Scylla Rhiadra

Is that some kind of weird compliment, Paul? 😏

One of the really great things about free speech is that it gives some people the opportunity to out themselves by saying something so utterly ignorant that it tells you all you really need to know about them. Such a time saver, really. And it allows me to focus upon people -- including those with whom I disagree -- who have conversely demonstrated that they are worth my time and effort.

Hi, card-caring feminist here. I even teach it. Here on earth. And what planet do you live on?

Equal treatment is literally what Warren's tweet was about.

And too frequently, great corruption. (With apologies to Lord Acton.)

This is very much to the point, right? Musk has -- rightly, I think -- suggested that "free speech" is a cornerstone of democracy. But not all free speech is created equal, and there's an enormous difference between having the freedom to articulate ideas and opinions that may not be popular, and the freedom to insult someone as much, or as brutally, as one wishes. The former contributes to public discourse, while the latter toxifies and can eventually kill it.

Well, I have rather mixed feelings about Warren, politically . . . but really, this is a bit of a cliche, no? Strong, articulate, and forceful women have often been labeled as "strident" or "shrill" . . . or as "Karens." Musk's remark does also rather underscore the nature of his personal idea of what "free speech" means, though. It's a pretty characteristic retort, and fits in well with labeling a man busy rescuing trapped children a "pedo," or wondering aloud why Bernie Sanders is even still alive. Musk can be amusing, but he's frequently also insulting and uncivil. Which is one of the reasons why some (including myself) are concerned about his championing of so-called "free speech." The complaint raised in this thread by @Extrude Ragu and @Eirynne Sieyes about the vitriol and toxicity of some of the attack on Musk here in this thread are a wee bit ironic in this context. I don't mean this in a snarky way, but, really, this does seem to be, in some measure, the tone that Musk himself has established, and that will probably become a lot more prevalent should he actually get his way about opening up the platform to "free speech." It happens a lot on Twitter now: expect it to happen more. And the "vitriol" here is, ironically, an exemplification of the potential impact of his control over the platform.

Musk's "views" are indeed, as Blaise has suggested, relevant to the case. As to Musk as a person -- well, my interest in him is roughly on par with how much I care about Kim Kardashian, i.e., not at all. A great deal of what I've read about him, and by him, suggest to me that he's a fairly unpleasant person, but . . . so what. The world is full of unpleasant people, doing unpleasant things to others. (On the other hand, the flood of racist and misogynist bile that has been heaped upon Vijaya Gadde, the Twitter executive criticized by Musk, tells me more than I want to know about the character of at least a portion his fanbois.) I don't believe in "heroes." Superman and Captain America aren't going to "save" the US, and make up for the shortcomings of its democratic and civic institutions. Neither will Musk. It's got nothing to do with his character: the issues and problematics surrounding "free speech," on the one hand, and a civil behaviour on the other, are systemic problems. They can't be solved by a "great man" (or woman): the solutions, in turn, need to be systemic. Musk's purchase of Twitter may assist some, and make others less comfortable. But it isn't going to "fix" anything. That requires the work of us all.

To a degree, this encapsulates quite nicely the progress of history. History is on the side of the Left. I don't mean that in a partisan way. I don't mean that "The Left are the good guys, and the good guys always win." I mean that, literally and demonstrably, the history of the West over the last several hundred years can be characterized in some measure as the gradual and incremental adoption of the programs of the Left, and their assimilation into the mainstream. The development of an economic system based upon capital, the abolition of slavery, the broadening of the democratic franchise, the development of trade unions, the slow but certain accrual of rights to women, the adoption of social welfare programs -- all of these were, in their times, the projects of the Left. And, of course, in time, they have all become the position of the centre, as the Left shifts ever leftward, championing new causes that will, if history is any indication, one day also become the accepted norms of our culture.

I was torn over whether to give you a thank you, or a laughing response. I don't think I need to add those things, though: you've clearly got the right idea. I was muchly influenced by the photographs produced in the 30s by the WPA, documenting the social impact of the depression. But I wanted someone looking a bit proud and defiant, rather than broken. So that is MY story behind this. Yours is every bit as valid. And I'm absolutely delighted that my pic evoked one!

Anyone who takes a little bit of time to look into the internal politics of the Democratic Party in the US will recognize that, while there is a progressive wing of the party -- "The Squad," Bernie Sanders, etc. -- they have not been in control of the agenda. In fact, the Democrats who have had the most concrete influence on the policies enacted by the current administration are Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, both on the far right of the party. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/18/dont-blame-the-left/ As for our "woke" Prime Minister, he has shown a singular reluctance to move on virtually any of the progressive reforms he's paid lip service to, including electoral reform (shelved), as well as action on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Indigenous Peoples, and he has failed to live up to his promise to end boiled water advisories on reserves by 2021. He has supported the construction of oil pipelines, in the face of opposition from the Left and from indigenous peoples, and Canada's foreign aid contributions are in fact lower now than they were under even Stephen Harper. He's also failed to respond in any kind of adequate way to allegations of sexual misconduct within the top ranks of the military. I could go on. He has achieved a few things: his policies on immigration and refugees are at least reasonably liberal, for instance. And he's brought us back to the table on fighting climate change -- although other policies (see pipelines, above) undercut that severely. He sure takes a good selfie, though.

