Elon Musk Twitter

[NUGDUKWE]

(06-03-2023, 12:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Interesting that you think we live in a world full of Karen's and then push a very "Karen" way of thinking.  Who decides what is "disinformation?"  If it was the old Twitter regime then no thank you, a thousand times no thank you.  Also, if you don't like "Karen Elon's" bias then simply don't use his platform, see how easy that is?  You want to be protected from others by others, I want to decide for myself.  You're certainly entitled to your position, but here's the problem.  In your version I am curtailed from engaging in my position.  In my version you are still free to engage in yours.  When given the option I will choose more freedom over less (with very rare exceptions).  This used to be the position of most Americans.  Sadly this no longer seems to be the case.

Who decides what's misinformation? I would say information that isn't verified. Not sure what the old regime did that was so harmful. The Biden and Trump administration both asked for things to be removed and both requests were granted ( I'd assume based on not being able to be verified ). Did they remove stuff on Covid I'm sure they did but they sided on the side of the majority of professionals. I take rights very seriously as well with free speech being key among them. But I just don't see having things taken off the Internet as being a violation of that right. Now if you start punishing people for spreading unverified information than that would be a problem. But I think what Musk and others are doing can be even more harmful to the 1st amendment. If you can't stop the free Press than shake people's trust in the free press. If your worried about free speech bringing issues to light then create so much noise making any factual information irrelevant. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-03-2023, 03:17 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: Who decides what's misinformation? I would say information that isn't verified.

Verified by who?  The same people who verified WMD's in Iraq?  The same people who said the Covid vaccine was 90%+ effective?  The same people who verified the Steele dossier as credible?  The same people who said the Hunter Biden laptop was 100% disinformation?  I could go on.

Quote:Not sure what the old regime did that was so harmful. The Biden and Trump administration both asked for things to be removed and both requests were granted ( I'd assume based on not being able to be verified ).

I've explained this.  It's better to err on the side of not being censorious.  I don't care from where the requests for censorship come from.

Quote:Did they remove stuff on Covid I'm sure they did but they sided on the side of the majority of professionals.

Did those professionals turn out to be wrong on some very significant issues?

Quote:I take rights very seriously as well with free speech being key among them. But I just don't see having things taken off the Internet as being a violation of that right.

Wait, you literally just stated that both the Trump and Biden administration requested censorship.  If the government is censoring you how is that not a violation of the 1A?  Because it's being done through an intermediary?  That would be some impressive mental gymnastics.

Quote:Now if you start punishing people for spreading unverified information than that would be a problem.

I would argue that silencing and deplatforming people is absolutely punishing people.

Quote:But I think what Musk and others are doing can be even more harmful to the 1st amendment.

You're really going to have to expound on this statement.  I'm not seeing it.

Quote:If you can't stop the free Press than shake people's trust in the free press. If your worried about free speech bringing issues to light then create so much noise making any factual information irrelevant. 

If the media has lost people's trust they have no one to blame but themselves.  See the litany of failure above and then realize that's the tip of the iceberg.  You now seem to be arguing that Musk is actually anti-free speech by muddying the waters.  You're going to have to expound on that accusation as well, because I'm not seeing it.

[GMDino]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/twitter-hit-by-staggering-59-percent-drop-in-us-ad-sales-report

[/url]

Quote:[url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-daily-wire-claims-twitter-nixed-a-deal-over-anti-trans-film]Twitter’s U.S. advertising revenue has plunged dramatically in the wake of Elon Musk’s takeover of the site, according to The New York Times. The newspaper reports that an internal Twitter presentation showed that the company’s American ad sales in the five weeks from April 1 into early May stood at $88 million—a whopping 59 percent lower than the same period a year earlier. Unnamed current and former employees said Twitter’s ad sales staff are worried that advertisers may have throttled their spending out of concern about an increase in hate speech and pornography on the platform, along with a surge in advertisements on the site for cannabis products and online gambling. Six ad agency executives said their clients continue to limit their Twitter spending out of confusion about Musk’s changes to the site, as well as “inconsistent support from Twitter and concerns about the persistent presence of misleading and toxic content on the platform.”

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-05-2023, 08:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.thedailybeast.com/twitter-hit-by-staggering-59-percent-drop-in-us-ad-sales-report

[url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-daily-wire-claims-twitter-nixed-a-deal-over-anti-trans-film][/url]

Daily Beast, far left rag, don't believe it.  They do keep pushing that agenda though.  

[GMDino]

(06-05-2023, 08:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Daily Beast, far left rag, don't believe it.  They do keep pushing that agenda though.  

SSF, right wing denier (but only because...CALIFORNIA!!! LOL) of anything he doesn't believe and weirdly an Elon Mush defender. 

