Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[Zoupa]

That's not what I would call cancel culture. I'm pretty sure she just broke the law and got roasted. Not everything is cancel culture.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It's been illegal to climb them since 2008 or so. I don't think "breaking a trespassing law and getting yelled at for it" constitutes cancel culture.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Also that happened in Mexico, there is no cancel culture in third world Latino countries, regressive machismo culture still reigns supreme as the usual suspects here want in the U.S.

[Admiral Yi]

If people are willing to fight about the meaning, that means they want to keep it, which is a refreshing change from PC and woke.

So I guess you guys are thinking:

1. Related to identity politics and

2. Punishment in the form of economic sanction?

[OttoVonBismarck]

If people are willing to fight about the meaning, that means they want to keep it, which is a refreshing change from PC and woke.

So I guess you guys are thinking:

1. Related to identity politics and

2. Punishment in the form of economic sanction?

I'm sorry what?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Let us just say this--if free speech is valuable, then it can never be considered a violation of free speech for a person or organization to exercise its own rights to free speech or the corollary right to free association. To even begin to call something stifling of free speech, you must first show that the identified stifling is not in itself simply an exercise of free speech or free association rights.

[Admiral Yi]

If people are willing to fight about the meaning, that means they want to keep it, which is a refreshing change from PC and woke.

So I guess you guys are thinking:

1. Related to identity politics and

2. Punishment in the form of economic sanction?

I'm sorry what?

Cancel culture.

[Berkut]

Let us just say this--if free speech is valuable, then it can never be considered a violation of free speech for a person or organization to exercise its own rights to free speech or the corollary right to free association. To even begin to call something stifling of free speech, you must first show that the identified stifling is not in itself simply an exercise of free speech or free association rights.

This is just reductive.

You are couching things in absolutes that are nuanced. 

Society is engaged in a balance between the desire for speech to be unfettered, and the desire to control the harm that speech can cause. We are supposed to, as western liberal countries, believe in the power of speech over the fear of it. We should be, overall, balancing on the side of encouraging a free, frank, and open society where discussion and free expression is encouraged, and trying to shut down speech we do not like is discouraged, unless there is a clear and tangible harm being done by that speech.

When these are in conflict, those who wish to stifle speech should have the burden of proof to show that there is real harm being done by that speech.

Nobody is arguing that anyone does NOT have the right to freely associate, or not associate. That is a red herring, and isn't under discussion. The argument is about whether organizations ought to stifle free expression with the threat of punishment for not saying the right thing, even when such speech is difficult to show as harmful.

The argument is about whether society should engage in this kind of stifling of expression, where the actual content of the expression is not important, only the form of it. 

The argument is not about whether there ought to be consequences, it is about whether the consequences are warranted in many cases where it appears that the concern isn't about genuine harm, but simply the form of the expression, or even the disagreeableness of the opinion.

Cancelling a speaker at a university because they have political views we do not like should not be done. Cancelling a speaker whose speech can be shown to be harmful is a different thing, but even then we should tread carefully. Do human beings and their organizations have the "right" to refuse to listen to differing opinions? Of course they do, that is not under debate.

Ought they to do it? No, generally not.

This is all western liberal ideals 101.

[OttoVonBismarck]

There is no such thing as free speech if I am required to associate with you when you say things I dislike, nor is there any such thing as free speech if I am required to hold my tongue and not criticize you for things you say that I disagree with. Anything else would be carving out a "one way street" ideal of free speech in which certain forms of speech, I guess picked by the people who "know", are protected in such a way that you can trample on my rights of critique and disassociation in order to exercise them.

Musk is highlighting this "negative right" to free speech right now with his Tweets--he is saying by Apple deciding to cease giving him money to advertise on his private corporate website (Twitter.com), it "hates free speech." That is the form of free speech that ignores that other entities have rights too, and to me if you go down that path you don't believe in free speech at all.

[Berkut]

There is no such thing as free speech if I am required to associate with you when you say things I dislike, nor is there any such thing as free speech if I am required to hold my tongue and not criticize you for things you say that I disagree with. Anything else would be carving out a "one way street" ideal of free speech in which certain forms of speech, I guess picked by the people who "know", are protected in such a way that you can trample on my rights of critique and disassociation in order to exercise them.

I just posted about how nobody is arguing that anyone is required to associate with anyone. I said this very explicitly.

Like I literally just said the exactly that:

Nobody is arguing that anyone does NOT have the right to freely associate, or not associate.

Who are you arguing with?

[garbon]

Elmo is sounding extra deranged on Twitter: posting Pepe the Frog memes, going after Alexander Vindman...

Definitely need another 50 like this guy.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-launches-new-cargo-dragon-spacecraft-to-space-station/

And what does that link prove?

[mongers]

Elmo is sounding extra deranged on Twitter: posting Pepe the Frog memes, going after Alexander Vindman...

Definitely need another 50 like this guy.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-launches-new-cargo-dragon-spacecraft-to-space-station/

And what does that link prove?

Our end justifies his means?

[Berkut]

Elmo is sounding extra deranged on Twitter: posting Pepe the Frog memes, going after Alexander Vindman...

Definitely need another 50 like this guy.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-launches-new-cargo-dragon-spacecraft-to-space-station/

And what does that link prove?

Our end justifies his means?

You think Musk being unhinged is a means to the end of putting rockets into space?

That's...well, that's a different take I suppose.

[Berkut]

Elmo is sounding extra deranged on Twitter: posting Pepe the Frog memes, going after Alexander Vindman...

Definitely need another 50 like this guy.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-launches-new-cargo-dragon-spacecraft-to-space-station/

And what does that link prove?

I don't think it proves anything.

Are you honestly unsure what point I am trying to make?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I just posted about how nobody is arguing that anyone is required to associate with anyone. I said this very explicitly.

Elon Musk, the topic of this thread--is. You can read his Tweets.