The Musk Melt-down

[Estro Felino]

Some claims are indeed wrong.
.

Perfect. But whenever you say something is wrong, you are supposed to say why it is wrong and the correct answer.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perfect. But whenever you say something is wrong, you are supposed to say why it is wrong and the correct answer.

I notice that you've no criticism for your fellow
socialists saying I'm wrong. Double standard much?
And if you'd read carefully, you'd have seen the
reasons I've offered...repeatedly.
Oh, and thank you for avoiding the actual issue of
socialism vs capitalism, instead making it ad hominem.

 

[Twilight Hue]

To fire an employee for criticizing Musk
doesn't seem to be about productivity.
Unless Twitter's product is Musk's image.

I dunno. Backtalking ones boss at times leads to termination. It's called insubordination.

 

[sun rise]

I think it is more of a backlash of the change of direction than it is substantive in nature. But, at this point, I don't have much to go on so it is all speculative on both ends of the spectrum

You've missed the news stories about the actual events.

 

[Estro Felino]

I notice that you've no criticism for your fellow
socialists saying I'm wrong. Double standard much?
And if you'd read carefully, you'd have seen the
reasons I've offered...repeatedly.
Oh, and thank you for avoiding the actual issue of
socialism vs capitalism, instead making it ad hominem.

We have been debating socialism vs capitalism for years.
It's something I needed to tell you...but I am always very kind and respectful.

 

[Revoltingest]

I dunno. Backtalking ones boss at times leads to termination. It's called insubordination.

Anything can be defended if one makes the issue
into something hypothetical & general. But this is
about Musk's actions.
He had touted Twitter as a bastion of free speech.
Let all opinions flow freely! Yet he demands fealty
from his employees, who dare not criticize him.
I see hypocrisy here.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Not explicitly.
But it is indeed denying those definitions.

A typical socialist argument is to use personal definitions
in a manner that favors their system, & demonizes others.
"Socialism" is about caring for people, fairness, not
exploiting people, & freedom from want.
"Capitalism" is about greed, exploitation, & the god
of profit above all else.

Were terminology limited to common recognized
definitions of words, defending socialism & attacking
capitalism would be highly problematic.

N Korea fits the definition.
China started out socialist, embraced capitalism,
& is now steering back towards socialism. Note
that China's conditions improved greatly under
capitalism, eg, ending famines, slightly more liberty.

The upshot here is that systems more socialism
& less capitalism tend towards oppression & woe.

We have been over all of these points before. It seems to me that you have made up your mind that "socialism" only means a specific thing, is a devil to be feared and condemned, and has to be kept at bay through capitalism.

You're free to have these opinions, but I strongly recommend reciprocating understanding with those of us who afford you the courtesy of not assuming what you support is the same as some limited definition lifted from a dictionary or the same as the capitalism of, say, Putin's Russia.

 

[Revoltingest]

We have been debating socialism vs capitalism for years.
It's something I needed to tell you...but I am always very kind and respectful.

And I need to respond thus.

 

[pearl]

This whole thing with Twitter is too much for my 80 yr old brain, and I do not use Twitter, but one of our state's congressional representatives warned Musk to;
‘Fix your companies. Or Congress will,’ Senator Ed Markey warns Elon Musk
‘Fix your companies. Or Congress will,’ Senator Ed Markey warns Elon Musk (msn.com)

 

[sun rise]

To fire an employee for criticizing Musk
doesn't seem to be about productivity.
Unless Twitter's product is Musk's image.

I'll note that Musk/twitter is being used as an example of what not to do by capitalists who are interested in profit from well-run companies.

 

[Revoltingest]

We have been over all of these points before. It seems to me that you have made up your mind that "socialism" only means a specific thing, is a devil to be feared and condemned, and has to be kept at bay through capitalism.

And to you, "socialism" means specifically an idealized version.
While "capitalism" means the demonized version.
I object to this agenda driven personal definition approach.

You're free to have these opinions, but I strongly recommend reciprocating understanding with those of us who afford you the courtesy of not assuming what you support is the same as some limited definition lifted from a dictionary or the same as the capitalism of, say, Putin's Russia.

Consider that understanding should flow in both directions.
But I understand your position....I just heartily disagree with it,
along with your reasoning from selective creative definitions.

 

[wellwisher]

From a juridical point of view, I haven't understood yet (I swear to God) what Anglo-Saxons mean by freedom of thought.
I haven't understood it yet, sorry.

I can show countless examples of jurisprudence about the freedom of speech in Italy (or in similar juridical systems like the French one), but Common Law is an unspeakable mystery to me.
What Common Law means by "freedom of speech".
If some good Samaritan can explain it to me, I will be grateful to them.

Freedom of speech has to do with the freedom to state any idea or any opinion, with the exception of insulting individuals with swears, slurs and lies. You cannot use free speech to target individuals and hurt them in any way. But you can express ideas that can undermine any group, since the group is an abstraction and not an individual. If I say Lefty I see a cloud but not any person. I like people but will challenge group think and not get personal.

The problem that Twitter had before Musk, was it was run by the Left and they used it to silence free speech, but only on the Right. The reason was certain people were undermining their propaganda, which made the propaganda job harder. The mantra of stop hate speech was invented, unless you hate Trump; hypocrisy. Free speech is now starting to return to the Right, so those on the Left have to work harder and are complaining of the extra work. Free speech allow us to learn new ideas even if we don't wish to learn. You need both sides to be fully objective.

