Meet the new boss..
-
From what I can see, the only accounts that lost their checkmark status was a few smaller accounts that doxxed Krishnan. Oh, and Laura Loomer. At the same time, there are a fair number of larger accounts that were also critical of H1B expansion, and Stu have their premium status and no drops in circulation.
wrote on 3 Jan 2025, 17:25 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Meet the new boss..:
From what I can see, the only accounts that lost their checkmark status was a few smaller accounts that doxxed Krishnan. Oh, and Laura Loomer. At the same time, there are a fair number of larger accounts that were also critical of H1B expansion, and Stu have their premium status and no drops in circulation.
Yeah. Whataboutisms are particularly weak when a small amount of something is equated with a large and more systemic amount of something.
And can I just re-iterate how idiotic this anti-whataboutism idea has been on this forum for years and years. It's like the people who do the most whataboutisms are also the ones who say they are logical fallacies when someone else does one.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Meet the new boss..:
From what I can see, the only accounts that lost their checkmark status was a few smaller accounts that doxxed Krishnan. Oh, and Laura Loomer. At the same time, there are a fair number of larger accounts that were also critical of H1B expansion, and Stu have their premium status and no drops in circulation.
Yeah. Whataboutisms are particularly weak when a small amount of something is equated with a large and more systemic amount of something.
And can I just re-iterate how idiotic this anti-whataboutism idea has been on this forum for years and years. It's like the people who do the most whataboutisms are also the ones who say they are logical fallacies when someone else does one.
-
So then what is good or rational about employing a whataboutism tactic in a debate or contentious duscussion TNCR?
wrote on 3 Jan 2025, 18:13 last edited by@Renauda said in Meet the new boss..:
So then what is good or rational about employing a whataboutism tactic in a debate or contentious duscussion TNCR?
One can deploy a whataboutism if one believes it's quantitatively the same as the other side. Establishing that is difficult, and beyond the purview of a social media post, but let's trust that we believe it.
-
wrote on 3 Jan 2025, 18:13 last edited by Doctor Phibes 1 Mar 2025, 18:14
Well, I'm in the clear. I have never used the term 'logical fallacy' in my entire life. I'm not even sure what it means, TBH. I went to a comprehensive school. We always found that the words 'knobhead' and/or 'twat' didn't require consult a dictionary to determine whether or not they'd just been insulted.
Oh sorry, my mistake, that would be logical Phallusy.
-
wrote on 3 Jan 2025, 19:06 last edited by jon-nyc 1 Mar 2025, 19:08
It would be whattaboutism if someone posts something about blue sky censorship and you respond with ‘but whattabout Elon?!?
Whattaboitism is fundamentally about changing the subject.
But thanks for making the source of your misunderstanding clear from the get go. It makes it a little less tedious to respond.
-
It would be whattaboutism if someone posts something about blue sky censorship and you respond with ‘but whattabout Elon?!?
Whattaboitism is fundamentally about changing the subject.
But thanks for making the source of your misunderstanding clear from the get go. It makes it a little less tedious to respond.
wrote on 3 Jan 2025, 19:10 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Meet the new boss..:
It would be whattaboutism if someone posts something about blue sky censorship and you respond with ‘but whattabout Elon?!?
Whattaboitism is fundamentally about changing the subject.
And then you add to the soup realpolitic, and that has the added bonus of being a foreign word, and then we know it's a great idea, and then we maybe cascade to the point of understanding that people in power will do things to advance their ideas, even if they took 5 steps back to take 6 steps forward. And then you realize the people doing the thinking are human, and do I really trust the net calculation of 6 forward and 5 back, and not really, and then you realize those 5 backwards are legislation, and will be permanent.
-
@Renauda said in Meet the new boss..:
So then what is good or rational about employing a whataboutism tactic in a debate or contentious duscussion TNCR?
One can deploy a whataboutism if one believes it's quantitatively the same as the other side. Establishing that is difficult, and beyond the purview of a social media post, but let's trust that we believe it.
wrote on 3 Jan 2025, 19:20 last edited by Renauda 1 Mar 2025, 19:25@Horace said in Meet the new boss..:
@Renauda said in Meet the new boss..:
So then what is good or rational about employing a whataboutism tactic in a debate or contentious duscussion TNCR?
One can deploy a whataboutism if one believes it's quantitatively the same as the other side. Establishing that is difficult, and beyond the purview of a social media post, but let's trust that we believe it.
