the discussion instead of just knee-jerking. I would also advise you to consider that partisan judges aren't definitive on any issues. It's like if I cited AOC on something. Wouldn't carry any more weight than the Fifth Circuit.

 

[RoastBeast]

I know, I know. I don't always agree with GOP talking points so I'm the devil, but make an effort to understand the discussion instead of just knee-jerking.

Yeah crazy that the NPR posted those "GOP" talking points about the Biden Admin coercing and intimidating social media companies. Funny how you guys scoot right on past that because it kind of destroys your whole argument here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah crazy that the NPR posted those "GOP" talking points about the Biden Admin coercing and intimidating social media companies. Funny how you guys scoot right on past that because it kind of destroys your whole argument here.

Well, no. But you have to try to understand what my argument is instead of just identifying me as a non-Republican and then going into partisan mode.

 

[RoastBeast]

Well, no. But you have to try to understand what my argument is instead of just identifying me as a non-Republican and then going into partisan mode.

Scooted past it again. Sad that you blind yourself to reality and then call others partisan. Another hypocritical behavior from you.

 

[blackheart]

You really don't see how the left are being hypocrites here? I mean are you even reading the responses of the left wingers on this board?

Twitter is a private company that can choose to do host what they want. True. So why are the left wingers on this site mad that Elon has censored people? If you are going to respond with the "it's a private company" line when people are complaining that they are censoring right wing opinions, then you better stay consistent and use the same line when they're censoring things you don't agree with. That's not happening because of hypocrisy.

This is a moral issue, not a legality issue.

I'm not making the argument that there is a breach of the 1st amendment. I'm making the argument that they are skirting the 1st amendment by using private companies as the conduit to censor Americans. It should be illegal to do so from a moral standpoint. The same way that rich people using loopholes to skirt paying their taxes is legal, but is wrong from a moral standpoint. The same way that Jim Crow laws used to be legal, but were wrong morally. The law doesn't dictate what's right vs. wrong.

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/08/1197...-fifth-circuit-ruling-social-media-injunction

The court found that Biden Administration officials coerced and threatened the social media companies to take down content.

The left needs to stop pretending like the Government is just merely calling and making requests because there is no such thing as the most powerful Government in the world just making a friendly request, take it or leave it. There can be serious consequences for not going through with their requests. The same way if your boss makes a request that you don't follow through with. He might not be able to outright punish you for it but there are plenty of ways he can make your work life a lot worse because of it.

You're trying to have it both ways.

Either, it's a private company that can do what it wants, censor people, ban whoever, etc. Which also applies to Twitter before Elon owned it. If that's your rationale, then you can't have been screeching about free speech under the previous ownership. And along with that, you have to abandon any notion of Elon being a free speech warrior. It's his company. He can censor people at the behest of foreign dictators. He can let nazis in. He can ban anyone he wants. And all of that is in direct contradiction to his freeze peach culture war grift.

It's either that, OR

Twitter is the public commons and free speech laws apply to it. He cannot ban anyone. He cannot censor people at the behest of foreign governments. Obviously he's not doing any of that.

But you're trying to make arguments from both sides of this dichotomy and it's incoherent.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Scooted past it again. Sad that you blind yourself to reality and then call others partisan. Another hypocritical behavior from you.

I'm glue and you're rubber, I guess.

Anyway, what do you think about Musk's efforts to try to prevent criticism that he acknowledges to be factually accurate and state AGs going along with it?

 

[RoastBeast]

You're trying to have it both ways.

Either, it's a private company that can do what it wants, censor people, ban whoever, etc. Which also applies to Twitter before Elon owned it. If that's your rationale, then you can't have been screeching about free speech under the previous ownership. And along with that, you have to abandon any notion of Elon being a free speech warrior. It's his company. He can censor people at the behest of foreign dictators. He can let nazis in. He can ban anyone he wants. And all of that is in direct contradiction to his freeze peach culture war grift.