The original need for free speech was connected to the freedom to speak out against the Government and to hold our Leaders accountable; freedom of the press.

Back in the day, before the Constitution, when most countries were Monarchies, free speech was not allowed since the truth was not always in the best interest of those in power. To speak the truth could cause an uprising, so it was nipped in the bud. You had to watch what you said less it be taken as a threat to power.

The Founding father made free speech a right, so government would have a watch dog, that could not be muzzled; by law.They had faith in people, but also knew how power can corrupt. Now the freedom of the press has become part of a propaganda machine; fake news. Free speech then became the new line of defense, to keep government reigned in. However, that was under attack. Now freedom of speech is coming back, and hopefully the press comes back soon, since we need to use free speech to make their propaganda harder to do, so they can come home.

 

[Estro Felino]

Freedom of speech has to do with the freedom to state any idea or any opinion, with the exception of insulting individuals with swears, slurs and lies. You cannot use free speech to target individuals and hurt them in any way. But you can express ideas that can undermine any group, since the group is an abstraction and not an individual. If I say Lefty I see a cloud but not any person. I like people but will challenge group think and not get personal.

The problem that Twitter had before Musk, was it was run by the Left and they used it to silence free speech, but only on the Right. The reason was certain people were undermining their propaganda, which made the propaganda job harder. The mantra of hate speech was invented, unless you hate Trump; hypocrisy.Free speech is now starting to return to the Right, so those on the Left have to work harder and are complaining of the extra work. Free speech allow us to learn new ideas even if we don't wish to learn.

The original ideas behind free speech was connected to the freedom to speak out against the government and to hold our leaders accountable; freedom of the press.

Back in the day, before the Constitution, when most countries were Monarchies, are speech was not allowed since the truth was not always in the best interest of those in power. To speak the truth could cause an uprising so it was nipped in the bud.

The Founding father made free speech a right, so government would have a watch dog, that could not be muzzled. Now the press has become part of a propaganda machine; fake news. Free speech became the new line of defense to keep government reigned in. Now this is coming back and hopefully the press comes back soon, since even propaganda will become harder to do.

Thank you. Very informative.

 

[Debater Slayer]

And to you, "socialism" means specifically an idealized version.
While "capitalism" means the demonized version.
I object to this agenda driven personal definition approach.

Except that I have plenty of posts explaining why I believe in a balance of capitalist and socialist principles.

Consider that understanding should flow in both directions.
But I understand your position....I just heartily disagree with it,
along with your reasoning from selective creative definitions.

You will find that most socialists indeed don't subscribe to the definition you keep quoting. It's much easier to condemn that specific one as an economic evil, but you'll have to reserve that for when you actually encounter someone who endorses it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Thank you. Very informative.

To you, right?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll note that Musk/twitter is being used as an example of what not to do by capitalists who are interested in profit from well-run companies.

I've seen it before....someone makes a great deal
of money. They were once doggedly dedicated
their business, & wringing profit from it. But
success can be an anesthetic...one gets comfortable,
& takes profitability for granted. One starts to coast.
To lose focus, & make decisions without due diligence.
Businesses frequently fail when this happens.
Oh, the fun stories I know.

 

[Estro Felino]

And I need to respond thus.

It's a matter of semantics. Exclusively.
Because I have never used the word capitalism as the opposite of socialism, because socialism includes the use of capitals so it is capitalism too.
The opposite of socialism is what we call neo-liberism here (or neo-liberalism in the United States).
Neo-liberism is unbridled use of private capitalism that subdues public law, public administrations, and public authority.

Is my reasoning wrong?

 

[We Never Know]

Musk way or the hghway

"New Twitter CEO and sole director Elon Musk sent a companywide email to remaining employees of the social media business on Wednesday, demanding they commit to working “long hours at high intensity” or receive “three months of severance,” if they did not consent to these conditions, or support his vision for “Twitter 2.0.”

Elon Musk demands Twitter staff commit to ‘long hours’ or leave

 

[Revoltingest]

Except that I have plenty of posts explaining why I believe in a balance of capitalist and socialist principles.

Why then choose to identify as "socialist"
as opposed to "democratic socialist"?

You will find that most socialists indeed don't subscribe to the definition you keep quoting.

I disagree, with 2 examples....
Conservatives use "socialist" as an insult to describe
things that aren't, eg, social welfare programs, vaccination.
Liberals use "socialist" to describe what they want it to be,
not what it is.

Eventually, mis-use by extreme partisans on both the
left & the right just might get their definitions to become
part of the lexicon. But it's not there yet.

It's much easier to condemn that specific one as an economic evil, but you'll have to reserve that for when you actually encounter someone who endorses it.

You believe that it's about ease of condemnation.
That is to miss the point entirely.
BTW, we have posters who do indeed endorse it.

 

[sun rise]

I've seen it before....someone makes a great deal
of money. They were once doggedly dedicated
their business, & wringing profit from it. But
success can be an anesthetic...one gets comfortable,
& takes profitability for granted. One starts to coast.
To lose focus, & make decisions without due diligence.
Businesses frequently fail when this happens.
Oh, the fun stories I know.

The early computer era was like that. The list of companies that failed is a mile long while I have enough fingers to count the survivors.