PaddyOCanager
Member
Social media and real life don't really differ all that much.
Social media and real life don't really differ all that much.
This is a good way to put it. I'll use your "black, white, gray views" analogy.
Black: "LGBT people shouldn't exist, they need to be shunned from society."
White: "LGBT people should not only exist, but they need special legal/social treatment above the rest of us, AND you can't even say anything, have a debate, or even make jokes, because you'll be cancelled."
Gray: "LGBT are human beings like the rest of us. They should be treated with decency and respect. Legal/constitutional rights apply to them the same as all of us. Do not needlessly malign or shame them.
But let's not go overboard and start treating them special. Which means we can debate Ina reasonable manner, without being labeled a homophobe or transphobe. Which means we can make jokes about them, just as we make jokes about everyone else -- because that's what humor is. It's the great equalizer."
To me, life is not black or white. It's gray.
Social consensus declared homosexuality as deviant, but times changed. Things are trending in the direction of being more progressive and inclusive, right? So I don't know why the past is relevant when we're trending away from that. Are we just supposed to address topics in their ideal states, or are we actually addressing them in the context of the world that we live in? I don't think your list of Isms means anything. If you think the inclusive push is anywhere near any of that, then we are so far apart in opinions that we could never find common ground, and you can just go ahead and put me on ignore.You are the one equating social consensus with truth and justice while supporting the idea that people deserve to be ostracized for thinking differently.
Social consensus has brought us the Inquisition, Stalinism, Nazism, Geocentrism and Phrenology. It has ruined uncountable influential thinkers such as Socrates, Giordano Bruno, Darwin and Galileo...
300 years ago, slavery was a social norm. Without a minority daring to rise up and face the inevitable ostracism, we would still be enslaving people.
Yeah man, social consensus declared homosexuality as deviant, which led to the social shunning of millions of people. Yet here you are, defending the very same practice... oh the irony.
Context matters. It helps to avoid having to spell everything out all the time. If you actually need me to explain the context, just ask, but the sentences that preceded it should explain where they're similar.
This is completely untrue IMO. In fact, there is a huge moderated platform where you can express ignorance without fear of retribution. It's called Twitter (as long as you spew the right kind of ignorance of course).I don't believe there ever existed a reality where you could express ignorant opinions without fear of retribution. Not in moderated public areas anyway.
I read your whole post. A 44 year old should know better.Context matters. It helps to avoid having to spell everything out all the time. If you actually need me to explain the context, just ask, but the sentences that preceded it should explain where they're similar.
Social consensus has brought us the Inquisition, Stalinism, Nazism, Geocentrism and Phrenology. It has ruined uncountable influential thinkers such as Socrates, Giordano Bruno, Darwin and Galileo...
Social consensus declared homosexuality as deviant, but times changed. Things are trending in the direction of being more progressive and inclusive, right? So I don't know why the past is relevant when we're trending away from that. Are we just supposed to address topics in their ideal states, or are we actually addressing them in the context of the world that we live in? I don't think your list of Isms means anything. If you think the inclusive push is anywhere near any of that, then we are so far apart in opinions that we could never find common ground, and you can just go ahead and put me on ignore.
But why would he do that? Or, to put it another way, what's in it for him?
I'm just not convinced that Musk is operating at some zen orbital level, hell bent on destroying a mobile app.
We live in a society. People have been shunned from polite society for as long as humans have been social animals. When the societal norms shift, you shift with them or get left behind. No one in this thread has said anything that would've gotten them banned on Twitter, right? There's plenty of room for conversation on a wide range of topics. The people who get banned crossed a line. No one gets banned on Twitter by accident. It's always borderline at best. Given how far on the fringes the border lines exists on Twitter, I have zero sympathy for anyone who crosses it.
