Elon Musk x Twitter: The Joke that Keeps Giving

[Deleted member 241]

Oh, boy.
So much to unpack here.

Musk had zero intention of buying twitter

How would you know that?
A feeling in your gut?

and he did this to manipulate their stock, as he usually does. He's done this with crypto,

You are free to use whatever verb that tickles your fancy.

Musk expresses opinions. The market - as in the aggregate of millions of thinking adults - chooses to interpret his opinions a certain way and voluntarily chooses to act upon them.

which is unregulated, he's done this with Tesla... Twitter has provided bot figures, and Mollusk, with a very small sample and high margin of error, called their numbers wrong.

At the end of the day he will not buy Twitter,

So you know that for a fact, do you?
Or is it just an inkling?

which is for the best, because he is not an advocate for free speech.

We can argue about that, but the fact remains his expressed intentions point to a much wider gamut of opinions being allowed, which is a net positive in my book.

As far as I can tell this forum has already banned someone over alleged "homophobic" language, which would objectively stamp a "not a free speech absolutist" seal on it.

So let's be imaprtial, shall we?

The guy that prevents a journalist from buying a Tesla because he said mean things about the company in an article,

Which he has every right to do. It's his business. He gets to make that call, even if
based on seemingly petty reasons. IconEra is your business. You get to make the rules around here.

See the parallel?

the guy that blocks people on Twitter because they call him out on the fraud he is,

Imagine blocking people over accusations of being a fraudster.
Evidently, being called a fraudster is a polite compliment.

cannot be for free speech.

And neither can certain forum regulations, dispositions, or practices that permaban people over this or that opinion.

Additionally, I fail to see how a billionaire owning social media, or news, is something seen as positive.

If Elon wants to buy and Twitter wants to sell, I see it as entirely positive that other parties not involved, including the state, stay out.

I see it as entirely positive that the free market is working as intended. I also see it as entirely positive that society at large doesn't run according to arbitrary diktats, because of the rather obvious observation that, like yourself, other people also have definite ideas of what's right and wrong and, like yourself, they have sovereignty over their lives and property. So until you can demonstrate yours is the correct take no one is under any obligation to follow it.

I mean, just look at this:

Yes. The WaPo writes what its editorial board, the one and only legitimate entity to do so, sees fit. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Easy fix. Evidently, you're free to criticize the journal, but the WaPo is not yours for you to have a say on its political bent.

Start your own newspaper.

And, for the record, I despise WaPo's politics.

 

[Deleted member 241]

(...)



How can you argue Musk supports free speech when he blocks people from acquiring his products because they excerted that right to free speech, and blocks them on Twitter for having an opinion against him? Those two are not compatible, you know?

You must have a weird conception of Free Speech to think blocking someone on Twitter betrays a disdain for it.

Let's cut to the chase,

Does IconEra support free speech?
Do IconEra forum regulations materialize conventional free speech?

That's what I thought.

And Twitter, for the most part, supports free speech. They just don't support hate speech.

Oh, I see.

The famous "hate speech" nebulous definition that allows the usual trick:

Step 1: Create an ill-defined subjective category of bannable offences
Step 2: Deem anything you disagree with but are unable to counter with rational arguments part of that bannable offence
Step: Proceed to ban your opponents
Step 4: Have the nerve, the absolute audacity to claim you are pro-free speech.


Case in point, in debates about Trans issues, Twitter systematically bans people on one side of that argument, de facto sabotaging that argument. Simply stating facts will get you banned, as attested by many recent and past examples. And the, of course, we have overt declarations by top Twitter people which are self-explanatory in their defence of overt partiality and overt censorious nature.

To even suggest Twitter is pro-free speech is laughable, an affront to reason and objectivity and can only come from profound ignorance of what free speech entails, historical ignorance, conceptual ignorance and plain and simple political activism that sees all means as justifiable as long the ends are noble. In other words, an absolute lack of principles.

 

[Deleted member 241]

You are so far off on this it's insane.

You think every forum ban in the history of forums is a free speech violations?

Let's try to differentiate the constitutional notion of Free speech from the colloquial usage of the term.

