|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland24386 Posts
On August 13 2024 18:58 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2024 13:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 13 2024 09:58 Severedevil wrote:On August 13 2024 03:33 BlackJack wrote:
Last time you checked conservatives wanted to outlaw people being homosexual? When was the last time you checked, the 1950s? The 1950s? Sodomy laws ended with Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. It was a 6-3 decision with 3 of the 5 conservative justices dissenting. One of those dissenting justices, who's still on the court, recently expressed the desire to "reconsider" Lawrence v. Texas after overturning Roe. I don't think sodomy laws are coming back, but they're not nearly as old or fringe as they should be. Thank you for taking the time to actually look up a specific, relevant case. Sodomy laws and banning homosexuality have apparently been issues even into the early 2000s. In that same year, 2003, polls were taken to ask about public opinion too: "Gallup has asked the public about the issue since 1977, and the latest results -- from mid-May of this year -- show that 59% of the public says homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal, while 37% say they should not be." https://news.gallup.com/poll/8722/six-americans-agree-gay-sex-should-legal.aspx 37% still wanted to ban homosexuality in the United States, clearly making it an issue for some people (even as those homophobes started to lose political power). Furthermore, while I don't think the political affiliation of the polled individuals were recorded, it's probably safe to assume that nearly all of the 37% were conservatives / on the right, meaning that a majority of Republicans polled still wanted to ban homosexuality in 2003. That's consistent with Lawrence v. Texas, where most of the conservative judges wanted to ban homosexuality in 2003 (as you pointed out). So even into the early 2000s, we see that most Republicans were probably still leaning towards banning homosexuality. They just didn't have as much political power to push that bigoted agenda. To add to this, people are mistaken to believe that the majority stops oppression. Roe v Wade was overturned by a large minority while a clear majority of Americans (and especially women) was in favor of abortion rights. The only thing required to overcome the old ruling was an unbalanced SCOTUS which was formed non-democratically by the democratic president. Thus democracy can quite provably be destroyed from within. So, in and of itself, democracy is not powerful enough to stop oppression. Homosexuality will therefore not be protected either by democracy. It'll be protected by those powerful and willing enough to protect it. If those individuals make an unexpected shift towards a ban, then there will be a ban.
This is a real problem with the current state of the court, IMO anyway.
It should be a defender of inalienable rights, in this instance enshrined in the Constitution, or precedent, and public opinion shouldn’t really come into it.
No tyranny of the majority, or tyranny of the minority as it were. But getting judges who don’t skew in particular ideological directions is innately difficult, and has become even more so.
Then you have the issue of the bedrock they’re working from in the Constitution and political structures themselves, and a quite large democratic deficit.
On abortion for example, public opinion is in the ballpark of the threshold in the legislature for a Constitutional Amendment enshrining that right. But the chance of seeing that reflected in the legislature itself is effectively zero.
In this I find myself sometimes on the same page as conservatives, albeit from a different angle. I personally agree that Roe versus Wade was a bit of a stretch, albeit I agree with its provisions. But I think one of the root problems is that the Constitution is effectively un-ammendable on almost any issue in the recent political climate, and if that’s off the table then generous judicial interpretations is all you’re left with.
From this perspective, repealing Roe obviously sucked but was reasonable, and think it overshadows the actual judicial activism of this court in recent years btw, which seem to me to have incredibly spurious bases.
|
Northern Ireland24386 Posts
On August 13 2024 19:27 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2024 19:19 Uldridge wrote:
That's all fine and dandy, until you get mobs in the streets, executing powerful people because they're nibbling at acquired freedoms. So executing your power fantasy only gets you so far, you need to keep the massas calm enough. People don't revolt (certainly not successfully) just because the law isn't exactly what they want. Where's the revolution right now if that were the case? Why does Roe v Wade remain overturned? If same-sex marriage gets banned, it gets banned. There won't be a revolution.
Yeah, people can stomach a lot of shit if there’s some wider faith in the democratic process. It’s when one starts to circumvent that, or at least be perceived to be doing so that you get such problems.
