4 ms·

If it isn't a crime or spam then it is in fact disagreement. There is no inherent different from calling someone a "racist" or "nazi" to calling someone a "gro

by noxer 4y ago

If it isn't a crime or spam then it is in fact disagreement. There is no inherent different from calling someone a "racist" or "nazi" to calling someone a "groomer". On Twitter these "slurs" are used by different sides (bubbles) but other than that there is no difference. It might be a baseless allegation or there could be more to it but either way it is clearly an opinion and disagreeing is fine no need to prevent anyone from voicing it. >Musk himself posted (and deleted shortly afterwards) libel about Pete Pelosi. I would assume he was being sarcastic by posting an obvious "whack source" with a silly rather obvious made up story. But it went over peoples head so he removed it. (But that is just my interpretation) But whatever it was, why does it bother you? What exactly is so horrible about posting something "wrong" and deleting it? What is so hard about the concept of allowing people to be wrong about things? Where does the "entitlement" to demand people to get everything right come from? You don't apply this standard to yourself don't you? And if you are wrong about something would you rather want people to tell you/debunk your claim or would you want your "wrong think" to just be removed? I've yet to see that horrible combination of letters that is too dangerous to face the scrutiny of people and calling it out. Lame slurs certainly dont pose any threat to a stable individual and I dont think we should adapt to the unstable that just make everyone more and more intolerant.

pjc50 4y ago
> What is so hard about the concept of allowing people to be wrong about things? People act on that basis? If all this stuff was totally disconnected from the real world, then sure yeah whatever, but it isn't. The point is that Pete Pelosi was attacked by a terrorist who'd be radicalized by wrong information. The "groomer" stuff worries me because I know enough queer people who are now more likely to face real, physical violence as a result. But it's not just twitter. Some of this stuff is in "mainstream" media and politics now. I'm only OK with you being wrong about things if you're willing to sit in an inaction bubble and do nothing which can affect me, including radicalizing others to your cause who will do things.
- noxer 4y ago
  I'm not responsible for people acting on whatever basis they do unless I actively blackmail or incite them to do something. >The point is that Pete Pelosi was attacked by a terrorist who'd be radicalized by wrong information. Where exactly is the point in this? Clearly this happen before Musk's post about it so where exactly is the connection? >The "groomer" stuff worries me... I could tell by reading your post but I dont see any argument contrary to what I said. Its just another insult/not nice thing to say/a lie/etc. but there is nothing special about it. It might "worry" or rather "bothers" you more that other words but that is purely subjective, we all have some kind of personal ranking of "slurs". But what matters is that I would not want the words on the top of my list banned. Not even if used against me. >... and do nothing which can affect me... Then we could not have this discussion because clearly it will affects you. I can try to not affect you negative but it might not work and trying is complete voluntary, its up to you to not participate in this discussion if you think I'm not interested in a civil rational exchange of thoughts. You can not demand from me or from anyone to limit their speech to what does not affect you negative. That is impossible to practice. What others do is even more outside my control. I am not responsible for other peoples action (with certain limitation see first sentence). And I'm not going to limit my speech or want anyone else to limit their speech as a "preventive action" to stop a hypothetical person doing something wrong. That is entirely backwards, the open dialog, scrutiny and tolerance is what should make people not becoming extremists. Preventing people from having their views challenged isn't going to help anyone in the long run.
  - trs8080 4y ago
    So you would have no issue with a concerted, national effort backed by politicians and the owner of the largest public square on the Internet to label you a pedophile and an enemy of the people? And you would react kindly to the wave of death threats and potential violence towards you and your loved ones that would come as a result?