Some, but not all, forum bans are explicit free speech violations, in the latter sense. In the colloquial, non-constitutional sense, being pro-free speech entails allowing all speech, certainly speech you disagree with, except for that which A) calls for the initiation of [physical violence] against other people and B) speech that in and of itself is an inherent violation of rights, such as child pornography.

In this colloquial but precise sense, Twitter is militantly anti-free speech, overtly partial and overtly partisan. As for IconEra, I remain undecided. Only time will tell, I guess.

Because that's what you are implying... as other's have said only the government and it's entities has to abide by free speech. And even that is limited, as a government entity can still do things like kicking you out of a courtroom for being disruptive, or even charging you with a crime. It's all situational.. the 1st amendment protects the press, it protects things like protests, it protects groups like the KKK, etc... but that doesn't mean you can just say what you want, anywhere, any time without facing consequences.. even legal ones.

Absolutely.

 

[Darth Vader]

Does IconEra support free speech?
Do IconEra forum regulations materialize conventional free speech?

Define conventional free speech.

Step 1: Create an ill-defined subjective category of bannable offences
Step 2: Deem anything you disagree with but are unable to counter with rational arguments part of that bannable offence
Step: Proceed to ban your opponents
Step 4: Have the nerve, the absolute audacity to claim you are pro-free speech.

1. Every list of bannable offenses is subjective
2. Please provide examples of this occurring
3. Who banned who?
4. I am pro free-speech. I am against hate speech. Very easy.

If you need help finding what hate speech constitutes:

hate speech

1. public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Case in point, in debates about Trans issues, Twitter systematically bans people on one side of that argument, de facto sabotaging that argument. Simply stating facts will get you banned, as attested by many recent and past examples. And the, of course, we have overt declarations by top Twitter people which are self-explanatory in their defence of overt partiality and overt censorious nature.

Bullshit. I myself have denounced anti-trans, anti-semitic, racist, etc, tweets, and nothing happened. As for stating facts, I'd love to see what facts you're talking about. And again, this is hilarious considering Elon Musk himself, free speech absolutist, blocks people on twitter, preventing them for exercising said right to "free speech" he so much touts. The same Elon Musk:

Despite calling himself a 'free speech absolutist,' Elon Musk has a history of retaliation against employees and critics

Tesla's chief executive, Elon Musk, calls himself a 'free speech absolutist' despite leveraging lawsuits and firings to silence employees and critics.

www.businessinsider.com

SpaceX fires at least 5 employees after internal letter criticizes CEO Elon Musk

The letter described the billionaire’s public behavior as “a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment” for SpaceX employees.

www.nbcnews.com

At least be coherent.

In this colloquial but precise sense, Twitter is militantly anti-free speech, overtly partial and overtly partisan. As for IconEra, I remain undecided. Only time will tell, I guess.

While we support and value the right to free speech, certain rules and regulations apply. Users must adhere to the principals of “my freedom ends when the freedom of others begins”, and the Staff may act in such a way to limit a user’s freedom of speech via closure of threads, comment moderation, and temporary or permanent bans, in line with Section IV - Engagement Guidelines. Constructive criticism and suggestions are allowed, and users are encouraged to share their opinions in threads designed for that effect. If users perceive administrative actions have been unproportional or unfair, they can reach the Staff team via the appropriate channels.

While using our service, users agree that they will adhere to minimum standards of decorum when addressing others. Content or material that is knowingly abusive, defamatory, false, harassing, hateful, inaccurate, invasive of a person’s privacy, obscene, sexually oriented, threatening, vulgar, or otherwise in violation of any law, will be subject to moderation and depending on their gravity, may lead to your account being banned. This is not an exhaustive list, and users should use common sense when sharing their opinions. Ethnic and racial slurs will not be tolerated and will lead to your account being banned with no recourse. Profanity of any kind should be kept to a minimum.

Please be reminded that in a lot of countries, Hate Speech is a criminal offense.

 

[Darth Vader]

Most countries are backwards and have less freedom than America, the greatest country on this Earth.