I mean by far the least popular recent course of action in my native land is Brexit. But a straight referendum is as democratic as you get, I can still think it’s fucking daft but I can’t complain along those lines.
But the further down the chain of chicanery you go well the more you invite if not some kind of revolution, then certainly dissatisfaction with how the democratic process itself is running.
|
Nibble enough at the legislation and people will, at some point, feel put in a corner. I didn't say people revolt at the slightest, but I'm also not entirely sure we take the boiling frog approach with this one either (i.e. slowly eroding freedoms while we're lavishing in luxury, too lazy to respond, until there's a fascist regime).
|
On August 13 2024 20:14 Uldridge wrote:
Nibble enough at the legislation and people will, at some point, feel put in a corner. I didn't say people revolt at the slightest, but I'm also not entirely sure we take the boiling frog approach with this one either (i.e. slowly eroding freedoms while we're lavishing in luxury, too lazy to respond, until there's a fascist regime).
Facist regimes are not enough either if they manage the population decently and provide good quality of life. You can easily take the boiling frog approach all the way to fascism and it would work.
Why do you think the classic quote is used so often?
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
|
On August 13 2024 17:15 KT_Elwood wrote:
If interviews like this don't scream "tax the rich" I don't know what does.
There was way too much money in that room. Not to mention that opposite Trump was Musk, the person who actually seems most keen to follow in Trump's footsteps. Being the figurehead of an EV company and not being able to manage a Zoom call gives him very much the same stench as a man who manages to bankrupt a casino.
|
Northern Ireland24386 Posts
On August 14 2024 02:50 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2024 17:15 KT_Elwood wrote:
If interviews like this don't scream "tax the rich" I don't know what does.
There was way too much money in that room. Not to mention that opposite Trump was Musk, the person who actually seems most keen to follow in Trump's footsteps. Being the figurehead of an EV company and not being able to manage a Zoom call gives him very much the same stench as a man who manages to bankrupt a casino.
You almost couldn’t deliberately engineer a better argument against that kind of wealth being unmerited than what these two freely volunteer in conversation
|
On August 14 2024 03:11 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2024 02:50 NewSunshine wrote:On August 13 2024 17:15 KT_Elwood wrote:
If interviews like this don't scream "tax the rich" I don't know what does.
There was way too much money in that room. Not to mention that opposite Trump was Musk, the person who actually seems most keen to follow in Trump's footsteps. Being the figurehead of an EV company and not being able to manage a Zoom call gives him very much the same stench as a man who manages to bankrupt a casino. You almost couldn’t deliberately engineer a better argument against that kind of wealth being unmerited than what these two freely volunteer in conversation
I'm not commenting on the Trump/Musk conversation in particular, but I don't view these things that way. I look at the same way I look at people in the academy: good at their own thing, but possibly entirely ignorant of anything else. It's possible to try and glean insight from people who don't actually have any on particular topic just because they are successful at something else our culture values. It's on us to guard against it and on them to keep some humility. Imo not really related to wealth, not directly anyways.
|
On August 14 2024 02:32 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2024 20:14 Uldridge wrote:
Nibble enough at the legislation and people will, at some point, feel put in a corner. I didn't say people revolt at the slightest, but I'm also not entirely sure we take the boiling frog approach with this one either (i.e. slowly eroding freedoms while we're lavishing in luxury, too lazy to respond, until there's a fascist regime). Facist regimes are not enough either if they manage the population decently and provide good quality of life. You can easily take the boiling frog approach all the way to fascism and it would work. Why do you think the classic quote is used so often? Show nested quote +First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
Then how do you stop it? Will you revolt when you see the wheel churning away?
|
On August 14 2024 03:32 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2024 02:32 Yurie wrote:On August 13 2024 20:14 Uldridge wrote:
Nibble enough at the legislation and people will, at some point, feel put in a corner. I didn't say people revolt at the slightest, but I'm also not entirely sure we take the boiling frog approach with this one either (i.e. slowly eroding freedoms while we're lavishing in luxury, too lazy to respond, until there's a fascist regime). Facist regimes are not enough either if they manage the population decently and provide good quality of life. You can easily take the boiling frog approach all the way to fascism and it would work. Why do you think the classic quote is used so often? First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me Then how do you stop it? Will you revolt when you see the wheel churning away?
