The Elon Musk Movement = )

[dialamah]

On 12/18/2022 at 6:20 PM, Infidel Dog said:

Speaking of breaking now...

I hear Elon put up a new poll where he swears he'll step down if a majority says they want him to.

Kind of brilliant if he plans to lose. He had some fun. Got the structure in place he wanted and now he can move on. I'm sure he has bigger fish to fry.

Except when the poll was in favor of him leaving, he changed the rules - now, only "blue" Twitter users can vote.

/S

Such a stand up guy!

/S

[robosmith]

On 12/19/2022 at 5:26 AM, Nationalist said:

Oh my.

Hey wait a minute. I thought you Libbies were all in favor of business being able to make its own decisions. Gee...guess that only applies when the business favors you.

As I've said so many times...

You Libbies have no principals.

Stop lying. No one said he couldn't do what he did. Just that he's a hypocrite when he says he's a "free speech absolutist."

You do understand there's a difference between advocating prohibition and criticizing hypocrisy, don't you?

Do you even know the meaning of hypocrisy?

[robosmith]

19 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Whine whine whine...

^Intellectual bankruptcy.

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, Hodad said:

It's great that you finally made an effort to string more than a few words together, but all you've done is repeat your lame strawman, as if all those posts had never even happened. I.e. not tracking the conversation.

It's a fact that there is nothing hypocritical about acknowledging the rights of a private org to make moderation policy, and simultaneously thinking the policy is silly/crazy/stupid or even hypocritical (in the case of Musk).

You seem to be in denial about this fact. WTF is a Tweenkie? Are you coming on to me? If so, no thanks.
 

Its a fact...is it.

I your odd reality perhaps but...it truth...its common hypocrisy. Not that anyone I know is terribly surprised at your hypocrisy...but ya...

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Stop lying. No one said he couldn't do what he did. Just that he's a hypocrite when he says he's a "free speech absolutist."

You do understand there's a difference between advocating prohibition and criticizing hypocrisy, don't you?

Do you even know the meaning of hypocrisy?

Poor Libbie. Did the mean ol' Elon take your soapbox away?

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

^Intellectual bankruptcy.

Lol...whine whine whine...

[Contrarian]

via BBC

Bob O'Donnell, from TECHnalysis Research, warned that trying to predict who might take over the social platform was a "pointless exercise because of how unpredictable and short-lived every decision" regarding Twitter has been in the Musk era.

Even so, we take a look at who might be in the running: 

Jared Kushner
Sriram Krishnan
David Sacks

and other names: 

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64026268

Even the man that swore allegiance to Russia, the now traitor Edward Snowden said in a Tweet that he wants the job. 

what if Elon Musk says nobody wants the job and therefore he needs to stay as CEO? 😃

Edited December 20, 2022 by Contrarian

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

via BBC

Bob O'Donnell, from TECHnalysis Research, warned that trying to predict who might take over the social platform was a "pointless exercise because of how unpredictable and short-lived every decision" regarding Twitter has been in the Musk era.

Even so, we take a look at who might be in the running: 

Jared Kushner
Sriram Krishnan
David Sacks

and other names: 

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64026268

Even the man that swore allegiance to Russia, the now traitor Edward Snowden said in a Tweet that he wants the job. 

what if Elon Musk says nobody wants the job and therefore he needs to stay as CEO? 😃

Why the hell would any sane person want to be CEO of Twitter with Musk as the owner?

[Aristides]

Musk seems like some sort of savant. When it comes to engineering projects he shows genius but socially he is a 12 year old.

 

Just goes to show, you can't expect one person to be everything.

Edited December 21, 2022 by Aristides

[Contrarian]

Musk says he'll step down as Twitter CEO only when he finds someone "foolish enough to take the job, after that I will just run the software and server teams". 

(The Hill). 

@Nationalistare you sending the resume to Mr. Musk? 😀

Edited December 21, 2022 by Contrarian

[Nationalist]

12 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Musk says he'll step down as Twitter CEO only when he finds someone "foolish enough to take the job, after that I will just run the software and server teams". 

(The Hill). 

@Nationalistare you sending the resume to Mr. Musk? 😀

No...I'm coasting to retirement right now and don't need to be driven daily anymore. That intensity is for the young.

[Hodad]

21 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Its a fact...is it.

I your odd reality perhaps but...it truth...its common hypocrisy. Not that anyone I know is terribly surprised at your hypocrisy...but ya...

Honestly, you're just being stupid here. It's like you're saying that believing in free speech means you can't criticize someone's speech - and if you do, you're a hypocrite! It's asinine.

