this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
558 points (98.9% liked)

Enough Musk Spam

2214 readers
41 users here now

For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.

No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.

Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.

Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.

Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It’s funny that you never even try to defend any of these accounts.

Why would you think that I would? Have you not understood literally anything I've been saying?

The best way to show that Brazil is in the wrong would be to show that the people being banned were posting true statements.

What a remarkably simple view of the world you have. It's like you think this is a sitcom plot. Do you want Musk to wear black and the judge to wear white so that you have an easier time recognizing who is the villain?

As I said in my original post - both sides can be wrong. One side being wrong doesn't make the other side right.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Your argument that other people are engaging in black and white thinking when you take the position that the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable is funny.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

you take the position that the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable

Explain how that's my position. Please use references to support your argument.

Because that's not my position. Nor have I stated it as my position. I recommend searching for the word "risk" when reading my prior comments.

EDIT: Oh - sorry... I guess I'm just off-topic in here. ELON BAD LOL

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sure: you disregard this specific case and only bring up other hypothetical cases to prove why this is unjust. Like you just did in the comment I replied to.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And you extrapolated that to "the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable".

If you really care - and I suspect you don't because you're just another lemmykin who just wants to jump on somebody who disagrees with you and "be right" - I'm saying the risk involved with state-sponsored censorship is higher than the risk associated with allowing misinformation to be spread.

This is why I say the original case largely doesn't matter - because my position doesn't depend on the veracity of the claims being made. I'm arguing about what a state should and should not be allowed to do. Because the state is sometimes led by people who define truth very differently from how I would want.

You think this translates to "the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable"???

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, it's a black and white position. You specifically are saying the state is unable to obtain justice because of the "risk". You preclude the possibility of justice being obtained. I'm pretty amazed you can find so many ways to say the same thing and not realize that. But hey, I'm sure it's just everybody else being irrational right?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Do you think "black and white" just means that I have an opinion that I feel is correct?

You preclude the possibility of justice being obtained.

How did you even possibly get this from what I've said? I feel that allowing free speech is justice.

I’m sure it’s just everybody else being irrational right?

Not one person has yet actually asked me to clarify my position. You've all only told me what I really mean. So yes - it is everyone else being irrational.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

This is how people figure out how each other think, calm down.

It does seem you are saying governments shouldnt be permitted to seek justice against misinformation because doing so puts a greater injustice on the public as a whole.

Thats me rephrasing your point from earlier to see if I understand it right, so if I have it wrong feel free to explain.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Please clarify your position?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

...crickets...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

So.... After being asked by multiple people to clarify your position, you're not going to after all?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Cool story, bro.