Musk buys Twitter

[Niya]

...then you are culpable. You would likely be prosecutable under conspiracy. And if Twitter allowed you to do it, so would they.

Why isn't trump in a jail cell or at least been called before some kind of committee to answer for his actions.

You said earlier that you're demonised if you use the pronoun no Twitter. But that means you were able to use the wrong pronoun. You just didn't like being held accountable for it.

The ban was implied when I made that statement. I didn't think I needed to say that. It is possible to be banned and demonized at the same time.

[FunkyDexter]

or at least been called before some kind of committee to answer for his actions

Um... have you been following the news? He was impeached, there are multitudinous cases being brought against him and a rather high profile committee sub-poenaing various of how close associates as we speak. Will he be convicted? That remains to be seen. Most likely he won't but it'll be down to politics (the Reps will win a majority in the mid terms and quash the Jan 6th committee) rather than legality and you better believe that you or I would not enjoy the same protection.

The ban was implied when I made that statement. I didn't think I needed to say that. It is possible to be banned and demonized at the same time.

Citation needed.


Edit> how the hell do you spell sub-poenaing?

[Niya]

Where is the line drawn?

That's easy. Draw the line on things that are universally agreed upon by all groups. Child molestation is an example of such a thing. No matter who you are or what your politics are, you will probably agree that molesting a child is wrong. I mean even Neo-Nazis and genocidal dictators love their children.

Outside of this, I think everything should be free game.

[Niya]

Citation needed.

You do know you can Google this stuff right?

https://twitter.com/kaitmarieox/stat...704003?lang=en

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-people...ly-two-genders

[Shaggy Hiker]

It is absolutely insane to me that everyone in the mainstream avoided examining this more deeply and simply dismissed them as mindless sheep following a mad man. This kind of willful ignorance is how great empires fall.

That depends on what you consider mainstream media. If you are talking about television, then they didn't examine it more deeply because the medium doesn't allow deeper investigations of anything. Sure, there can be documentaries that examine things in depth, but I wouldn't call anybody that does feature length documentaries part of the mainstream media. I would consider places like ABC, CNN, Fox News, and so on as mainstream media, and they never do stories longer than a few minutes.

If you include radio, then you DO see somewhat more detailed studies, but there again, the format is mostly shorter segments with lengthy 'documentaries'. Some of those did dig deeper.

If you include print media, then there were plenty of deeper examinations. Print media is a format well suited to that.

So, it all comes down to what you include when you talk about mainstream media. Include print, and there were deeper dives.

However, you also have to consider that in a country of over 300 million people, a view that is shared by 0.1% can still mobilize over 300,000 people. The capitol riot included far fewer. When you get to their numbers, you can find that many incensed about contrails delivering mind-control drugs. It's just the law of large numbers at work: Once you have a large enough population, all of which can find like minded folks on social media, then gathering a few thousand for ANY cause becomes possible.

Do we need to have an in depth study of contrails if a few thousand people get together to start clamoring for one? Probably not, since it wouldn't do a thing. Such a study would be rejected by the people involved in the protest, so it's a waste of time.

[Niya]

Once you have a large enough population, all of which can find like minded folks on social media, then gathering a few thousand for ANY cause becomes possible.

This is actually an extremely good point. I've said this to people on a number of occasions. It's funny, I remember telling a friend something to the effect that if you started a movement where the core belief is that you can get closer to God by having a dog chew on your scrotum, you could probably get thousands of people worldwide to sign up.

Still, I don't think censorship is the cure. If someone is determined enough, a ban on Twitter won't stop them from reaching their intended audience.

[FunkyDexter]

You do know you can Google this stuff right?

Twitter banned me for 12 hours hours today for saying there are two genders, claiming I engaged in targeted harassment and abusive behavior. What a time to be alive.

So what did she actually tweet. Given that you're citing Kaitlin Bennett I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that it was a whole lot more just saying there are only two genders. I'm pretty sure you'll find that targeted harassment and abusive behaviour is a much better descriptor than her claim. (I tried to find the content but couldn't. I can't find anything that corroborates her being banned at all)

Plenty of people have been able to engage in the trans gender debate, on both sides, without receiving a ban. Those who disagree with Trans rights have included J K Rowling, Marc Almond and Adele. None were banned though all received backlash. All that is required is to do so in a non abusive manner.