Objectively false

Freedom Index by Country 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

Countries and Territories

Freedom House rates people’s access to political rights and civil liberties in 210 countries and territories through its annual Freedom in the World report. Individual freedoms—ranging from the right to vote to freedom of expression and equality before the law—can be affected by state or...

freedomhouse.org

Index of Economic Freedom: All Country Scores | The Heritage Foundation

Explore the Index of Economic Freedom to gauge global impacts of liberty and free markets. Discover the powerful link between economic freedom and progress. The 30th edition, once again, illustrates key factors shaping our world's landscape. From @Heritage

www.heritage.org

 

[Deleted member 241]

Define conventional free speech.

Dodging the question already?
I see.
Doesn't bode well.

First off, traditionally, Free speech advocacy applies to governmental actions, i. e., actions of the state towards citizens, in stating the state cannot curtail the right to free speech except in very specific instances that pose a direct, imminent, and inherent physical threat to a third party. A direct imminent and inherent threat usually has the form of "Go out and kill or otherwise harm group X, or person Y" or "Burn down the private property of group X, or person Y".

Evidently, statements like "Trans men are not men", "Women do not have penises", "Only women can give birth" cannot be legitimately categorized under the above exceptions, that is, to reasonable people. Authoritarians might think otherwise, though.

Secondly, Free speech advocacy in the colloquial sense seeks to extend the constitutional protection of speech, its safeguards, to private platforms such as Twitter or Facebook. In my case, it seeks to do so by persuasion, not legislation. Both from a perspective of principles and consequences, that is the better route to take.

Authoritarians might think otherwise. They want to restrict speech for pure political convenience, in an attempt to restrict speech but evade the political price for admitting it. That's why the fraudulent category "Hate Speech" was invented. Traditional Free Speech jurisprudence already had provisions against threats of violence, for example.

Evidently, you should not worry, as there is no risk whatsoever of you being mistaken for someone who genuinely believes in free speech.

1. Every list of bannable offenses is subjective

Absurd claim.
If you don't know what objective criteria are, and what the ontological difference between objectivity and subjectivity is, that would certainly explain a lot, notably, the deranged assertion Twitter is pro-free speech.

1. Please provide examples of this occurring
2. Who banned who?
3. I am pro free-speech. I am against hate speech. Very easy.

Yes, you are resorting to the usual trendy fallacy, the cheap wordplay. Like you, North Korea is also for free speech. They just can't tolerate hate speech, defined as anything they disagree with. The very definition is left open on purpose, so it can better suit its fundamental purpose.

This is why you often see "Trans women are not women" deemed as hateful. Once you deem it hateful, you give yourself permission to silence it.

So, basically, people are free to say whatever they want in North Korea, *provided it doesn't rub the government the wrong way, which can happen in arbitrarily decided ways. Likewise, you are all or free speech, all for it, swear to God, *save for the countless times when you're not and it would really test your conviction. As long as, in your infinite wisdom, people don't say things you, in your boundless tolerance, deem kosher, people should not worry.

Please.

What a meaningless, disingenuous statement it is to say you're for free speech, just not for hate speech. As we're likely about to see.

If you need help finding what hate speech constitutes:

hate speech

1. public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Given the continuous abuse of terms like violence, I reject the above. Words are not violence. Silene is not violence. Vioelnce is violence, to paraphrase someone. Incitement to violence has a very specific meaning, incompatible with what is nowadays taken to mean and already exempted from Free Speech protections.


Luckily, the Constitution is not required to email you beforehand and it still prevails over your self-serving linguistic games.

People who truly are for free speech are for it even in cases where they vehemently disagree with their opponents. Only when speech violates rights via, say, incitement to violence, in a direct, causal manner, is one warranted in restricting it.

Statements like "Trans men are not men", "Only women can give birth"; "Men are typically stronger than women", bear no resemblance whatsoever with the above-quoted exceptions and provisions.

Bullshit. I myself have denounced anti-trans, anti-semitic, racist, etc, tweets, and nothing happened. As for stating facts, I'd love to see what facts you're talking about.

Yes, your report history is the definitive sample.

And I'd like to see those alleged Ani-trans statements. In the mind of the well-meaning authoritarian, disagreeing about definitions, concepts, and legal measures is tantamount to personal vicious attacks, even violence. The term "violence" has come to mean nothing and everything and anything in between in the mouths of the lay authoritarian. As of this week, I have witnessed firsthand the pathetic attempt to describe civil and legitimate political disagreement as violence against Trans people.

