Twitter

[vector2]

---

Members do not see this ad.

. The ACLU will no longer defend this side.

The Skokie Case: How I Came To Represent The Free Speech Rights Of Nazis | ACLU

In 1977, the ACLU of Illinois received a call from a Nazi leader complaining that his planned demonstration had been blocked. The ensuing legal battle, and the controversy around it, would test the organization’s commitment to the First Amendment.

www.aclu.org

Your statement is 100% not true. I suggest you read the full article by the ACLU’s legal director, but here’s a snippet:

​

…​

Sixteen years before that, in 1978, J. Anthony Lukas wrote a feature for The New York Times Magazine titled “The ACLU Against Itself,” recounting the controversy over whether the group should have represented a group of Nazis who sought to march in Skokie, Illinois. The question is not new.​

​

But the answer remains the same. The ACLU is committed to the principle of free speech today, just as it was in the 1990s, 1970s, and long before that. And we are specifically committed to the proposition that the First Amendment’s guarantees (like those of the rest of the Constitution) apply to all, not just to those with whom we agree. At the same time, the ACLU also remains devoted to defending other fundamental civil rights and civil liberties, including equal protection of the law — as we always have been. Addressing the tensions that sometimes arise between these commitments is not easy. But we seek to do so, today as always, not by abandoning any of our core commitments, but by acknowledging and confronting the conflicts in as forthright, inclusive, and principled a way as we can.​

​

…​

2020

• We filed a brief in Michigan supporting anti-Semitic protesters picketing in front of a synagogue on the Sabbath;

2021​

​

• We filed a Supreme Court brief supporting the conservative nonprofits Americans for Prosperity and the Thomas More Society in a challenge to California’s donor disclosure rule as violating the First Amendment;
• We filed two Supreme Court briefs (here and here) with conservative organizations, including the Cato Institute, the American Conservative Union, R Street, and the Rutherford Institute, in cases challenging warrantless searches of homes;
• We sent a letter after the Capitol insurrection to U.S. Department of Interior opposing D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s suggestion to cancel all permits through President Biden’s inauguration; and
• We questioned Twitter and Facebook’s bans of President Trump’s account.
• We filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit arguing that the First Amendment places limits on schools’ authority to punish students for expressing themselves outside of school, even when that expression includes highly offensive anti-semitic language.
• We defended New Jersey and Kansas residents’ First Amendment right to hang up “**** Biden” signs outside their homes. The First Amendment protects our right to express our opinions on political issues without fear of punishment by the government.
• We filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a conservative Christian group’s claim that the city of Boston violated its First Amendment rights by refusing to fly a Christian flag, featuring the Latin cross, from a flagpole in front of City Hall.
• We issued a statement expressing concerns about the FBI’s raid of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe’s home, urging the court to appoint a special master to supervise law enforcement review of seized materials.

Defending Speech We Hate | ACLU

The record demonstrates the ACLU’s unwavering commitment to First Amendment rights for all.

www.aclu.org

 

[deleted1116990]

"Defending speech we hate"

That really says it all. If the ACLU really were the ACLU, it would purport to be unbiased and not pass judgement on the content of the speech at all. It would not "hate" speech. It would not "like" speech. It would not care. The right to express it would be all that mattered. The argument that the ACLU is still an unbiased defender of constitutionally protected rights for all citizens could only be claimed with a straight face by someone who is a hyperpartisan hack. It has quite obviously become a preferential defender of the far left agenda to anybody who is remotely paying attention. And arguing with someone who wants to try and claim otherwise quickly devolves into another pointless argument with someone who desires to give credence to notions that are not based in reality.

The ACLU sued (included in the link below) to fight against due process for those accused of sexual harassment on college campuses. Due process. One of the most basic civil liberties. Because some specific accusations don't deserve due process for the accused?

Good summary of problems with the modern ACLU for anybody who wants to keep an open mind:

The ACLU Loses Its Way

The American Civil Liberties Union used to be a great institution. Founded in January 1920, the ACLU sought to become, in its own words, “the nation’s premier defender of the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.” Over the decades, the organization fought for civil liberties even when no...

www.heritage.org

"By now, the ACLU’s retreat from the First Amendment is well documented. It will not defend the First Amendment rights of pro-life pregnancy centersor small religious businesses. It no longer defends religious freedom, although it once did. And in a leaked internal memo, the ACLU takes the position that free speech denigrating “marginalized groups” should not be defended."

 

[Twiggidy]

I only like Twitter for sports, jokes, and award show live tweeting. I pretty much ignore it for everything else.

 

[vector2]

The list of lawsuits/amicus briefs the ACLU has filed in the last 5 yrs on behalf of hate groups (including those Charlottesville supremacist trash), religious groups, right wing causes, left wing causes, and totally non partisan causes (like the HS girl who got suspended from school for writing ‘f school f softball f cheer f everything’ on Snapchat) speaks for itself.

Notwithstanding hit pieces from partisan think tanks brimming with cherry-picking and illogical criticisms.

 

[epidural man]

One of the very subtle points in that Skokie article, but I think super important, and if you read it fast would miss this point, was that if nobody had said anything, the Nazi demonstration would have likely happened very silently with no fanfare and no attention and very few people would have seen it or known anything about it.

That lesson would’ve been an important one to learn during the trump years, or even before he was president. In fact I suspect that had that lesson been learned, Trump never would have been president.

When I was a kid, our bikes had banana seats. This allowed you to “pump “your friend whose bike had a flat tire. Pump by the way, was the vernacular used to give somebody else a ride on your bike- so don’t get any funny ideas.

I was giving my friend a pump to school. Anyway on our way to school we crossed over a bridge that had no railings over the canal. My friend would gently pull on my arm towards the middle of the bridge (away from danger) while I was steering. To resist this I would push against his pull affectively steering us towards the canal.

I would yell “stop it Quinn!” - and he would laugh and say “you are the one driving us towards the canal, just stop doing that.” But I couldn’t resist the natural tendency to push against his pull.

I have thought a lot about that, and how we humans just hate to be pushed. We hate to be pulled. And we will often react against those forces even to our detriment.

 

[deleted87051]

I only like Twitter for sports, jokes, and award show live tweeting. I pretty much ignore it for everything else.

Medtwitter had some interesting contributors too. Alas they’ve become very quiet lately.

 

[thinkorswim]

I only like Twitter for sports, jokes, and award show live tweeting. I pretty much ignore it for everything else.

I will also occasionally use it for customer service issues when dealing with hotels, airlines and other companies. The response time is significantly quicker than calling in and the agents tend to be much more competent at their jobs, presumably because they’re not working out of a call center on another continent.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Your statement is 100% not true.