That's easy. Draw the line on things that are universally agreed upon by all groups. Child molestation is an example of such a thing

It isn't, though. That's the problem. There are groups out there right now advocating for a P to be added to LGBTQ. The P stands for pedophile. We live in a horrifying world. ALL morality is subjective so every platform and social group has to draw a line on what it deems to be acceptable and attempt to hold that line. Twitters line is primarily aimed at abusive or intimidating behaviour (not politics as you are trying to claim) and I'm pretty sure that, if you dig deeper, that's what you'll find people have been banned for.

[Niya]

So what did she actually tweet.

http://libertyhangout.org/2018/05/tw...s-against-her/

Yesterday, Bennett posted a photo to Twitter of herself with two pistols behind her back with a caption that read “If I had a pistol for every gender there is.”

She ridiculed the idea that there are more than 2 genders by using a humorous comment. Basically she used humor to push back against the progressive ideology that is trying to convince the world that there are more than two genders, something that is patently false. So basically she was banned for criticizing a stupid idea. This is absolute insanity.

[FunkyDexter]

Bennett posted a photo to Twitter of herself with two pistols behind her back with a caption that read “If I had a pistol for every gender there is.”

You don't see how that can be construed as intimidating?!

something that is patently false

It's not though.

Edit>You might find this an educating read

Edit2> I should also add that you're linking to Bennett's own page. Do you have anything that corroborates it?

[Shaggy Hiker]

People tend not to show themselves in any light other than the one they'd like to be seen in. You always need to get the other side of the story, or else you're just being gullible.

Having said that, we can't get the other side of the story for every story, because there isn't enough time in the world. Therefore, we all accept certain things uncritically, and we do so because we HAVE to. Still, if challenged on some point that can be verified, it is good to find both sides.

That is not a firm rule, just a guideline. We don't have time to go searching for both sides on every statement anybody questions us on, either. To some extent, we're all just making it up as we go.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Still, I don't think censorship is the cure. If someone is determined enough, a ban on Twitter won't stop them from reaching their intended audience.

To theorize on this a bit, I believe we may be too old to be talking about this intelligently. I grew up before the internet. I was out in the workforce before social media even made an appearance. Therefore, my formative experiences were in a different world.

Censorship wasn't the name of it before. It was called 'life'. A rare view almost never encountered another, similar, view so long as it was sufficiently rare. The tinfoil hat crowd (by which I mean those who literally line their hats with tinfoil), are not numerous, so they may have made it through life without encountering more than one other believer. Even if they encountered a few other believers, and didn't simply fall out (like the People's Front of Judea, which was a joke, but it was a joke because everybody knows of examples where that exact thing happens) with one another, they couldn't organize. What would they do, write letters? Post advertisements in papers? I believe they tried all of that, but still couldn't organize much because they reached so few.

Social media and the internet age has created one fundamental change that society is still wrestling with: Those with like views can not just find one another, but once they do, they can wall off their community. That latter part is something that has existed LONG before the internet. It's a fundamental requirement to forming a cult. While still used today, isolating recruits from outside contact has always been one of the key tools (and identifying characteristics) of cults.

Not all cults are bad, and not all isolation is bad, but the internet age has allowed the recruiting and walling off like no time in history. We don't know what this will do.

Still, the theoretical point is basically this: For those of us who are old enough to have grown up before the internet, we lived in a time where there was censorship of everybody, and almost nobody saw it as censorship. When you are a part of a society, whether it is VBF, your local PTA, a youth soccer league, some church, or even just a place of employment, there are rules that you don't cross if you want to stay a member of that society. Sometimes they are written, sometimes they are not, but they are ALWAYS enforced, and enforced by the same means: Excommunication, in one form or another. That's censorship.

What the internet has allowed is two fold. One is that groups can form with their own set of unique rules, so people can find societies with the rules they prefer. The second is that people can readily wear different faces. You can be one person in one forum, with one personality, and a different person in a different forum with a different personality.

[FunkyDexter]

we can't get the other side of the story for every story, because there isn't enough time in the world.

I agree but in Bennett's case she has a history of false claims which is why I wouldn't accept the word from just her own site. What surprised me is that I couldn't find anything, even from other right wing news sites.

