honestly this sounds like gay face-saving
We'll agree to disagree then.
In my mind, if someone says they want to do X, and they do the opposite of X, then they are not really endorsing X.
If one can find excuses even in the presence of such a direct contradiction at the level of base logic, then they will find excuses no matter what. There's no point in continuing because our disagreement is at such a fundamental level.
last edit on
8/12/2024 1:42:08 AM
honestly this sounds like gay face-saving
u explained the entirety of civilization
Imperfect Priest of Determinism
We'll agree to disagree then.
In my mind, if someone says they want to do X, and they do the opposite of X, then they are not really endorsing X.
If one can find excuses even in the presence of such a direct contradiction at the level of base logic, then they will find excuses no matter what. There's no point in continuing because our disagreement is at such a fundamental level.
well i can elaborate a bit more on why i said it's gay face-saving
you came in with a claim that elon's not doing free speech—ok, fair enough, but what are the reasons? it's just been this turkey argument. you were also saying that journalists were being censored, but you had to back off that when i realized you were talking about Don Lemon and i had the context. and at various times you tried to pull at other sources for argument, like how Google and other tech companies conduct their algorithms, or how one year more requests were fulfilled than the other. but again in these cases it was clear you either didn't have the whole picture, or that you were arguing in bad faith. in fact the best arguments that elon doesn't do free speech were given by me, because what i brought up didn't involve legal impossibilities
"but it's not free speech if he followed the requests from turkey!" ok...but for those of us not being obtuse or autistic, clearly what is meant is that we are in transit to freedom of speech, and that we mostly have it already. elon already knows post views were limited in turkey in 2023. you can knock off points for following international laws, but that misses the point and obscures the whole of what is happening—particularly in regards to what it means for a major social media platform to be non-biased. because it isn't politically biased, beyond where there are posts limited by region based on regional laws
last edit on
8/12/2024 2:33:06 AM
Youre taking this more like a debate than I am, I think. From what I gather, the issue you're taking is with me "backtracking" on what I said about the suppression of journalists and about Twitter not doing algorithmic manipulation. And you're frustrated because I'm refusing to address those points and instead harp on one thing, which is the Turkey election thing. I can see why you're frustrated, given that your points on the other issues seem perfectly valid.
Firstly, I dont think of this as a debate to win, which is perhaps why we're approaching this so differently. I think you made fair points, and I conceded some of them, and there was some context that I had to look up after you pointed them out to me.
Partially the reason I'm not moving on with the argument and discuss what X could've done instead of complying with Turkish censorship requests, discuss the suppression of journalists or lack thereof, and move on to meta analysis of algorithmic bias on the old Twitter is because we're not agreeing on basic epistemology, like that direct contradictions are almost always direct and undeniable proof of dishonesty.
It's of course true that an anti slavery organization could be owning slaves in Africa and still genuinely want to fix slavery, like how a free speech organization could be partaking in black and white censorship and still genuinely want to fix freedom of speech. But when it comes to the likelihood of that being the case, I'd say in almost all circumstances the likelihood is near zero. So when you don't concede this fact, we're no longer discussing under any shared rules or concensus on what is reasonable. Hence the mutual frustration, on your side because I'm refusing to address what appears to be perfectly valid points, and on my side because I see no common ground for discussion, which I feel is needed for me to address your other perfectly valid points.
The crux is this: Is there any excuse that an anti slavery organization could give to justify owning slaves? My answer is no, while yours is, seemingly, yes. This is a fundamental disagreement at the level of epistemology.
last edit on
8/12/2024 5:14:58 AM
Youre taking this more like a debate than I am, I think. From what I gather, the issue you're taking is with me "backtracking" on what I said about the suppression of journalists and about Twitter not doing algorithmic manipulation. And you're frustrated because I'm refusing to address those points and instead harp on one thing, which is the Turkey election thing. I can see why you're frustrated, given that your points on the other issues seem perfectly valid.
Firstly, I dont think of this as a debate to win, which is perhaps why we're approaching this so differently. I think you made fair points, and I conceded some of them, and there was some context that I had to look up after you pointed them out to me.
it's not so much about backtracking, it's that you clearly have this preconceived notion that won't be changed. you basically tossed a bunch of things out there, and then stuck by the one thing that wasn't blatantly false. but even that example is a moral grandstand that would be materially worse for everyone if it were followed
Partially the reason I'm not moving on with the argument and discuss what X could've done instead of complying with Turkish censorship requests, discuss the suppression of journalists or lack thereof, and move on to meta analysis of algorithmic bias on the old Twitter is because we're not agreeing on basic epistemology, like that direct contradictions are almost always direct and undeniable proof of dishonesty.
technically america doesn't have free speech either; you can't make threats on the life of a president, or scream that there's a fire in a crowded theater, etc. but when people say america has "freedom of speech", it's understood that there's a context. i said in my second post on the thread "yes it's technically not total free speech".
