4 ms·
I reject the encroachment of post-truth tactics into further areas of discourse. If and when real evidence of paid protest is submitted, it can be discussed fre
by gdulli 10y ago
I reject the encroachment of post-truth tactics into further areas of discourse. If and when real evidence of paid protest is submitted, it can be discussed freely.
- TallGuyShort 10y agoI would consider hired protesters in the same class of scumminess as what I assume you're referring to by post-truth tactics, and I see no more evidence being presented from their side.
- byroot 10y ago> I see no more evidence being presented from their side. UAW cannot possibly prove that they didn't pay that guy, and that guy can't possibly prove he wasn't paid. You can't logically expect them to provide proofs.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- TallGuyShort 10y agoI'm not talking about proof of not being paid - I'm talking about proof of the original claims, or at least more detail than you see in the sources here. When stuff like this gets picked up and shared on popular websites because of one disgruntled employee, I'm inclined to dismiss it similarly.
- byroot 10y agoFair enough.
- gdulli 10y ago> I would consider hired protesters in the same class of scumminess If we're bringing hypotheticals into the discussion, I also can't stand train bandits. They make me so mad.
- TallGuyShort 10y agoThe original claims are as hypothetical at this point - that's what I'm saying. Do poor working conditions sometimes exist? Yes. But so do disgruntled employees. Do hired protesters exist? Yes. I've had 2 employers get protested and on both occasions I've walked up to the protesters and asked them for more details on their quarrel than "SHAME ON <ENTITY NAME>" and they haven't been able to give me any. Yes, there's no evidence given that they're hired protesters, but it's not like these writings have much more substance behind them either. None of it's worth much consideration as-is.
- gdulli 10y agoI agree that the original claims can't be taken as absolute truth either without further proof. The claim of paid protest only happens to be more suspect because of Trump's recent pattern of writing off dissent as inauthentic when in aggregate it's clearly grassroots and sincere. The link between Musk and Trump reinforces this, but it may be only a coincidence. It's context worth noting but it's not absolute proof that Musk is lying.
- st3v3r 10y agoSeriously? Did you not watch the Trump campaign or what he's done in office at all? Have you not seen the reports from the press briefings in which his advisors go on TV and claim things that are demonstrably false?
- TallGuyShort 10y agoYes I did, but I don't know what point you're taking issue with in my comment.