I did manage to find a petition to get her banned. It's not doing great and I doubt Twitter will pay any attention to it regardless

For those of us who are old enough to have grown up before the internet, we lived in a time where there was censorship of everybody, and almost nobody saw it as censorship. When you are a part of a society, whether it is VBF, your local PTA, a youth soccer league, some church, or even just a place of employment, there are rules that you don't cross if you want to stay a member of that society. Sometimes they are written, sometimes they are not, but they are ALWAYS enforced, and enforced by the same means: Excommunication, in one form or another. That's censorship.

I think that sums it up really well. We have always had and continue to have the right to say just about anything. What we have never had and still don't have is the freedom to do so without consequence.

[wes4dbt]

Still, I don't think censorship is the cure. If someone is determined enough, a ban on Twitter won't stop them from reaching their intended audience.

Censorship isn't meant to be a "cure". It's just a tool.

You keep saying there shouldn't be any censorship, but then you post this,

That's easy. Draw the line on things that are universally agreed upon by all groups. Child molestation is an example of such a thing

So it seems you do believe there should be censorship. The real problems seems to be you don't like what's being censored.

[Peter Porter]

I disagree. The best way to recognize an idiot is to allow him to tell us himself.

And then you censor if the person wants to cause phsyical harm, or do we let this person continue posting the same until there's actual death or injured people, because this person carried through with their plans, or encouraged a closet nut to do so? Should this person be allowed to continue posting after a tragedy this person caused so this person or their follower cause harm again? Alot of them post anonymously, which are impossible to track to be arrested. Where is the line drawn?

That's easy. Draw the line on things that are universally agreed upon by all groups. Child molestation is an example of such a thing. No matter who you are or what your politics are, you will probably agree that molesting a child is wrong.

Ok... So you also agree upon censoring all shared information that instigates something that could cause all kinds of physical or personal harm to people of all ages.

We're on the same page!

[Niya]

Edit>You might find this an educating read

K I'm done. This is just too bizarre for me to discuss seriously.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Bizarre? Look at the natural world. The only difference there is, they don't get hung up about it.

[Niya]

Bizarre? Look at the natural world. The only difference there is, they don't get hung up about it.

I'm willing to talk about gender politics in as much as it relates to the topic of censorship and law but if the discussion steers into any direction that invites debates about the validity of the more esoteric or bizarre aspects of the gender identity narrative, I'm bailing right out. I'm no more willing to talk about this than I am willing to debate young Earth creationism, flat Earth theory or religion. It's just a waste of time that is uninteresting and goes nowhere. I'd rather we just agree to disagree and move on.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Does any of this ever go anywhere? I'm not sure that I've seen anybody on this forum ever budge even an inch from whatever view they had going in. Not on gender, not on censorship, not on COVID, and CERTAINLY not on VB6.

[Niya]

Does any of this ever go anywhere? I'm not sure that I've seen anybody on this forum ever budge even an inch from whatever view they had going in. Not on gender, not on censorship, not on COVID, and CERTAINLY not on VB6.

True. However, a lot of interesting things come out of these debates. For example, I learned a whole lot of stuff from VB6 vs VB.Net debates. No one ever changed their minds but I did gain a lot of knowledge from it. Nothing good can come from debating things like religion and gender identity. Those topics are far too grounded in subjectivity.

[sapator]

I have to agree on the stubbornness of all of us.
The issue here is not to get too personal as some people seem to.
I mean there are some point's that we will never agree on and it may also be the relative distance of countries. And it's for the best. I think one opinion only is not the democratic way.
Whatever we talk about, it is going to go as it is going to go, meaning I don't think Musk will look at this forum to decide what to do.
The only thing that may work the wheel is mass gathering (in particular web gatherings) and that's where the attention of control has focused on.
So, Elon, pal, the known group here want censorship (dil excluded), I'm against any censorship and Niya want's light as frat censorship, let's us know, will ya? Thanks.

P.S. I think I hate neo nazis more as we have lost 13% + of our population from their brothers. Of course they where pissed as:
Not only did Greece protect its homeland, marking the first defeat of the Axis in WWII, but it allowed the British to tighten the blockade in the Mediterranean and cut Italy's communication lines, allowing for extra months of time for allies to prepare.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'm willing to talk about gender politics in as much as it relates to the topic of censorship and law but if the discussion steers into any direction that invites debates about the validity of the more esoteric or bizarre aspects of the gender identity narrative, I'm bailing right out.

