Lorewarn

Well, only 19% of the culture thinks abortions should be illegal under all circumstances, so the cultural change has happened, and the legal one is presumably about to go against it.

I voted for Biden because he wasn't Trump, and wasn't as bad as Trump. Outside of that, I'm completely apolitical about the guy other than a general hope for whoever's in the office to not f#&% s#!t up too bad, which I share equally across all Presidents. This will never happen, but here's one interesting way that you could theoretically inject this idea: https://bigthink.com/the-present/malcolm-gladwell/

None of that even starts getting into the fact that....he isn't conservative. His policies aren't conservative, his ideology isn't conservative, he'd been a Dem his whole life, and then he co-opts the party, and suddenly lifelong consistent GOP members are RINOs. I guess the term isn't wrong if being Republican means following Trump and abandoning principles of good conservative policy.

Haven't read the article because I don't want to disable my adblocker, but re: the bolded - I can guarantee you the kids from Africa noticed even if yours didn't.

You got that right! He's never even heard of Carhenge smh

Most folks have either always opposed orange man, or eventually grew to oppose orange man, based primarily on sticking to principle. I guess everyone's barometer is different for how much fraud, cheating, lying, sexual assault allegations and boasts, racist behavior, fear-mongering, Christian larping make-believe, narcissism and incompetence they're willing to look past.

Yeah. Maybe annoying, maybe mostly unnecessary, but also completely harmless.

That's absolutely crazy pills insane. You'd pick the lady who claimed jewish space lasers start wildfires over a dignified presidential candidate who has a consistent record of putting principle ahead of party.

Well, the first foundational thing is just the concept of a specific set apart religion in his name seems entirely contrary to his ministry and ethos. Then, the "modern" traditional concept of hell/the afterlife and all the infrastructure surrounding the childish idea of "good people go to the good place and bad people go to the bad place" (I'm simplifying that, I know that Christians would say "No it's not about being a good person you can't earn your salvation") are also incompatible or at least nonsensical in regards to the work of Christ as well, who was primarily focused on how to live now and not at all focused on the afterlife as the goal and destination.

What are you confused or asking about?

That's not how science works my man. You can't prove negatives.

Thanks, libs of tiktok

And here you've successfully diagnosed where Christianity got Jesus wrong from the very beginning

The forbidden fruit story is best understood as a fable exploring the problem or the burden of consciousness and what to do about it. Before becoming conscious, there's no such thing as good/bad/right/wrong, and creatures only exist in harmony with the planet around them in the way they're meant to.

I have no idea what the number is, but we're certainly not making news keeping up with the biggest spenders.

The first part of Musk's tweet is true. The second part of Musk's tweet is absolutely 100% false. Neutrality does not, in any way, imply equally upsetting both sides, because the sides aren't symmetrically far from center. Put it this way. Forget conservative/liberal for a second. If 80% of the "far left" side believe in political compromise and only 32% of the "far right" do, being neutral does not mean that you adopt the middle between those positions (even though that's exactly what Elon is suggesting).

It's just another ideological battleground. It's not at all about that - it's just an avatar for winning the culture wars. It's funny because right-wing folks bemoan how the left tries to turn everything into power dynamics and identity politics....then they turn around and celebrate a W in an environment like this that doesn't really mean much, but is perceived as a victory for their group.

Stop? Or significantly reduce?

I would care more if Musk bought Huskerboard. I use twitter for jokes and news, both of which seem pretty safe, but I need a place to actually waste time talking about stuff that doesn't matter.

I think all people are getting at is that even if you take his words at face value, there's still so much room for interpretation on how that plays out policy-wise. He hasn't said anything in regards to actual concrete terms of service and rules, he's only espoused an approach, and even within the approach there's plenty of grey. There are plenty of quotes from him that show A) that he doesn't even have a great understanding of free speech laws in the first place, B) that he obviously agrees some moderation is necessary (think of porn as an example, or spam bots, both of which are legal and protected under 1A), and C) that his plan is essentially to go back to how facebook/twitter/etc. were run in the early days, before people realized it couldn't work. He says stuff like, "When in doubt, let it exist." The fuzziness of something like that doesn't work at all at scale.

According to the first google result when I searched his name + twitter, I got this: So for starters if we're gonna have a serious conversation about people being unrightfully banned, we should look at ALL that went into it and not just the final straw.

In your example, if they asked them to stop (due to reasons unrelated to the religion itself, but things such as "really screwing up our production times"), and then they kept doing it, yes they would have much better grounds for firing them. Not good grounds necessarily, but better ones than if they never gave a warning/reason to stop. The posts you quoted said there's a distinction (one even said "IF we remove the religious context); not that saying not to first makes it fine.

According to what source do we know that that tweet and only that tweet is the direct reason he got banned.

Elon Musk owning Twitter definitely won't solve the problem of asymmetrical bats#!t crazy and rule breaking internet content on behalf of one camp moreso than another.

You're probably right, but I've got a sneaking suspicion based off of his quotes and recollection of the story that there is more here than his argument is letting on. Mainly, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that he was making a much bigger show out of it than his version of events implies.