The Musk Melt-down

[Kenny]

What an odd non sequitur.

I guess if that is how you want to view it.

 

[sun rise]

, they will want to throw up in a waster paper basket

I find that to be bizarre, cold and dismissive to read. I take it you've never been fired AND had to fire people as I've experienced. Those experiences are seared into my memory and the trauma involved makes someone getting physically sick in such a situation all too real.

Also, in the days before COBRA covering insurance, a company I was working with was about to lay off people. One on the chopping block was 7 or so months pregnant. The President's secretary tried to have the woman kept on the payroll (and with health insurance) until after the baby was born. The boss refused. She made the list of those to be let go public and of course quit at the same time.

.

 

[Kenny]

I find that to be bizarre, cold and dismissive to read. I take it you've never been fired AND had to fire people as I've experienced. Those experiences are seared into my memory and the trauma involved makes someone getting physically sick in such a situation all too real.

Also, in the days before COBRA covering insurance, a company I was working with was about to lay off people. One on the chopping block was 7 or so months pregnant. The President's secretary tried to have the woman kept on the payroll (and with health insurance) until after the baby was born. The boss refused. She made the list of those to be let go public and of course quit at the same time.

.

Yes, I have fired people and it is difficult. It one case I felt like I was stabbing my faithful friend in the back. But, if I were to vomit, I wouldn't put it for public perusal and announce it from the roof tops.

It is difficult to fire someone and it is difficult to be fired.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you give me an example of hateful lie, I can understand what we are dealing it.

I sort of expect that you have met them already.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is difficult to fire someone and it is difficult to be fired.

I personally found it harder to save the job of someone who needed to be fired when he was about to finally be fired but for something he didn't do, and he was not a good person to keep around. And then I felt responsible for getting rid of him as soon as possible. He was inappropriate with women, so getting rid of him was just being responsible towards female employees and doing my duty and responsibilities as a manager.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Random accusations of pedophilia & other goofy
public behavior were just the tip of the iceberg.
Then he spends $44,000,000,000 to buy Twitter,
only to completely **** it all up.

Tis as though he's trying to John Galt his new
business....
- Driving away advertisers by allowing Twitter to
become a hostile unmoderated environment.
- Charging for user verification, but without any
user verification.
- Loudly proclaiming freedom of speech, but
firing any who dare criticize him.
Elon Musk Fires Twitter Employees After Ordering Their Tweets and Messages Scoured for Criticism: Report

If he owns it, he can pretty much do what he wants can't he?

How is this different than running any other business?

 

[Revoltingest]

If he owns it, he can pretty much do what he wants can't he?

How is this different than running any other business?

He is indeed free to have his meltdown.
However, I am free to criticize it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If he owns it, he can pretty much do what he wants can't he?

How is this different than running any other business?

He can (with regards to the fact his rights end where his neighbors nose begins). It's more that it's just another example that he's a horrible boss, unethical in business practices, and probably not a good person either given his history of misdeeds.

 

[Stevicus]

What you've called "evidence" has been lacking.

As if your judgment is objective...

Praising socialism using USSR as an exemplar
makes me wonder why they ditched your favorite
economic system.

Show me a single Russian person, past or present, who has said that it was better under the Tsar than under the Soviets. That's the claim you're making here, so let's see if you have any evidence to back it up.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A business isn't the government, so it can allow or disallow whatever it likes on its platform. A restaurant would kick you out for screaming slurs at servers and other customers. Is that a violation of free speech? It's telling how conservatives support businesses refusing service to homosexuals (example: wedding cakes), but not to bigots.

I guess that puts Musk well in the right. Literally.

 

[Revoltingest]

As if your judgment is objective...

It actually is.
I pointed out your fallacies.

Show me a single Russian person, past or present, who has said that it was better under the Tsar than under the Soviets. That's the claim you're making here, so let's see if you have any evidence to back it up.

That's an another of your fallacies, ie, asking
a question as though it proves anything, Mr Gish.
This time it's to back up a claim I find irrelevant, ie,
that things were better in USSR than under the Tsar.
You've never shown that.
And since I don't care about it (unrelated to the
fact that socialism has historically always caused
oppression), I don't argue it. I question it though.
Your argument always appears to hinge upon the
fact that capitalism has been under oppressive
regimes, which disproves nothing I've claimed.

 

[Wildswanderer]

He can (with regards to the fact his rights end where his neighbors nose begins). It's more that it's just another example that he's a horrible boss, unethical in business practices, and probably not a good person either given his history of misdeeds.

I really don't know that much about him but who cares? It's his life and his company.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I really don't know that much about him but who cares? It's his life and his company.

You sure cared a lot when Trump got his sorry donkey kicked off of Twitter.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You sure cared a lot when Trump got his sorry donkey kicked off of Twitter.

Really? I don't even like trump either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? I don't even like trump either.

You were not endlessly pissing and moaning about him getting kicked off? I would be rather surprised but it is possible.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You were not endlessly pissing and moaning about him getting kicked off? I would be rather surprised but it is possible.

Not that I recall. I thought it was a little petty.

 

[Stevicus]

It actually is.

I hope you'll forgive me if I don't take your word on that.