    - noxer 4y ago
      This is totally silly, these are slurs/insults not acts of violence or incitements. Also why is "groomer" apparently "incitement of violence" but directly saying "pedophile" isn't? How can one word put people in imminent danger but the other not if they are almost interchangeably used? Needless to say that if a word is banned people just use a different word or they use codes. So if you are actually worried about people getting hurt you know that banning word and related account suspensions isn't doing anything against actual violence.
kibwen 4y ago
> But whatever it was, why does it bother you? What exactly is so horrible about posting something "wrong" and deleting it? It wasn't just "wrong", it was a propaganda article designed to dismiss a right-wing terrorist attack that almost killed the husband of the third highest ranking official in the country by painting the attack as a "false flag" designed to cover up homosexual infidelity. And Musk is the richest man in the world with enormous, unimaginable reach and influence. For better or worse, the more power you have, the more social obligation you have to use that power responsibly, and that includes understanding how your words will affect the thoughts and actions of others. Musk is under fire because he refuses to use his power responsibly.
- pyronik19 4y ago
  [dead]
- noxer 4y ago
  As I said I think Musk posted it as satire. The article read as if it was from Babylon Bee. At no point I even questioned if he was serious about this. He does troll like that all the time, its really silly to blame him when after all this time people still take everything he says at face value. If you actually read that article (and not just the media complaining about that he linked it) and came to the conclusion that Musk though the story was legit, then maybe reevaluate the intelligence you attribute to him. You may not like his opinion on things but he can not be that stupid. Also the "right-wing terrorist attack" is you spreading propaganda.
- MockObject 4y ago
  People are jumping to "false flag" stories because the story as presented is simply unbelievable (the third highest ranking official in the country has zero security?), and the media is being evasive (Politico reporting a third man opened the door, then reported that it was a baseless claim!), and the media is also aggressively eager to portray a nudist hemp jewelry maker illegal alien as a MAGA loyalist. If the story were straight, and reported honestly, some very few would remain suspicious.
  - 4y ago
jlebar 4y ago
> What is so hard about the concept of allowing people to be wrong about things? Because democratic society requires us to agree on basic facts in order to function. "People are wrong about" things like: - who got more votes in the last US presidential election - whether future elections in the US will be fair - whether global warming is real - whether Democratic politicians are literal lizard people who molest children We have seen that when we can't agree on these basic facts, people take actions like - attempting to overthrow the seat of government - attempted assassination of political figures (or their spouses) - election of politicians who say that they will overthrow elections that don't go in favor of their party - enacting policies that threaten to create a climate catastrophe. The reason that Musk's tweet at Hillary repeating the conspiracy theory that Paul Pelosi's assailant was a male prostitute is a problem is because, in providing an alternative (false) explanation for the attack, it contributes to hiding the truth on this issue. The truth being that we can draw a straight line from politicians' words to this attack. And since we vote for those politicians, if people are wrong about this, then yeah, it does matter.
- MockObject 4y ago
  > Because democratic society requires us to agree on basic facts in order to function. > - who got more votes in the last US presidential election The Democrats delegitimized the outcome of the 2016 election, the Republicans the 2020, and yet we still have a functioning democracy. We're even about to have a round of elections in a few days! > - whether global warming is real Seriously?
  - RavingGoat 4y ago
    I take it you don't believe in global warming?
    - MockObject 4y ago
      I don't believe that democracy depends on cool temperatures.
- catiopatio 4y ago

