Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,618
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Prediction: a Democrat being elected president by the popular vote.
-
Features
Twitter likely to take idiots offer to buy them for $43 billion
- Thread starter Jimmy Higgins
- Start date
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
Without a constitutional amendment or some other shenanigans, that would be a coup attempt. No different from Trump saying that he should be president because vote counting should've been stopped early.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,618
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I said being elected. As in, actually won the electoral college too.
After all, she doesn't claim the treasonous, seditious attempt at removal was a coup attempt, so my expectation is that she views Biden as the one committing a coup attempt.
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
But then the president would not be elected "by the popular vote". But by electoral college. You might as well have written that Trump got elected in 2016 by height and width multiplied by weight. While he did beat Clinton on those attributes, they had no bearing on the election.
If Emily Lake would consider a democrat win by both electoral college and popular vote a "coup", then surely she'd also consider a democrat winning only by electoral college and not the popular vote a coup? The latter is much more coup-like. And it happened, so this doesn't even have to be a hypothetical.
To me this seems just an ad hominem: that a person who doesn't think 2021 storming of the capital was a "coup attempt", would consider also consider a completely legal and normal election of a president a "coup" if it happened to a person on the other side. Does she really think that or has she said so? I don't think so.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,618
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Well, there are two ways to interpret "people violently trying to 'stop the steal'", in a sane way: one side, OR the other but NOT neither, has instigated a coup attempt.
If not the violent assholes who stormed the capital, it would have to be the other side.
"Both" could be valid, but not neither.
Because by definition, this was two opposed groups, each using the actions of the other side as grounds to cease an attempt to control the government, and both sides sought to control the government, and a coup is necessarily happening when at least one group is attempting to take control of the government by some means other than legal ones.
Elixir
Made in America
Nitpicking; I do not recall a democrat EVER winning the electoral college without winning the popular vote.
Not sure that's even possible now, given the GQP/FOX stranglehold on small population/rural States.
Let's look more closely:
MintPress News - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In other words, probably because of the Russian sanctions.
Down in many parts of the world, not hacked--that sounds like they're in Russia.
Hermit
Cantankerous grump
PayPal Has Begun Quietly Shuttering Left-Wing Media Accounts probably because of the Russian sanctions? 
The article listed two sites. One clearly has Russian ties, one looks suspicious.PayPal Has Begun Quietly Shuttering Left-Wing Media Accounts probably because of the Russian sanctions?
Tigers!
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 5,145
- Location
- On the wing, waiting for a kick.
- Basic Beliefs
- Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
If that had happened in Harare, or Kinshasa, or Nairobi, nobody would hesitate to call it a coup attempt.People smashed through windows and doors of the capitol in order to prevent the confirmation of a democratically elected president-to-be by physical force. There is nothing hyperbolic about calling it an attempted coup.
I am not sure why it's not one when it happens in Washington DC.
Or Australia in 1996
Hermit
Cantankerous grump
Yes. I read it. But why did you bother quoting ZiprHead's post? It was about PayPal having begun quietly shuttering left-wing media accounts, and nothing else. You, on the other hand, totally ignored what it was about. The tweets you linked to made no mention about PayPal either. Nor sanctions, for that matter. Were you intentionally missing the point or just having a brain-fade?The article listed two sites. One clearly has Russian ties, one looks suspicious.PayPal Has Begun Quietly Shuttering Left-Wing Media Accounts probably because of the Russian sanctions?
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,855
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
View attachment 38455If that had happened in Harare, or Kinshasa, or Nairobi, nobody would hesitate to call it a coup attempt.People smashed through windows and doors of the capitol in order to prevent the confirmation of a democratically elected president-to-be by physical force. There is nothing hyperbolic about calling it an attempted coup.
I am not sure why it's not one when it happens in Washington DC.
View attachment 38456
Or Australia in 1996
I'm confused.
What does decades old pics, from foreign countries, have to do with the current USA political landscape?
Tom
Hermit
Cantankerous grump
Nothing. There was only one attempt at overthrowing a democratically elected government in Australia, and it succeeded. The perpetrators were the leader of the conservative opposition, Malcolm Fraser, the Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick and the Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr. The event, popularly known as The Dismissal, occurred in 1975 and involved no physical violence whatsoever.View attachment 38455If that had happened in Harare, or Kinshasa, or Nairobi, nobody would hesitate to call it a coup attempt.People smashed through windows and doors of the capitol in order to prevent the confirmation of a democratically elected president-to-be by physical force. There is nothing hyperbolic about calling it an attempted coup.