I have been trying to sort out in my mind what it is that I dislike so much about your posts. I couldn’t quite put my finger on what it was, but a lightbulb came on with the first sentence of this post.
It dawned on me that most of your posts speak in absolutes. As in “you are 100% wrong” or “I’m 100% right” or “everyone must be vaccinated” or “if all of the dummies would have gotten the vaccine, COVID would have ended abruptly right then and there.” The overuse of words such as “never,” “always,” “nothing,” or “completely.”
My sense is that you don’t deal in gray areas or consider any opinions other than your own as valid. I’ve known a few people in real life who exhibit that type of behavior and I’m just not a fan of such concrete absolutist thinking.
As a stark contrast to your absolutist thinking, I suspect that Nimbus and I are very far apart with regards to many topics, but he is generally cordial and respectful even when we disagree. He recognizes areas of gray and is respectful that others may have differing, yet still valid, opinions.
I don’t see that in your posts. It’s always absolutes.
I’m not trying to pick a fight, but simply pointing out a tendency that I’ve noticed in case it’s a blind spot for you. I expect you will disagree with my assessment, so I expect to be set straight.

 

[Southpaw]

@Gern Blansten yesterday you pointed out @vector2 and his use of online debate phrases like ‘strawman’ and several others as if they bothered you. @Moonbeams liked your post and then promptly proceeded to use ‘strawman’ a couple times in one of his very next replies to @vector2, and you remained quiet. Perhaps you just missed it.

You’ve posted here a long time and in that time you’ve always been conservative/right. I have a feeling that the biggest reason you dislike @vector2s posts is that you simply disagree with him because he’s liberal. Put another way, I can’t recall you critiquing a conservative poster. Have I just missed it? I’ll gladly be proven wrong. I’ve just never seen you disagree openly with one of the right leaning regulars.

 

[Gern Blansten]

@Gern Blansten yesterday you pointed out @vector2 and his use of online debate phrases like ‘strawman’ and several others as if they bothered you. @Moonbeams liked your post and then promptly proceeded to use ‘strawman’ a couple times in one of his very next replies to @vector2, and you remained quiet. Perhaps you just missed it.

You’ve posted here a long time and in that time you’ve always been conservative/right. I have a feeling that the biggest reason you dislike @vector2s posts is that you simply disagree with him because he’s liberal. Put another way, I can’t recall you critiquing a conservative poster. Have I just missed it? I’ll gladly be proven wrong. I’ve just never seen you disagree openly with one of the right leaning regulars.

Perhaps you’re correct. I do lean conservative and most often feel that I’m on an island if I make any comments. I am not typically hard core conservative on controversial topics. So I do likely put blinders on if I see someone that argues a subject from a conservative point of view because, other than a few showing up in this thread, most others have left.
I once argued that we should show some compassion as physicians for those colleagues and patients who have vaccine hesitancy and that people who lost jobs or lost their lives related to the issue were not horrible people, they just had different points of view and that we should not ostracize them, refuse care for them, wish them death, or celebrate loss of jobs or life. I was soundly shouted down for this opinion. You might be able to guess who the ring leader was. As someone who is vaccinated, I simply suggested seeing things from a different point of view and respecting a person’s freedom to choose, even when you disagree with their choice. Such as freedom of choice in other healthcare decisions that people feel strongly about. I was instantly treated as a pariah by several posters in that thread.

That being said, I do think there is validity in my comment about failure to see any gray areas and speaking only in absolutes. My real life experience with a couple of people I know well that do this likely also colors my dislike for that.
I don’t hunt down every use of the phrase straw man, gas lighting, or my least favorite of all (full. Stop), but I do notice when people use them on a regular basis and it just seems like a lazy arrogant way to debate and it comes across like you’re a know it all. So, if moonbeams used it as well, I missed it. I thought he used it in the context of pointing out someone else’s use of it. If you ever see me use any of those phrases, I hope you call me out on it because I really do think it’s a lazy way to debate.

 

[Southpaw]

Perhaps you’re correct. I do lean conservative and most often feel that I’m on an island if I make any comments. I am not typically hard core conservative on controversial topics. So I do likely put blinders on if I see someone that argues a subject from a conservative point of view because, other than a few showing up in this thread, most others have left.
I once argued that we should show some mission as physicians for those colleagues and patients who have vaccine hesitancy and that people who lost jobs or lost their lives related to the issue were not horrible people, they just had different points of view and that we should not ostracize them, refuse care for them, wish them death, or celebrate loss of jobs or life. I was soundly shouted down for this opinion. You might be able to guess who the ring leader was. As someone who is vaccinated, I simply suggested seeing things from a different point of view and respecting a person’s freedom to choose, even when you disagree with their choice. Such as freedom of choice in other healthcare decisions that people feel strongly about. I was instantly treated as a pariah by several posters in that thread.

That being said, I do think there is validity in my comment about failure to see any gray areas and speaking only in absolutes. My real life experience with a couple of people I know well that do this likely also colors my dislike for that.
I don’t hunt down every use of the phrase straw man, gas lighting, or my least favorite of all (full. Stop), but I do notice when people use them on a regular basis and it just seems like a lazy arrogant way to debate and it comes across like you’re a know it all. So, if moonbeams used it as well, I missed it. I thought he used it in the context of pointing out someone else’s use of it. If you ever see me use any of those phrases, I hope you call me out on it because I really do think it’s a lazy way to debate.

Interestingly the most annoying and lazy term I see these days is ‘woke’. The catch all phrase for anything conservatives are displeased with socially. I agree with the nature and tone of your post. I suspect the tone of our debates, and the respect we all show one another (or don’t), would be quite different if we were doing so over coffee or a beer. Good day sir.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Interestingly the most annoying and lazy term I see these days is ‘woke’. The catch all phrase for anything conservatives are displeased with socially. I agree with the nature and tone of your post. I suspect the tone of our debates, and the respect we all show one another (or don’t), would be quite different if we were doing so over coffee or a beer. Good day sir.

Yes, woke is another example of lazy debate. it is simply a trigger word that angers people, at this point.
And I agree that we would likely be friends in real life.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

But by all means, don't let facts get in the way of this fascinating conspiracy theory where a bunch of groups with little influence are capable of swaying how multibillion dollar corporations use their multimillion dollar ad budgets.
Have you all considered that maybe, just maybe, if you're an ad director you'd want to see how the dust settles if the new fangled CEO of Twitter is posting like this at all hours of the day and night?

View attachment 362636

You think it is a “conspiracy theory” that small activist groups can sway billion dollar companies?