I don't think Musk's filing is correct, or compelling as full justification for pulling out of the deal. Proving the existence of bots isn't enough to qualify as an MAE, even if Musk's claims are all proven to be correct (they won't be).It's literally in the filing. Somebody already posted it in this thread at post 87 that details Twitter methods of limiting and throttling Musk's access to data.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000110465922078413/tm2220599d1_ex99-p.htm
It's literally right there and IF IT IS CORRECT that is very compelling reason for him to pull out of the deal.
You have to be a pretty ripe asshole to get banned on Twitter, both left and right. So I don't give a second thought to the people who get banned there. As I said before, the boundaries for acceptable behavior on Twitter are already so far outside what would be considered acceptable in regular conversation, that anyone who violates and gets banned probably had it coming; left, right, or middle.This is completely untrue IMO. In fact, there is a huge moderated platform where you can express ignorance without fear of retribution. It's called Twitter (as long as you spew the right kind of ignorance of course).
When I even hint at how I feel about some of the opinions on here, I get a warning. I was told that I was too mean. But this sort of low effort shitposting seems to be okay. But this is an example of me not adapting to the norms of this forum. I adjust my posting style to fit in with this community, and I don't see any problem with that. If I up and get banned, I'd deserve it, because I've had enough warning since I joined, that I understand not to be rude. What's considered rude here also differs from other platforms, like Reddit. I could get after it on Reddit, if I choose to, but generally stick to subs where I don't encounter people that hold certain views. I would say this forum leans slightly conservative, and there's nothing wrong with that. I choose to read this forum, so I choose to join a community that doesn't necessarily align with some of my world views.I read your whole post. A 44 year old should know better.
Truth, justice, fanaticism, and moral panic are kinda strong words for social media moderation, isn't it? Unless your world view/self identity is tied closely to the kind of content that ends up falling under the ban/cancel hammer on Twitter, then I don't know if it takes on that level of seriousness. It's like before, you hit me with inquisition, stalinism, nazism, geocentrism and phrenology, which are fucking wild compared to some tween saying they want to be called a certain pronoun. An oversimplification? Yes, but let's dial the stakes back to what they really are, getting banned from a platform where you can just register with a new email.The past is relevant because it clearly shows that social norms and majority consensus do not constitute truth and justice and are not always a guarantee for progress.
Fanatism and moral panic can easily take hold of a society, especially in polarizing times such as these. The majority of people are uneducated and simply dumb as f*ck.
The ideologies and cultural revolutions I mentioned were once considered "progressive" and "forward thinking", but only ended up in misery.
"Just kidding, take backsies."People in this thread don't seem to understand that Musk bought twitter.
He did not ask for info before buying Twitter... he asked for it, after.. and after Tesla stock had tanked.
Pretty obvious 2 + 2 here for those not blinded by some weird fanboyism.
Did I miss an article or two? I thought he put a deposit down and they were working through the due diligence period prior to closing.People in this thread don't seem to understand that Musk bought twitter.
He did not ask for info before buying Twitter... he asked for it, after.. and after Tesla stock had tanked.
Pretty obvious 2 + 2 here for those not blinded by some weird fanboyism.
You missed the entire plot.Did I miss an article or two? I thought he put a deposit down and they were working through the due diligence period prior to closing.
No.When I even hint at how I feel about some of the opinions on here, I get a warning. I was told that I was too mean. But this sort of low effort shitposting seems to be okay. But this is an example of me not adapting to the norms of this forum. I adjust my posting style to fit in with this community, and I don't see any problem with that. If I up and get banned, I'd deserve it, because I've had enough warning since I joined, that I understand not to be rude. What's considered rude here also differs from other platforms, like Reddit. I could get after it on Reddit, if I choose to, but generally stick to subs where I don't encounter people that hold certain views. I would say this forum leans slightly conservative, and there's nothing wrong with that. I choose to read this forum, so I choose to join a community that doesn't necessarily align with some of my world views.
I see this as being no different from Twitter or regular conversations. The community set standards that the platform enforces in order to keep the community happy.
There will never be a graceful exist with a deposit like that held in escrow.You missed the entire plot.
