Elon f*cks Twitter

[Dakota Tebaldi]

There's a funny situation going on right now that's been building over the last couple of years. Back when Donald Trump was president, he sued Twitter and some other websites, claiming political censorship. That case, as you'll probably remember, was rather quickly dismissed on 1st Amendment grounds.

But ever since Elon Musk bought Twitter, he's been having "journalists" (whom he has since turned against, but that's another matter) publicly release internal Twitter corporate communications from the time before Musk's purchase. These releases have been called "The Twitter Files", and according to right-wing pundits and - very importantly - Elon Musk himself, they PROVE that Twitter and the US government secretly colluded to suppress conservative political speech on the platform, including Donald Trump's.

...they don't, actually. Every independent analyst says that the actual documents when you read them just don't say what Musk and his fans say that they say. But never mind that.

Here's the thing. Trump has used the release of the Twitter FIles and Elon Musk's public statements that they prove government-directed suppression of speech as the basis to file an appeal of his case against Twitter. Here's the situation that is created: Trump and Twitter's owner are publicly in lockstep with their claims that Twitter and the government colluded to censor conservatives and Trump especially; but Twitter has to fight the lawsuit, so Twitter's own lawyers have had to file a response to the appeal explaining in great detail why the Twitter Files don't reveal any evidence of government collusion whatsoever, directly contradicting the public statements of their owner.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

There's a funny situation going on right now that's been building over the last couple of years. Back when Donald Trump was president, he sued Twitter and some other websites, claiming political censorship. That case, as you'll probably remember, was rather quickly dismissed on 1st Amendment grounds.

But ever since Elon Musk bought Twitter, he's been having "journalists" (whom he has since turned against, but that's another matter) publicly release internal Twitter corporate communications from the time before Musk's purchase. These releases have been called "The Twitter Files", and according to right-wing pundits and - very importantly - Elon Musk himself, they PROVE that Twitter and the US government secretly colluded to suppress conservative political speech on the platform, including Donald Trump's.

...they don't, actually. Every independent analyst says that the actual documents when you read them just don't say what Musk and his fans say that they say. But never mind that.

Here's the thing. Trump has used the release of the Twitter FIles and Elon Musk's public statements that they prove government-directed suppression of speech as the basis to file an appeal of his case against Twitter. Here's the situation that is created: Trump and Twitter's owner are publicly in lockstep with their claims that Twitter and the government colluded to censor conservatives and Trump especially; but Twitter has to fight the lawsuit, so Twitter's own lawyers have had to file a response to the appeal explaining in great detail why the Twitter Files don't reveal any evidence of government collusion whatsoever, directly contradicting the public statements of their owner.

Musk has always been a giant liar... I even know people who like him who acknowledge he's always been full of shit. Over promise and underdeliver... but they'll still believe him when he's telling them what they want to hear. He honestly should be in prison for securities fraud on a few occasions. Lying about legal documents outside of court also should be a crime (not sure if it is when not under oath).

 

[Lexxi]

And in all that hour and a half they never did actually define what a woman is. Because they don't know!

Yeah, that was Walsh's point. He asked various people "What is a Woman?" The professor said something like "A woman is a woman." Two of the therapists said something more like "A woman is someone who identifies as a woman." (the professor of woman's studies might have also included that identifies part; yeah, I think the professor said that identifies part also, as Walsh replied something like "if I say I identify as an African-American, would I be lying?" To which the professor replied with something like "I don't know your ancestry, are you?" (I think the professor said something more like "are you biracial?" Walsh replied "I don't know"). The older therapist said, basically, "a woman is someone with XX chromosomes."

Or, put another way: Walsh's point was that pro-"a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" people do not actually have a definition for "a woman".

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Twitter fails to act on 99% of Twitter Blue accounts tweeting hate

New research reveals how Twitter failed to act on 99% of 'blue tick' tweets containing racist, homophobic, neo-Nazi, antisemitic or conspiracy content.

counterhate.com

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Walsh replied something like "if I say I identify as an African-American, would I be lying?" To which the professor replied with something like "I don't know your ancestry, are you?" (I think the professor said something more like "are you biracial?" Walsh replied "I don't know").

I'd have thought that a better response than "are you?" would be "Do you, in fact, identify as an African-American?"

If he says "I identify as an African-American" and that accurately describes how he self-identifies, then he's telling the truth. If he doesn't, then he's lying.

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

Yeah, that was Walsh's point. He asked various people "What is a Woman?" The professor said something like "A woman is a woman." Two of the therapists said something more like "A woman is someone who identifies as a woman." (the professor of woman's studies might have also included that identifies part; yeah, I think the professor said that identifies part also, as Walsh replied something like "if I say I identify as an African-American, would I be lying?" To which the professor replied with something like "I don't know your ancestry, are you?" (I think the professor said something more like "are you biracial?" Walsh replied "I don't know"). The older therapist said, basically, "a woman is someone with XX chromosomes."

Or, put another way: Walsh's point was that pro-"a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" people do not actually have a definition for "a woman".