That has been proven time and time again in the real world:
-Trump banned from twitter (stop hate group)
-Disney and Florida’s parents rights bill. (One of the protests only had one Disney employee)
-Ben & Jerry’s not selling to Israel. Among other businesses.
-Netflix w/ multiple shows
-Fox news in UK

I assume you know what you are saying is not true. So it is pointless to discuss if you are that disingenuous. If you don’t realize it isn’t true, then that is even worse.

PS- I don’t like that pic Elon posted, twitter, trump or that it seems to have an offensive theme. As a conservative, I don’t think I should go after twitter’s advertisers to stop it. I don’t think liberals should either.

Conservatives didn’t go after twitter’s advertisers for the past decade... And it was definitely an unlevel playing field. But liberals try to shut it down when someone that has voted democrat for over a decade buys it and says he will allow free speech. That’s all you need to know

 

[BobLoblaw78]

Interestingly the most annoying and lazy term I see these days is ‘woke’. The catch all phrase for anything conservatives are displeased with socially. I agree with the nature and tone of your post. I suspect the tone of our debates, and the respect we all show one another (or don’t), would be quite different if we were doing so over coffee or a beer. Good day sir.

I actually think the term is helpful and protective for the majority of liberals that aren’t “woke”. I find it encapsulates the movement that is ridiculous but not liberalism as a whole. It is hard to disagree with certain points on the left as they are very compassionate points. But woke usually refers to the absurd and not all of the left’s ideas. I think the left needs to abandon the extreme left and they will be sitting in a very good position.

 

[vector2]

I have been trying to sort out in my mind what it is that I dislike so much about your posts. I couldn’t quite put my finger on what it was, but a lightbulb came on with the first sentence of this post.
It dawned on me that most of your posts speak in absolutes. As in “you are 100% wrong” or “I’m 100% right” or “everyone must be vaccinated” or “if all of the dummies would have gotten the vaccine, COVID would have ended abruptly right then and there.” The overuse of words such as “never,” “always,” “nothing,” or “completely.”
My sense is that you don’t deal in gray areas or consider any opinions other than your own as valid. I’ve known a few people in real life who exhibit that type of behavior and I’m just not a fan of such concrete absolutist thinking.
As a stark contrast to your absolutist thinking, I suspect that Nimbus and I are very far apart with regards to many topics, but he is generally cordial and respectful even when we disagree. He recognizes areas of gray and is respectful that others may have differing, yet still valid, opinions.
I don’t see that in your posts. It’s always absolutes.
I’m not trying to pick a fight, but simply pointing out a tendency that I’ve noticed in case it’s a blind spot for you. I expect you will disagree with my assessment, so I expect to be set straight.

I think there's two salient parts here:

1. The rest of your so-called examples weren't actually quotes of mine, but rather whatever you've imagined I've said based on your biased perception. You can't actually go back to the tape and see where I've been absolutist about complex topics like COVID, because it never happened.

2. Where I have been absolute, it's been in regard to an objective facts. @epidural man posted that the ACLU doesn't engage in a certain thing anymore, namely defending hate speech from people like Nazis. That's either a true statement or a false statement, right? And in this case, it's false, plain and simple. In multiple instances over the last 5 years, the ACLU has defended the rights of the people to engage in antisemitic speech.

Again, I think this whole thing comes down to your personal biases, and if you don't think so ask yourself if you'd be as triggered if I told you it's "100% not true" that 2+2=5.

 

[abolt18]

Only thing I remember from my med school graduation's keynote speaker is her last two words: "Stay woke!"

Came out of nowhere and had nothing to do with the rest of her speech. Some lady nobody has ever heard of. Everyone just looked at each other in confusion.

 

[Gern Blansten]

I think there's two salient parts here:

1. The rest of your so-called examples weren't actually quotes of mine, but rather whatever you've imagined I've said based on your biased perception. You can't actually go back to the tape and see where I've been absolutist about complex topics like COVID, because it never happened.

2. Where I have been absolute, it's been in regard to an objective facts. @epidural man posted that the ACLU doesn't engage in a certain thing anymore, namely defending hate speech from people like Nazis. That's either a true statement or a false statement, right? And in this case, it's false, plain and simple. In multiple instances over the last 5 years, the ACLU has defended the rights of the people to engage in antisemitic speech.

Again, I think this whole thing comes down to your personal biases, and if you don't think so ask yourself if you'd be as triggered if I told you it's "100% not true" that 2+2=5.

My intent was not to directly quote you but to give general examples of what I meant. I thought I was clear but I understand that you did not directly say those exact words. I should have been more clear.
WRT the true vs false statement about the ACLU, I disagree that it is either true or false. It may be that they do support some but not others. This is what I meant by the absolutist viewpoint. There are varying degrees to most situations in life. I think you tend to comment that things are either true or false.

 

[vector2]

You think it is a “conspiracy theory” that small activist groups can sway billion dollar companies?

That has been proven time and time again in the real world:
-Trump banned from twitter (stop hate group)
-Disney and Florida’s parents rights bill. (One of the protests only had one Disney employee)
-Ben & Jerry’s not selling to Israel. Among other businesses.
-Netflix w/ multiple shows
-Fox news in UK

I assume you know what you are saying is not true. So it is pointless to discuss if you are that disingenuous. If you don’t realize it isn’t true, then that is even worse.

PS- I don’t like that pic Elon posted, twitter, trump or that it seems to have an offensive theme. As a conservative, I don’t think I should go after twitter’s advertisers to stop it. I don’t think liberals should either.

I noticed that you skipped over quoting or responding to the first line (or the main point) of my post, which, to belabor it, was "No they didn't. Pretty much every group at the meeting said there was no deal."

That was the main crux of the conspiracy *you* were claiming existed, not all these unrelated campaigns that had varying amounts of pressure or consequences. And that conspiracy you're claiming exists is that Elon met with these civil rights groups and made some deal which was subsequently broken. And I presume your evidence for this is what? Elon tweeting as such?

“A large coalition of political/social activist groups agreed not to try to kill Twitter by starving us of advertising revenue if I agreed to this condition,” Musk tweeted. “They broke the deal.”

Some activists who attended the meeting tweeted to confirm that they never made such a deal with Musk, including Free Press co-CEO Jessica Gonzalez, who helped drive a #StopToxicTwitter coalition pressuring Twitter's top 20 advertisers to boycott the platform.

“Not sure who Musk is talking about here, but I met with him a few weeks ago with civil rights leaders, and I also co-lead the #StopToxicTwitter coalition that is calling on advertisers to pause ads until he rights the ship,” Gonzalez tweeted. “I never made any such deal.”