[Infidel Dog]

35 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Honestly, you're just being stupid here. It's like you're saying that believing in free speech means you can't criticize someone's speech - and if you do, you're a hypocrite! It's asinine.

You can criticize speech under free speech. A repeated blatant hypocrite can blatantly and repeatedly speak his or her hypocrisy. That's free speech.

You can also call him or her a hypocrite. That's also free speech.

I don't understand why you're having such a problem understanding this. It's pretty basic.

[Hodad]

48 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

You can criticize speech under free speech. A repeated blatant hypocrite can blatantly and repeatedly speak his or her hypocrisy. That's free speech.

You can also call him or her a hypocrite. That's also free speech.

I don't understand why you're having such a problem understanding this. It's pretty basic.

Question begging is indeed a pretty basic fallacy.

[robosmith]

22 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Poor Libbie. Did the mean ol' Elon take your soapbox away?

NO. I'm NOT and NEVER have been on Twitter. You got any more conspiracy theories to promote, TROLL?

[robosmith]

22 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...whine whine whine...

^Drivel is the best you got. Congrats.

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Question begging is indeed a pretty basic fallacy.

What are you talking about?

It sounds like you maybe think you know what the logical fallacy "begging the question" is. Are you hoping to bluff me.

Nice try.

There's nothing that assumes an unproven conclusion in Nationalist using his free speech and noticing this:

Quote

Yeah, like Musk just outlawed posts referencing HIS COMPETITORS in social media. Except TikTok. 

is hypocritical after the left also pushed the idea a private company could do as it liked. He's not assuming that's hypocritical. It is hypocritical by it's nature. It's what hypocrisy does.

Hypocrisy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

R&R can't say Businesses are free to make their own rules then say Businesses aren't free to make their own rules when somebody they don't like does it. They can say it by free speech but they can't assume no one will notice it's a blatant hypocrisy.

That's proven hypocrisy. It's not assumed. And even if it wasn't Nationalist would be within his rights under free speech to say it.

There is no assumed conclusion anywhere in there. There are proven conclusions. Begging the question has nothing to do with those.

"Begging the question" requires the premise be assumed as true without support. It doesn't cover an immediately recognizable truth.

You need to stop pulling terms out your butt you don't understand just because you think somebody might not know them and be impressed.

Edited December 21, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

What are you talking about?

It sounds like you maybe think you know what the logical fallacy "begging the question" is. Are you hoping to bluff me.

Nice try.

There's nothing that assumes an unproven conclusion in Nationalist using his free speech and noticing this:

is hypocritical after the left also pushed the idea a private company could do as it liked. He's not assuming that's hypocritical. It is hypocritical by it's nature. It's what hypocrisy does.

Hypocrisy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

R&R can't say Businesses are free to make their own rules then say Businesses aren't free to make their own rules when somebody they don't like does it. They can say it by free speech but they can't assume no one will notice it's a blatant hypocrisy.

That's proven hypocrisy. It's not assumed. And even if it wasn't Nationalist would be within his rights under free speech to say it.

There is no assumed conclusion anywhere in there. There are proven conclusions. Begging the question has nothing to do with those.

"Begging the question" requires the premise be assumed as true without support. It doesn't cover an immediately recognizable truth.

You need to stop pulling terms out your butt you don't understand just because you think somebody might not know them and be impressed.

Aw, bless your heart for making the effort to look it up. Perhaps once you actually *understand* it you can spot how obvious it is here in what was had been a debate about hypocrisy. It's not hard.

"A repeated blatant hypocrite can blatantly and repeatedly speak his or her hypocrisy. That's free speech.

You can also call him or her a hypocrite."

You see, instead of trying to make the already busted argument again, you simply fold it into the premise.  

You're welcome.

 

 

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

NO. I'm NOT and NEVER have been on Twitter. You got any more conspiracy theories to promote, TROLL?

Conspiracy theories?

LOL...

[Nationalist]

22 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Aw, bless your heart for making the effort to look it up. Perhaps once you actually *understand* it you can spot how obvious it is here in what was had been a debate about hypocrisy. It's not hard.

"A repeated blatant hypocrite can blatantly and repeatedly speak his or her hypocrisy. That's free speech.

You can also call him or her a hypocrite."

You see, instead of trying to make the already busted argument again, you simply fold it into the premise.  

You're welcome.

 

 

We weren't having a debate about hypocrisy. You were trying to deny obvious hypocrisy. I mean...you can come up with all the weird notions you like about this and that...but nobody with a mind is going to be terribly interested because...frankly ur full o' shit.