I am not sure why it's not one when it happens in Washington DC.
View attachment 38456
Or Australia in 1996
I'm confused.
What does decades old pics, from foreign countries, have to do with the current USA political landscape?
Tom
Previous to that was a coup d'état known as the Rum Rebellion, in the then-British penal colony of New South Wales but that happened almost a century before the founding of Australia as a nation. When the UK despatched a new governor to the colony in order to put an end to the illegal trade of rum of which the local military had the monopoly, the garrison's leader arrested him and kept him imprisoned for two years. That governor was William Bligh of mutiny on the Bounty fame.
Propaganda cartoon created within hours of William Bligh's arrest, portraying him as a coward
SigmatheZeta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2021
- Messages
- 615
- Gender
- she/her
- Basic Beliefs
- Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I never felt particularly comfortable with Twitter. I have never created an account on there, and I have tended to avoid even opening links that lead to Twitter posts. Everything that I have heard about it suggests that that service has done more to undermine our society than any other force. People that I meet from there are psychologically fucked-up, and they seem to think that someone is going to come and get them if they dare to say what they really think, however harmless. There is more cyberstalking on there than on any other service that I know of, and the fact that parents would let their children into that snakepit is really horrifying to me.
I really do not think that Elon Musk is able to save it. He might think that he can promote free speech on there, but I doubt he has the intestinal fortitude to actually do anything about the harassment and doxxing that goes on there. It strikes me as a fundamental problem with the nature of the service, and I am convinced that you could not really do anything about it without fundamentally changing how the service works.
There is an issue with the concept of free speech that I think that Elon Musk and others like him have not seen yet. The issue is that the current concept assumes that the government (or those officially in power in any context) and only they have the capacity to use force or have moral accountability for using force. They assume that all speech is just the sharing of what people think.
What happens when someone has so much social influence that if they call someone out, then that person can get killed or get arrested for either a crime they did not commit or for something that should not even be a crime? When someone's words against you are the same thing, effectively, as an order to take away everything that you have, when does that person have so much power to harm others that we should start holding that person accountable in the same way that we hold the government to be accountable? The kind of Mad Max shit show that seems to be going on there is not really "anarchy" in the real sense, but it is an ongoing war between authoritarian gangs that really have nothing to hold them accountable except each other's capacity for destruction. That is not freedom of speech, but that is an authoritarian cesspool that does not even have the system of limitations or the process of accountability that exists in even a non-Democratic central government.
Immanuel Kant is a philosopher that I do not really agree with on all topics. He was undoubtedly a great thinker, but his views were also deeply flawed in many ways. Also, I still argue that his arguments for deontology that supposedly hold water really add up to support for rule utilitarianism, which is one of my central philosophies, but fail to really support deontology. Also, I find his homophobia and racism to be repugnant. Nevertheless, I cannot really argue that Kant did not also make very important contributions to philosophy.
My favorite idea, by Kant, was his concept of the four different ways that society can be arranged.
Anarchy might be the hardest to achieve and the hardest to sustain, but when you can go out into the world and just trust your fellow human beings to behave reasonably, there is no better feeling. On anarchy days, you just trust the people around you, and you like them.
Twitter is the opposite of anarchy in the sense that Twitter is pure barbarism. It is too much force in too many hands. It is a system in which there is no trust. People congregate in gangs and tribes for the illusion of security, and they are constantly at war. You can be "different" only in the sense of having a different tribe, but then that tribe has to fight for territory. Even then, you are screwed if that tribe turns against you.
Maybe the picture I have of Twitter is colored by my interactions with people that abandoned the system, often because their lives or their liberty or their livelihoods were in danger, but even so, I think I have enough information on it to be sure it is not for me.
I will stick to books and book clubs, and I will be grateful that there is still a system of discourse that rewards thoughtfully and mindfully taking in what someone has to say and trying to understand why they said it.
I can never respect someone that would not prefer reading a book over reading quippy, content-free bullshit. I can never respect low-investment people or those that cater to them.
I really do not think that Elon Musk is able to save it. He might think that he can promote free speech on there, but I doubt he has the intestinal fortitude to actually do anything about the harassment and doxxing that goes on there. It strikes me as a fundamental problem with the nature of the service, and I am convinced that you could not really do anything about it without fundamentally changing how the service works.
