Has Elon Musk lost his mind or?…

Starbucks said:
I havent heard much about that anymore. How did that end? I remember it was a bit trending on social media and then it just… disappeared.
Click to expand...

The names & people on the list are high profile names around the world but mostly American. Top American politicians & top American political judges of the American justice system.

Nothing happened with it and nothing will happen with it anytime soon due to the names on it. Judges won't put themselves in jail.

Trump & military has this list and is using it to control the corrupt people.

Whoever has the blackmail has the control. This is why they hate Trump so much and tried to stop him but unsuccessful.

Justice will come but it will take a long time as the corruption is so deep.
 
1736527616014.webp
 
Mr Lucky said:
Exactly what I found. In fact it’s impossible to use as my account was deleted.
Click to expand...
I have a different problem
I can't log in using my desktop
1736542321809.webp


While I can log in to my account from any other device
I contacted their support and they told me that there is no problem with my account
 
Suzanne O said:
I left twitter in mid 2023 because i was sick of the crap i was reading on there.
Click to expand...
I personally don't use X (formerly Twitter) except to follow a few people who post important things. Generally, I don’t use Facebook, Messenger, or WhatsApp much either, and only for work-related matters with very limited interaction. My favorite platform is Telegram—I never close it!
 
MesterPerfect said:
I personally don't use X (formerly Twitter) except to follow a few people who post important things. Generally, I don’t use Facebook, Messenger, or WhatsApp much either, and only for work-related matters with very limited interaction. My favorite platform is Telegram—I never close it!
Click to expand...
I now use Telegram as well. I even created a connection to my site for logins.
 
wmarcy said:
Freedom of speech, for everyone, is scary.
Click to expand...
Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.

Let me hear your thoughts on this: Would you prefer to see or not to see that your neighbor, one living right next to you or down the street, is posting "hate speech" (including transphobic to even racial comments) or other content you deem to be questionable?

When you hide it or force it elsewhere, it becomes more difficult to address the consequences of their actions, and could very well put a real community in danger by not knowing who that person down the street is.
 
wmarcy said:
I wore a uniform and actually fought so that my neighbor could have the right to say anything they chose. I would fight for your right equally as hard. Anyone trying to stop you or my neighbor is the only enemy we have.
Click to expand...
So have I. That's the main reason for my stance.

But to reason with others about free speech, I have to bring up that if you exclude speech from A, it only goes into hiding on B. I would prefer to see it on A, where everyone else can see it so that each can make their conclusions about the world around them. If they don't know that B exists, I would argue there will always be a potential for a clear and present danger in their local community, where they live. Their counter-argument may be that "they'll just do it on B anyway", but if even 1 person is "dumb" (some don't mind showing their true colors with their real names and even jobs listed) and starts posting some nonsense to a more publically accessed network such as A, it helps authorities out a tremendous deal, if not the person seeing it so they know to stay away from that person; have thick skin, know who they are, and don't interact or avoid them, in real life.
 
While in principle I agree with you, the problem is that it doesn’t work that way, at least not online.

If someone goes shooting their mouth with a bunch of deeply racist commentary, what’s the consequence? Plenty of places will let that commentary go unaddressed, which is why the jump to “freedom of speech becomes freedom from consequence”.

The places that don’t let it go unaddressed are then labelled as censoring, because that’s the only online consequence - to take the commentary down and/or prevent the speaker making more of it.

So what’s the answer that permits freedom of speech, doesn’t protect from consequence but then also upholds the consequence as the consequence?
 
Arantor said:
So what’s the answer that permits freedom of speech, doesn’t protect from consequence but then also upholds the consequence as the consequence?
Click to expand...
It lets community members know who believes in what, and for them to decide to act according to their beliefs. I'm merely looking at this on a microscopic level of actual communities, like actual physical neighborhoods in cities.
frm said:
https://www.noleftturn.us/wp-conten...f-pictures-from-Gender-Queer-five-pages-1.pdf
Click to expand...
For God's sake, we're also talking about this here. If I saw anybody local in my community post support for this book to be in schools or accessible to children, I would write them off as a groomer and would never allow my kids within their vicinity. Further, I would attend every school district meeting and take my entire 3 minutes to read from the book and have it projected on the walls. In the instance that they cut the mic, because it's too "obscene" to be in a school board meeting, I believe I would have made my point quite clear that it shouldn't be in school libraries, and the recording of which would be public record, to later point out their hypocrisy.

Shoving that ideology (which is tolerated, for now, and hopefully not with a reorganization or disbanding of the Department of Education and/or funding cuts) in people's faces lets everyone be aware of who they're dealing with. Then, you have other spectrums, which allow them to decide what is tolerable for them and their families. Hiding it on other "platforms" (reverting to Section 230), just makes it more difficult to gauge the character of someone in your community, whether you are a socialist or a nationalist or a communist or a libertarian, etc.