They do cite their source though:


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/05/technology/twitter-ad-sales-musk.html

Quote:[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]By Ryan Mac and Tiffany Hsu
[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Ryan Mac reports on Twitter, and Tiffany Hsu reports on misinformation.[/color][/color]

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]June 5, 2023Updated 4:10 p.m. ET[/color]
[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Elon Musk recently said Twitter’s advertising business was on the upswing. “Almost all advertisers have come back,” he asserted, adding that the social media company could soon become profitable.[/color]

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]But Twitter’s U.S. advertising revenue for the five weeks from April 1 to the first week of May was $88 million, down 59 percent from a year earlier, according to an internal presentation obtained by The New York Times. The company has regularly fallen short of its U.S. weekly sales projections, sometimes by as much as 30 percent, the document said.[/color][/color]
[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]That performance is unlikely to improve anytime soon, according to the documents and seven current and former Twitter employees.[/color][/color]

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Twitter’s ad sales staff is concerned that advertisers may be spooked by a rise in hate speech and pornography on the social network, as well as more ads featuring online gambling and marijuana products, the people said. The company has forecast that its U.S. ad revenue this month will be down at least 56 percent each week compared with a year ago, according to one internal document.[/color][/color]


[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]These issues have been inherited by Linda Yaccarino, the NBCUniversal executive whom Mr. Musk named Twitter’s chief executive last month. She started her new job on Monday.[/color]

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]On a Twitter Space audio event on Monday, Mr. Musk said advertisers in Europe and North America have put “extreme pressure” on the company, leading “half our advertising” to disappear. “They are trying to drive Twitter bankrupt,” he said.[/color][/color]
[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]He did not respond to a request for comment and Ms. Yaccarino, through a spokesman, declined to comment.[/color][/color]


Image

[color=var(--color-content-quaternary,#727272)]Linda Yaccarino, Twitter’s new chief executive, has inherited declining ad sales and other issues.Credit...Cindy Ord/Getty Images


[/color]
[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]The state of Twitter’s advertising is crucial because ads have long made up 90 percent of the company’s revenue. After Mr. Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion in October and took the company private, he vowed to build “the most respected ad platform.” But he quickly alienated advertisers by firing key sales executives, spreading a conspiracy theory on the site and welcoming back barred Twitter users.
[/color]

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]In response, several large ad agencies and brands, including General Motors and Volkswagen, paused their ad spending on Twitter. Mr. Musk has said Twitter was on track to post $3 billion in revenue in 2023, down from $5.1 billion in 2021, when it was a public company.

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Inside Elon Musk’s Twitter[/color]

[/color]

• A 2024 Debut Flop: Hosting Ron DeSantis in a Twitter livestream to announce his presidential run was supposed to be a crowning moment for Elon Musk. But the event turned instead into a series of technical glitches.
• New C.E.O.: Linda Yaccarino, NBCUniversal’s advertising chief, is set to become the face of Twitter after she was selected as its chief executive by Musk.
• Blue Check Marks: The removal of check mark icons from the profiles of thousands of celebrities, politicians and journalists in April was one of the most visible indicators of how Musk is changing the company.
• A Changing Landscape: The elimination of the check marks, which historically served as a means of identifying public agencies, has convulsed Twitter as information on the platform becomes increasingly unreliable.
  

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Twitter’s valuation has since plunged. In March, Mr. Musk said the company was worth $20 billion, down more than 50 percent from the $44 billion he paid for it. Last week, the mutual funds giant Fidelity, which owns shares in Twitter, valued the company at $15 billion.

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Twitter feels increasingly “unpredictable and chaotic,” said Jason Kint, chief executive of Digital Content Next, an association for premium publishers. “Advertisers want to run in an environment where they are comfortable and can send a signal about their brand,” he added.[/color][/color]

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Some of Twitter’s biggest advertisers — including Apple, Amazon and Disney — have been spending less on the platform than last year, three former and current Twitter employees said. Large specialized “banner” ads on Twitter’s trends page, which can cost $500,000 for 24 hours and are almost always bought by large brands to promote events, shows or movies, are often going unfilled, they said.[/color][/color]

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Twitter has also run into public relations snafus with big advertisers like Disney. In April, Twitter mistakenly gave a gold check mark — a badge meant to signify a paying advertiser — to the @DisneyJuniorUK account, which Disney doesn’t own.[/color][/color]
[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]The account posted racial slurs, leading Disney officials to demand from Twitter an explanation and assurances that it wouldn’t happen again, two people with knowledge of the situation said.
[/color]

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Disney, Apple and Amazon declined to comment.[/color]

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Six ad agency executives who have worked with Twitter said their clients continued to limit spending on the platform. They cited confusion over Mr. Musk’s changes to the service, inconsistent support from Twitter and concerns about the persistent presence of misleading and toxic content on the platform.[/color][/color]

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Last month, for instance, a picture that appeared to show an explosion near the Pentagon — which artificial intelligence experts identified as a synthetically generated image — was shared by dozens of Twitter accounts and briefly caused the stock market to tumble.[/color][/color]