It's either that, OR

Twitter is the public commons and free speech laws apply to it. He cannot ban anyone. He cannot censor people at the behest of foreign governments. Obviously he's not doing any of that.

But you're trying to make arguments from both sides of this dichotomy and it's incoherent.

Am I trying to have it both ways? I'm merely talking about what's right and what's wrong. I personally think it is wrong to hold certain users to your terms of service agreement while letting others that you agree with slide past it. I think it's wrong for the Government to tell a social media company to pull content off their platform unless it's a legit matter of national security. In fact, I think it should be illegal to do that because it's the Government skirting the first amendment laws by using social media companies as a tool to censor people. I think it's wrong to censor news stories that are election affecting when they know it's going to affect their party the hardest. I think it's wrong to censor non government/non big pharma approved information on covid or the vaccine's efficacy and side effects. People should be able to talk freely about it. As soon as the words "disinformation" or "misinformation" are used, I immediately know that propaganda is taking over.

I never once said that Twitter under either regime was doing anything illegal. Immoral, yes. Illegal, no. I'm not playing both sides of the coin here. I'm talking about what I think is right and wrong. I don't care if it's Elon, Biden, Dorsey or left or right wing activists pulling the strings. I have my convictions on what I think is right and what's wrong.

I'm glue and you're rubber, I guess.

Anyway, what do you think about Musk's efforts to try to prevent criticism that he acknowledges to be factually accurate and state AGs going along with it?

Going for the record here. How many times are you going to ignore the elephant in the room? This is like the 10th time.

You know a court smacking down Biden's white house for "coercion and intimidation" is a pretty big issue and a guy who is as fair as you pretend to be should be interested in something like that. Must be you looking hard into those facts again or something like that. I know it sucks to be backed into a corner when someone proves you're a partisan hack but at some point you either just have to admit you're too biased to acknowledge reality or just give up the jig.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You know a court smacking down Biden's white house for "coercion and intimidation" is a pretty big issue and a guy who is as fair as you pretend to be should be interested in something like that.

If you think that it's a "big issue" that the gov't nags the site about moderation, you can make the argument. Seems like if so, it would have been a big issue when Trump did it, though no one seemed to care. But just to say that some Republicans on the court agree with you means nothing.

Must be you looking hard into those facts again or something like that. I know it sucks to be backed into a corner when someone proves you're a partisan hack but at some point you either just have to admit you're too biased to acknowledge reality or just give up the jig.

No, you're not even paying attention. You just keep repeating the same bad arguments and ducking the actual points.

I never once said that Twitter under either regime was doing anything illegal. Immoral, yes. Illegal, no. I'm not playing both sides of the coin here. I'm talking about what I think is right and wrong. I don't care if it's Elon, Biden, Dorsey or left or right wing activists pulling the strings. I have my convictions on what I think is right and what's wrong.

But you have supported Musk trying to shut down Media Matters because you say they are left-leaning. If you only think Republicans should have freedom of speech, you don't support freedom of speech.

 

[RoastBeast]

If you think that it's a "big issue" that the gov't nags the site about moderation, you can make the argument. Seems like if so, it would have been a big issue when Trump did it, though no one seemed to care. But just to say that some Republicans on the court agree with you means nothing.



No, you're not even paying attention. You just keep repeating the same bad arguments and ducking the actual points.

Court states: "coercion and intimidation"

Jack's translation "nags"

Be gone hypocritical hack. You have officially been exposed here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Court states: "coercion and intimidation"

Jack's translation "nags"

Be gone hypocritical hack. You have officially been exposed here.

Obviously they weren't intimidated. I have been exposed as someone with limitless patience for your dishonesty and evasion. Why are you so scared to comment on the Media Matters thing? That's the actual freedom of speech issue that's been discussed ITT.