So, based on our interactions, I give zero credit to your generic claims.

Authoritarians will and do attempt to redefine and usurp language all the time, purely for political convenience and expedience.

But the authoritarian, who, inevitably, is all for Free Speech, just not for Hate speech, sees themselves as justified in silencing their opponents. They will proclaim their ardent love for freedom. Freedom for themselves, just not freedom for their opponents.

This is the fundamental difference between us. Unless you incite violence or disseminate child pornography, I will never try to silence your views. On the contrary, I want to put a floodlight directly above them and show them for the inherently authoritarian, irrational, and therefore immoral diatribes that they are.

And again, this is hilarious considering Elon Musk himself, free speech absolutist,

He's not a free speech absolutist. The only person I know who would possibly qualify was Christopher Hitchens, who claimed to be one, but even he might have not lived up to that high bar. Even so, I'd say curtailing Free speech only on instances of incitement to violence and child pornography makes me and anyone who adopts the same position far more respectful of individual rights than yourself, who seem very happy to come up with a sufficiently nebulous concept, the Black Hole of free speech, where you'll be able to shun everything and anything you happen to disagree with.

In this sense, though not an absolutist, Musk proclaims to want more freedom, in a professed attempt to bridge the gap between constitutional notions of free speech and colloquial free speech. He even described his take as wanting [almost] everything that is legal to be admissable on Twitter. I realize that to an authoritarian, more freedom is not good news. To me it is. More freedom is better than less freedom, provided rights are not violated.

Simple.

blocks people on twitter, preventing them for exercising said right to "free speech" he so much touts. The same Elon Musk:

Despite calling himself a 'free speech absolutist,' Elon Musk has a history of retaliation against employees and critics

Tesla's chief executive, Elon Musk, calls himself a 'free speech absolutist' despite leveraging lawsuits and firings to silence employees and critics.

www.businessinsider.com

SpaceX fires at least 5 employees after internal letter criticizes CEO Elon Musk

The letter described the billionaire’s public behavior as “a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment” for SpaceX employees.

www.nbcnews.com

At least be coherent.

It's his company, not yours, not theirs. He gets to fire them.
Within contractual obligations, Musk should have the right to fire anyone, just like anyone should have the right to leave the company at their own discretion.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Objectively false

Freedom Index by Country 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

Countries and Territories

Freedom House rates people’s access to political rights and civil liberties in 210 countries and territories through its annual Freedom in the World report. Individual freedoms—ranging from the right to vote to freedom of expression and equality before the law—can be affected by state or...

freedomhouse.org

Index of Economic Freedom: All Country Scores | The Heritage Foundation

Explore the Index of Economic Freedom to gauge global impacts of liberty and free markets. Discover the powerful link between economic freedom and progress. The 30th edition, once again, illustrates key factors shaping our world's landscape. From @Heritage

www.heritage.org

This is appeal to authority fallacy as if there could be an authority on such a nebulous concept.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

 

[Darth Vader]

I will reply one last time as I can see us engaging in a long and potential heated philosophical debate about this topic, something I have no interest in.

Dodging the question already?
I see.
Doesn't bode well.

I was not dodging any question, I merely asked for clarification. There are many definitions of free speech, so I was interested in knowing what you classify as traditional free speech. I do see you replied below, which I will address after quoting you.

First off, traditionally, Free speech advocacy applies to governmental actions, I. e., actions of the state towards citizens, in stating the Sate cannot curtail the right to free speech except in very specific instances which pose a direct, imminent, and inherent physical threat to a third party. A direct imminent threat usually has the form of "Go out and kill or otherwise harm group X or person y" or "Burn down the private property of group X, or person y".

This is traditional in the US, not in most (I can't claim all) other countries. We're talking about a definition that effectively applies to around 4% of the world population and that does not constitute the absolute version of said definition.

Evidently, statements like "Trans men are not men", "Women do not have penises", "Only women can give birth" cannot be categorized under the above exceptions. that is to reasonable people. Authoritarians think otherwise, though.

I do not think those statements constitute anything other than free speech, even though I do not agree with them. There are many reasons for this, from biological to psychological, however I do not wish to engage in such discussion for the reasons stated earlier in my response.