Trudeau is a Leftist? Arielle, you really are a hoot today.

LOL

I hear this sometimes. It always makes me snort (in a ladylike way, of course). Where on earth you get the idea that the Left (as opposed to Democrats, who are barely centrists) admire Soros, Bezos, or Google, I have no idea. Bezos is pond scum. Soros is at least an actual philanthropist, but the point is that this kind of massive inequity of wealth is an obscenity, regardless of the political affiliations of the billionaire involved. Again, the issue isn't "would it be better if Soros owned Twitter than Musk." NO ONE PERSON should have full access to that much power. Democracies shouldn't depend upon the generosity of the obscenely rich to enforce human rights, or to provide the basic necessities of life for the poor.

I'd be totally good with that.

Awww. Really cute pic! Also, I love that you're both looking at the camera. I get irrationally grumpy about pics with people staring off into different distances. This looks like you're not only connecting with each other, but with the viewer too. Nice!

And it is definitely not the place to engage in productive and civil conversations with people who have differing perspectives. Even if you are fortunate enough to find someone with whom you disagree who is rational, reasonable, and stable enough to actually engage dialogically, invariably others who are less so start piling in, and the mudslinging begins. I DO find Twitter a useful resource for gauging the temperature and current trends in many issues, and it is, I think, very useful to gain some insight into how others think, their reasons for their opinions, and so forth. But basically, it's a hot toxic mess.

Probably the only things I don't generally modify via edit are hair and clothing -- although there are certainly instances where I modify those (when possible), as for instance removing bits of hair to make a style fit under a hat. Everything else I routinely modify. Buildings, vehicles, furniture, etc., almost always need to be resized to properly fit my avatar, so I almost never buy these items if they are not mod. I'm constantly building my own photo backdrops, so I rip apart commercial structures, backdrops, furnishings, and other items to cannibalize them for other uses. I have folders, for instance, of doors ripped from commercial structures that I can reuse in new contexts for this reason. I also invest in building components -- doors, walls, flooring, wall paneling, and so for this purpose, and add them to commercial builds to customize the look. For photos, I rarely use unmodified commercial backdrops or structures.

I very much hope that the proceeding comment was his confirmation that he was buying Twitter to put the "twit" back in?

I'm rather curious to know what @Arielle Popstar finds "awoke" about this article, as well. It sounds pretty dispassionate and free of bias to me. I also loved this: in combination with this: In other words, "I didn't intend to accuse him of being a "pedo," but if I had, I had good reason to, having had him investigated for this thing that I was not accusing him of." Ultimately, none of this is really particular relevant to the actual issue at hand of course. That Mr. Musk is a hypocritical, abusive, slandering narcissist doesn't mean that he can't or won't do a good job of running Twitter, or even "protecting" free speech (which presumably means the right to call someone a "pedo" without cause or proof if you want). I do think, assuming he succeeds in pulling this off, however, that he's going to have a very difficult time balancing his apparent desire to enable certain kinds of discourse, and his need to keep the platform viable and profitable. Most of us don't want to post in places that permit the kinds of accusation Musk made here, nor, as Innula and others have noted, will a great many governments tolerate that kind of behaviour, whatever the state of civil jurisprudence in the US.

Me? I can hardly wait to start calling it "Mutter."

I'm not going to get into my own dislike of Musk. I don't think I need to; I think it's much less important than the larger principle at stake here. I'll just repeat -- depending upon any individual (not to mention one who has a very deep financial interest in producing goods in the "tech, medical, and scientific" fields) for a disinterested and public-spirited defense of free speech is leaning upon a very shaky stick indeed. I wouldn't trust Bernie Sanders to run Twitter for the same reason: the maintenance of the principle of free speech belongs in the public realm, and we therefore shouldn't have to rely upon the good will of an individual, who is inevitably going to have his own biases and agendas, for that. Twitter is going to be Musk's -- he can, within limits, do what he likes with it of course. But god help us all if we are devolving into a society in which we depend upon the wealthy and the powerful to protect our civil rights.

It's almost endearing that Musk thinks that the negative responses to his purchase of Twitter represent a fear of free speech rather than a visceral dislike and distrust of him, personally. Well, we all cherish our personal delusions, I suppose.