NAACP President Derrick Johnson backed Gonzalez in his own tweet denying activists made a deal with Musk.

“We would never make such a deal,” Johnson tweeted. “Democracy always comes first. The decisions being made at Twitter are dangerous, and it is our duty, as it has been since our founding, to speak out against threats to our democracy. Hate speech and violent conspiracies can have no safe harbor.”

Redirect Notice

There's apparently no deal on paper, or any recording of the meeting, so the best you can say is that it's their word against his.

Conservatives didn’t go after twitter’s advertisers for the past decade... And it was definitely an unlevel playing field. But liberals try to shut it down when someone that has voted democrat for over a decade buys it and says he will allow free speech. That’s all you need to know

I don't know whether conservatives went after Twitter or not, but judging by the prolific number of things/companies/people conservatives have boycotted over the years it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

I noticed that you skipped over quoting or responding to the first line (or the main point) of my post, which, to belabor it, was "No they didn't. Pretty much every group at the meeting said there was no deal."

That was the main crux of the conspiracy *you* were claiming existed, not all these unrelated campaigns that had varying amounts of pressure or consequences. And that conspiracy you're claiming exists is that Elon met with these civil rights groups and made some deal which was subsequently broken. And I presume your evidence for this is what? Elon tweeting as such?

“A large coalition of political/social activist groups agreed not to try to kill Twitter by starving us of advertising revenue if I agreed to this condition,” Musk tweeted. “They broke the deal.”​

​

Some activists who attended the meeting tweeted to confirm that they never made such a deal with Musk, including Free Press co-CEO Jessica Gonzalez, who helped drive a #StopToxicTwitter coalition pressuring Twitter's top 20 advertisers to boycott the platform.​

​

“Not sure who Musk is talking about here, but I met with him a few weeks ago with civil rights leaders, and I also co-lead the #StopToxicTwitter coalition that is calling on advertisers to pause ads until he rights the ship,” Gonzalez tweeted. “I never made any such deal.”​

​

NAACP President Derrick Johnson backed Gonzalez in his own tweet denying activists made a deal with Musk.​

​

“We would never make such a deal,” Johnson tweeted. “Democracy always comes first. The decisions being made at Twitter are dangerous, and it is our duty, as it has been since our founding, to speak out against threats to our democracy. Hate speech and violent conspiracies can have no safe harbor.”​

​

Redirect Notice

​

There's apparently no deal on paper, or any recording of the meeting, so the best you can say is that it's their word against his.



I don't know whether conservatives went after Twitter or not, but judging by the prolific number of things/companies/people conservatives have boycotted over the years it wouldn't surprise me.

I actually had included it. Then I removed it before sending bc… your post stressed conspiracy theory on activist, not the deal. Reread your post. It references the conspiracy theory being about small groups controlling large groups. Not about Elon’s exchange.

My reply (that I removed): classic he said/she said. One side claims one thing and other side claims another. Purely a who do you believe. The activists basically have no repercussions for their actions. Elon does in the way that his company can fail. One picks a fight with nothing to lose, the other not so. Also, why didn’t everyone in the one group say it didn’t happen? I think the take home is: don’t make a deal with activist- they don’t play fair and will keep asking for more.

 

[deleted1116990]

So, if moonbeams used it as well, I missed it.

That's because I did not. He claimed that I used a strawman (saying he and others claimed a bunch of things specific things that they did not, which I did not do), which itself was a strawman from him (specifically saying that I claimed that). You were probably reading closely whereas he was more interested in looking for an angle to dismiss any point I was trying to make. (He's going to go respond and just say I'm a liar and that I did, but go back and read it for yourself if you care).

I have been trying to sort out in my mind what it is that I dislike so much about your posts. I couldn’t quite put my finger on what it was, but a lightbulb came on with the first sentence of this post.
It dawned on me that most of your posts speak in absolutes. As in “you are 100% wrong” or “I’m 100% right” or “everyone must be vaccinated” or “if all of the dummies would have gotten the vaccine, COVID would have ended abruptly right then and there.” The overuse of words such as “never,” “always,” “nothing,” or “completely.”
My sense is that you don’t deal in gray areas or consider any opinions other than your own as valid. I’ve known a few people in real life who exhibit that type of behavior and I’m just not a fan of such concrete absolutist thinking.

This is exactly it. It's the mindset that permeates the noxious swamp that is Twitter, and to a lesser degree Reddit. There is a overwhelmingly predominant cult that it just interested in owning non-cult members. This is what I had tried to point out to him (and failed) in the past when he insisted on pigeon-holing me into a specific group based on a few opinions I had. Because that's the way he and people like him think. They just regurgitate whatever agenda is fed to them from the far left media. Virtually all of them spew out the exact same opinions and talking points at any given point in time. That's the difference between him and me. I am very confident that I can predict with 95% accuracy what his opinion will be on any given topic (or what it will be if he is not yet familiar with it). Whereas he will occasionally, if not often, be wrong about assumptions of me. I feel confident I know what he thinks about Ukraine, because like a bot on Twitter, it's the exact same as what everybody else in the cult thinks about Ukraine -- what they have been fed by the media, the same media that tip-toed around issues that challenge the current narrative but at least reported on them to some degree not even a decade prior.

It's why the concept of moderates, independents, and centrists are so disagreeable to him. It's this binary of everything that is reasonable to him and his ilk vs. everything that is unreasonable. This cult on the far left demands their dogma be the normal. So in their mind, they are the centrists.

The good news is that occasionally people can be deprogrammed out of cults. It's not common, but for smart people, like doctors, independent journalism can go a long way to this cause, and it's why the corporate media and big tech is so threatened by it and goes to such great lengths to discredit, censor, and deplatform it. Corporate media is completely corrupt littered with both propoganda paid fluff and hit pieces poorly masked as actual objective journalism. As a result, you get people believing patently absurd things like the ACLU being a non-partisan neutral organization because they continue to pay occasional low impact lip service to high profile far right cases (which is an internal debate if any of these should continue at all as there are certain causes the ACLU has come out and said it is not interesting in supporting, for instance those who want to march while legally carrying firearms), for exactly that reason of being able to make such a ridiculous claim to feed to the gullible and uninformed.

 

[deleted1147063]

I actually think the term is helpful and protective for the majority of liberals that aren’t “woke”. I find it encapsulates the movement that is ridiculous but not liberalism as a whole. It is hard to disagree with certain points on the left as they are very compassionate points. But woke usually refers to the absurd and not all of the left’s ideas. I think the left needs to abandon the extreme left and they will be sitting in a very good position.

My thoughts exactly.