Secondly, Free speech advocacy in the colloquial sense seeks to extend the concept to private platforms such as Twitter or Facebook. In my case, it seeks to do so by persuasion, not legislation. Both from a perspective of principles and consequences, that is the better route to take. Authoritarians think otherwise. They want to restrict speech for pure political convenience, without paying the political price for admitting it. That's why the fraudulent category "Hate Speech" was invented.

Evidently, you should not worry, as there is no risk whatsoever of you being mistaken for someone who genuinely is for free speech.

I fully believe free speech should extend to any platform, however I do believe there's a distinction between free speech and hate speech. Additionally, if you want to get into the philosophical roots of debate, a discussion without resorting to ad hominem is much more productive. Regardless, I take no offense of what someone online thinks of me.

Maybe you guys, founders/admins should sort it out? If there are divergences on such a fundamental level, as you say, maybe you guys should talk it out.

And I'd like to see those alleged Ani-trans statements. In the mind of the well-meaning authoritarian, disagreeing about definitions, concepts, and legal measures is tantamount to personal vicious attacks, even violence. The term "violence" has come to mean nothing and everything in the mouths of the lay authoritarian. As of this week, I have witnessed firsthand the pathetic attempt to describe civil and legitimate political disagreement as violence against Trans people.

I was obviously referring to twitter, not IconEra. The founders and staff are fully aligned in the forums ToS.

So, based on our interactions, I give zero credit to your generic claims.

It goes both ways, don't you worry.

Authoritarians will and do attempt to redefine and usurp language all the time, purely for political convenience and expedience.

But the authoritarian, who, inevitably, is all for Free Speech, jut not for hate speech, sees themselves as justified in silencing their opponents. They will proclaim their ardent love for freedom. Freedom for themselves, just not freedom for their opponents.

This is the fundamental difference between us. Unless you incite violence or disseminate child pornography, I will never try to silence your views. On the contrary, I want to put a floodlight directly above them and show them for the inherently authoritarian, irrational, and therefore immoral diatribes that they are.

I'm not entirely sure what authoritarianism is. While I agree that some people take the concept of "hate speech" as far along as its convenient for them, one cannot characterise someone of authoritarian simply because they classify some speech as hate speech. And I'm unsure as to why you're pointing such "difference between us" when I have not, at any point, try to silence your views. You have also not engaged in sufficient debate with myself as to what my views are, and yet again resort to ad hominem arguments to try and gain some sort of moral high ground.

He's not a free speech absolutist. The only person I know who would possibly qualify is Christopher Hitchens, who claimed to be one and who might have not lived up to that high bar. Even so, I'd say curtailing Free speech only on instances of incitement to violence and child pornography makes me and anyone who adopts the same position far more respectful of individual rights than yourself, who have created this arbitrary Black Hole of free speech, where you can shun everything anything to you happen to dislike.

He claimed to be a free speech absolutist and I was merely utilising such classification. I do agree he's not. Additionally, you keep making these personal accusations regarding where I stand in this debate where, at no point, I tried to silence your arguments, nor have I provided the full extent of my views.

In this sense, though not an absolutist, Musk proclaims to want more freedom, in a professed attempt to bridge the gap between constitutional notions of free speech and colloquial free speech. He even described his take as wanting [almost] everything that is legal to be admissable on Twitter. I realize that to an authoritarian, more freedom is not good news. To me it is. More freedom is better than less freedom, provided rights are not violated.

And such claims by Musk are laughable from the moment he does not follow the principles he claims to adhere, as I have demonstrated. I also find it curious that this is the third time you've utilized an argumentum ad hominem to try and debate me. I'm such there's more to your repertoire than that.

It's his company, not yours, not theirs. He gets to fire them.
Within contractual bounds and obligations, Musk should have the right to fire anyone, just like anyone should have the right to leave the company at their own discretion.

So what you're saying is that while you defend the right to free speech in public and private entities, you also allow for the right to retaliation against said free speech? That doesn't seem very free.

In any case, appreciate the debate. I don't think we'll find a middle ground, which is ok.

This is appeal to authority fallacy as if there could be an authority on such a nebulous concept.

