"and the media explorations of it are obviously tendentious claims made by its enemies and failures"
No, they're accurate. Your claim there is the tendentious one, if we're taking tendentious to mean "completely made up on the spur of the moment to defend psychological torture because you think that form of torture is morally righteous.
Just, fuck you, eh?
I should have had "defending people who post screenshots of CSAM to Twitter" in my bingo card for you. More fool me that I didn't. Loudly and repeatedly bragging that you don't understand how profitability works is a good one too, we love to see that.
No, they're not. What is happening is that vile bigots are trying to force people OUT of spaces which they are legally entitled to access according to their gender.
As always with Nazis, you hallucinate a threat and then characterize your violent actions as a defense of what is good and proper.
It's not a crime, though, and pretending that it is doesn't make it so. This is made clear in the court's judgement, with reference to the precedent that informs it.
Seperately, it's not a "progressive" platform that people have to obey every onerous NDA some rich criminal tries to tie them to. Kind of the opposite, TBH.
Your head's so far up your colon that you can't see the irony here. When you can't pound the facts and you can't pound the law, pound the naughty words used by the people with both facts and law on their side!
You know what really diminishes the impact of a statement? Priggish pseudo-moral pedantry. It's reasonable to be angered by somebody defending a white-supremacist terrorist by erasing his victims; showing that anger through your response is entirely human.
Every time you post like this, you add another little nugget to the pile of evidence that it's only possible to defend Musk by being stoically ignorant of facts, context, and human decency.
You can't even make your ranting consistent with itself within the space of a single paragraph, let alone in the face of reality.
How, for instance, would being emotionally fragile, physically weak and thoroughly deluded result in people committing treasonous acts not being arrested? The Jan 6th folks hit all of those in a row and plenty of them got mopped up, so...
It is definitely not a "hard ask" for people not to do the bizarre things you have just hallucinated into existence, and which nobody is doing anyway, but your ramblings do make me worry about the fevered mind that produced them. I hope to help you don't have access to firearms.
I enjoyed the tone of this. It makes a nice change from reading articles where the author has to bend over backwards to portray The Worst People in America as somehow still worthy of our collective empathy and good will.
Watching far-right dingbats explain how their own brains work in the form of spurious accusations is one of my favourite forms of entertainment, thank you for this
Saying things that are true in a sarcastic tone - e.g. that Republicans are flooding the public with disinformation via fake local news - makes you look like the fool, not the perspectives you're mocking.
For a reductio to work you have to at least have a grasp on what you're undermining. I don't think anyone here is going to argue for WaPo as a paragon of journalism, or indeed suggest that anyone should single-source their news.
I did not get the impression that a claim as strong as that was being made. Think of it in terms of an ecosystem. The removal of Fairness Doctrine is like a change in soil pH, which allowed weeds like Limbaugh to flourish, which in turn made the environment more favourable for worse things like Fox.
You're right that the Internet played its part - shit like Drudge created something Fox needed to compete with - but none of this is about something being solely responsible so much as certain tipping points being identifiable.
They paid A price, for sure, but that price wasn't even them having to properly admit what they did to their audiences let alone anything that would prevent them from doing it again.
So yeah, they might not lie about Dominion again. They're still going to lie about the election, about trans people, about anything that they feel will aid their political allies.
Is it? Which parts of it? I live in the UK where most of the media is establishment-biased by default and Conservative-biased by the ownership's proximity to wealth, but there's not a proliferation of fake outlets. Our journalists mostly just do a shit job through incompetence and lack of imagination.
To be fair, I think he means "pretty liberal compared with what I consider to be ideal", and we can take that as true if we work from the assumption that Mr Bennett is a fan of far-right dictatorships.
Sure, you basically admitted that he's loaded them under so much debt that they couldn't mount a legal defence. Except they don't have to. Twitter wasn't constantly fighting lawsuits, it just operated like an organisation with a mission and a spine, instead of being a clearing house for fascist dictatorships to get dirt on their enemies and shut down speech. We can all see what Elmo is actually doing with Twitter (or rather, we could until he stopped the reporting process) - you're the only one here having trouble accepting the facts.