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Some advertisers also continue to worry about Mr. Musk’s tweets. Last month, he posted several times comparing the billionaire financier George Soros, a frequent target for conspiracy theorists, to the “X-Men” comic book villain Magneto. Ted Deutch, the chief executive of the American Jewish Committee, noted that both Mr. Soros and Magneto are Holocaust survivors, and that “the lie Jews want to destroy civilization has led to the persecution of Jewish people for centuries.”[/color][/color]
[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]“Musk should know better,” he said.[/color][/color]

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Last week, Ella Irwin, Twitter’s head of trust and safety, the division that oversees content moderation, and AJ Brown, the head of brand safety and ad quality, resigned, three current and former employees said. Ms. Irwin and Mr. Brown did not respond to requests for comment.[/color][/color]

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Mr. Musk has promoted new tools, known as adjacency controls, so advertisers can keep their ads away from tweets containing specific keywords or posts by certain users. Some advertisers are using the tools to keep their content away from Mr. Musk’s tweets, four people familiar with the situation said.[/color][/color]


[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Still, some marketers are returning to the platform. GroupM, a media-buying organization that is part of the ad giant WPP, informed employees in May that it was removing its “high risk” flag on Twitter and guiding clients to return, at their discretion, to business as usual, two people familiar with the decision said. IPG, another large advertising company, has recommended that clients proceed with caution when dealing with Twitter, after suggesting last fall that they temporarily pause their spending.
[/color]

Image

[color=var(--color-content-quaternary,#727272)]Last month, Elon Musk posted several tweets attacking the billionaire financier George Soros, a frequent target for conspiracy theorists.Credit...Tingshu Wang/Reuters


[/color]
[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Twitter is exploring ways to make it easier for advertisers to buy space on the platform, testing an automated system outside the United States to make deals, two people familiar with the arrangement said. Insider earlier reported the move.[/color]

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]The company is experiencing ad growth in areas that it once shied away from or prohibited, including online gambling and marijuana products. In one week last month, four of Twitter’s top 10 U.S. advertisers were online gambling and fantasy sports betting companies, according to one presentation. Twitter has also started allowing ads for cannabis accessories, including “bongs, vapes, rolling paper,” as well as erectile dysfunction products and services, according to internal emails.[/color][/color]



[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Adult content, which is permitted on Twitter, has become a concern among the company’s sales staff. When some employees tried to drum up interest from advertisers for Mother’s Day, they found that potential sponsored search terms, like “MomLife,” surfaced pornographic videos, according to two people familiar with the conversations.[/color][/color]


[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]These are issues that some advertisers hope Ms. Yaccarino will solve.[/color]

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Dave Campanelli, the chief investment officer of Horizon Media, said he was hoping for change after Ms. Yaccarino started, because media agencies like his struggled to maintain contact with Twitter last fall after Mr. Musk arrived.[/color][/color]

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]“For a period, we weren’t even sure who to get on the phone with to talk to,” he said. “With Linda coming in, that could change that in a big way.”[/color][/color]

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]He acknowledged that Twitter’s mercurial boss and volatile environment might pose a challenge for Ms. Yaccarino.[/color][/color]
[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]“It’s a tall order,” Mr. Campanelli said.[/color][/color]

[color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)][color=var(--color-content-secondary,#363636)]Benjamin Mullin contributed reporting. Sheelagh McNeill contributed research.[/color][/color]

I'll make it even easier for you before the sarcasm starts:

Quote:Twitter’s U.S. advertising revenue for the five weeks from April 1 to the first week of May was $88 million, down 59 percent from a year earlier, according to an internal presentation obtained by The New York Times. The company has regularly fallen short of its U.S. weekly sales projections, sometimes by as much as 30 percent, the document said.

That performance is unlikely to improve anytime soon, according to the documents and seven current and former Twitter employees.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-05-2023, 09:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: SSF, right wing denier (but only because...CALIFORNIA!!!  LOL) of anything he doesn't believe and weirdly an Elon Mush defender. 

They do cite their source though:


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/05/technology/twitter-ad-sales-musk.html





I'll make it even easier for you before the sarcasm starts:

You're right, I don't believe it.  The left wing media assault on Musk since he bought Twitter has been clear as day.  Remember when the site would crash any day now because he let too many people go?  The NY times does.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/28/technology/twitter-outages-elon-musk.html

Remember the blue checkmark "apocalypse?  The New York Times does.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/technology/personaltech/twitter-blue-check-musk.html

Remember when the media interviewed two recently fired "twitter employees?"

https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/firing-them-biggest-mistake-elon-musk-re-hires-two-employees-who-never-worked-at-twitter-353009-2022-11-16


You don't have to be a Musk fan to recognize this trend.  You like it because you don't like Musk.  Not surprisingly you exemplify everything you accuse others of in regard to Musk, just in the opposite direction.

Also, is Musk "right wing" now?  I remember when free speech was a liberal position.  I guess not anymore because it can be mean and scary and we need the government to protect us in a warm fuzzy blanket. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Also, I get why you feel the need to constantly attempt to label me as "far right". To admit to yourself that the vast majority of my views are very centrist would only hold the mirror up to how radical and far left your positions are/have become. Self reflection is hard, it's much easier to cast aspersions and apply labels.