I don't confuse "progressives" with "liberals". (The liberal name is incorrect, because they are anything but, but that's the American custom.) Woke is just another synonym for progressive, more like regressive nowadays. Basically radical left, not center-left.

Democrats come in various shades of gray, same as conservatives.

 

[deleted1147063]

My intent was not to directly quote you but to give general examples of what I meant. I thought I was clear but I understand that you did not directly say those exact words. I should have been more clear.
WRT the true vs false statement about the ACLU, I disagree that it is either true or false. It may be that they do support some but not others. This is what I meant by the absolutist viewpoint. There are varying degrees to most situations in life. I think you tend to comment that things are either true or false.

There are forums where directly quoting somebody and responding paragraph by paragraph are considered a sign of trolling.

My guess is that it's just a sin of (relative) youth, like being a progressive.

 

[vector2]

My intent was not to directly quote you but to give general examples of what I meant. I thought I was clear but I understand that you did not directly say those exact words. I should have been more clear.

Just to be clear, you're going to impugn me and my argumentation style, but you can't actually give me a list of concrete examples of engaging in the behavior you accuse me of. Seems fair.

WRT the true vs false statement about the ACLU, I disagree that it is either true or false. It may be that they do support some but not others.

Dude, what is this, if not just plain arguing for arguing's sake or pedantry for pedantry's sake? I can't make you agree with me because you'd probably consider it a personal failure at this point, but if person A claims that a group doesn't defend hate speech like from the Nazis anymore, and person B points out that the group has in fact defended Charlottesvilles white supremacists and antisemites protesting at synagogues, then person A's statement is "not true", inasmuch as the word true has any shared meaning.


E:

So, if moonbeams used it as well, I missed it. I thought he used it in the context of pointing out someone else’s use of it.

No, in the midst of his avalanche of projection, he definitely hurled it as an accusation. See here.

 

[vector2]

I actually had included it. Then I removed it before sending bc… your post stressed conspiracy theory on activist, not the deal. Reread your post. It references the conspiracy theory being about small groups controlling large groups. Not about Elon’s exchange.

My reply (that I removed): classic he said/she said. One side claims one thing and other side claims another. Purely a who do you believe. The activists basically have no repercussions for their actions. Elon does in the way that his company can fail. One picks a fight with nothing to lose, the other not so. Also, why didn’t everyone in the one group say it didn’t happen? I think the take home is: don’t make a deal with activist- they don’t play fair and will keep asking for more.

The paragraph that follows is directly in reference to "the deal" that Elon likely imagined. Thats why I said "a bunch of groups with little influence are capable of swaying how multibillion dollar corporations use their multimillion dollar ad budgets.".

Because this entire thing is about a conspiracy theory claiming large corporations are supposedly pulling their ad budgets for Twitter because of "activists"...and not pulling them for the most parsimonious reason.

Which is: Elon fired a gazillion people including ad managers who dealt with big clients, he loosened moderation and unblocked people so thoughtlessly and at such a rate that trolling/hate speech/epithets (appearing right next to an ad) increased significantly, and maybe most importantly, the guy is erratic and unpredictable. Just look at his posts. Just look at the goading and game of chicken he's playing with Apple. Why in the world wouldn't you wait to see how the dust settles before spending millions on ads?

 

[deleted1147063]

For everybody commenting on Elon firing thousands of busybodies at Twitter...

When Facebook bought WhatsApp, with hundreds of millions of users at the time, WhatsApp had like 75 employees. And that was many years ago (nowadays they would probably need even fewer). That's why Twitter didn't crash, and probably won't.

My guess is that a lot of Twitter employees were just like the nurse clipboard warriors and middle managers in healthcare: mostly useless, but costing a ton of money to make themselves look busy.

 

[Southpaw]

For everybody commenting on Elon firing thousands of busybodies at Twitter...

When Facebook bought WhatsApp, with hundreds of millions of users at the time, WhatsApp had like 75 employees. And that was many years ago (nowadays they would probably need even fewer). That's why Twitter didn't crash, and probably won't.

My guess is that a lot of Twitter employees were just like the nurse clipboard warriors and middle managers in healthcare: mostly useless, but costing a ton of money to make themselves look busy.

I’m sure you’re right. I don’t know why anyone cares how many employees Twitter does or doesn’t have.

 

[vector2]

For everybody commenting on Elon firing thousands of busybodies at Twitter...

When Facebook bought WhatsApp, with hundreds of millions of users at the time, WhatsApp had like 75 employees. And that was many years ago (nowadays they would probably need even fewer). That's why Twitter didn't crash, and probably won't.

My guess is that a lot of Twitter employees were just like the nurse clipboard warriors and middle managers in healthcare: mostly useless, but costing a ton of money to make themselves look busy.

I don't doubt that Elon cut a lot of useless chaff, but I think there's a decent likelihood that the cuts were so indiscriminate and happened so quickly that some wheat went along for the ride.

 

[epidural man]

I don't doubt that Elon cut a lot of useless chaff, but I think there's a decent likelihood that the cuts were so indiscriminate and happened so quickly that some wheat went along for the ride.


View attachment 362668
View attachment 362667

Twitter may die.

That would be too bad.

Still…Elon is pretty funny. The extreme left is also very funny (in a completely different way with how upset they are about it all. )

 

[gasdoc77]

I have been trying to sort out in my mind what it is that I dislike so much about your posts. I couldn’t quite put my finger on what it was, but a lightbulb came on with the first sentence of this post.
It dawned on me that most of your posts speak in absolutes. As in “you are 100% wrong” or “I’m 100% right” or “everyone must be vaccinated” or “if all of the dummies would have gotten the vaccine, COVID would have ended abruptly right then and there.” The overuse of words such as “never,” “always,” “nothing,” or “completely.”
My sense is that you don’t deal in gray areas or consider any opinions other than your own as valid. I’ve known a few people in real life who exhibit that type of behavior and I’m just not a fan of such concrete absolutist juvenile and simplistic thinking.
As a stark contrast to your absolutist thinking, I suspect that Nimbus and I are very far apart with regards to many topics, but he is generally cordial and respectful even when we disagree. He recognizes areas of gray and is respectful that others may have differing, yet still valid, opinions.
I don’t see that in your posts. It’s always absolutes.
I’m not trying to pick a fight, but simply pointing out a tendency that I’ve noticed in case it’s a blind spot for you. I expect you will disagree with my assessment, so I expect to be set straight.

Fixed that for ya.

FYI the ignore function is a wonderful tool

 

[vector2]

Twitter may die.

That would be too bad.