There is an issue with the concept of free speech that I think that Elon Musk and others like him have not seen yet. The issue is that the current concept assumes that the government (or those officially in power in any context) and only they have the capacity to use force or have moral accountability for using force. They assume that all speech is just the sharing of what people think.
What happens when someone has so much social influence that if they call someone out, then that person can get killed or get arrested for either a crime they did not commit or for something that should not even be a crime? When someone's words against you are the same thing, effectively, as an order to take away everything that you have, when does that person have so much power to harm others that we should start holding that person accountable in the same way that we hold the government to be accountable? The kind of Mad Max shit show that seems to be going on there is not really "anarchy" in the real sense, but it is an ongoing war between authoritarian gangs that really have nothing to hold them accountable except each other's capacity for destruction. That is not freedom of speech, but that is an authoritarian cesspool that does not even have the system of limitations or the process of accountability that exists in even a non-Democratic central government.
Immanuel Kant is a philosopher that I do not really agree with on all topics. He was undoubtedly a great thinker, but his views were also deeply flawed in many ways. Also, I still argue that his arguments for deontology that supposedly hold water really add up to support for rule utilitarianism, which is one of my central philosophies, but fail to really support deontology. Also, I find his homophobia and racism to be repugnant. Nevertheless, I cannot really argue that Kant did not also make very important contributions to philosophy.
My favorite idea, by Kant, was his concept of the four different ways that society can be arranged.
Anarchy, which is actually not really a state of lawlessness at all but a state of law and order that does not require the use of force. Kant's idea of anarchism is the kind of anarchism that I am talking about when I say, only half-jokingly, that I am an anarchist. We do need a system of law and order, and we should cooperate with that system based on reason. We should cooperate with that system based on the fact that it makes logical sense, and it benefits us to follow a code of honor, a system of etiquette, and general principles of what type of behavior we ought to consider to be fair and just. We should not follow it out of fear of being punished for not following it, but we should follow it out of fear of the direct, long-term consequences of too many people not following it for too long of a time, and we should instill this sort of understanding in our children by telling them stories of what has happened in the past when too many people, for too long, have chosen to live unjustly. If we can disseminate a widespread understanding of why we need to behave in a civilized manner, we can evade the necessity of force altogether. If we can spread an understanding of the consequences of unjust behavior through education and through open and fair social discourse, then we would not need to intimidate or bully each other into cooperating with the system. We would cooperate with the system because we are not fools and because our people have given us so much that we are grateful enough to help keep such a beautiful thing going. That is what I mean by anarchy, and I am often misunderstood when I talk about it.
Barbarism, which is really literally the polar opposite of anarchy in many ways. To understand how, imagine a shattered society that is ruled by rival gangs. You cannot walk more than a few miles without getting confronted by a gang that tells you that you cannot pass because it is their territory, but you can never quite figure out who gave them that kind of authority. They claim that they have the right to that territory because "it's a free country," but if it is a "free country," then why are you not free to go where you would like? There is no agreed-upon system of rules for what type of behavior is acceptable, and the lack of any real cultural diffusion also limits your freedom of movement. If you are the wrong skin-color in the wrong place, you can be brutally beaten to death. If you speak in the wrong dialect, you can be brutally beaten to death. There is no real freedom, even though there is also no real government that is accountable in any way.
Tyranny is really a lot like barbarism, but it is centralized. As with barbarism, there is no real system of accountability. Force can be use against you at will by whoever is in power. The people in power basically do whatever they please, and the people in power can punish people for any reason they choose, even if they are just having a bad day. Imagine the system that is currently in place in North Korea. If you do not cry when Kim Jong Un happened to wake up on the wrong side of the bed, then you can be made to disappear. There are no real traditions or customs or systems of etiquette or stories in that society, but there is only the current whim of the man in power. There is, again, absolutely no freedom.
Republic, which seems similar to tyranny with respect to the fact that force is basically what you answer to, but at least there is a system of law. At least there is some kind of a constitution that limits what the government is capable of. Maybe you cooperate with the government out of fear of punishment, rather than because it makes logical sense for you to do so, but the government at least has to answer to something besides their own whims when they are deciding whether or not to mete out that punishment. You have a set of rights that basically protect you in a few critical ways, and most people know what those rights are.