[Belsnickel]

(06-05-2023, 09:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, is Musk "right wing" now?  I remember when free speech was a liberal position.  I guess not anymore because it can be mean and scary and we need the government to protect us in a warm fuzzy blanket. 

If Musk was actually for free speech, then that would be a liberal position he has. He just wants to be an asshole and not have consequences and he was seeing him and those like him, those traditionally holding the power in the world, actually facing consequences for what they said and did. So, he decided to hitch his horse to the free speech wagon because it would rally the masses behind him, like a new version of the Southern Strategy. But, because he has a real problem with people speaking truth to power, i.e. him and those like him, it is clear that his real focus is preventing a more small-d democratic movement from rising.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2023, 08:25 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: If Musk was actually for free speech, then that would be a liberal position he has. He just wants to be an asshole and not have consequences and he was seeing him and those like him, those traditionally holding the power in the world, actually facing consequences for what they said and did. So, he decided to hitch his horse to the free speech wagon because it would rally the masses behind him, like a new version of the Southern Strategy. But, because he has a real problem with people speaking truth to power, i.e. him and those like him, it is clear that his real focus is preventing a more small-d democratic movement from rising.

I do not see this, at all.  We've had this discussion and the examples you gave in no way indicate such a sweeping indictment as you just posted.  Also, making an analogy between Musk's stated position and the "Southern Strategy" is an underhanded move with an intentional, and unduly inflammatory connotation.

Honestly the current situation with Musk can be summed up in one sentence.  There is nothing a zealot despises more than an apostate.  Once you acknowledge this then the left's treatment of Musk since he bought Twitter becomes crystal clear.

[CJD]

(06-05-2023, 09:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, is Musk "right wing" now?  I remember when free speech was a liberal position.  I guess not anymore because it can be mean and scary and we need the government to protect us in a warm fuzzy blanket. 

I won't comment on the whole free speech issue because it's complex, but I think "Right wing" is an objectively accurate description of Elon Musk at this point.

He shared and endorsed a "documentary" from a far right talk show host that is basically just mindless transphobia (even if you do not believe trans women are women, that documentary is lazy in its execution and makes no effort to actually dissect the topic, instead just disingenuously asking people on the street as well as people in various fields of gender studies questions and then "humorously" glossing over their answers via sophomoric editing if they do not agree with his pre-established conclusion).

He also helped host Ron DeSantis's campaign launch announcement and says he'd vote for him in the election if he were to run against Biden.

I am not making a moral judgement on the second item, it's just Musk declaring his political preference for a Republican from a state that is at the forefront of right wing culture war issues.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2023, 11:26 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I won't comment on the whole free speech issue because it's complex, but I think "Right wing" is an objectively accurate description of Elon Musk at this point.

He shared and endorsed a "documentary" from a far right talk show host that is basically just mindless transphobia (even if you do not believe trans women are women, that documentary is lazy in its execution and makes no effort to actually dissect the topic, instead just disingenuously asking people in the field of gender studies questions and then "humorously" glossing over their answers via sophomoric editing).

He also helped host Ron DeSantis's campaign launch announcement and says he'd vote for him in the election if he were to run against Biden.

I am not making a moral judgement on the second item, it's just Musk declaring his political preference for a Republican from a state that is at the forefront of right wing culture war issues.

Yeah, I'm aware of the "What is a Woman" controversy.  I have zero desire to watch that so everything I know about it is second hand.  As for endorsing DeSantis, he's absolutely a more preferable candidate than Biden or Trump.  Did he also not provide a platform for Kennedy, a Democratic candidate for POTUS, as well?

[CJD]

(06-06-2023, 11:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, I'm aware of the "What is a Woman" controversy.  I have zero desire to watch that so everything I know about it is second hand.  As for endorsing DeSantis, he's absolutely a more preferable candidate than Biden or Trump.  Did he also not provide a platform for Kennedy, a Democratic candidate for POTUS, as well?

I'm not sure. I'm just saying if someone is willing to vote for Ron DeSantis, I think "right wing" is an accurate description of them. Even if you'd prefer "center right." I'm not using it pejoratively here.

And spreading right wing rhetoric to his 140M+ followers with an affirmative note attached to it (something like "all parents should watch this") is, at the very least, very good for the right wing, politically. I don't know why he would do this unless he agreed with the documentary which holds deeply rooted right wing beliefs in it.

[Belsnickel]

(06-06-2023, 11:14 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I do not see this, at all.  We've had this discussion and the examples you gave in no way indicate such a sweeping indictment as you just posted.  Also, making an analogy between Musk's stated position and the "Southern Strategy" is an underhanded move with an intentional, and unduly inflammatory connotation.

Honestly the current situation with Musk can be summed up in one sentence.  There is nothing a zealot despises more than an apostate.  Once you acknowledge this then the left's treatment of Musk since he bought Twitter becomes crystal clear.