Well, I love a good stampede, so just to be clear here, do we just have to say the word "gender", or does it take a bit more?

[dilettante]

The good news is that more average people are taking a peek behind the curtain and questioning that which scuttles in the darkness behind the thin veil.



This material should be exhibited in public meetings without prior notice and a response demanded of locally elected officials who associate themselves with the two-faced monster we have in the US. Despite a more multi-party veneer in other countries, I suspect power remains shared within two or maybe three larger camps presenting false faces of "a difference" to the population.

[TysonLPrice]

Is Musk backing out of Twitter?

Elon Musk is having cold feet about the Twitter deal—or he's just trolling. On May 13, Musk tweeted that his deal to buy Twitter is “temporarily on hold” until he can get more assurance that the social platform's user base is at least 95% real people, versus fake or spam accounts.

That's not new but his approach to that seems to be firming up.

[dilettante]

I agree that Musk seems to have gone pretty limp on the deal after so much initial bluster. Maybe he just wanted to watch the media set the radical left's hair on fire again and watch them run in circles.

[TysonLPrice]

I assumed people knew about Buffalo...maybe not:

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/15/10990...g-what-we-know


Here's a twist to censorship...Many of the conservative stations have been pushing "Replacement Theory" or "White Replacement Theory". It has morphed a few times but for Fox News, and particularly Tucker Carlson, it is part of their culture wars approach to broadcasting. The liberals are allowing unrestricted immigrations in to dilute the white conservative vote. Unless something is done "white America" will fail. Personally I think they should be censoring themselves for the divisions they are creating.

But in a way they did...as the Buffalo shooters reasoning came about being centered on "Replacement Theory" and non-white hate they only have gone on the record once that that was part of the murderer's reasoning. They have been pushing it for months but when it raised its ugly head they are leaving it out of their broadcasts.

So in my opinion they push a race baiting agenda, then when someone that embraced that same theory and murdered people over it, they don't even acknowledge he felt that way. Doing so would be an admission of how very dangerous their position on "Replacement Theory" can be.

That nut in Buffalo may never even have watched Fox News. He sincerely believed in the same "Replacement Theory" that Fox pushes. The nation as a whole is discussing race relations and hate, Fox news can't, they promote it.

[dilettante]

You'll see very little coverage of the radicalized Red Chinese American terrorist who shot up a Taiwanese American church in California on Sunday though. So far not one word about his manifesto.

Doesn't fit the narrative. Will Biden even make a token visit there?

Give it a week. Which stories will still be "news?"

[TysonLPrice]

You'll see very little coverage of the radicalized Red Chinese American terrorist who shot up a Taiwanese American church in California on Sunday though. So far not one word about his manifesto.

Doesn't fit the narrative. Will Biden even make a token visit there?

Give it a week. Which stories will still be "news?"

Actually there was quite a bit of coverage where I looked. Fox even covered it because they were not culpable this time.

[FunkyDexter]

I've certainly seen it. It 's been all over the news here.

I don't know how the likes of Fox are presenting it but it was definitely racially motivated and the manifesto he issued on line before setting out cited replacement theory multiple times. What's heart breaking is that a load of folks are going fail to draw the line between their own casual racism and the lethal consequences it ultimately leads to - so this will happen again.

[dilettante]

I'd never heard of this "replacement theory" or "great replacement" and had to go look that up.

Turns out that term is a creation of the media, designed to further inflame the radical left and right and keep people divided. It was taken from early 20th century French nationalism.

As far as I can tell the only real part of that is about the DNC's mission to increase the size of the controllable underclass through enhancement of immigration. Corporations want cheap labor that won't be tempted to organize and can be used to bust strikes and break the backs of unions. We've seen this pattern in the US over and over again as far back as the 19th century.

Sad to see people so bent on advocating for low pay, no benefits, no job security, and a perpetual supply chain problem.

[TysonLPrice]

Turns out that term is a creation of the media, designed to further inflame the radical left and right and keep people divided. It was taken from early 20th century French nationalism.