The problem is, XX just meand 'female' and even then, its complicated [not everyone has XX, not even all females have XX, some are X, hormones don't always match the chromosomes, etc] Woman is a social construct and it means different things in different cultures. Mostly Walsh is a douchnozzle asshole, who makes me wanna punch him just listening to him.

 

[WolfEyes]

Yeah, that was Walsh's point. He asked various people "What is a Woman?" The professor said something like "A woman is a woman." Two of the therapists said something more like "A woman is someone who identifies as a woman." (the professor of woman's studies might have also included that identifies part; yeah, I think the professor said that identifies part also, as Walsh replied something like "if I say I identify as an African-American, would I be lying?" To which the professor replied with something like "I don't know your ancestry, are you?" (I think the professor said something more like "are you biracial?" Walsh replied "I don't know"). The older therapist said, basically, "a woman is someone with XX chromosomes."

Or, put another way: Walsh's point was that pro-"a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" people do not actually have a definition for "a woman".

I'm pretty sure that is what I said just in a lot fewer words.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

who makes me wanna punch him just listening to him.

Next best thing is punching a person who's listening to him.

 

[Lexxi]

I'm pretty sure that is what I said just in a lot fewer words.

I was letting those know who do not wish to spend 1 and a half hours watching a movie that the documentary talked with people who, I assume, were supposed to be representives of "the left" and didn't get an answer that didn't include the word being defined in the definition. Plus he talked with one or two more right leaning people and did get an answer that did not include "woman" in the definition.

Walsh also, creepily, said that he wanted to see if he could "pull" the "boy" out of his girl-child. So he'd have another boy.

 

[WolfEyes]

I didn't watch it because Walsh.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

The problem is, XX just meand 'female' and even then, its complicated [not everyone has XX, not even all females have XX, some are X, hormones don't always match the chromosomes, etc] Woman is a social construct and it means different things in different cultures. Mostly Walsh is a douchnozzle asshole, who makes me wanna punch him just listening to him.

Totally agree!

And yes... if you think about how to identify a "woman" or a "man" you realize it's hard to describe in simple terms since you're not looking at chromosomes. And if you challenged people to write a big list of how men and women are different, they'd run out of actual scientific facts pretty quickly. Most of it is just cultural.

The way I've explained it to people on the fence is to say "Of course there are only 2 biological sexes, nobody disputes that, a point the gay and feminist communities has been trying to make forever is that gender expression and gender roles are just social constructs. So questions like "how many genders are there?" or "what is a woman?" are nonsensical."

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

When Prince and Bowie died they released a combined 25 billion genders into the world.

More seriously, insisting there’s only two genders is just more Eurocentric bullshit.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

When Prince and Bowie died they released a combined 25 billion genders into the world.

More seriously, insisting there’s only two genders is just more Eurocentric bullshit.

It's also a massive level of history denial. People who deviated from, or even flipped, traditional gender roles were super common till certain religious organizations insisted it was evil to do so. Ancient Rome was full of Queer and trans people till Emperor Philip decided this was evil.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I'd have thought that a better response than "are you?" would be "Do you, in fact, identify as an African-American?"

If he says "I identify as an African-American" and that accurately describes how he self-identifies, then he's telling the truth. If he doesn't, then he's lying.

A more interesting example would be an article I read recently by an American citizen, born and brought up there, whose parents emigrated to the US from Nigeria, discussing the differences between identifying as African-American and Nigerian-American.

 

[Khamon]

Many Americans that I've talked with in recent years believe that Africa is one big country. They couldn't point to Nigeria on a map and don't care that they don't know. They can't point to their home town, on an unmarked map, and don't care that they don't know.

 

[Lexxi]

I didn't watch it because Walsh.

Probably the best response to the movie appearing.

I was going to ignore it myself, but every other thing I seem to see on various platforms (except here) seem to be things like "LGB not LGBT! Break the Link! Fuck everything after the B in LGB!" and I wanted to figure out why the fuck the LGBT communtiy was suddenly fighting itself. And that film, supposedly, was going to have some insight of the T part from a horrible, I mean, conservative angle.

I still don't know why I've suddenly been flooded by "#LGB NOT LGBT" posts. The Walsh video didn't help.

 

[WolfEyes]

Probably the best response to the movie appearing.

I was going to ignore it myself, but every other thing I seem to see on various platforms (except here) seem to be things like "LGB not LGBT! Break the Link! Fuck everything after the B in LGB!" and I wanted to figure out why the fuck the LGBT communtiy was suddenly fighting itself. And that film, supposedly, was going to have some insight of the T part from a horrible, I mean, conservative angle.

I still don't know why I've suddenly been flooded by "#LGB NOT LGBT" posts. The Walsh video didn't help.

It might have something to do with things like Keffals having been involved with illegally supplying minors with hormones or at least making it possible for the minors to access prescription drugs without parental knowledge or consent.

It's things like this that makes others distance themselves. It has a huge impact on those who are aware of it.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Evernote link

 

[Free]

He's reached the deep end. When will he go over? Sooner than soon.