He signed on the dotted line to buy Twitter, just as say MS "bought" Activision.
There is no "period" for which he can exit gracefully, including with some $1 billion fee. There is no "due diligence" after buying.. that's what you do before buying.
There is no "Escrow"... you are just reading the situation wrong here.There will never be a graceful exist with a deposit like that held in escrow.
But that said, I see no evidence to support your position that he actually bought it, and the reporting I am seeing still references the billion dollar break up fee.
Knowing the past gives data to know the conditions for social consensus on issues and their result within context.The past is relevant because it clearly shows that social norms and majority consensus do not constitute truth and justice and are not always a guarantee for progress.
Fanatism and moral panic can easily take hold of a society, especially in polarizing times such as these. The majority of people are uneducated and simply dumb as f*ck.
The ideologies and cultural revolutions I mentioned were once considered "progressive" and "forward thinking", but only ended up in misery.
I'd much prefer you provide receipts to show he already bought it than ask me to chase my tail.There is no "Escrow"... you are just reading the situation wrong here.
How about google "Elon Musk buys Twitter"
To the same extent MS "bought" Activision.I'd much prefer you provide receipts to show he already bought it than ask me to chase my tail.
Yeah, It seemed like it was way past diligence and onto pass the cash/the keys phase.To the same extent MS "bought" Activision.
The sale isn't final, because of regulators.. but this wasn't in any "due diligence" phase.. that's mis-info.
With Deal for Twitter, Musk Lands a Prize and Pledges Fewer Limits (Published 2022)
The world’s richest man succeeded in a bid to acquire the influential social networking service, which he has said he wants to take private.www.nytimes.com
LMAO, my freaking phone. When I try typing "in a" somehow it autocorrects to "Ina." 99% of the time I catch it, but in this case I didn't I don't even know who "Ina" is...We can debate… Ina?
People that just want to watch stuff burn are not too bright. Twitter is amazing. The problem isn't with Twitter, it's with people.
This isn’t a norm though. The debate in question you’re talking about is something very few people actually believe to be true. They just go along with it publicly out of fear. Societal norms happen because they’re things people actually believe. You can’t have a productive society where norms are forced or perceived out of fear. That’s a society that is built on instability.So I'm the "tribalistic warrior" when you're the first to hurl the insult? I suppose it's hard to believe people can arrive at a different conclusion than you, when you seemingly find it hard to understand how the world at large works. Do you talk exactly like this post in regular discourse? If so, you'd be well aware of what being shunned feels like. But you probably conduct yourself in a more civil manner when in polite company, because you'd have an innate understanding of how things work in polite company.
I see a lot of vague conspiratorial mumbling about how you can't express certain beliefs and whatnot, but every ban example provided so far has easily been explained.
I'm 44. In my lifetime alone, the perceptions of homosexuality have changed a ton. I remember cracking up at Eddie Murphy's Delirious, as a kid. I remember there being some pretty homophobic shit in there, and not even a comedian could work an act like that today. Eddie was one of the biggest tickets in comedy, and he was saying some shit that would get him canceled today. It was a different time. Things have changed. Things will continue to change. That's a good thing, because if societal norms never changed, I'd still be human property. So, standards for public discourse must change with the times, or we end up making it difficult for people to be themselves in public. And as history has shown, we don't give a shit if the people with the outdated views find it difficult. Your views are outdated, so you either catch up or stay on the outside. That's how it's been my entire life. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
You have to be a pretty ripe asshole to get banned on Twitter, both left and right. So I don't give a second thought to the people who get banned there. As I said before, the boundaries for acceptable behavior on Twitter are already so far outside what would be considered acceptable in regular conversation, that anyone who violates and gets banned probably had it coming; left, right, or middle.