I am just basing this on what I have seen of him. I have seen countless examples of him working to silence his critics, whether it be the social media suspensions or firing people that challenge him from within his companies. This has been my impression of Musk for a long time as I have never been a Musk fan. I've always seen him as a spoiled rich guy who takes advantage of the work of others but just has the money and business savvy to make things happen. He is far more like Edison than Tesla.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2023, 11:40 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I'm not sure. I'm just saying if someone is willing to vote for Ron DeSantis, I think "right wing" is an accurate description of them. Even if you'd prefer "center right." I'm not using it pejoratively here.

I get what you're saying but it's an oversimplification, IMO.  You may vote for DeSantis because you prefer him to the other viable candidates.  It's not like you're voting for him over an Eisenhower.  Let's be real about this, our candidates for POTUS have been a dumpster fire of late.

Quote:And spreading right wing rhetoric to his 140M+ followers with an affirmative note attached to it (something like "all parents should watch this") is, at the very least, very good for the right wing, politically. I don't know why he would do this unless he agreed with the documentary which holds deeply rooted right wing beliefs in it.

My understanding is he has an estranged child who has recently come out as trans, so this may be more personal for him than political.  Again, I haven't seen the film in question so I can't comment further in that regard.

(06-06-2023, 11:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am just basing this on what I have seen of him. I have seen countless examples of him working to silence his critics, whether it be the social media suspensions or firing people that challenge him from within his companies. This has been my impression of Musk for a long time as I have never been a Musk fan. I've always seen him as a spoiled rich guy who takes advantage of the work of others but just has the money and business savvy to make things happen. He is far more like Edison than Tesla.

I will absolutely state you have never been a fan of his, so major points for consistency.  You would have to admit though that the vast majority of his current detractors are exactly as I have previously described.  I've never seen a person so fawned over by the press become a Bond villain in such short order.  As to your last point, I have heard wildly differing versions of his role in the success of Tesla, SpaceX and PayPal.  So it's hard to know what to believe in that regard.  Even if you are 100% correct it means he has a major eye for talent and good ideas, which is a major skill in itself.  At the very least he seems much more human then other billionaires like Gates and Bezos.  Not exactly a high bar to hurtle, I know.

[Belsnickel]

(06-06-2023, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will absolutely state you have never been a fan of his, so major points for consistency.  You would have to admit though that the vast majority of his current detractors are exactly as I have previously described.  I've never seen a person so fawned over by the press become a Bond villain in such short order.  As to your last point, I have heard wildly differing versions of his role in the success of Tesla, SpaceX and PayPal.  So it's hard to know what to believe in that regard.  Even if you are 100% correct it means he has a major eye for talent and good ideas, which is a major skill in itself.  At the very least he seems much more human then other billionaires like Gates and Bezos.  Not exactly a high bar to hurtle, I know.

Yeah, when people were fawning over him I remained skeptical of him and his blood-money background. I also have an issue with someone who rails against government programs for people who need them while raking in government funds to keep Tesla afloat.

I can recognize business savvy, but there is not a billionaire in existence whose motives I consider to be anything other than self-interest, and greed is something I have no patience for. The amount of good people like Musk, Gates, Bezos, Buffet, all of them could do if they actually cared about the people is astonishing but the greed for money and power that guides them means I will never trust their motives on anything. I freely recognize that is my bias and sure, it does color my perception of the moves Musk makes with his Twitter venture, I would just argue it is no more biased than anyone else's view of him thanks to the media coverage he gets.

[CJD]

(06-06-2023, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get what you're saying but it's an oversimplification, IMO.  You may vote for DeSantis because you prefer him to the other viable candidates.  It's not like you're voting for him over an Eisenhower.  Let's be real about this, our candidates for POTUS have been a dumpster fire of late.

Maybe it is an oversimplification. From my viewpoint, someone who is right wing and someone who simply espouses, supports and endorses right wing figureheads without necessarily believing the same things or agreeing with them because "there's currently no one better" are fairly interchangeable. "We are what we pretend to be" after all.

If he were left wing or left leaning or even "centrist" (whatever that means), for example, he would be trying to find a sane alternative to Biden left of center. But instead he just shifted right (and fairly far right, to be honest. DeSantis is not a moderate or right leaning conservative. He's full right wing).

Quote:My understanding is he has an estranged child who has recently come out as trans, so this may be more personal for him than political.  Again, I haven't seen the film in question so I can't comment further in that regard.

It may be a personal thing for him. That's a shame for him that he's suffering a family dispute that is clouding his judgment.

I made the mistake of watching the video just to stay informed and know what the opposition is saying and, honestly, it's not even worth the 45 minutes to watch it 2x speed (Which Twitter, thankfully, allows). Below is a summary which you're free to skip. I just wasted the time to watch it, so the summary below is, if nothing else, my justification for the time I spent on it haha.

