Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[Edge-]

Also, if you had a property bylaw violation that had been recognized by city inspectors and you'd been told it was a problem, police knocking on your door to remind you of compliance obligations until you take care of it is perfectly normal practice.

So it's even more bullshit than you're making it out to be.

It's not even that.

It's basically the equivalent of the cops you chat with all the time because they patrol the area and you see them around stopping by to let you know you they noticed you might have an HoA violation.

Are they acting on behalf of the HoA to threaten or coerce you into action? No, they're being friendly and giving you a heads up to take action on a potential issue that purely relates to you, should you choose, and that's it.

Still not the most direct comparison, but that would be as serious and concerning as what happened in the emails between the office agent and the Twitter rep.

[Jastall]

Man, still carrying water for the cause of the Twitter files is quite something when even places like Newsmax seem to gave entirely dropped the issue in embarassment.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I would not be inclined to agree.
The N-word is absolutely interpreted differently when it is a black person saying it or a non-black person saying it.
That doesn't happen with 'cis' or 'cisgender'. It's got one meaning, doesn't really change if it's a cisgender or transgender person saying it.

I can choose whether or not I interpret "cis" as a slur.

[Endus]

I can choose whether or not I interpret "cis" as a slur.

In the same sense that you can choose whether to interpret "avocado" as a slur, I guess. You'll look silly as all hell to anyone else and nobody's gonna agree with you.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Anyway, was hoping @tehdang would reply with his usual drivvel, but it appears he's fled from this thread like he always does when people ask him to address their claims. I was going to use his response as the perfect example of why open public debate with conservatives never works.

- One party provides a claim and sources to back up said claim.
- The other party must then make the counter claim with sources to refute the original claim. If they cannot refute the sourced claims or refuse to address a certain point, then the original claim is considered "true" in the confines of the debate (at least).
- Sources need to be rigorously tested academic journals, or in more informal settings that aren't debating scientific phenomena and more abstract, political, moral, or religious topics then news can suffice.

The main problem with debating conservatives is they break every rule of debate, and will do none of these things. They'll pull claims out of their ass (like @tehdang does all the time) and refuse to address numerous sourced claims that the other side makes. When they DO address claims they cannot refute, they'll either cry that the source is biased or wrong because of "Special interests", like "This scientific journal is wrong because big pharma wants to make profits!" That is not a refutation of a source's veracity, it doesn't address the claims made within the source only the source itself, and is one of the most common fallacies of our age, attacking the source rather than what is in the source.



Anyway, public debates serve a purpose, but that purpose is not to convince high school dropout conspiracy theorists of scientific phenomena. The "debate me" bros are just people who know their position lacks truth and are attempting to put on a big shouting match with real professionals so they can pretend they won by shouting the loudest.

[Paranoid Android]

So you are all engaging with that person who is disingenuous poster.

Sorry poster on ignore but have we covered this?

"...video and other newly obtained internal Twitter records show that, far from working to censor pro-Trump sentiment in the days before the Capitol riot, the company’s leaders were intent on leaving it up—despite internal warnings... trouble was brewing."

https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/st...g7mjXBj1w&s=19

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...er-video-jan6/

But the video and other newly obtained internal Twitter records show that, far from working to censor pro-Trump sentiment in the days before the Capitol riot, the company’s leaders were intent on leaving it up — despite internal warnings that trouble was brewing

It was discussed but eventually left up.

Elon lied.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

In the same sense that you can choose whether to interpret "avocado" as a slur, I guess. You'll look silly as all hell to anyone else and nobody's gonna agree with you.

That's not really the point im trying to go for. I'm talking about the "It's context sensitive" thing where Musk considers "CIS" a slur but the "N word" is "context sensitive"

[Endus]

That's not really the point im trying to go for. I'm talking about the "It's context sensitive" thing where Musk considers "CIS" a slur but the "N word" is "context sensitive"

My point is, nobody actually considers "cis" a slur. Some bigoted shitmongers use "trans" as a slur because they're transphobic fartsniffers, so they project their own malice onto anyone using the opposite term.