The current political structure of Washington won't last forever, the Baby Boomers are already slowly losing their grip on power. They'll get weaker and weaker over the coming decades.
There's no guarantee that when the next generation takes over that it will be any improvement, and with certain problems like Climate Change getting worse and worse every decade, it could be that we'll simply be replacing one problem for another.
But just saying, change is inevitable. If changing the current structure of Washington is all but hopeless, then the best idea might just be to get started on shaping the next generation as best we can now.
|
On August 14 2024 03:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2024 03:11 WombaT wrote:On August 14 2024 02:50 NewSunshine wrote:On August 13 2024 17:15 KT_Elwood wrote:
If interviews like this don't scream "tax the rich" I don't know what does.
There was way too much money in that room. Not to mention that opposite Trump was Musk, the person who actually seems most keen to follow in Trump's footsteps. Being the figurehead of an EV company and not being able to manage a Zoom call gives him very much the same stench as a man who manages to bankrupt a casino. You almost couldn’t deliberately engineer a better argument against that kind of wealth being unmerited than what these two freely volunteer in conversation I'm not commenting on the Trump/Musk conversation in particular, but I don't view these things that way. I look at the same way I look at people in the academy: good at their own thing, but possibly entirely ignorant of anything else. It's possible to try and glean insight from people who don't actually have any on particular topic just because they are successful at something else our culture values. It's on us to guard against it and on them to keep some humility. Imo not really related to wealth, not directly anyways.
I would argue that there's no way that these people are going to suddenly exhibit humility when they have more money than God and nobody's ever told them no in their entire lives. Forget the wealth, that interview was between two of the biggest egos on Earth.
It's all well and good to say they should behave a certain way, but if there's no structural guardrails or incentives to encourage someone to act a particular way, in the face of insane wealth that actively discourages that behavior, then the structure needs to be modified. Good faith can't drive a hot air balloon.
I agree that we need to guard against it, but I think that ship has sailed when one of the people in that interview made it happen mainly because he bought the platform it's on. The only thing guarding against it was Musk's inability to manage it. Again, the money is the problem.
|
Wealth is kinda an issue in so much that it insulates Musk from any failures, despite proving time after time that he's a physical manifestation of the Dunning Kruger effect. There's no reason to have any humility when you can throw cash at everything.
Like let's look at the recent lawsuit from Musk against advertisers. The original complaints from advertising agencies when Musk originally bought Twitter was that they lost their direct point of contact (at one point, there was NO Japanese point of contact), moderation declined in quality and consistency, and Twitter's algorithms had declined to a point that their advertisements were no longer targetting appropriate audiences.
These are all very reasonable things: you need someone human to talk to when you want to control an advertising roll out, you need the platform to be healthy, and you don't want your ads for pork sausages to be put next to PETA tweets highlighting awful factory farm conditions. All of this stemming from Musk not knowing why Twitter had such a huge workforce and just shooting 80% of them before asking questions.
His response to advertisers asking him to fix these issues or else we have to leave the platform is to fuck off, I can't be told what to do, this is an attack from the woke mind virus, and to go tell it to earth. Which they did, Musk gave a lot of them the push to stop advertising because the platform no longer gave them the engagement they wanted.
In a just world, Musk wouldn't be able to judge shop and lodge frivolous lawsuits against these advertising agenies for refusing to advertising on Twitter. But with enough money, you can force advertisers into prolonged frivolous lawsuits that many do not want to engage in - one advertising group has already preemptively disbanded because they could not deal with a prolonged lawsuit.
On August 14 2024 02:50 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2024 17:15 KT_Elwood wrote:
If interviews like this don't scream "tax the rich" I don't know what does.
There was way too much money in that room. Not to mention that opposite Trump was Musk, the person who actually seems most keen to follow in Trump's footsteps. Being the figurehead of an EV company and not being able to manage a Zoom call gives him very much the same stench as a man who manages to bankrupt a casino.