Still…Elon is pretty funny. The extreme left is also very funny (in a completely different way with how upset they are about it all. )

What's funny is the way you shape the narrative.

Is it woke leftists are losing their minds now that "free speech" is allowed on twitter?

Or is it that reasonable people of all political persuasions - including the folks who run advertising departments - are concerned that private website terms of service violators who incite riots at the US capitol, or 4chan trolls whose every other word is "f*ggot" or a racial slur are being allowed back en masse without much of a structured plan in place?

 

[BobLoblaw78]

The paragraph that follows is directly in reference to "the deal" that Elon likely imagined. Thats why I said "a bunch of groups with little influence are capable of swaying how multibillion dollar corporations use their multimillion dollar ad budgets.".

Because this entire thing is about a conspiracy theory claiming large corporations are supposedly pulling their ad budgets for Twitter because of "activists"...and not pulling them for the most parsimonious reason.

Which is: Elon fired a gazillion people including ad managers who dealt with big clients, he loosened moderation and unblocked people so thoughtlessly and at such a rate that trolling/hate speech/epithets (appearing right next to an ad) increased significantly, and maybe most importantly, the guy is erratic and unpredictable. Just look at his posts. Just look at the goading and game of chicken he's playing with Apple. Why in the world wouldn't you wait to see how the dust settles before spending millions on ads?

Disagree. Regardless, it isn’t a conspiracy theory to go off what Elon said versus what the two people you quoted said. It is he said/she said.

Either case disproves your point that little groups have no effect on big groups. This little group of activists had a meeting with the richest man in the world. He was willing to make concessions. It wasn’t enough for them. Continue telling me how they have no sway 🙄

Finally, I’m fairly certain advertisers can specify their target groups. They can still reach their target group and carve out user groups they don’t want to reach. If IT hasn’t progressed to that point, then I will withdraw the point.

Certain twitter employees felt they were being starved by not getting free lunches at twitter. It seems like Elon is trimming the fat and that they are a well paid entitled group. Power to them getting the best deal, but I don’t feel sorry for them when the excess is stopped

 

[vector2]

Disagree. Regardless, it isn’t a conspiracy theory to go off what Elon said versus what the two people you quoted said. It is he said/she said.

Either case disproves your point that little groups have affect on big groups. This little group of activists had a meeting with the richest man in the world. He was willing to make concessions. It wasn’t enough for them. Continue telling me how they have no sway 🙄

Finally, I’m fairly certain advertisers can specify their target groups. They can still reach their target group and carve out user groups they don’t want to reach. If IT hasn’t progressed to that point, then I will withdraw the point.

Certain twitter employees felt they were being starved by not getting free lunches at twitter. It seems like Elon is trimming the fat and that they are a well paid entitled group. Power to them getting the best deal, but I don’t feel sorry for them when the excess is stopped

I'd say just because you have two sides saying opposing things doesn't make each narrative equally likely. Multiple folks from the civil rights group sides have said there was no formal deal. There is no written proof of any deal. There is no audio recording of any conversation outlining any deal.

Additionally, you (by way of Elon) are conflating the meeting with civil rights groups with the actions advertisers are taking. That part is the conspiracy, not the fact that Elon met at all with civil rights groups, which wouldn't be all that irregular because I do think Elon cares somewhat about the terms of service, who was banned, and how hate speech was regulated on the site. To be explicit, the conspiracy is that solely because of civil rights group pressure advertisers are pulling out.

That is the part that seems pretty patently false. And it's actually demonstrable. You know why? Because even back in late October, before any of this "activist" nonsense:

Leftwing pressure or not, the trolls are bad for business. Elon knew that beforehand, but for whatever reason he thought it would be fun to unban all these people to see the chaos, and now he's trying to find a scapegoat for a bad decision.

 

[wholeheartedly]

It’s unfortunate such a large number were terminated, but that’s business. The bigger issue seems to be that there was no time for any analysis being done on who should be fired based on company needs and who is critical for infrastructure. Then he started firing people who were critical of some of the changes. There’s a delicate balance there between his right to fire whoever and not running afoul of NLRA employee speech protections.

Regardless of anything else, I think it’s important to note that Elon is not a free speech true believer. He readily tries to silence anyone who disagrees with or criticizes him. He’s already in the legal hot seat for this prior to taking over twitter. He is not applying the same rules to different people on twitter. I’ve seen people who have gotten actual threats of violence from the newly returned and get messages that no violation was found and no action will be taken (very clear in screenshots, so not he said she said stuff), but people who mocked Elon have been banned for it. So his goal isn’t promoting free speech, it’s promoting free speech he agrees with and controlling the discussion.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

I'd say just because you have two sides saying opposing things doesn't make each narrative equally likely. Multiple folks from the civil rights group sides have said there was no formal deal. There is no written proof of any deal. There is no audio recording of any conversation outlining any deal.

Additionally, you (by way of Elon) are conflating the meeting with civil rights groups with the actions advertisers are taking. That part is the conspiracy, not the fact that Elon met at all with civil rights groups, which wouldn't be all that irregular because I do think Elon cares somewhat about the terms of service, who was banned, and how hate speech was regulated on the site. To be explicit, the conspiracy is that solely because of civil rights group pressure advertisers are pulling out.

That is the part that seems pretty patently false. And it's actually demonstrable. You know why? Because even back in late October, before any of this "activist" nonsense:

View attachment 362670

Leftwing pressure or not, the trolls are bad for business. Elon knew that beforehand, but for whatever reason he thought it would be fun to unban all these people to see the chaos, and now he's trying to find a scapegoat for a bad decision.

Wrong again.

You literally say there is no proof and only that one side says one thing and other side says another. He said/she said. You prove my point.

Next, you literally said little groups can’t sway big corporations’ advertising budget. You are flat out wrong.

Left wing stated they were going to leave twitter before he took over. I think they will force the narrative how it became worse no matter what. (Just like phantom racial slurs were up— but it was only from massive amount of slurs from few accounts likely trying to create a false hellscape narrative).

End point: I could call you a troll and say you are bad for SDN. And they could remove you. But my belief is that it would be wrong and free speech should prevail. You should be allowed your opinion even if I disagree.

 

[vector2]

Wrong again.

You literally say there is no proof and only that one side says one thing and other side says another. He said/she said. You prove my point.

One more time for you: "just because you have two sides saying opposing things doesn't make each narrative equally likely."

For whatever reason, you're deeply invested at this point in Elon being right, but if you were able to look objectively at the situation you'd realize that if this were some random dispute between two parties you didn't care about, and one side (actually one person, since per reports twitters side consisted literally of just Elon in the room) said there was an agreement, and then other side composed of multiple different parties said there wasn't a deal...and there's no written deal...and there's no recording saying a deal...would you just shrug and say it's an equal he said/she said? Nah. And god forbid we were talking about an actual legal dispute, you'd get laughed out of the room for claiming a deal exists.