It's a combination of a few kinds of interviews. The first kind is him talking to gender experts or left wing people he disagrees with that have some connection to the topic (doctors, sociologists, professors etc). He asks them what a woman is, they explain the difference between sex and gender and then he repeats the question of what is a woman. Then the expert starts to look uncomfortable and asks why they are asking this, then he repeats the question, and then they end the interview. Other variants of this are he asks an expert why trans women are dominating women's sports, they explain that they aren't really and that the cases where trans women are winning are just magnified in the media because of the inherent bias towards assuming trans women are physically superior to cis women. He intercuts their answer with clips of trans women winning certain competitions as if that is a rebuke of his statement and, in the "what is a woman" case he actually just skips over the person's answer entirely, instead editing it to make it seem like he's prattling on nonsensically. This is maybe 1/3 of the documentary. 

Another 1/3 is him just walking up to people on the street and asking them. Most people say like "whatever, I don't really have a strict definition, but if you identify as a woman, I respect that." Some people say "a female" or "has a vagina" but not nearly as many as you'd expect. He moves locations, sometimes going to women's rallies, other times just the streets of Hollywood.

He even goes to Nairobi, Kenya and speaks to a local Maasai tribe with extremely traditional gender roles (the translator even said "A man cannot do the duty of a woman and the woman cannot do the duty of a man."). He asks them the same questions and their answers are fairly predictable.

The final 1/3 is him talking to people who agree with him. A teenage cis woman who lost several races to a particularly capable trans woman, who then stretched that experience across all of women's sports. A shop owner who put up a sign that says "if you have a dick, you aren't a chick" and him talking about the times people have confronted him for having that sign in front of his Star Wars shop. Appeals to "common sense" abound etc. 

Near the end of the documentary, he dives head first into the "protect our kids" debate and that's centered entirely around "children are not able to understand what they're getting into." He has a doctor who is against puberty blockers, he has a person who was a cis woman, transitioned to a man and regretted it and then a family therapist who says she noticed that, in cases where one parent affirms their child's identity and one doesn't, the one who does always wins any disputes surrounding hormone therapy or puberty blockers.

I will say though that, if you were already skeptical or hostile towards the idea of transgenderism,  those last three people do say a lot of things that would scare you. It's the one portion of the documentary that I think is genuinely effective propaganda (the other 2/3rds+ is just Matt feigning stupidity and poorly debating people).

I can't speak to whether these people are acting in good faith, but one of them mentions the whole "kids are acting like animals in school now and the teachers have to respect that identity" thing which I'm 99.99% sure was debunked as right wing grifting, so that calls pretty much everything that person said into question. They even interviewed a furry/therian/"animal person" (not related to the student claim at all, really) and she seemed pretty normal, to be honest haha. She basically just said she likes wolves and enjoys being around them and communicating with them (non-verbally of course).

Almost every person interviewed in this section prefaces the interview with "if I say any of what I'm about to say, my career will be ruined, but I'm going to say it anyway." No word yet on how many careers Matt Walsh ruined by publishing this documentary.

 This section is also intercut with tiktoks of people saying things like "my pronouns are demon/demonself" which is obviously meant to frustrate those pre-disposed to the outrage culture.

He ends by asking his wife what a woman is and she says "an adult, human female who needs help opening this [jar of pickles.]" Upbeat music swells in the background and she hands him a jar of pickles, there's a hard cut to him opening a jar of pickles (why the cut there? Maybe because he initially struggled to open the jar? Who's to say?) and then he nods his head reassuringly, chuckles and walks off to a better, more sane world.

I wish I were joking haha.

I can now feel like my 45 minutes were put to good use...Sorry for subjecting you to it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

My sincere thanks for the synopsis, and you'll forgive me for not quoting the whole post as it is rather large. As described I'm certainly not missing out on anything of substance. I'm also going to assume you read the exchange between Bel and myself on this issue so I won't rehash the topics raised there. What I will add is where I think the transgender rights movement really shoots itself in the foot. There's this demand that you agree with every aspect of the movement or be lumped in with the very worst bigots.

For example, a heterosexual man goes on a date with what he believes to be a biological female. He enjoys her company but when he finds out she is transgender and has a penis he is no longer interested. For a not insignificant number of people that man is now a bigoted transphobe. They'll say things like the transgender person has a "woman's penis." Or a lesbian woman goes on a date and discovers the date is a transgender woman with a penis, the same exact accusation will be hurled. Lesbian women are not attracted to penis, straight men are not attracted to penis. When you make that point you'll inevitably hear the counter argument of "people are not their genitals." Which is true, but an absurd response given the context.

Then you have the issue self identifying. Which interestingly enough goes straight out the window in examples such as the gay night club shooter who states they identify as non-binary. I've already addressed my issues with transgender women in sport and in women's only spaces. But I'll reiterate that it's not an automatic expression of transphobia for a woman to be uncomfortable with a person with a penis getting nude in front of her.

I get that it's a complicated issue, and one that society is really only now grappling with. But this all or nothing approach by many in the movement really turns people off. Add in that people are genetically disposed towards protecting children (again, I cannot for the life of me comprehend why an adult would take their child to a hyper-sexualized show of any kind, straight, gay, trans or whatever) and you turn off even more people. It literally went from the idea of tolerance to forced acceptance in all aspects or be labeled a bigot. It's a bad look and tactic and I think it's going to have to change or the backlash will be large and unpleasant.