The response to that claim should be jeering derision and mockery, not entertaining it as an actual position.

[tehdang]

Anyway, was hoping @tehdang would reply with his usual drivvel, but it appears he's fled from this thread like he always does when people ask him to address their claims. I was going to use his response as the perfect example of why open public debate with conservatives never works.

- One party provides a claim and sources to back up said claim.
- The other party must then make the counter claim with sources to refute the original claim. If they cannot refute the sourced claims or refuse to address a certain point, then the original claim is considered "true" in the confines of the debate (at least).
- Sources need to be rigorously tested academic journals, or in more informal settings that aren't debating scientific phenomena and more abstract, political, moral, or religious topics then news can suffice.

The main problem with debating conservatives is they break every rule of debate, and will do none of these things. They'll pull claims out of their ass (like @tehdang does all the time) and refuse to address numerous sourced claims that the other side makes. When they DO address claims they cannot refute, they'll either cry that the source is biased or wrong because of "Special interests", like "This scientific journal is wrong because big pharma wants to make profits!" That is not a refutation of a source's veracity, it doesn't address the claims made within the source only the source itself, and is one of the most common fallacies of our age, attacking the source rather than what is in the source.



Anyway, public debates serve a purpose, but that purpose is not to convince high school dropout conspiracy theorists of scientific phenomena. The "debate me" bros are just people who know their position lacks truth and are attempting to put on a big shouting match with real professionals so they can pretend they won by shouting the loudest.

You insisted that certain allegations were contrary to what I had stated, and I pointed out that they were in fact meaningless to them. I'm afraid that impasse isn't solved by asserting it disproves something it doesn't. I'm happy to let the exchange stand as a point of debate if anybody wants to read and follow. Repetition at this point wouldn't help anything.

Sorry poster on ignore but

I'll just have to be informed if this changes; this is between posters that read each other's posts.

[Elegiac]

-snip-

Conspiracy theories are against the forum's rules, just so you're aware.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You insisted that certain allegations were contrary to what I had stated, and I pointed out that they were in fact meaningless to them. I'm afraid that impasse isn't solved by asserting it disproves something it doesn't. I'm happy to let the exchange stand as a point of debate if anybody wants to read and follow. Repetition at this point wouldn't help anything.

You made an assertion about the Twitter files. I countered those assertions and provided ample evidence for why the Twitter files were heavily curated by Musk, as well as them not saying what you claimed they even said in the first place. I gave you links to prove my assertions. You have yet to provide any kind of credence to your wrong opinions, other than pulling words out of your own ass.

This is why it's useless to debate most conservatives. They think saying things makes them true. They don't follow the rules of debate. If you believe that public debates are essential for professionals to plead their case to the public against critics, and thus lend credence to their findings in the public's eye and that "Truth will carry the debate", then you have to have rules strictly enforced.

The entire point of such debates completely breaks down when you have bad faith debaters (such as yourself) making unsupported claims and performing for an audience rather than providing accurate and truthful information.

[Dontrike]

Conspiracy theories are against the forum's rules, just so you're aware.

A shame mods seem to either agree with those conspiracy theories or are okay with the sea lions, T's, bad faith posters, and those that take the thread off topic again and again.

[Nymrohd]

My point is, nobody actually considers "cis" a slur.

While I ofc agree when it comes to "Cis" and related compound words, I'd say that "cissy" absolutely is used to bait an aggressive response

[Muzjhath]

I would not be inclined to agree.
The N-word is absolutely interpreted differently when it is a black person saying it or a non-black person saying it.
That doesn't happen with 'cis' or 'cisgender'. It's got one meaning, doesn't really change if it's a cisgender or transgender person saying it.

Also, leaning into the analogy - if only cisgender people could say the word, it'd probably just disappear from twitter. You really do need to have a decent grounding in LGBTQI+ language to actually know the word. I literally only use it in these discussions.