by noxer 4y ago

pjc50 4y ago

> What is so hard about the concept of allowing people to be wrong about things? People act on that basis? If all this stuff was totally disconnected from the real world, then sure yeah whatever, but it isn't. The point is that Pete Pelosi was attacked by a terrorist who'd be radicalized by wrong information. The "groomer" stuff worries me because I know enough queer people who are now more likely to face real, physical violence as a result. But it's not just twitter. Some of this stuff is in "mainstream" media and politics now. I'm only OK with you being wrong about things if you're willing to sit in an inaction bubble and do nothing which can affect me, including radicalizing others to your cause who will do things.

noxer 4y ago
I'm not responsible for people acting on whatever basis they do unless I actively blackmail or incite them to do something. >The point is that Pete Pelosi was attacked by a terrorist who'd be radicalized by wrong information. Where exactly is the point in this? Clearly this happen before Musk's post about it so where exactly is the connection? >The "groomer" stuff worries me... I could tell by reading your post but I dont see any argument contrary to what I said. Its just another insult/not nice thing to say/a lie/etc. but there is nothing special about it. It might "worry" or rather "bothers" you more that other words but that is purely subjective, we all have some kind of personal ranking of "slurs". But what matters is that I would not want the words on the top of my list banned. Not even if used against me. >... and do nothing which can affect me... Then we could not have this discussion because clearly it will affects you. I can try to not affect you negative but it might not work and trying is complete voluntary, its up to you to not participate in this discussion if you think I'm not interested in a civil rational exchange of thoughts. You can not demand from me or from anyone to limit their speech to what does not affect you negative. That is impossible to practice. What others do is even more outside my control. I am not responsible for other peoples action (with certain limitation see first sentence). And I'm not going to limit my speech or want anyone else to limit their speech as a "preventive action" to stop a hypothetical person doing something wrong. That is entirely backwards, the open dialog, scrutiny and tolerance is what should make people not becoming extremists. Preventing people from having their views challenged isn't going to help anyone in the long run.
- trs8080 4y ago
  So you would have no issue with a concerted, national effort backed by politicians and the owner of the largest public square on the Internet to label you a pedophile and an enemy of the people? And you would react kindly to the wave of death threats and potential violence towards you and your loved ones that would come as a result?
  - noxer 4y ago
    This is totally silly, these are slurs/insults not acts of violence or incitements. Also why is "groomer" apparently "incitement of violence" but directly saying "pedophile" isn't? How can one word put people in imminent danger but the other not if they are almost interchangeably used? Needless to say that if a word is banned people just use a different word or they use codes. So if you are actually worried about people getting hurt you know that banning word and related account suspensions isn't doing anything against actual violence.

kibwen 4y ago

> But whatever it was, why does it bother you? What exactly is so horrible about posting something "wrong" and deleting it? It wasn't just "wrong", it was a propaganda article designed to dismiss a right-wing terrorist attack that almost killed the husband of the third highest ranking official in the country by painting the attack as a "false flag" designed to cover up homosexual infidelity. And Musk is the richest man in the world with enormous, unimaginable reach and influence. For better or worse, the more power you have, the more social obligation you have to use that power responsibly, and that includes understanding how your words will affect the thoughts and actions of others. Musk is under fire because he refuses to use his power responsibly.

pyronik19 4y ago
[dead]
noxer 4y ago
As I said I think Musk posted it as satire. The article read as if it was from Babylon Bee. At no point I even questioned if he was serious about this. He does troll like that all the time, its really silly to blame him when after all this time people still take everything he says at face value. If you actually read that article (and not just the media complaining about that he linked it) and came to the conclusion that Musk though the story was legit, then maybe reevaluate the intelligence you attribute to him. You may not like his opinion on things but he can not be that stupid. Also the "right-wing terrorist attack" is you spreading propaganda.
MockObject 4y ago
People are jumping to "false flag" stories because the story as presented is simply unbelievable (the third highest ranking official in the country has zero security?), and the media is being evasive (Politico reporting a third man opened the door, then reported that it was a baseless claim!), and the media is also aggressively eager to portray a nudist hemp jewelry maker illegal alien as a MAGA loyalist. If the story were straight, and reported honestly, some very few would remain suspicious.
- 4y ago

jlebar 4y ago

> What is so hard about the concept of allowing people to be wrong about things? Because democratic society requires us to agree on basic facts in order to function. "People are wrong about" things like: - who got more votes in the last US presidential election - whether future elections in the US will be fair - whether global warming is real - whether Democratic politicians are literal lizard people who molest children We have seen that when we can't agree on these basic facts, people take actions like - attempting to overthrow the seat of government - attempted assassination of political figures (or their spouses) - election of politicians who say that they will overthrow elections that don't go in favor of their party - enacting policies that threaten to create a climate catastrophe. The reason that Musk's tweet at Hillary repeating the conspiracy theory that Paul Pelosi's assailant was a male prostitute is a problem is because, in providing an alternative (false) explanation for the attack, it contributes to hiding the truth on this issue. The truth being that we can draw a straight line from politicians' words to this attack. And since we vote for those politicians, if people are wrong about this, then yeah, it does matter.

MockObject 4y ago
> Because democratic society requires us to agree on basic facts in order to function. > - who got more votes in the last US presidential election The Democrats delegitimized the outcome of the 2016 election, the Republicans the 2020, and yet we still have a functioning democracy. We're even about to have a round of elections in a few days! > - whether global warming is real Seriously?
- RavingGoat 4y ago
  I take it you don't believe in global warming?
  - MockObject 4y ago
    I don't believe that democracy depends on cool temperatures.
catiopatio 4y ago