He's already killed two presidential campaigns, let's see if he can manage a third.
|
On August 14 2024 03:32 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2024 02:32 Yurie wrote:On August 13 2024 20:14 Uldridge wrote:
Nibble enough at the legislation and people will, at some point, feel put in a corner. I didn't say people revolt at the slightest, but I'm also not entirely sure we take the boiling frog approach with this one either (i.e. slowly eroding freedoms while we're lavishing in luxury, too lazy to respond, until there's a fascist regime). Facist regimes are not enough either if they manage the population decently and provide good quality of life. You can easily take the boiling frog approach all the way to fascism and it would work. Why do you think the classic quote is used so often? First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me Then how do you stop it? Will you revolt when you see the wheel churning away?
I think the lesson is that liberals/social democrats won't.
Pretty much just banking on (probably a series of) mistakes by the fascists leaving an opening for both the disorganized and organized masses to either be lead back into the catastrophes of capitalism or work together toward a sustainable socialist future.
|
On August 14 2024 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2024 03:32 Uldridge wrote:On August 14 2024 02:32 Yurie wrote:On August 13 2024 20:14 Uldridge wrote:
Nibble enough at the legislation and people will, at some point, feel put in a corner. I didn't say people revolt at the slightest, but I'm also not entirely sure we take the boiling frog approach with this one either (i.e. slowly eroding freedoms while we're lavishing in luxury, too lazy to respond, until there's a fascist regime). Facist regimes are not enough either if they manage the population decently and provide good quality of life. You can easily take the boiling frog approach all the way to fascism and it would work. Why do you think the classic quote is used so often? First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me Then how do you stop it? Will you revolt when you see the wheel churning away? I think the lesson is that liberals/social democrats won't. Pretty much just banking on (probably a series of) mistakes by the fascists leaving an opening for both the disorganized and organized masses to either be lead back into the catastrophes of capitalism or work together toward a sustainable socialist future.
Well since we know for certain that violent socialist revolutions never work, doing it this way has a better probability of actually producing a positive outcome.
|
On August 14 2024 06:46 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2024 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 14 2024 03:32 Uldridge wrote:On August 14 2024 02:32 Yurie wrote:On August 13 2024 20:14 Uldridge wrote:
Nibble enough at the legislation and people will, at some point, feel put in a corner. I didn't say people revolt at the slightest, but I'm also not entirely sure we take the boiling frog approach with this one either (i.e. slowly eroding freedoms while we're lavishing in luxury, too lazy to respond, until there's a fascist regime). Facist regimes are not enough either if they manage the population decently and provide good quality of life. You can easily take the boiling frog approach all the way to fascism and it would work. Why do you think the classic quote is used so often? First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me Then how do you stop it? Will you revolt when you see the wheel churning away? I think the lesson is that liberals/social democrats won't. Pretty much just banking on (probably a series of) mistakes by the fascists leaving an opening for both the disorganized and organized masses to either be lead back into the catastrophes of capitalism or work together toward a sustainable socialist future. Well since we know for certain that violent socialist revolutions never work, doing it this way has a better probability of actually producing a positive outcome. Depends on what you mean by "work", but surely socialism can be granted the same grace of becoming ever "more perfect".
If the Declaration of Independence can claim: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed and that violent revolution is ~250 years on and still "working on" eliminating constitutionally legal slavery, in perpetual war around the world, and supporting genocide (among much more "imperfections"), then surely we can credit Vietnam with a successful revolution and give them the grace to consider their imperfect practice of socialism as them "working on" being "more perfect" as well.
What do you mean by "doing it this way"? My presumption is you mean running on the Hamster Wheel.