Let’s not and say we did. Then what?
-
@Horace said in Meet the new boss..:
@Renauda said in Meet the new boss..:
So then what is good or rational about employing a whataboutism tactic in a debate or contentious duscussion TNCR?
One can deploy a whataboutism if one believes it's quantitatively the same as the other side. Establishing that is difficult, and beyond the purview of a social media post, but let's trust that we believe it.
Let’s not and say we did. Then what?
wrote on 3 Jan 2025, 19:22 last edited by@Renauda said in Meet the new boss..:
@Horace said in Meet the new boss..:
@Renauda said in Meet the new boss..:
So then what is good or rational about employing a whataboutism tactic in a debate or contentious duscussion TNCR?
One can deploy a whataboutism if one believes it's quantitatively the same as the other side. Establishing that is difficult, and beyond the purview of a social media post, but let's trust that we believe it.
Let’s not and say we did. Then what?
Then we have a Renauda-Horace dynamic. Where Horace probably distrusts Horace something on the level of Renauda.
-
wrote on 3 Jan 2025, 19:25 last edited by Renauda 1 Mar 2025, 19:44
And then you add to the soup realpolitic, and that has the added bonus of being a foreign word, and then we know it's a great idea, and then we maybe cascade to the point of understanding that people in power will do things to advance their ideas, even if they took 5 steps back to take 6 steps forward. And then you realize the people doing the thinking are human, and do I really trust the net calculation of 6 forward and 5 back, and not really, and then you realize those 5 backwards are legislation, and will be permanent.
Well now, that was a tortuous whole lot of nothing.
To quote W. C. Fields, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit”.
-
@Renauda said in Meet the new boss..:
@Horace said in Meet the new boss..:
@Renauda said in Meet the new boss..:
So then what is good or rational about employing a whataboutism tactic in a debate or contentious duscussion TNCR?
One can deploy a whataboutism if one believes it's quantitatively the same as the other side. Establishing that is difficult, and beyond the purview of a social media post, but let's trust that we believe it.
Let’s not and say we did. Then what?
Then we have a Renauda-Horace dynamic. Where Horace probably distrusts Horace something on the level of Renauda.
wrote on 3 Jan 2025, 19:27 last edited by Renauda 1 Mar 2025, 21:15@Horace said in Meet the new boss..:
@Renauda said in Meet the new boss..:
@Horace said in Meet the new boss..:
@Renauda said in Meet the new boss..:
So then what is good or rational about employing a whataboutism tactic in a debate or contentious duscussion TNCR?
One can deploy a whataboutism if one believes it's quantitatively the same as the other side. Establishing that is difficult, and beyond the purview of a social media post, but let's trust that we believe it.
Let’s not and say we did. Then what?
Then we have a Renauda-Horace dynamic. Where Horace probably distrusts Horace something on the level of Renauda.
Not to worry, I trust very few. Especially so in this den of iniquity.
You are not alone.
-
wrote on 20 Mar 2025, 19:24 last edited by
-
wrote on 20 Mar 2025, 20:11 last edited by
Elon is super thin skinned. Which is really weird for the richest guy in the world.
I saw something today where Sam Harris mentioned that Elon stopped talking to him because he lost a bet on how many Covid cases there would be (Elon had predicted it to fizzle out in April).
If anyone remembers the Thai cave rescue that he sent a submarine for. A British diver also went to help, and Elon called him a pedo. Just because he’s a British guy living in Thailand.
He’s a really weird dude on a personal level.
Obviously super capable in a business sense.
-
wrote on 20 Mar 2025, 20:18 last edited by jon-nyc
I was a bit shocked at the story behind Elon’s estrangement with Sam at the time I read about it.
In hindsight I’m not though. They were both being themselves.
-
wrote on 20 Mar 2025, 20:27 last edited by blondie
I think Elon is insanely intelligent, yet something, like his Asperger’s, weighs him down so his own affect and perception of others’ affect is skewed.
-
wrote on 20 Mar 2025, 20:39 last edited by jon-nyc
I’m guessing close to zero chance Elon won’t hear of this tweet by Taibbi.
Do you think he comments on it? I’d put hard money on no. Elon wants to be the free speech absolutist he pretended to be and won’t cop to not being that.
-
wrote on 20 Mar 2025, 20:41 last edited by
Are we just going to ignore any attempt at discovering why his account was terminated, or are we going to assume it's because he openly criticized DOGE or something?