... the term cis-gender comes from Latin... and CisAlpineGaul

[Poopymonster]

I thought if you were so incredibly thick you believed them it was acceptable? I can't keep up with the interpretations of enforced rules anymore.

I believe the loop hole was if they were "Political Opinions" back around October 12th and 13th, 2018 in the Brett Kavanaugh thread around page 325. There was discussion by posters of the difference between the two along with some infractions about discussing the difference between the two and the ramifications and I'll just take my 5 point infraction now.

To my knowledge, there was never ever any clarification given.
If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate a link.

[LilSaihah]

While I ofc agree when it comes to "Cis" and related compound words, I'd say that "cissy" absolutely is used to bait an aggressive response

Honestly I don't think I've seen 'cissy' literally anywhere other than the South Park episode.
I think Musk's point is that 'cis' is almost always used as an excuse to disregard someone; "you're just a cis het white male". Perhaps our lord and savior Elon has conducted a statistical analysis of the use of the word on Twitter and determined it is a slur on that basis. Praise be to Lord Musk.

... the term cis-gender comes from Latin... and CisAlpineGaul

I'm not sure what impact that has on anything.

[Nymrohd]

Honestly I don't think I've seen 'cissy' literally anywhere other than the South Park episode.
I think Musk's point is that 'cis' is almost always used as an excuse to disregard someone; "you're just a cis het white male". Perhaps our lord and savior Elon has conducted a statistical analysis of the use of the word on Twitter and determined it is a slur on that basis. Praise be to Lord Musk.

I've never seen it at all But if I did, I'd consider it flaming. Used in the contest of parody would be perfectly acceptable. I just saw it mentioned and kind of recoiled.

[Orange Joe]

Don't use the thread title to shoehorn in your hot takes on forbidden topics. If the thread continues to get hijacked to argue about culture warfare, it'll be closed.

Why not....... and I know this is a very fucking complicated thing to think....... but why not ban those individuals instead of closing the thread?

[tehdang]

You made an assertion about the Twitter files. I countered those assertions and provided ample evidence for why the Twitter files were heavily curated by Musk, as well as them not saying what you claimed they even said in the first place. I gave you links to prove my assertions. You have yet to provide any kind of credence to your wrong opinions, other than pulling words out of your own ass.

This is why it's useless to debate most conservatives. They think saying things makes them true. They don't follow the rules of debate. If you believe that public debates are essential for professionals to plead their case to the public against critics, and thus lend credence to their findings in the public's eye and that "Truth will carry the debate", then you have to have rules strictly enforced.

The entire point of such debates completely breaks down when you have bad faith debaters (such as yourself) making unsupported claims and performing for an audience rather than providing accurate and truthful information.

No, you tried to insist articles about lawsuits and criminality were capable of debunking or disproving claims about something being improper or unethical or a waste of money (Twitter Files & Twitter). You tried to say you've proven "heavy curation" without evidence. You've repeated these claims multiple times, like they become relevant the more your repeat them. You'll have to learn that in a debate, insisting that you've debunked something when you've done nothing of the kind doesn't actually help you win the debate. You "think saying things makes them true," to borrow from what you wrote.

[Endus]

No, you tried to insist articles about lawsuits and criminality were capable of debunking or disproving claims about something being improper or unethical or a waste of money (Twitter Files & Twitter). You tried to say you've proven "heavy curation" without evidence. You've repeated these claims multiple times, like they become relevant the more your repeat them. You'll have to learn that in a debate, insisting that you've debunked something when you've done nothing of the kind doesn't actually help you win the debate. You "think saying things makes them true," to borrow from what you wrote.

In this case, you're the one making a positive claim; that there was information in the Twitter files that demonstrated unethical or unlawful conduct by government representatives.

Nothing in the Twitter files supports that claim. There is no evidence required to dismiss that claim, when you have utterly failed to back it up with evidence.