+ Show Spoiler +1. There's a problem
2. Politicians won't fix it
3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will
4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works
5. Need to fix the system
6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them)
7. Repeat ad nauseam.
|
On August 14 2024 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2024 06:46 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 14 2024 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 14 2024 03:32 Uldridge wrote:On August 14 2024 02:32 Yurie wrote:On August 13 2024 20:14 Uldridge wrote:
Nibble enough at the legislation and people will, at some point, feel put in a corner. I didn't say people revolt at the slightest, but I'm also not entirely sure we take the boiling frog approach with this one either (i.e. slowly eroding freedoms while we're lavishing in luxury, too lazy to respond, until there's a fascist regime). Facist regimes are not enough either if they manage the population decently and provide good quality of life. You can easily take the boiling frog approach all the way to fascism and it would work. Why do you think the classic quote is used so often? First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me Then how do you stop it? Will you revolt when you see the wheel churning away? I think the lesson is that liberals/social democrats won't. Pretty much just banking on (probably a series of) mistakes by the fascists leaving an opening for both the disorganized and organized masses to either be lead back into the catastrophes of capitalism or work together toward a sustainable socialist future. Well since we know for certain that violent socialist revolutions never work, doing it this way has a better probability of actually producing a positive outcome. Depends on what you mean by "work", but surely socialism can be granted the same grace of becoming ever "more perfect". If the Declaration of Independence can claim: Show nested quote +We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed and that violent revolution is ~250 years on and still "working on" eliminating constitutionally legal slavery, in perpetual war around the world, and supporting genocide (among much more "imperfections"), then surely we can credit Vietnam with a successful revolution and give them the grace to consider their imperfect practice of socialism as them "working on" being "more perfect" as well. What do you mean by "doing it this way"? My presumption is you mean running on the Hamster Wheel. + Show Spoiler +1. There's a problem
2. Politicians won't fix it
3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will
4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works
5. Need to fix the system
6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them)
7. Repeat ad nauseam.
What I mean is that there has literally never been a violent socialist revolution that has ever produced a stable government that is good for its citizens.
It's literally never happened. So there's not much (or any) historical evidence to suggest that one happening in the United States would do any better.
That's probably why you don't see any enthusiasm for it.
|
On August 14 2024 03:58 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2024 03:28 Introvert wrote:On August 14 2024 03:11 WombaT wrote:On August 14 2024 02:50 NewSunshine wrote:On August 13 2024 17:15 KT_Elwood wrote:
If interviews like this don't scream "tax the rich" I don't know what does.
There was way too much money in that room. Not to mention that opposite Trump was Musk, the person who actually seems most keen to follow in Trump's footsteps. Being the figurehead of an EV company and not being able to manage a Zoom call gives him very much the same stench as a man who manages to bankrupt a casino. You almost couldn’t deliberately engineer a better argument against that kind of wealth being unmerited than what these two freely volunteer in conversation I'm not commenting on the Trump/Musk conversation in particular, but I don't view these things that way. I look at the same way I look at people in the academy: good at their own thing, but possibly entirely ignorant of anything else. It's possible to try and glean insight from people who don't actually have any on particular topic just because they are successful at something else our culture values. It's on us to guard against it and on them to keep some humility. Imo not really related to wealth, not directly anyways. I would argue that there's no way that these people are going to suddenly exhibit humility when they have more money than God and nobody's ever told them no in their entire lives. Forget the wealth, that interview was between two of the biggest egos on Earth. It's all well and good to say they should behave a certain way, but if there's no structural guardrails or incentives to encourage someone to act a particular way, in the face of insane wealth that actively discourages that behavior, then the structure needs to be modified. Good faith can't drive a hot air balloon. I agree that we need to guard against it, but I think that ship has sailed when one of the people in that interview made it happen mainly because he bought the platform it's on. The only thing guarding against it was Musk's inability to manage it. Again, the money is the problem.
hmm, I don't think I agree with that. First, I know plenty of people who aren't rich who still have an ego. And when you add all those people together (like, an entire society) is it really on the rich alone or on everyone in their individual actions?
I would say the structural guardrails and incentives are some of the social mores that the left is busy undermining in their relentless pursuit of "progress." From trying to strongarm corporations into their agenda to dissing everyone who expresses a preference for a family-centric culture, I think there's a lot of baby going out the window with that bathwater. Not everything needs a law, and not everything can be solved by a law. Would a committee running Twitter/X be better than Elon? Who's to say? Maybe if Elon wasn't rich first he'd become powerful and THEN become rich (lots of that in our politics). Nature abhors a vacuum.
|
1B views is pretty amazing, plenty wanting to hear what Trump has to say without media bias.