[GMDino]

(06-05-2023, 09:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're right, I don't believe it.  The left wing media assault on Musk since he bought Twitter has been clear as day.  Remember when the site would crash any day now because he let too many people go?  The NY times does.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/28/technology/twitter-outages-elon-musk.html

Remember the blue checkmark "apocalypse?  The New York Times does.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/technology/personaltech/twitter-blue-check-musk.html

Remember when the media interviewed two recently fired "twitter employees?"

https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/firing-them-biggest-mistake-elon-musk-re-hires-two-employees-who-never-worked-at-twitter-353009-2022-11-16


You don't have to be a Musk fan to recognize this trend.  You like it because you don't like Musk.  Not surprisingly you exemplify everything you accuse others of in regard to Musk, just in the opposite direction.

Also, is Musk "right wing" now?  I remember when free speech was a liberal position.  I guess not anymore because it can be mean and scary and we need the government to protect us in a warm fuzzy blanket. 

The number of glitches and crashes have risen since Musk's "cost cutting" moves.  That the site survives is more because of the people that are left than him himself.  As one friend told me if they had known how bad Musk was at things he claims to be a genius at he'd never have even looked at buying a Tesla.  (He didn't buy it btw.)  The new blue check program, as I stated earlier, has led to many false accounts and lots of disinformation.  All because Musk needs money to cover his mistakes.

The NYT saw the report on the advertising. It's not some government secret.  He's drowning because he didn't have a plan short of buy and shitpost.

News reports about all the problems Twitter would have (and did) are of course subject to 20/20 vision when the problems get corrected.  That doesn't have to "anti-musk"

My dislike of anyone who claims they know it all only to be shown the opposite without the ability to admit is restricted to Musk but it's a quality I do like to have.

Free speech should not be a liberal or conservative position...it should be the default position.  Twitter, FB, this site...none of them are constrained by it.  It why so many on the right keep attacking section 230.  You know that.

(06-05-2023, 09:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, I get why you feel the need to constantly attempt to label me as "far right".  To admit to yourself that the vast majority of my views are very centrist would only hold the mirror up to how radical and far left your positions are/have become.  Self reflection is hard, it's much easier to cast aspersions and apply labels.

Where and when did I say you were "far right"?  Or are you doing that think where you make something up that someone else said and then play victim?

I said you defend many right wing positions under the guise of being disgusted with where you live.  You defend Musk at every opportunity.  No lies found in what I said.

"Self-reflection", as you say, is hard I guess.

[GMDino]

(06-06-2023, 01:23 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Maybe it is an oversimplification. From my viewpoint, someone who is right wing and someone who simply espouses, supports and endorses right wing figureheads without necessarily believing the same things or agreeing with them because "there's currently no one better" are fairly interchangeable. "We are what we pretend to be" after all.

If he were left wing or left leaning or even "centrist" (whatever that means), for example, he would be trying to find a sane alternative to Biden left of center. But instead he just shifted right (and fairly far right, to be honest. DeSantis is not a moderate or right leaning conservative. He's full right wing).


It may be a personal thing for him. That's a shame for him that he's suffering a family dispute that is clouding his judgment.

I made the mistake of watching the video just to stay informed and know what the opposition is saying and, honestly, it's not even worth the 45 minutes to watch it 2x speed (Which Twitter, thankfully, allows). Below is a summary which you're free to skip. I just wasted the time to watch it, so the summary below is, if nothing else, my justification for the time I spent on it haha.

It's a combination of a few kinds of interviews. The first kind is him talking to gender experts or left wing people he disagrees with that have some connection to the topic (doctors, sociologists, professors etc). He asks them what a woman is, they explain the difference between sex and gender and then he repeats the question of what is a woman. Then the expert starts to look uncomfortable and asks why they are asking this, then he repeats the question, and then they end the interview. Other variants of this are he asks an expert why trans women are dominating women's sports, they explain that they aren't really and that the cases where trans women are winning are just magnified in the media because of the inherent bias towards assuming trans women are physically superior to cis women. He intercuts their answer with clips of trans women winning certain competitions as if that is a rebuke of his statement and, in the "what is a woman" case he actually just skips over the person's answer entirely, instead editing it to make it seem like he's prattling on nonsensically. This is maybe 1/3 of the documentary. 

Another 1/3 is him just walking up to people on the street and asking them. Most people say like "whatever, I don't really have a strict definition, but if you identify as a woman, I respect that." Some people say "a female" or "has a vagina" but not nearly as many as you'd expect. He moves locations, sometimes going to women's rallies, other times just the streets of Hollywood.

He even goes to Nairobi, Kenya and speaks to a local Maasai tribe with extremely traditional gender roles (the translator even said "A man cannot do the duty of a woman and the woman cannot do the duty of a man."). He asks them the same questions and their answers are fairly predictable.