I would rather see some racist boomer post some awful things on Facebook than for them to be banned, because my children are biracial, and that would allow me, as the parent, to protect them from the person and/or their content.

tl'dr: You want Section 230 platform protection, abide by it, and let users decide what content they want to see or not want to see.
 
Last edited:
wmarcy said:
I wore a uniform and actually fought so that my neighbor could have the right to say anything they chose. I would fight for your right equally as hard. Anyone trying to stop you or my neighbor is the only enemy we have.
Click to expand...
My father also fought in that war, you have my utmost respect. Also my uncles one of whom we just found out about his grave in Italy, shot by a sniper just days before the end of the war.
 
Arantor said:
While in principle I agree with you, the problem is that it doesn’t work that way, at least not online.

If someone goes shooting their mouth with a bunch of deeply racist commentary, what’s the consequence? Plenty of places will let that commentary go unaddressed, which is why the jump to “freedom of speech becomes freedom from consequence”.

The places that don’t let it go unaddressed are then labelled as censoring, because that’s the only online consequence - to take the commentary down and/or prevent the speaker making more of it.

So what’s the answer that permits freedom of speech, doesn’t protect from consequence but then also upholds the consequence as the consequence?
Click to expand...

Free speech is absolute. Yes, you can yell fire in a crowded theatre, yes you can be as hateful as you decide to be, yes you can spout whatever you want towards any group with impunity. Words never equate to violence.

As soon as your actions become physical, then there is a problem. Never before.
 
frm said:
It lets community members know who believes in what, and for them to decide to act according to their beliefs. I'm merely looking at this on a microscopic level of actual communities, like actual physical neighborhoods in cities.

For God's sake, we're also talking about this here. If I saw anybody local in my community post support for this book to be in schools or accessible to children, I would write them off as a groomer and would never allow my kids within their vicinity. Further, I would attend every school district meeting and take my entire 3 minutes to read from the book and have it projected on the walls. In the instance that they cut the mic, because it's too "obscene" to be in a school board meeting, I believe I would have made my point quite clear that it shouldn't be in school libraries, and the recording of which would be public record, to later point out their hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
Are you okay with school libraries have books with stories comparing a man's genitals to a donkey and his emissions to a horse, daughters getting their father drunk so they can have sex with him, delighting in dashing children against rocks, killing everyone in a city except virgin women, to be taken for sex? Or offering your virgin daughters to a crowd assembled outside your home? Approving of genocide? There's a book in most schools right now with this content and so many atrocities and content that shouldn't be there, yet it's approved by hypocrites.

And FYI, there are plenty of books libraries (and not just school libraries) are censoring that isn't overt sexual content, but being censored because racists don't like the points of view, and they don't want stories with LGBTQ+ themes even when there is no overt sexual content.

But you went straight to the overt sexual content, and not the topicality - which is intellectually dishonest at best.
 
MySiteGuy said:
Are you okay with school libraries have books with stories comparing a man's genitals to a donkey and his emissions to a horse, daughters getting their father drunk so they can have sex with him, delighting in dashing children against rocks, killing everyone in a city except virgin women, to be taken for sex? Or offering your virgin daughters to a crowd assembled outside your home? Approving of genocide? There's a book in most schools right now with this content and so many atrocities and content that shouldn't be there, yet it's approved by hypocrites.

And FYI, there are plenty of books libraries (and not just school libraries) are censoring that isn't overt sexual content, but being censored because racists don't like the points of view, and they don't want stories with LGBTQ+ themes even when there is no overt sexual content.

But you went straight to the overt sexual content, and not the topicality - which is intellectually dishonest at best.
Click to expand...

The koran is bad, we get it. Up to the school board to decide. Don't like their decision, remove them.
 
wmarcy said:
Free speech is absolute.
Click to expand...
In the USA, 2 centuries of Supreme Court decisions disagree with you, by people far more familiar with law and it's principles than either of us have.

wmarcy said:
Yes, you can yell fire in a crowded theatre, yes you can be as hateful as you decide to be, yes you can spout whatever you want towards any group with impunity. Words never equate to violence.

As soon as your actions become physical, then there is a problem. Never before.
Click to expand...

False.

Fighting words, defamation, threats that convey a serious intent to commit violence, incitement of violence, incitement to suicide, false statements of fact, commercial speech, speech owned by others, counterfeiting, making threats to the President, violations of privacy, state secrets, some forms of obscenity, speech in the capacity of a government official, restrictions on those in the military, inmate speech, and more, are SCOTUS backed restrictions on free speech.

None of the Bill of Rights are absolute. They can and do have exceptions. For example, try building a nuclear weapon and see how far claiming you have a 2nd amendment right gets you.
 
Back
Top Bottom