When I even hint at how I feel about some of the opinions on here, I get a warning. I was told that I was too mean. But this sort of low effort shitposting seems to be okay. But this is an example of me not adapting to the norms of this forum. I adjust my posting style to fit in with this community, and I don't see any problem with that. If I up and get banned, I'd deserve it, because I've had enough warning since I joined, that I understand not to be rude. What's considered rude here also differs from other platforms, like Reddit. I could get after it on Reddit, if I choose to, but generally stick to subs where I don't encounter people that hold certain views. I would say this forum leans slightly conservative, and there's nothing wrong with that. I choose to read this forum, so I choose to join a community that doesn't necessarily align with some of my world views.
I see this as being no different from Twitter or regular conversations. The community set standards that the platform enforces in order to keep the community happy.
Truth, justice, fanaticism, and moral panic are kinda strong words for social media moderation, isn't it? Unless your world view/self identity is tied closely to the kind of content that ends up falling under the ban/cancel hammer on Twitter, then I don't know if it takes on that level of seriousness. It's like before, you hit me with inquisition, stalinism, nazism, geocentrism and phrenology, which are fucking wild compared to some tween saying they want to be called a certain pronoun. An oversimplification? Yes, but let's dial the stakes back to what they really are, getting banned from a platform where you can just register with a new email.
LMAO, my freaking phone. When I try typing "in a" somehow it autocorrects to "Ina." 99% of the time I catch it, but in this case I didn't I don't even know who "Ina" is...
What is her vagINA like?Ina is a Hololive Vtuber who is known for her puns utilizing her name. She is the girl in the gif I linked. Very cute, very adorable. It is INAcceptible that you haven’t watched her yet!
You are the one equating social consensus with truth and justice while supporting the idea that people deserve to be ostracized for thinking differently.
Social consensus has brought us the Inquisition, Stalinism, Nazism, Geocentrism and Phrenology. It has ruined uncountable influential thinkers such as Socrates, Giordano Bruno, Darwin and Galileo...
300 years ago, slavery was a social norm. Without a minority daring to rise up and face the inevitable ostracism, we would still be enslaving people.
Yeah man, social consensus declared homosexuality as deviant, which led to the social shunning of millions of people. Yet here you are, defending the very same practice... oh the irony.
Oh man, the INA train has been started. How many puns can be made?What is her vagINA like?
Banning people from Twitter for being bigots, harassing people, etc,
Let's get back to discussing Musk termINAting his deal with twitter
The Twitter "left vs right" thing is so funny because nobody likes Twitter or thinks it's a platform for "them" as far as politics go.
Yeah I've seen a bunch of different takes on "both sides," but that is the weirdest one yet.
Literally nothing to do with what I said.Yeah I've seen a bunch of different takes on "both sides," but that is the weirdest one yet.
People in this very thread have provided receipts that the Twitter shenanigans aren't "both sides" at all. One side of the spectrum gets disproportionately banned and shut down more than the other.
It doesn't seem like a binary "side" thing so much as there are a few personalities that get banned. Doesn't sound like the entire side of a political spectrum umbrella is being banned.Yeah I've seen a bunch of different takes on "both sides," but that is the weirdest one yet.
People in this very thread have provided receipts that the Twitter shenanigans aren't "both sides" at all. One side of the spectrum gets disproportionately banned and shut down more than the other.
Now that's a gumby take.It doesn't seem like a binary "side" thing so much as there are a few personalities that get banned. Doesn't sound like the entire side of a political spectrum umbrella is being banned.
Says the placard.Now that's a gumby take.
Says the vessel.Says the placard.
Says you.Literally nothing to do with what I said.
You speak for the entire left? Are you their grand representative?However you feel about how the moderation leans, the left still thinks of Twitter as a shithole.
I'm not sure they are all personalities; those are just the ones we hear about.It doesn't seem like a binary "side" thing so much as there are a few personalities that get banned. Doesn't sound like the entire side of a political spectrum umbrella is being banned.
The Twitter "left vs right" thing is so funny because nobody likes Twitter or thinks it's a platform for "them" as far as politics go.
Hey at least you can read!It's as if one side is so unhinged and spoiled that no matter how much social media pander to them they'll always ask for more censorship and pandering