Seems many of the people/organisations complaining are the same ones claiming they were all moving over to Threads last year.Here they are still paying Musk $8/month for a blue tick.Just stick to your guns and move to Threads.
|
United States42250 Posts
On August 14 2024 09:21 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
1B views is pretty amazing, plenty wanting to hear what Trump has to say without media bias.
Seems many of the people/organisations complaining are the same ones claiming they were all moving over to Threads last year.Here they are still paying Musk $8/month for a blue tick.Just stick to your guns and move to Threads.
If I recall correctly every time a bot scrapes that page it counts as a view. But let’s consider the alternative and assume that the average American watched it 3x. I didn’t. Nor did any of my family.
|
On August 14 2024 09:21 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
1B views is pretty amazing, plenty wanting to hear what Trump has to say without media bias.
Seems many of the people/organisations complaining are the same ones claiming they were all moving over to Threads last year.Here they are still paying Musk $8/month for a blue tick.Just stick to your guns and move to Threads.
Don't you have Fox News if you're so worried about "the media"? Any time Trump says something in public that's practically a full day of Fox News programming. It's not like he's being stifled.
|
lmao if you actually believe Elon Musk in 2024.
I've got a fleet of 2019 Robotaxis to sell you.
On August 14 2024 08:12 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2024 03:58 NewSunshine wrote:On August 14 2024 03:28 Introvert wrote:On August 14 2024 03:11 WombaT wrote:On August 14 2024 02:50 NewSunshine wrote:On August 13 2024 17:15 KT_Elwood wrote:
If interviews like this don't scream "tax the rich" I don't know what does.
There was way too much money in that room. Not to mention that opposite Trump was Musk, the person who actually seems most keen to follow in Trump's footsteps. Being the figurehead of an EV company and not being able to manage a Zoom call gives him very much the same stench as a man who manages to bankrupt a casino. You almost couldn’t deliberately engineer a better argument against that kind of wealth being unmerited than what these two freely volunteer in conversation I'm not commenting on the Trump/Musk conversation in particular, but I don't view these things that way. I look at the same way I look at people in the academy: good at their own thing, but possibly entirely ignorant of anything else. It's possible to try and glean insight from people who don't actually have any on particular topic just because they are successful at something else our culture values. It's on us to guard against it and on them to keep some humility. Imo not really related to wealth, not directly anyways. I would argue that there's no way that these people are going to suddenly exhibit humility when they have more money than God and nobody's ever told them no in their entire lives. Forget the wealth, that interview was between two of the biggest egos on Earth. It's all well and good to say they should behave a certain way, but if there's no structural guardrails or incentives to encourage someone to act a particular way, in the face of insane wealth that actively discourages that behavior, then the structure needs to be modified. Good faith can't drive a hot air balloon. I agree that we need to guard against it, but I think that ship has sailed when one of the people in that interview made it happen mainly because he bought the platform it's on. The only thing guarding against it was Musk's inability to manage it. Again, the money is the problem. Would a committee running Twitter/X be better than Elon? Who's to say? Maybe if Elon wasn't rich first he'd become powerful and THEN become rich (lots of that in our politics). Nature abhors a vacuum.
Twitter before Musk wasn't perfect but at least it was functional. So yes, a committee running Twitter would be better than the current Musk run version where the guy is literally unbanning users posting CSAM and making Twitter tags tag absolutely random shit because the guy wants to pump impressions on a whim. Nevermind every discussion being wrecked by low content, high volume Twitter Blue paying assholes, half of whom are bots that you can confuse and have them give you chocolate chip cookies with the right prompts.
There's no who's to say here. It is absolutely a worse platform after the change of ownership, especially if you used it to share art or other interests. A lot of the biggest users aren't moving away from the platform because of inertia but make no mistake its basically a dead man walking. There's a reason why Fidelity reckons their Twitter stake has declined in value by 71% and is continuously cutting its value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
