5 ms·

Maybe they actually believed his statements regarding unlimited free speech. It's not backed by evidence but SpaceX does attract dreamers.

mft_ 4y ago
I don’t think any definition of free speech guarantees total freedom from repercussions?
- jcranmer 4y ago
  Isn't that the definition of free speech that Musk wants for Twitter?
  - psyc 4y ago
    The purpose of Twitter is speech. People like Musk argue it is analogous to a public space. Twitter users don't work for Twitter and are not subordinates of Twitter. Do you also imagine that Musk believes service people ought to be allowed to mock their superior officers to their faces without repercussions?
    - mywittyname 4y ago
      Musk got someone fired from a job because they once worked for the SEC. So I imagine Musk believes anyone who causes him displeasure, in any form, even by association, should be put in their place by measures including, and up to, loss of livelihood. I'm not so sure he gives a damn about anyone in the military, unless they run afoul of the ideas presented in previous statement.
      - tannhauser23 4y ago
        That lawyer INVESTIGATED Musk. I don't think Musk behaved very well in that situation, but if you are a law firm and you rely on Musk's companies for business, maybe don't hire a government lawyer who went after him?
        JaimeThompson 4y ago
        The government lawyer didn't go after him, the government did.
    - efsavage 4y ago
      The purpose of Twitter is money, not speech. Speech is their product, and as a private company, they're allowed to decide what products they sell.
  - mft_ 4y ago
    Maybe freedom from Twitter censoring you, but not freedom from repercussions from what you said (or tweeted). That’s ultimately determined by e.g. the courts and (as in this case) employers.
- Bud 4y ago
  Actually, about half of the political spectrum of the US believes (or steadfastly pretends to believe) that this is precisely what "free speech" means. I guess they haven't processed the famous XKCD on this issue.
  - nsxwolf 4y ago
    I would bet real money the fired employees have shared that particular XKCD comic a lot.
psyc 4y ago
The other thread is full of this nonsense. You give the impression that you believe that free speech absolutists think you ought to be allowed to walk up to your CEO and tell him to go fuck himself, without retaliation. What other things would you have us believe that free speech absolutists would allow? Catcalling coworkers, perhaps? Threatening to murder someone's children? No, you just want to snipe at Musk, and you see this is a way to do it.
- JaimeThompson 4y ago
  His actions show that he considers calling someone a child molester to be acceptable speech so it isn't too much to think that much more polite speech he would not have an issue with.
  - jdminhbg 4y ago
    That person was not a boss or coworker, he was a stranger who had insulted him. It's completely wild how over the past twelve months the anti-Musk people have somehow eclipsed the pro-Musk people in their monomania and inability to step back and objectively consider any situation.
    - magicalist 4y ago
      > It's completely wild how over the past twelve months the anti-Musk people have somehow eclipsed the pro-Musk people in their monomania He's a perpetually online guy, it was bound to happen. If he shut up every now and then it would help. If he realized he can't derive unified theories of social behavior through logic untainted by the real world and then proudly announce them to universal acclaim, he could probably go back to the widely enjoyed persona of a year or two ago where the only die hard haters were Boeing stock holders. > objectively consider any situation hHaha, ok, I look forward to the objective discussion of the relative merits of calling someone a "pedo". Super objective!
      - mindslight 4y ago
        > If he realized he can't derive unified theories of social behavior through logic untainted by the real world This isn't at the root of what we're discussing here. That would be like applying Postel's law to natural language, confirmed by your own experience of receiving maybe a few passing "death threats" per month while bantering, while brushing aside the predicament of someone who receives ongoing death threats from a persistent stalker. Rather, this topic just seems to be basic hypocrisy. If one cannot stomach a critique written in good faith to make one's company better, it's utterly disingenuous to invoke appeals to free speech elsewhere.
Qem 4y ago
He means soviet-style free speech. People were free to share opinions. The party was free to book them a ticket to the nearest gulag.
nsxwolf 4y ago
I would expect the sorts of employees that would write a letter like that are more of the "free speech for me, not for thee" types.