 

[RoastBeast]

Obviously they weren't intimidated. I have been exposed as someone with limitless patience for your dishonesty and evasion. Why are you so scared to comment on the Media Matters thing? That's the actual freedom of speech issue that's been discussed ITT.

You bringing up Media Matters isn't about discussing Media Matters. It's about you trying to evade looking like a hypocrite. Unfortunately for you, you got exposed as one already. Sorry bud but you're a partisan hack.

Government was nagging lol. Rich.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You bringing up Media Matters isn't about discussing Media Matters. It's about you trying to evade looking like a hypocrite. Unfortunately for you, you got exposed as one already. Sorry bud but you're a partisan hack.

Government was nagging lol. Rich.

Why am I a hypocrite? I consistently support freedom of speech. When I say that you are being hypocritical about it, it's because you support freedom of speech for Republicans and oppose it for anyone else. And the Media Matters issue that you keep ducking is key to that.

I've also pointed out that there's no theoretical basis for a universal right to freedom of speech in rightist thought, which is another thing you have run from engaging.

 

[Darkballs]

Twitter is a private company that can choose to do host what they want. True. So why are the left wingers on this site mad that Elon has censored people?

That's no hypocrisy. No left winger is saying that Elon can't block whomever he wants. It's not hypocrisy to point out how he's a liar when he said that once he bought twitter, he would run it as a "free speech absolutist." That hasn't happened.

So the left has the exact same position for twitter before and after Elon. At any point Twitter could decide not to host whatever they wanted.

This is a moral issue, not a legality issue.

It should be illegal to do so from a moral standpoint.

What the fuck?

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/08/1197...-fifth-circuit-ruling-social-media-injunction

The court found that Biden Administration officials coerced and threatened the social media companies to take down content.

So we're back to arguing the law here? For the love of god man, pick a lane.

I've already addressed this one. The 5th Circuit argues that angry emails amounted to coercion. They base that largely on the idea of how scary and intimidating it must be to be contacted in such a fashion. I disagree. And, as of now, so does SCOTUS. The examples the Supreme Court has held amount to compelled speech include things like a State having no choice but to use a federal textbook in exchange for federal funds, and an instance where the DOJ threatened the NYTimes with jail time should they publish the Pentagon Papers.

THAT'S compulsion. And pissy email, which I'll remind you again, Twitter often fucking ignored, doesn't reach that bar. And the 5th Circuit was retarded for ruling so.

 

[RoastBeast]

Why am I a hypocrite? I consistently support freedom of speech. When I say that you are being hypocritical about it, it's because you support freedom of speech for Republicans and oppose it for anyone else. And the Media Matters issue that you keep ducking is key to that.

I've also pointed out that there's no theoretical basis for a universal right to freedom of speech in rightist thought, which is another thing you have run from engaging.

You're a hypocrite because you're projecting partisanship onto me when I'm the one making non partisan comments while you're the one who is fully partisan here. The whole Media Matters issue is just you trying to squeeze your way out of your hypocrisy. I've called you out on it multiple times and you continue to do so.

The Government is "nagging" lol

That's no hypocrisy. No left winger is saying that Elon can't block whomever he wants. It's not hypocrisy to point out how he's a liar when he said that once he bought twitter, he would run it as a "free speech absolutist." That hasn't happened.

So the left has the exact same position for twitter before and after Elon. At any point Twitter could decide not to host whatever they wanted.






What the fuck?



So we're back to arguing the law here? For the love of god man, pick a lane.

I've already addressed this one. The 5th Circuit argues that angry emails amounted to coercion. They base that largely on the idea of how scary and intimidating it must be to be contacted in such a fashion. I disagree. And, as of now, so does SCOTUS. The examples the Supreme Court has held amount to compelled speech include things like a State having no choice but to use a federal textbook in exchange for federal funds, and an instance where the DOJ threatened the NYTimes with jail time should they publish the Pentagon Papers.

THAT'S compulsion. And pissy email, which I'll remind you again, Twitter often fucking ignored, doesn't reach that bar. And the 5th Circuit was retarded for ruling so.

