4 ms·

> the bullied one gets rich and buys the playground What version of Elon Musk are you thinking of here? Read literally anything he says and it's immediately cl

by feoren 3y ago

> the bullied one gets rich and buys the playground What version of Elon Musk are you thinking of here? Read literally anything he says and it's immediately clear that he's always been the bully. He wasn't some underdog who was bullied and pulled himself up by his bootstraps to prove everyone wrong, he's the son of an apartheid emerald mine owner who made some good business bets and has now figured out how to scale up his bullying to a national scale. The already-rich bully bought the playground so that nobody could stop him from bullying everyone even more. > Also note that if you truly believe in freedom for one-to-many publishing of all legal speech (as I do) then an increase in racist publishing is naturally going to be a consequence of that Ah, the old "I'm free to publish racism but you're not free to call me out when I do so". These free-speech "absolutists" always abandon their morals as soon as they get the opportunity to censor someone who is making fun of them for being a douchebag. It's always about wanting a spout-racism-free card, never about the inalienable rights of mankind.

avmich 3y ago
I remember works of Musk before 2002. And I don't see where it is > but you're not free to call me out when I do so in the GP post, literally or in meaning. So... I think you're at least exaggerating too much, at least in some places. However I do see your point.
- feoren 3y ago
  Elon Musk uses his power to censor people who make fun of him or that he otherwise disagrees with. One of his claims of why he bought Twitter was to restore free-speech on the platform, which really turned out to be allowing hate speech and alt-right propaganda while censoring opposing views. My claim is that everyone who claims to be a free-speech absolutist is secretly the exact same: they want free speech for themselves, to spout whatever hate-speech they are tired of having to contain, but will happily censor anyone else who opposes them or makes fun of them. It's been demonstrated hundreds of times over and I've never seen a counterexample. People who actually value personal freedoms understand that there are always tradeoffs: you cannot simultaneously have freedom-to-bully and freedom-from-bullying. It's a difficult problem. People who claim it's simple are not actually interested in solving it. The people who say that freedom-to-bully is infinitely more important than freedom-from-bullying (as all "free speech absolutists" are inherently claiming) are, quite obviously, bullies that want to get away with bullying.
  - avmich 3y ago
    I mostly agree. The only thing which I'd learn more about is > I've never seen a counterexample Perhaps that Voltaire's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" was made too much in jest and didn't really correspond to some real events, before or after. Or people like Vaclav Havel, who got to the power from the power's opponents, didn't have opportunity to refrain from silencing a political adversary. I don't know.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    > Elon Musk uses his power to censor people who make fun of him Which is petty and stupid. But AFAIK he has not censored political content he disagrees with, so I much prefer it to the previous regime.
snovv_crash 3y ago
Please fact check the emerald mine thing. From what I understand it is wildly overblown, his estranged dad had a couple shares, that's all. The fact that it has gathered so much steam fits perfectly into a Manufactured Consent style narrative. And FYI, if your 401k has some index fund exposure you're probably the partial owner of some cobalt mines in Congo that have questionable labor practices.

by feoren 3y ago

avmich 3y ago

I remember works of Musk before 2002. And I don't see where it is > but you're not free to call me out when I do so in the GP post, literally or in meaning. So... I think you're at least exaggerating too much, at least in some places. However I do see your point.

feoren 3y ago
Elon Musk uses his power to censor people who make fun of him or that he otherwise disagrees with. One of his claims of why he bought Twitter was to restore free-speech on the platform, which really turned out to be allowing hate speech and alt-right propaganda while censoring opposing views. My claim is that everyone who claims to be a free-speech absolutist is secretly the exact same: they want free speech for themselves, to spout whatever hate-speech they are tired of having to contain, but will happily censor anyone else who opposes them or makes fun of them. It's been demonstrated hundreds of times over and I've never seen a counterexample. People who actually value personal freedoms understand that there are always tradeoffs: you cannot simultaneously have freedom-to-bully and freedom-from-bullying. It's a difficult problem. People who claim it's simple are not actually interested in solving it. The people who say that freedom-to-bully is infinitely more important than freedom-from-bullying (as all "free speech absolutists" are inherently claiming) are, quite obviously, bullies that want to get away with bullying.
- avmich 3y ago
  I mostly agree. The only thing which I'd learn more about is > I've never seen a counterexample Perhaps that Voltaire's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" was made too much in jest and didn't really correspond to some real events, before or after. Or people like Vaclav Havel, who got to the power from the power's opponents, didn't have opportunity to refrain from silencing a political adversary. I don't know.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  > Elon Musk uses his power to censor people who make fun of him Which is petty and stupid. But AFAIK he has not censored political content he disagrees with, so I much prefer it to the previous regime.

snovv_crash 3y ago

Please fact check the emerald mine thing. From what I understand it is wildly overblown, his estranged dad had a couple shares, that's all. The fact that it has gathered so much steam fits perfectly into a Manufactured Consent style narrative. And FYI, if your 401k has some index fund exposure you're probably the partial owner of some cobalt mines in Congo that have questionable labor practices.