mft_ 4y ago

I don’t think any definition of free speech guarantees total freedom from repercussions?

jcranmer 4y ago
Isn't that the definition of free speech that Musk wants for Twitter?
- psyc 4y ago
  The purpose of Twitter is speech. People like Musk argue it is analogous to a public space. Twitter users don't work for Twitter and are not subordinates of Twitter. Do you also imagine that Musk believes service people ought to be allowed to mock their superior officers to their faces without repercussions?
  - mywittyname 4y ago
    Musk got someone fired from a job because they once worked for the SEC. So I imagine Musk believes anyone who causes him displeasure, in any form, even by association, should be put in their place by measures including, and up to, loss of livelihood. I'm not so sure he gives a damn about anyone in the military, unless they run afoul of the ideas presented in previous statement.
    - tannhauser23 4y ago
      That lawyer INVESTIGATED Musk. I don't think Musk behaved very well in that situation, but if you are a law firm and you rely on Musk's companies for business, maybe don't hire a government lawyer who went after him?
      - JaimeThompson 4y ago
        The government lawyer didn't go after him, the government did.
  - efsavage 4y ago
    The purpose of Twitter is money, not speech. Speech is their product, and as a private company, they're allowed to decide what products they sell.
- mft_ 4y ago
  Maybe freedom from Twitter censoring you, but not freedom from repercussions from what you said (or tweeted). That’s ultimately determined by e.g. the courts and (as in this case) employers.
Bud 4y ago
Actually, about half of the political spectrum of the US believes (or steadfastly pretends to believe) that this is precisely what "free speech" means. I guess they haven't processed the famous XKCD on this issue.
- nsxwolf 4y ago
  I would bet real money the fired employees have shared that particular XKCD comic a lot.

psyc 4y ago

The other thread is full of this nonsense. You give the impression that you believe that free speech absolutists think you ought to be allowed to walk up to your CEO and tell him to go fuck himself, without retaliation. What other things would you have us believe that free speech absolutists would allow? Catcalling coworkers, perhaps? Threatening to murder someone's children? No, you just want to snipe at Musk, and you see this is a way to do it.

JaimeThompson 4y ago
His actions show that he considers calling someone a child molester to be acceptable speech so it isn't too much to think that much more polite speech he would not have an issue with.
- jdminhbg 4y ago
  That person was not a boss or coworker, he was a stranger who had insulted him. It's completely wild how over the past twelve months the anti-Musk people have somehow eclipsed the pro-Musk people in their monomania and inability to step back and objectively consider any situation.
  - magicalist 4y ago
    > It's completely wild how over the past twelve months the anti-Musk people have somehow eclipsed the pro-Musk people in their monomania He's a perpetually online guy, it was bound to happen. If he shut up every now and then it would help. If he realized he can't derive unified theories of social behavior through logic untainted by the real world and then proudly announce them to universal acclaim, he could probably go back to the widely enjoyed persona of a year or two ago where the only die hard haters were Boeing stock holders. > objectively consider any situation hHaha, ok, I look forward to the objective discussion of the relative merits of calling someone a "pedo". Super objective!
    - mindslight 4y ago
      > If he realized he can't derive unified theories of social behavior through logic untainted by the real world This isn't at the root of what we're discussing here. That would be like applying Postel's law to natural language, confirmed by your own experience of receiving maybe a few passing "death threats" per month while bantering, while brushing aside the predicament of someone who receives ongoing death threats from a persistent stalker. Rather, this topic just seems to be basic hypocrisy. If one cannot stomach a critique written in good faith to make one's company better, it's utterly disingenuous to invoke appeals to free speech elsewhere.

Qem 4y ago

He means soviet-style free speech. People were free to share opinions. The party was free to book them a ticket to the nearest gulag.

nsxwolf 4y ago

I would expect the sorts of employees that would write a letter like that are more of the "free speech for me, not for thee" types.