[robosmith]

14 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Conspiracy theories?

LOL...

Yes, conspiracy theories. YOUR theory that someone like me who criticizes Musk must be on Twitter (afraid of losing a megaphone).

Have you already forgotten YOUR posted theory? LMAO

 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

What are you talking about?

It sounds like you maybe think you know what the logical fallacy "begging the question" is. Are you hoping to bluff me.

Nice try.

There's nothing that assumes an unproven conclusion in Nationalist using his free speech and noticing this:

is hypocritical after the left also pushed the idea a private company could do as it liked. He's not assuming that's hypocritical. It is hypocritical by it's nature. It's what hypocrisy does.

Hypocrisy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

R&R can't say Businesses are free to make their own rules then say Businesses aren't free to make their own rules when somebody they don't like does it. They can say it by free speech but they can't assume no one will notice it's a blatant hypocrisy.

That's proven hypocrisy. It's not assumed. And even if it wasn't Nationalist would be within his rights under free speech to say it.

There is no assumed conclusion anywhere in there. There are proven conclusions. Begging the question has nothing to do with those.

"Begging the question" requires the premise be assumed as true without support. It doesn't cover an immediately recognizable truth.

You need to stop pulling terms out your butt you don't understand just because you think somebody might not know them and be impressed.

Any kind of censoring to PROTECT PERSONAL INTERESTS after declaring to be a "free speech absolutist" is HYPOCRISY, and pointing that out is not advocating any kind of prohibition.

Obviously Musk can be (and is) one of the biggest HYPOCRITES. Nothing I can say will stop him.

 

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Aw, bless your heart for making the effort to look it up. Perhaps once you actually *understand* it you can spot how obvious it is here in what was had been a debate about hypocrisy. It's not hard.

"A repeated blatant hypocrite can blatantly and repeatedly speak his or her hypocrisy. That's free speech.

You can also call him or her a hypocrite."

You see, instead of trying to make the already busted argument again, you simply fold it into the premise.  

You're welcome.

 

 

If only it wasn't bad netiquette to link from one board to another. I'd show you 20 page threads I've been involved in discussing logical and rhetorical fallacies including begging the question. 

I'll give you the digested version. I was right. One of your fellow Progs who also liked to talk out his butt and didn't think anybody could see what he was doing was wrong.

Not sure but I think I brought up begging the question here, on this board. That might have been where you heard it.

Here's why calling hypocrisy hypocrisy isn't begging the question.

It is free speech for a person to make a hypocritical statement. He can do that.

It's also free speech for another person to notice the hypocrisy.

In the case mentioned there was hypocrisy, actual hypocrisy. (I already explained why using the definition.) And somebody noticed. That's not begging the question. If it wasn't easily supportable, blatantly noticeable hypocrisy you might have a point but it was. You busted no argument on anything ever. Falsely asking us to assume you did is begging the question.

 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

We weren't having a debate about hypocrisy. You were trying to deny obvious hypocrisy. I mean...you can come up with all the weird notions you like about this and that...but nobody with a mind is going to be terribly interested because...frankly ur full o' shit.

So, you're sticking with the idea that one cannot believe that parties are free to take certain actions, while also criticizing those actions? That to do so it's hypocrisy?

That's literally the premise of free speech (or free anything) going back to the beginning of the notion of liberty.

What you seem to be saying is monumentally stupid, but I defend your right to say it. 😉

[Hodad]

11 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

If only it wasn't bad netiquette to link from one board to another. I'd show you 20 page threads I've been involved in discussing logical and rhetorical fallacies including begging the question. 

I'll give you the digested version. I was right. One of your fellow Progs who also liked to talk out his butt and didn't think anybody could see what he was doing was wrong.

Not sure but I think I brought up begging the question here, on this board. That might have been where you heard it.

Here's why calling hypocrisy hypocrisy isn't begging the question.

It is free speech for a person to make a hypocritical statement. He can do that.

It's also free speech for another person to notice the hypocrisy.

In the case mentioned there was hypocrisy, actual hypocrisy. (I already explained why using the definition.) And somebody noticed. That's not begging the question. If it wasn't easily supportable, blatantly noticeable hypocrisy you might have a point but it was. You busted no argument on anything ever. Falsely asking us to assume you did is begging the question.

 

Of course calling hypocrisy hypocrisy isn't question begging. But arguing that a certain viewpoint is hypocrisy by assuming the hypocrisy in the premise of the argument is *exactly* what it means to beg the question. 

I'm assuming those threads went on for 20 pages because it takes that long for you to catch on. Oy.