The left has the same stance before and after the Elon purchase? I see a lot of bitching about Elon and his censorship from the left right now but I saw zero bitching when Twitter was censoring people under Jack Dorsey. If you were bitching about people wrongly being censored for having opinions on covid, please point me to that and I'll admit I'm wrong.

I'm not back to arguing the law. Where did I say it was illegal for the Government to contact Twitter? You guys keep throwing that strawman out there. I'm pointing out that the Government doesn't "nag" or just merely make suggestions that people can freely say fuck you to without fear of retaliation. Calling them "angry emails" is just your way of minimizing the courts ruling of coercion and intimidation.

Just a small part of the hypocrisy from the left is calling out Elon for censoring while staying silent when right wingers are censored. Saying Elon is answering to foreign Government's attempts to censor while merely just saying that the Biden Admin's attempts to censor are "nagging", "suggesting" and "angry emails". While Trump's attempts to censor were censorship. You see where I'm getting? Anything that you don't like is labeled bad and anything on your side is minimized, deflected and defended. That's hypocrisy. It's okay when your side does it and bad when your enemies do it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're a hypocrite because you're projecting partisanship onto me when I'm the one making non partisan comments while you're the one who is fully partisan here. The whole Media Matters issue is just you trying to squeeze your way out of your hypocrisy. I've called you out on it multiple times and you continue to do so.

No, but you're lying. I'm not projecting partisanship and I'm definitely not partisan myself. As I said, and your continued ducking shows you realize that I'm right, you show your hypocrisy by supporting attacks on freedom of speech like Musk and state AGs trying to silence Media Matters, while claiming to support it. You won't find any examples of that kind of thing from me.

The left has the same stance before and after the Elon purchase? I see a lot of bitching about Elon and his censorship from the left right now but I saw zero bitching when Twitter was censoring people under Jack Dorsey. If you were bitching about people wrongly being censored for having opinions on covid, please point me to that and I'll admit I'm wrong.

The same stance = Twitter has the right to ban whomever they want for whatever reason they want. I'm not criticizing Musk for banning anyone now anyway. But people can express their views of moderation decisions--that's freedom of speech at work. Again, freedom of speech means anyone can criticize anyone they want.

 

[RoastBeast]

No, but you're lying. I'm not projecting partisanship and I'm definitely not partisan myself. As I said, and your continued ducking shows you realize that I'm right, you show your hypocrisy by supporting attacks on freedom of speech like Musk and state AGs trying to silence Media Matters, while claiming to support it. You won't find any examples of that kind of thing from me.



The same stance = Twitter has the right to ban whomever they want for whatever reason they want. I'm not criticizing Musk for banning anyone now anyway. But people can express their views of moderation decisions--that's freedom of speech at work. Again, freedom of speech means anyone can criticize anyone they want.

Your entire first paragraph is a lie. Not even worth responding to since you're being that dishonest. Literally everything you said there was untrue, whether it was about me or about yourself. There is no one more dishonest on this forum than you man. Sad that you have to resort to this fantasy world to debate topics.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Your entire first paragraph is a lie. Not even worth responding to since you're being that dishonest.

A lie is when you knowingly say something untrue, not when someone says true things that you wish they wouldn't say.

Literally everything you said there was untrue, whether it was about me or about yourself. There is no one more dishonest on this forum than you man. Sad that you have to resort to this fantasy world to debate topics.

Yeah, I'm a bad person because I pointed out your hypocrisy, and you prefer for people not to notice.

 

[RoastBeast]

A lie is when you knowingly say something untrue, not when someone says true things that you wish they wouldn't say.



Yeah, I'm a bad person because I pointed out your hypocrisy, and you prefer for people not to notice.

I'm going to bow out of discussing this with you. You are just blatantly lying at this point. Seek help bro. You have some serious issues with honesty and absorbing reality.