It is not a creation of the media, in the form you imply, and is very real and dangerous. Your post indicates a very deep misunderstanding of its current form.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/17/10992...its-mainstream

As far as I can tell the only real part of that is about the DNC's mission to increase the size of the controllable underclass through enhancement of immigration

Sigh!!!!

[Niya]

I agree that Musk seems to have gone pretty limp on the deal after so much initial bluster. Maybe he just wanted to watch the media set the radical left's hair on fire again and watch them run in circles.

Timcast has an interesting theory:-

[Niya]

I'd never heard of this "replacement theory" or "great replacement" and had to go look that up.

This replacement theory stuff is lifted entirely from David Duke Neo-Nazi ideology and it's nothing new. You could have found this replacement theory idea being discussed in great detail by many Neo-Nazis online for the past 20 years. They are literally always talking about it on Stormfront and 4Chan's /pol/ and /b/ sub-boards. However, I don't recall them ever giving it a name. They just constantly rattle on about whites being replaced by "orcs" or "subhumans" or whatever other cute term they invent.

This buffalo shooter embodies the very essence of the average Stormfront user. His 180 page manifesto is basically an entire document parroting stuff being posted on Stormfront and 4Chan's /pol/ and /b/ for decades. Nothing in that document is unique, novel or an original idea by him. I would not be surprised even in the slightest if this idiot was a PowerPoster(Stormfront's forums are powered by the same software that powers this site) on Stormfront. However, it's more likely that he just hung out in /pol/ a lot since his manifesto contain a lot of imagery from 4Chan and /pol/ is the sub-board of 4Chan where Neo-Nazis hang out when they're not on Stormfront. In fact, there is not a single image in his manifesto I had never seen before. The images in his manifesto are images I've been seeing on 4Chan for years.

[dilettante]

They raise a good point that most of these probably aren't the sock puppets they appear to be. Just soullless little people with such empty lives that toadying to a boisterous "in group" and echoing the right lines helps them feel worthwhile again... until they go offline when Ma asks them to come up from the basement and empty that trash, now dammit!

It can be hard to separate these from the Free Stuffers who honestly see themselves as entitled victims of one bogeyman or another.

[dilettante]

This replacement theory stuff is lifted entirely from David Duke Neo-Nazi ideology and it's nothing new.

Well it was new to me. I don't follow the crazy right or the crazy left. They seem to desperately need each other though.

[TysonLPrice]

It seems like my point is being missed by people that have to look it up.

It has morphed a few times but for Fox News, and particularly Tucker Carlson, it is part of their culture wars approach to broadcasting. The liberals are allowing unrestricted immigrations in to dilute the white conservative vote. Unless something is done "white America" will fail. Personally I think they should be censoring themselves for the divisions they are creating.

I agree it has been around, nothing really new, was from some French guy a while ago, etc. I'm talking about how Fox news, and particularly Tucker Carson, have been espousing it lately. Then when it was brought up in the context of a mass shooting they did not report on the very thing they have been espousing for months. They know their hands are dirty.

[dilettante]

I guess you watch more Fox than I ever did. I hear some of their radio stuff now and then but it never came up or I tuned it out.

[TysonLPrice]

I guess you watch more Fox than I ever did. I hear some of their radio stuff now and then but it never came up or I tuned it out.

You don't need to watch Fox...you just need to keep up on current events...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...acement-theory

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/n...y-murdoch.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media...rvative-media/

[Niya]

Why is Fox News being mentioned? The Buffalo Shooter's motivations have nothing to do with what Fox News talks about. There is some overlap, this is true but trust and believe, nothing you find on Fox News would explain the Shooter's motivations. You want to understand his motivations, don't listen to Fox News. That is baby stuff, it barely tickles the surface of what this kid was thinking. Go for the real hardcore material. Go on /pol/ and Stormfront.org. Spend an hour there and you'd get it.

Or better yet, let the kid tell you himself. Read his manifesto.

[dilettante]

Well of course if you go to the crazies you will find a lot of crazy.

I'm more curious why somebody tries to claim that the one media source they rail against is somehow responsible for the craziness.

[TysonLPrice]

Why is Fox News being mentioned?

Because it is at the essence of my post. Please read this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...acement-theory

Sure there are really "hard core" sites if you want to view what the fringe element is doing. What Fox is doing is on main stream media.