Next, you literally said little groups can’t sway big corporations’ advertising budget. You are flat out wrong.

I don't know why you're incredulous that corporations with multimillion dollar advertising budgets are able to make decisions for themselves without first checking with what the "Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation" and "Free Press" organizations have to say about it. I also don't know why you're incapable of grasping that many companies already share some of those values and don't need an activist to pressure them.

And you continue to ignore the other contributory reasons like the massive layoffs including ad managers, hacking/IT security concerns, or...

How bout that day Eli Lily stock flash dropped 5% because some doofus paid for a blue checkmark and tweeted that insulin was now free?

. (Just like phantom racial slurs were up— but it was only from massive amount of slurs from few accounts likely trying to create a false hellscape narrative).

Link? However, even if it's from a small number of users, the absolute number of tweets containing trash is still there and is (or was) still not being moderated

End point: I could call you a troll and say you are bad for SDN. And they could remove you. But my belief is that it would be wrong and free speech should prevail. You should be allowed your opinion even if I disagree.

This is a private forum with terms of service, but you stay classy anyway, friend.

 

[epidural man]

What's funny is the way you shape the narrative.

Oh good! We can ALL laugh.

 

[deleted1116990]

He readily tries to silence anyone who disagrees with or criticizes him.

Oh, well that will never fly at a place like Twitter then.

 

[epidural man]

…whose every other word is "f*ggot" ….

Oh boy. That word should brings me way back…

My pegged pants, shirt buttoned up all the way, my bleached hair, New Order blaring…growing up in a small Idaho town. I got called that A LOT.

It was really funny then also. The joke was on those $hit kickers however because all their girlfriends secretly crushed on my “new waver f*ggot A$$.”

 

[wholeheartedly]

Oh, well that will never fly at a place like Twitter then.

if he fires and or bans them, its pretty effective

 

[deleted1116990]

if he fires and or bans them, its pretty effective

There is a huge difference between firing employees for insubordination or even just being a bad fit for a company's culture and banning users on the platform for what they say. The latter is literally the criticism of the former management. It's disingenuous to try and equate the former to the latter and use that to attack Musk. They are totally different things.

 

[wholeheartedly]

There is a huge difference between firing employees for insubordination or even just being a bad fit for a company's culture and banning users on the platform for what they say. The latter is literally the criticism of the former management. It's disingenuous to try and equate the former to the latter and use that to attack Musk. They are totally different things.

No they are both examples of him retaliating and trying to silence people he disagrees with, which was my point.

employee speech regarding the workplace does have legal protections and he’s already being investigated for that at another of his companies, so throwing around the term insubordination is also disingenuous

 

[BobLoblaw78]

One more time for you: "just because you have two sides saying opposing things doesn't make each narrative equally likely."

I got it now. One side says something was said. Other side says something else was said.

For whatever reason, you're deeply invested at this point in Elon being right, but if you were able to look objectively at the situation you'd realize that if this were some random dispute between two parties you didn't care about, and one side (actually one person, since per reports twitters side consisted literally of just Elon in the room) said there was an agreement, and then other side composed of multiple different parties said there wasn't a deal...and there's no written deal...and there's no recording saying a deal...would you just shrug and say it's an equal he said/she said? Nah. And god forbid we were talking about an actual legal dispute, you'd get laughed out of the room for claiming a deal exists.



I don't know why you're incredulous that corporations with multimillion dollar advertising budgets are able to make decisions for themselves without first checking with what the "Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation" and "Free Press" organizations have to say about it. I also don't know why you're incapable of grasping that many companies already share some of those values and don't need an activist to pressure them.

Okay. Got it. So activists groups have no influence on major companies. Should you or I tell these activists they need to pack up and go home bc they have no influence and are wasting their time? Bc they are convinced they are making a difference.

Link? However, even if it's from a small number of users, the absolute number of tweets containing trash is still there and is (or was) still not being moderated

View attachment 362672

Link is below. You would be amazed at how hard it was to find this link. I could find tons of msm headlines that said a totally different narrative that you were spouting. But none of them reported that it was very few accounts massively posting slurs that accounted for the increase. Very weird that they would omit this fact that shows the narrative msm was pushing was wrong.

Twitter Says Increase in Slurs Following Elon Musk Takeover Is a “Trolling Campaign”

The social media platform's head of safety and integrity responded after a report, published by the Network Contagion Research Institute, found that use of the N-word spiked almost 500 percent after Musk’s deal was finalized.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

This is a private forum with terms of service, but you stay classy anyway, friend.

You take me saying a hypothetical that I could say you were a troll and have you removed as negative? That hypothetical was to make you see how removing free speech could be used against even you. To personalize it for you. The fact you see it as an attack on you says more about you and your MO than it does me.

 

[deleted1116990]

No they are both examples of him retaliating and trying to silence people he disagrees with, which was my point.

employee speech regarding the workplace does have legal protections and he’s already being investigated for that at another of his companies, so throwing around the term insubordination is also disingenuous

That depends on the state. You can terminate people for basically whatever you want as long as it's not an ADA violation in many locales.

I think anyone claiming Musk is trying to silence people on the platform needs to clarify their position on the censorship that was occurring under the previous management. Are you simply denying it was happening or saying that you agreed with it in those cases because you were on Twitter's side and hated Trump too?

I'm honestly not following here. Who is Musk silencing from speaking on Twitter? Alex Jones -- I guess he's not back yet. But he was banned under the old management. So you're not really saying that are you? He's just cleaning house with employees that don't share his vision. I'm not seeing the big deal here. So the problem is he is silencing his employees who hate his guts by firing them? Do you think people should be able to openly criticize their boss at work and in public venues and have their employment protected under the 1A for this? Work is not a public square. The argument about completely unrestricted free speech on Twitter is that Twitter has become the de facto public square in the online world the same way that the street corner is a public square in the physical world.

 

[vector2]

Okay. Got it. So activists groups have no influence on major companies. Should you or I tell these activists they need to pack up and go home bc they have no influence and are wasting their time? Bc they are convinced they are making a difference.

In this very particular case, absolutely. The average Twitter user + the average Twitter major advertiser didn't really need an ADL petition to realize that the site had changed somewhat.

Link is below. You would be amazed at how hard it was to find this link. I could find tons of msm headlines that said a totally different narrative that you were spouting. But none of them reported that it was very few accounts massively posting slurs that accounted for the increase. Very weird that they would omit this fact that shows the narrative msm was pushing was wrong.