Wrong. I did not claim to be an authority, and i have provided supporting evidence for my claims. See more below for handy examples on what constitutes an appeal to authority.

Appeal to Authority

Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

Can you please share the source for the full document, and not a cropped version? It seems to me that that's a recount of Musk's statement, not actual proof. I may be wrong, of course.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Your logical fallacy was trying to counter my argument using some websites metrics as though they're an authority even though trusting in such an authority is a fallacy in itself. My argument was not that you in and of yourself were an authority on the issue obviously you're not. You can do your own homework to find where that comes from by the way.

 

[Deleted member 241]

I will reply one last time as I can see us engaging in a long and potential heated philosophical debate about this topic, something I have no interest in.



I was not dodging any question, I merely asked for clarification. There are many definitions of free speech, so I was interested in knowing what you classify as traditional free speech. I do see you replied below, which I will address after quoting you.



This is traditional in the US, not in most (I can't claim all) other countries. We're talking about a definition that effectively applies to around 4% of the world population and that does not constitute the absolute version of said definition.

You asked for my definition, which I provided. I will not make Appeals to Popularity nor do I need to. When asked if IconEra stands for Free Speech, you would have been well-advised to offer your own definition and then answer the Yes or No question in plain terms.

Alas, you failed on both fronts.

I do not think those statements constitute anything other than free speech, even though I do not agree with them. There are many reasons for this, from biological to psychological, however I do not wish to engage in such discussion for the reasons stated earlier in my response.

We fundamentally disagree then. Though we agree they fall within the realm of Free speech.

Twitter routinely bans people for so-called misgendering people. You don't even have to take my word for it. Re-watch the interaction between Tim Pool, Dorsey, and Vijaya Gadde, two high-ranking execs, where they openly admit and attempt to justify why, say, in a debate over Trans terminology, they choose to ban the so-called misgenderer.

We could delve deeper into the NY Post article ban, other high-profile bans, their Covid stance, etc, and in the end, the facade of Twitter being a Pro-Free Speech advocate would be in complete shambles.

I fully believe free speech should extend to any platform, however I do believe there's a distinction between free speech and hate speech. Additionally, if you want to get into the philosophical roots of debate, a discussion without resorting to ad hominem is much more productive.

An Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that seeks to dismiss an argument by attempting to disqualify the arguer.

Something fundamentally different is to show the other side's argument is fallacious via rational points and, in parallel, show the other side behaves in an authoritarian fashion.

I was obviously referring to twitter, not IconEra. The founders and staff are fully aligned in the forums ToS.

Yes, I misunderstood your point. It's been corrected.

It goes both ways, don't you worry.

If you are talking about being mistaken for a Free Speech advocate, I don't want to ban the far right, the right, the left, or the far left. I don't want to ban the KKK or the CPUSA. Only if and when they incite violence, which some Far-right groups do, which Antifa certainly does with impunity, will I ever approve of restrictive measures.

That objectively makes me a Free Speech advocate.

I'm not entirely sure what authoritarianism is.

Another priceless statement.

Broadly speaking, Authoritarianism is the doctrine that finds it legitimate to violate rights through coercion or the initiation of force.

Conversely, Libertarianism sees the use of coercion as admissible only to protect rights that have already been violated. This is often described as The non-aggression Principle.

Case in point, to have the state use violence, or the threat of violence, to mandate the usage of, say, preferred pronouns is a clear authoritarian turn of events. No one has the right to be called by their preferred pronouns against the will of others.

I alone get to choose the language I use.

While I agree that some people take the concept of "hate speech" as far along as its convenient for them, one cannot characterize someone of authoritarian simply because they classify some speech as hate speech.

On the contrary.
They classify it as "hate speech" precisely because they want to exempt it from Free Speech protections. In other words, they want to de facto crush dissent, which, in turn, renders them authoritarian. Contrast that with my own stance.

And I'm unsure as to why you're pointing such "difference between us" when I have not, at any point, try to silence your views. You have also not engaged in sufficient debate with myself as to what my views are, and yet again resort to ad hominem arguments to try and gain some sort of moral high ground.

See above.

He claimed to be a free speech absolutist and I was merely utilising such classification. I do agree he's not. Additionally, you keep making these personal accusations regarding where I stand in this debate where, at no point, I tried to silence your arguments, nor have I provided the full extent of my views.