Immanuel Kant himself really thought the most of a republic, but I respectfully disagree. We might need a small amount of force to deal with those people that are just incapable of being educated or enlightened enough to understand that they have a vested interest in behaving lawfully and reasonably, but we only need that because we failed to educate those people enough. If we need to use force to get people to behave like they are civilized, then that is because we failed them. We failed to get them to understand through reason. We failed to earn their gratitude. We might need force to cover up a failure of reason, but far better to never fail, to begin with. I therefore respectfully disagree with Kant.Anarchy might be the hardest to achieve and the hardest to sustain, but when you can go out into the world and just trust your fellow human beings to behave reasonably, there is no better feeling. On anarchy days, you just trust the people around you, and you like them.
Twitter is the opposite of anarchy in the sense that Twitter is pure barbarism. It is too much force in too many hands. It is a system in which there is no trust. People congregate in gangs and tribes for the illusion of security, and they are constantly at war. You can be "different" only in the sense of having a different tribe, but then that tribe has to fight for territory. Even then, you are screwed if that tribe turns against you.
Maybe the picture I have of Twitter is colored by my interactions with people that abandoned the system, often because their lives or their liberty or their livelihoods were in danger, but even so, I think I have enough information on it to be sure it is not for me.
I will stick to books and book clubs, and I will be grateful that there is still a system of discourse that rewards thoughtfully and mindfully taking in what someone has to say and trying to understand why they said it.
I can never respect someone that would not prefer reading a book over reading quippy, content-free bullshit. I can never respect low-investment people or those that cater to them.
Last edited:
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,731
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Well, Elon Musk who apparently was on a bipolar high when making the bid for Twitter has settled down and is pondering what in the heck he got himself into.
He noticed he overbid for a company of nominal value using assets that have now depreciated (in part stock market downturn, in part using his car company as a bank). Elon Musk has decided that he is 'worried' about just how many bots Twitter has. Now, if people remember, dealing with bots was one of his goals in taking over the company... so it shouldn't be a shock... but when you realize you woke up in bed next to a lesser attractive than you originally thought social media company (Twitter makes Facebook look hip), one is going to try to find ways to slip out. That gets a bit harder when the SEC is at the door.
He noticed he overbid for a company of nominal value using assets that have now depreciated (in part stock market downturn, in part using his car company as a bank). Elon Musk has decided that he is 'worried' about just how many bots Twitter has. Now, if people remember, dealing with bots was one of his goals in taking over the company... so it shouldn't be a shock... but when you realize you woke up in bed next to a lesser attractive than you originally thought social media company (Twitter makes Facebook look hip), one is going to try to find ways to slip out. That gets a bit harder when the SEC is at the door.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 42,039
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Looks like the deal is falling apart.
Elixir
Made in America
I wonder how many proxies he has, buying calls right before he announces his intention to buy, and buying puts when he's about to say no, he is not buying. He can do this all year, and rack up another few hundred billion un-earned dollars. Ain't 'Murka great?
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,731
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
The Bot 'problem' is adorable. Now we just need to see what the definition of 'bot' is. Lawyers will be rev'ing up their billable hours soon. Spend $25 million to avoid paying a $1 billion penalty and worse, looking like an idiot.
Heck, Musk just waltzed in, offered way too much to buy Twitter because 'it mattered!' and now he is saying that his research is indicating he didn't research enough before offering too much money.
Heck, Musk just waltzed in, offered way too much to buy Twitter because 'it mattered!' and now he is saying that his research is indicating he didn't research enough before offering too much money.
Elixir
Made in America
Truly!
Y'know what else is adorable? THIS:
"Estimates from online auditing tool SparkToro suggest that the Tesla CEO and soon-to-be owner of Twitter may have more spam accounts, bots, or inactive followers on his account than it does actual people. SparkToro’s data suggests that Musk may have over 44 million fake followers. A report run by SparkToro indicated that 53.3% of Musk’s Twitter followers are fake. The “fake followers” are determined by a random sampling of 2,000 Twitter accounts that have recently decided to follow Musk, the Independent reported."
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 42,039
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
TechScape: How Musk and crypto bros get away with it
In this week’s newsletter: Just like Donald Trump’s political rise, Tesla’s CEO and firms like Tether win by simply not playing by the same rules as everyone else
Much more in the link.