I pointed out your fallacies.

And I have pointed out yours. Your perception is obviously different from mine, and I respect that.

That's an another of your fallacies, ie, asking
a question as though it proves anything, Mr Gish.
This time it's to back up a claim I find irrelevant, ie,
that things were better in USSR than under the Tsar.
You've never shown that.

How can you say that I've "never shown that"? As you said above, we've been through this before, many times, and I've answered all of these points before. Moreover, what you say is irrelevant is precisely the point you challenged upthread, from post #36:

At least socialists leave things in better shape than when they found it.

This is the statement which you ostensibly took issue with. It is a historical fact that the Communists took power in Russia in 1917 and held power until 1991. I think if we look at the conditions in Russia in 1917, those would be the conditions which were existent at the time the socialists took over. That's how they "found" Russia, referencing the verbiage used in my quoted statement above. This is how they found the country and the conditions they had to deal with.

As far as how they left it, when they fell out of power in 1991, there were some problems, but they were clearly in a better position than they were in 1917, taking into consideration numerous economic factors, quality of life, industries, infrastructure, housing, education, literacy rate.

In 1917 they were at war with Germany, which the Tsar bungled horribly. But it was different under the Soviet regime when they had a rematch with Germany 24 years later. That, just by itself, proves marked improvement. And you say I "haven't shown that"?

So, what, exactly, do you find flawed in the statement "At least socialists leave things in better shape than when they found it"? What evidence are you asking for? What haven't I shown?

And since I don't care about it (unrelated to the
fact that socialism has historically always caused
oppression), I don't argue it. I question it though.
Your argument always appears to hinge upon the
fact that capitalism has been under oppressive
regimes, which disproves nothing I've claimed.

But that's what I find irrelevant, since ideals of liberty, freedom, the Bill of Rights exist independent of whatever economic system we choose to have. And even those are somewhat abstract concepts, when you really come down to it.

I don't think our disagreement really has all that much to do with Russian history, and that may be where I have misunderstood. I thought you actually had an interest in the topic.

But the crux of your viewpoint seems to be (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you don't want a socialist government in the United States because you believe that it will turn the U.S. into a state similar to the USSR, NK, Khmer Rouge, Cuba, China, etc. But we're not really talking about those countries, are we? We're talking about the United States, and the entire basis of your claim is that the same things that happened to those other countries will happen to us because of socialism - and no other possible existing factors.

This isn't even a provable claim, since it's all just speculation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I hope you'll forgive me if I don't take your word on that.

I've low expectations.

And I have pointed out yours.

You did try.

How can you say that I've "never shown that"?

Because you haven't.

As you said above, we've been through this before, many times, and I've answered all of these points before.

You've answered imagined points, not mine.

Moreover, what you say is irrelevant is precisely the point you challenged upthread, from post #36:

Unclear.
Explain.

This is the statement which you ostensibly took issue with. It is a historical fact that the Communists took power in Russia in 1917 and held power until 1991. I think if we look at the conditions in Russia in 1917, those would be the conditions which were existent at the time the socialists took over. That's how they "found" Russia, referencing the verbiage used in my quoted statement above. This is how they found the country and the conditions they had to deal with.
As far as how they left it, when they fell out of power in 1991, there were some problems, but they were clearly in a better position than they were in 1917, taking into consideration numerous economic factors, quality of life, industries, infrastructure, housing, education, literacy rate.
In 1917 they were at war with Germany, which the Tsar bungled horribly. But it was different under the Soviet regime when they had a rematch with Germany 24 years later. That, just by itself, proves marked improvement. And you say I "haven't shown that"?

So, what, exactly, do you find flawed in the statement "At least socialists leave things in better shape than when they found it"? What evidence are you asking for? What haven't I shown?



But that's what I find irrelevant, since ideals of liberty, freedom, the Bill of Rights exist independent of whatever economic system we choose to have. And even those are somewhat abstract concepts, when you really come down to it.

I don't think our disagreement really has all that much to do with Russian history, and that may be where I have misunderstood. I thought you actually had an interest in the topic.

But the crux of your viewpoint seems to be (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you don't want a socialist government in the United States because you believe that it will turn the U.S. into a state similar to the USSR, NK, Khmer Rouge, Cuba, China, etc. But we're not really talking about those countries, are we? We're talking about the United States, and the entire basis of your claim is that the same things that happened to those other countries will happen to us because of socialism - and no other possible existing factors.

This isn't even a provable claim, since it's all just speculation.

Again, you continue to try to justify socialism by
claiming 1991 USSR was better than 1916 Russia.
This is irrelevant. It's a fact that socialism historically
always results in oppression. While capitalism offers
the possibility of liberty & economic success.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Musk will not be able to impose his rules in China, Afghanistan, Iran or even India. He will have to go by government rules or close down in that country. Freedom of speech in India does not mean what it means in the US.

 

[Revoltingest]

Musk will not be able to impose his rules in China, Afghanistan, Iran or even India. He will have to go by government rules or close down in that country. Freedom of speech in India does not mean what it means in the US.

He might have to close down here.
Not forced by government...but by
the market for his advertising services.
He's driving customers away.