To qualify as an authoritarian, you don't necessarily have to endorse the suppression of any specific individual's speech. If - strictly speaking - you endorse the use of coercion in cases when no rights are being violated and/or - more broadly speaking - you subscribe to the silencing of speech that does not incite violence nor disseminates child pornography when no rights are being violated, you qualify as an authoritarian.

I understand this may not be pleasant to hear, but I am calling as I see it. Lots of people are authoritarian, they merely refuse to wear the hat, because they have a cartoonish image of authoritarianism that involves wearing brown shirts and displaying racial prejudice.

And such claims by Musk are laughable from the moment he does not follow the principles he claims to adhere, as I have demonstrated.

No. There is a clear distinction between employees and customers. The relationship is fundamentally different. Rules that apply to employees don't necessarily apply to Twitter users, and vice-versa.

Regardless, in both cases, Musk, the owner, has the [moral] right to set the terms of those relations, provided he doesn't violate rights. Both employees and customers are then free to take it or leave it.

So Twitter indeed has the right to ban anyone who says "Trans women are not women". My point is Twitter shouldn't, both from a principled and consequential perspective.

I also find it curious that this is the third time you've utilized an argumentum ad hominem to try and debate me. I'm such there's more to your repertoire than that.

Your argument is not wrong because you often can be perceived as having an authoritarian bent. Your argument is wrong because of the reasons previously stated. I hope this clarifies what I mean.

So what you're saying is that while you defend the right to free speech in public and private entities, you also allow for the right to retaliation against said free speech? That doesn't seem very free.

It's Musk's private property. It's his company and as such he gets to decide. Primarily, it's his venue for his free speech or speech he deems acceptable. Don't like it there? Go work somewhere else. Start your own EV company, run by you, where you'll be able to say whatever you please.

Your right to speech does not trump the property rights of Musks. if it does your whole edifice of rights is self-contradictory and therefore fundamentally flawed. Rights have to be consistent and universal, which is the reason why only so-called negative rights exist.

Just like in your house you have the right to decide who gets to speak. I do not have the right, as your employee, to go to your house and use it as a platform to voice an ideology you disagree with. Your rights as the owner take obvious precedence because that's what entailed in owning the house, or the company.

Those individuals sent out that statement explicitly as Tesla employees. They still get to publicly criticize Musk, though, just not as Tesla employees.

Wrong. I did not claim to be an authority, and i have provided supporting evidence for my claims. See more below for handy examples on what constitutes an appeal to authority.

I know what a logical fallacy is, notably what an Appeal to Authority is. Another example of a fallacy would be to suggest we should adopt a certain definition merely because x number of countries have done so.

 

[Deleted member 140]

Wow this thread needs a wall of text warning

 

[Deleted member 241]

Wow this thread needs a wall of text warning

I would like to personally thank you for letting me know D-pad exists. Prior to your post, I was not aware that Gaming forum existed. Also, I will be emailing you later on so you can provide me with a Party-approved list of the "communities" it is Ok to make fun of. I am in need of said guidance, as is, frankly, the whole of mankind. Humour is a terrible nasty thing, except when directed at the Party-approved targets.

Much solidarity,

B-universe

 

[ParaSeoul]

Elon Musk not doing something he said he would. Wow.

 

[EbonyRainbow]

It's all smoke and mirrors, friends.

This. Musk is just a gross white supremacist con artist in my opinion.

 

[The Legendary Warrior]

Elon is full of BS.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Elon is full of BS.

When he was all renewable energy and exploring space I thought so, too but now that he's based and owning the libs he's pretty neat

 

[Sircaw]

This. Musk is just a gross white supremacist con artist in my opinion.

why would you say that? what has he said that makes you believe that?

 

[The Legendary Warrior]

When he was all renewable energy and exploring space I thought so, too but now that he's based and owning the libs he's pretty neat

Grow up seriously. Owning the libs? People like you are pathetic waste of space on earth.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Grow up seriously. Owning the libs? People like you are pathetic waste of space on earth.

Uh oh it's a special liberal snowflake crying because they have to share this planet with people who disagree with them.