You suck
"and the media explorations of it are obviously tendentious claims made by its enemies and failures" No, they're accurate. Your claim there is the tendentious one, if we're taking tendentious to mean "completely made up on the spur of the moment to defend psychological torture because you think that form of torture is morally righteous. Just, fuck you, eh?
Not unexpected
I should have had "defending people who post screenshots of CSAM to Twitter" in my bingo card for you. More fool me that I didn't. Loudly and repeatedly bragging that you don't understand how profitability works is a good one too, we love to see that.
Fail
No, they're not. What is happening is that vile bigots are trying to force people OUT of spaces which they are legally entitled to access according to their gender. As always with Nazis, you hallucinate a threat and then characterize your violent actions as a defense of what is good and proper.
derp
It's not a crime, though, and pretending that it is doesn't make it so. This is made clear in the court's judgement, with reference to the precedent that informs it. Seperately, it's not a "progressive" platform that people have to obey every onerous NDA some rich criminal tries to tie them to. Kind of the opposite, TBH.
Your head's so far up your colon that you can't see the irony here. When you can't pound the facts and you can't pound the law, pound the naughty words used by the people with both facts and law on their side!
You know what really diminishes the impact of a statement? Priggish pseudo-moral pedantry. It's reasonable to be angered by somebody defending a white-supremacist terrorist by erasing his victims; showing that anger through your response is entirely human.
Own goal
Every time you post like this, you add another little nugget to the pile of evidence that it's only possible to defend Musk by being stoically ignorant of facts, context, and human decency.
Internal logic: absent
You can't even make your ranting consistent with itself within the space of a single paragraph, let alone in the face of reality. How, for instance, would being emotionally fragile, physically weak and thoroughly deluded result in people committing treasonous acts not being arrested? The Jan 6th folks hit all of those in a row and plenty of them got mopped up, so...
Wut
It is definitely not a "hard ask" for people not to do the bizarre things you have just hallucinated into existence, and which nobody is doing anyway, but your ramblings do make me worry about the fevered mind that produced them. I hope to help you don't have access to firearms.
Tone
I enjoyed the tone of this. It makes a nice change from reading articles where the author has to bend over backwards to portray The Worst People in America as somehow still worthy of our collective empathy and good will.
Watching far-right dingbats explain how their own brains work in the form of spurious accusations is one of my favourite forms of entertainment, thank you for this
It's spelled Fascist
Not "Republican"
NO U
"I NOT BIAS YOU BIAS" appears to be the level of your argument here, such as it could be described as one rather than just a tantrum.
Shut up, and fuck off.
Saying things that are true in a sarcastic tone - e.g. that Republicans are flooding the public with disinformation via fake local news - makes you look like the fool, not the perspectives you're mocking. For a reductio to work you have to at least have a grasp on what you're undermining. I don't think anyone here is going to argue for WaPo as a paragon of journalism, or indeed suggest that anyone should single-source their news.
I did not get the impression that a claim as strong as that was being made. Think of it in terms of an ecosystem. The removal of Fairness Doctrine is like a change in soil pH, which allowed weeds like Limbaugh to flourish, which in turn made the environment more favourable for worse things like Fox. You're right that the Internet played its part - shit like Drudge created something Fox needed to compete with - but none of this is about something being solely responsible so much as certain tipping points being identifiable.
They paid A price, for sure, but that price wasn't even them having to properly admit what they did to their audiences let alone anything that would prevent them from doing it again. So yeah, they might not lie about Dominion again. They're still going to lie about the election, about trans people, about anything that they feel will aid their political allies.
Is it? Which parts of it? I live in the UK where most of the media is establishment-biased by default and Conservative-biased by the ownership's proximity to wealth, but there's not a proliferation of fake outlets. Our journalists mostly just do a shit job through incompetence and lack of imagination.
To be fair, I think he means "pretty liberal compared with what I consider to be ideal", and we can take that as true if we work from the assumption that Mr Bennett is a fan of far-right dictatorships.
Sure, you basically admitted that he's loaded them under so much debt that they couldn't mount a legal defence. Except they don't have to. Twitter wasn't constantly fighting lawsuits, it just operated like an organisation with a mission and a spine, instead of being a clearing house for fascist dictatorships to get dirt on their enemies and shut down speech. We can all see what Elmo is actually doing with Twitter (or rather, we could until he stopped the reporting process) - you're the only one here having trouble accepting the facts.