The final 1/3 is him talking to people who agree with him. A teenage cis woman who lost several races to a particularly capable trans woman, who then stretched that experience across all of women's sports. A shop owner who put up a sign that says "if you have a dick, you aren't a chick" and him talking about the times people have confronted him for having that sign in front of his Star Wars shop. Appeals to "common sense" abound etc. 

Near the end of the documentary, he dives head first into the "protect our kids" debate and that's centered entirely around "children are not able to understand what they're getting into." He has a doctor who is against puberty blockers, he has a person who was a cis woman, transitioned to a man and regretted it and then a family therapist who says she noticed that, in cases where one parent affirms their child's identity and one doesn't, the one who does always wins any disputes surrounding hormone therapy or puberty blockers.

I will say though that, if you were already skeptical or hostile towards the idea of transgenderism,  those last three people do say a lot of things that would scare you. It's the one portion of the documentary that I think is genuinely effective propaganda (the other 2/3rds+ is just Matt feigning stupidity and poorly debating people).

I can't speak to whether these people are acting in good faith, but one of them mentions the whole "kids are acting like animals in school now and the teachers have to respect that identity" thing which I'm 99.99% sure was debunked as right wing grifting, so that calls pretty much everything that person said into question. They even interviewed a furry/therian/"animal person" (not related to the student claim at all, really) and she seemed pretty normal, to be honest haha. She basically just said she likes wolves and enjoys being around them and communicating with them (non-verbally of course).

Almost every person interviewed in this section prefaces the interview with "if I say any of what I'm about to say, my career will be ruined, but I'm going to say it anyway." No word yet on how many careers Matt Walsh ruined by publishing this documentary.

 This section is also intercut with tiktoks of people saying things like "my pronouns are demon/demonself" which is obviously meant to frustrate those pre-disposed to the outrage culture.

He ends by asking his wife what a woman is and she says "an adult, human female who needs help opening this [jar of pickles.]" Upbeat music swells in the background and she hands him a jar of pickles, there's a hard cut to him opening a jar of pickles (why the cut there? Maybe because he initially struggled to open the jar? Who's to say?) and then he nods his head reassuringly, chuckles and walks off to a better, more sane world.

I wish I were joking haha.

I can now feel like my 45 minutes were put to good use...Sorry for subjecting you to it.

That's yeoman's work!   LMAO!

Thanks for saving us the trouble.

[CJD]

(06-06-2023, 02:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: My sincere thanks for the synopsis, and you'll forgive me for not quoting the whole post as it is rather large.  As described I'm certainly not missing out on anything of substance.  I'm also going to assume you read the exchange between Bel and myself on this issue so I won't rehash the topics raised there.  What I will add is where I think the transgender rights movement really shoots itself in the foot.  There's this demand that you agree with every aspect of the movement or be lumped in with the very worst bigots.  

For example, a heterosexual man goes on a date with what he believes to be a biological female.  He enjoys her company but when he finds out she is transgender and has a penis he is no longer interested.  For a not insignificant number of people that man is now a bigoted transphobe.  They'll say things like the transgender person has a "woman's penis."  Or a lesbian woman goes on a date and discovers the date is a transgender woman with a penis, the same exact accusation will be hurled.  Lesbian women are not attracted to penis, straight men are not attracted to penis.  When you make that point you'll inevitably hear the counter argument of "people are not their genitals."  Which is true, but an absurd response given the context.

Then you have the issue self identifying.  Which interestingly enough goes straight out the window in examples such as the gay night club shooter who states they identify as non-binary.  I've already addressed my issues with transgender women in sport and in women's only spaces.  But I'll reiterate that it's not an automatic expression of transphobia for a woman to be uncomfortable with a person with a penis getting nude in front of her.

I get that it's a complicated issue, and one that society is really only now grappling with.  But this all or nothing approach by many in the movement really turns people off.  Add in that people are genetically disposed towards protecting children (again, I cannot for the life of me comprehend why an adult would take their child to a hyper-sexualized show of any kind, straight, gay, trans or whatever) and you turn off even more people.  It literally went from the idea of tolerance to forced acceptance in all aspects or be labeled a bigot.  It's a bad look and tactic and I think it's going to have to change or the backlash will be large and unpleasant.

Yea, this is what is frustrating about our social media world that we live in. If you asked 100 liberals and/or progressives "Hey, if you are a straight, cis man would you be interested in dating a trans woman (especially pre-operation)?" my belief is that the vast majority of them would say no. If you asked them "does that make you transphobic" my belief is that the overwhelming answer would, again, be no.

Enjoyment of sex and attraction to a certain type of genitals is important but also the topic of biological children which many relationships ultimately see as a goal once married etc also plays a big part.

But if you go on twitter and say that, the 1% or 0.1% of the movement that does think this is transphobic will find you.

And this can be said of any ideology, left or right. It's what makes discussing politics so complicated.

All I want is respect and dignity for all people regardless of their sex or gender identity and I think that's the goal of most people. It's just a shame that people like Matt Walsh on the right and the people you mentioned on the left do not allow for that goal to be reached.