Thanks for the link, but like I said before, a small number of users like a few hundred are still capable of amplifying thousands and thousands of hateful tweets. And once they're up, twitter has been doing a terrible job compared to before at taking them down quickly.

Redirect Notice

One other thing, the twitter employee who was quoted in that article you posted about how it's just a small number of users responsible....his name is Yoel Roth and he was the head of twitter's site integrity.

Roth has since resigned from Twitter and says Elon's management style and "laissez-faire approach to content moderation, and his lack of a transparent process for making and enforcing platform policies, has made Twitter less safe, in part because there aren't enough staff remaining who understand that malicious actors are constantly trying to game the system in ways that automated algorithms don't know how to catch.

You take me saying a hypothetical that I could say you were a troll and have you removed as negative? That hypothetical was to make you see how removing free speech could be used against even you. To personalize it for you. The fact you see it as an attack on you says more about you and your MO than it does me.

And my response was to make you understand that (even for me *gasp*!) there is no such thing as "free speech" on privately administered websites with their own rules (TOS). I still find it baffling how conservatives fail to grasp that sh:tposting on the internet isn't a First Amendment issue. Feel free to ask @Arch Guillotti or @pgg how well this place would function as an unmoderated "free speech" utopia.

 

[Goro]

 

[epidural man]

…, has made Twitter less safe,

I need to know more about the dangers. Death? Heart attack? Black eye? Broken femur? Cancer? Pneumothorax? Blindness?

I had no idea Twitter had that kind of power.

 

[wholeheartedly]

That depends on the state. You can terminate people for basically whatever you want as long as it's not an ADA violation in many locales.

I think anyone claiming Musk is trying to silence people on the platform needs to clarify their position on the censorship that was occurring under the previous management. Are you simply denying it was happening or saying that you agreed with it in those cases because you were on Twitter's side and hated Trump too?

I'm honestly not following here. Who is Musk silencing from speaking on Twitter? Alex Jones -- I guess he's not back yet. But he was banned under the old management. So you're not really saying that are you? He's just cleaning house with employees that don't share his vision. I'm not seeing the big deal here. So the problem is he is silencing his employees who hate his guts by firing them? Do you think people should be able to openly criticize their boss at work and in public venues and have their employment protected under the 1A for this? Work is not a public square. The argument about completely unrestricted free speech on Twitter is that Twitter has become the de facto public square in the online world the same way that the street corner is a public square in the physical world.

For employee speech, as I noted its the NLRA, which is federal protection, states can go beyond that. You can read up on it here. Much more is protected than most people realize including publicy criticizing workplace policies, your boss, etc. https://www.krcl.com/insights/say-what-employee-protected-speech-under-the-nlra-knows-few-bounds

You’re really putting a whole lot of stuff here that I haven’t said and that isn’t really relevant to my points and I’m pretty sure you know this. I’ll try again then I’m done.

I believe a social media company can and should moderate per its terms of service and should do so evenly. Nothing requires a social media site to allow all types of speech. As a moderator on this platform, I appreciate how difficult moderating can be.

Where I or anyone stand on censorship on twitter is irrelevant to my point. I’m stating that Elons claims that he is pro this type of free speech are contradictory to his actions. Currently, twitter is allowing people who have made literal death threats to others to stay on the site while banning people who mocked him or were critical of him. There are numerous examples of this. He is not following the terms of service nor applying it evenly. He is therefore to trying silence those who critcize him or that he disagrees with. That means he does not truly believe in making twitter a space of free speech for everyone like he claims.

 

[deleted1116990]

You’re really putting a whole lot of stuff here that I haven’t said and that isn’t really relevant to my points and I’m pretty sure you know this.

No, I literally asked you what you meant and to clarify here. Having to disabuse false claims of strawmen seems to not be an uncommon thing here:

I think anyone claiming Musk is trying to silence people on the platform needs to clarify their position on the censorship that was occurring under the previous management. Are you simply denying it was happening or saying that you agreed with it in those cases because you were on Twitter's side and hated Trump too?

I'm honestly not following here. Who is Musk silencing from speaking on Twitter? Alex Jones -- I guess he's not back yet. But he was banned under the old management. So you're not really saying that are you?

Literally trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Where I or anyone stand on censorship on twitter is irrelevant to my point. I’m stating that Elons claims that he is pro this type of free speech are contradictory to his actions. Currently, twitter is allowing people who have made literal death threats to others to stay on the site while banning people who mocked him or were critical of him. There are numerous examples of this. He is not following the terms of service nor applying it evenly. He is therefore to trying silence those who critcize him or that he disagrees with. That means he does not truly believe in making twitter a space of free speech for everyone like he claims.

With regards to your link, which goes to a bronze sculpture art site called John Lopez Studio, BTW, you are talking about the rights surrounding labor unions. If you get a job at Dairy Queen and tell customers that your boss is an idiot and you think he pees in the ice cream, you can't get an injunction because he violated your free speech rights when you are fired.

With regards to Elon Musk, if he is banning people for simply making fun of him, then yes, I agree that would be hypocritical. I wasn't aware of any cases where that occured. I believe you though -- can you link one as I am curious. But it seems like this wasn't your beef, it was his firing of the employees and thus violating their free speech rights, which I disagree with you that I don't think they necessarily have.

At-will employment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) provides protection to employees who wish to join or form a union and those who engage in union activity. The act also protects employees who engage in a concerted activity.[36] Most employers set forth their workplace rules and policies in an employee handbook. A common provision in those handbooks is a statement that employment with the employer is "at-will". In 2012, the National Labor Relations Board, the federal administrative agency responsible for enforcing the NLRA, instituted two cases attacking at-will employment disclaimers in employee handbooks. The NLRB challenged broadly worded disclaimers, alleging that the statements improperly suggested that employees could not act concertedly to attempt to change the at-will nature of their employment, and thereby interfered with employees' protected rights under the NLRA.

 

[vector2]

You’re really putting a whole lot of stuff here that I haven’t said and that isn’t really relevant to my points and I’m pretty sure you know this. I’ll try again then I’m done

Best decision you made today.

 

[deleted1147063]

The left and the authoritarian right cannot accept not being able to control and restrict speech, even if not hateful:

Europe warns Musk he’s top of their watch list

Twitter’s decision to let COVID-19 misinformation run wild frustrates Brussels and Paris.

www.politico.eu

The only truth is what we say is true. Any debate is to be quashed.

Remember when one couldn't even doubt the vaccines? There were European countries where that resulted in serious fines or criminal indictment (interfering with public health).