Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Huh? ESG lost so many people so much money, corporations have had to walk away from it. But then, what's a few hundred billion here and there?

You are not understanding what I'm saying.

The Post had the laptop, and it was legit. A pack of ex-intel folks wrote a letter stating that the laptop was likely created by Russians. They knew when they wrote the letter that this was false. This gave cover to Twitter to shut down the Post's account.

Musk has since bought Twitter and dug up a ton of emails showing that FBI, CIA, and NSA folks were working with twitter for years not to avoid misinformation, but to massage narratives by blocking or shadow banning stories or facts that went against favored goals or messaging of govt officials. At the time, these officials feared (wrongly, I think) that the laptop story could cost Biden the election.

I do not believe that a single fact in the prior two facts is accurate, except that it is true that Musk bought Twitter. But the great thing is that the government has not suppressed any of this speech, as actual authoritarians would. You have read it all, in all its bogus glory, because our country's laws and culture often make it very possible, even lucrative, to publish misinformation.

For reasons that are hard to fathom, you saying that the people who published all this crap which you read and now believe were not allowed to publish all this crap. A sharper mind mind wonder how you were able to read it.

The grievance you are struggling to articulate is that you believe a lot of crap, and that too many other people don't, and don't want to share it. For example, Twitter decided that the Post's story about the Biden laptop violated a company policy about sharing hacked information. They did not stop the Post from writing the story, printing many copies of it, and sharing them with many, many people. Yet you're upset that Twitter had different editorial judgment than you would.

Right. But the cure for those pieties is mockery, abuse of them. By making them off limits, sacred, we've just created new secular religions for the credulous and the authoritarians that would those the credulous as useful idiots.

You're not mocking them. Try that instead.

But they're not off limits, sacred. No one actually thinks that at all. They just don't share your views.

My sole gripe is with the effort to place bullshit beyond critique. If I hear a MAGA nut tell me the election was stolen, I can tell him to fuck off. If I have to listen to some garbage about inclusiveness that's intellectually vacant and a waste of my time as a prerequisite for making money or being an employee (I have had to do so), I can't tell this person to fuck off. I must pretend their silly shit is real and important.

You can absolutely tell that person to fuck off. You just have to live with the consequences, that they'll think you're an asshole. You're just complaining that you think things that other people disagree with.

Quite literally the entire progressive side of the party.

Name one. You are so full of shit here that it's coming out your ears. You want to pretend that you are in the center, so you pretend Democrats are something they are not.

What they did was a uniquely lurid example of what tantrum throwers do all over this country. Yes, Trump enabled a lot of it. His fucking inauguration speech was a tantrum. I'd prefer all of it, from both sides, go back in the bottle.

Here's what you said a few days ago about the US Open protesters:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That protest held outside the match, on the grounds, would have been totally fine. To do it in the match is the height of narcissism and extreme fundamentalism. They did nothing but harm their cause.

It wasn't the tantrum that you objected to -- it was that they did it in the match. I pointed out that disrupting the US Open is something Trump would never do. And we all know he wouldn't.