It would seem that Elon Musk (an African American) has just purchased Twitter. Thankfully the Twitter board remembered their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and decided to do the right thing. For some reason this state of affairs has the APL all up in arms. They cheered when Bezos bought newspapers, but this is the end of free speech as we know it. Musk has been pretty clear that he wants to minimize the restrictions Twitter places on speech, even if some of that speech might offend some people. I guess I've always been more in favor of more freedom of speech rather than less. As offensive as the NAZI's marching in Skokie was, they had the 1st amendment right to do so. As to the Twitter employees who have been threatening to leave since Musk started this, I say good riddance. Although, just like all the "If Trump wins I'll move to Canada." folx, I suspect that most of them are too cowardly to actually quit. Like anything else, Twitter will either succeed or fail with Musk as owner. If APL's don't like a less restrictive Twitter, they're free to start their own company with all the restrictions they want. I can't finish this without noting the absurd notion that Musk is some sort of hyper conservative. I've seen nothing from Musk that indicates any political leanings during this whole thing. Do I suspect that he'll introduce policies at Twitter that'll see the end of massive follower purges, shadow banning, and inconsistent application of TOS as applied to conservatives, yes. But that's just introducing a level playing field.
Monday, April 25, 2022
Musk
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I don't consider Musk a conservative just because he abides a conservative principle or two, any more than I regard Trump as such. I don't know what direction he leans. I do find it amazing to think actually defending true free speech is most indicative of a conservative. It shouldn't be anything less than an American ideal...not just a conservative one. The times in which we live!
I agree that no one has any idea of Musk's politics. The fact that the APL is quick to label him a "conservative" indicates that the term really has no meaning beyond "someone the APL doesn't like), tell me plenty. You're right that Trump is definitely a conservative, although he did push for some conservative policies, and he is more conservative than Hillary or Biden.
The fact that freeer speech on Twitter is somehow not a universal goal seems strange to me too. I think folx are afraid of having someone at the helm who's going to treat both sides relatively equally. I can't keep track of the times I've seen APLs make explicit death threats to conservatives, or unleash the most vile racist attacks on black conservatives, and get a free pass from Twitter. The problem is that people have forgotten that "offensive" speech is protected speech, and that Twitter is NOT an arm of the state.
Comrade Putin would like to thank you two and all useful idiots taking strong stands in favor of disinformation.
Count on Dan to chime in with some bizarre, nonsensical, blather, that has no relationship to anything.
"Comrade Putin would like to thank you two and all useful idiots taking strong stands in favor of disinformation."
This coming from a guy who insists LGBT people are normal, there's some confusion as to whether or not human fetus is a person endowed by God with unalienable rights and Bruce Jenner is a woman. And those are just the most common expressions of "disinformation" by Dan, the pretend "Christian".
Craig, Marshal just insulted innocent LGBTQ people, suggesting they're not normal. Just another little stab of oppression added to the millenia of oppression they've endured. Are you going to take a stand against oppression or join in on the side of the oppressors by remaining silent?
Thanks for proving the point, boys. Sadly, thanks.
So it's "oppression" to point out the FACT that LGBTQ+ people are abnormal?? Truth sure hurts the LEFT.
God created man and woman, not crossovers, not one sex pretending to be another. Pretending to be you aren't certainly isn normal.
God said homosexual behavior is a grave sins, because sex is between male and female, not male to male or female to female. There is a reason he created marriage between opposite-sex individuals. It is abnormal for a male to have sex with a male or a female to have sex with a female.
Like all his LEFTIST cronies, Dan supports denying biology when it comes to human sexuality.
If one is insulted by the truth, then that is THEIR problem
Dan,
Given the reality that LGBTQXYZPDQ people are less that 10% of the population, they literally are not "normal".
1. conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern : characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine
2. according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, procedure, or principle
Stating reality as per the dictionary definition of normal, isn't "oppression". Hell, I let you get away with all sorts of offensive shit, and constant ad hom attacks, why would I censor Art and not you?
This still doesn't explain your idiotic, bizarre, absurd comment that Art quoted. Let alone apologize for it being an ad hom attack.
Dan,
Before you even waste everyone's time, just stop. It's not going to do you any good to bitch about Glenn's comment. I could write your comment for you, and I've already made the point that if I'm going to allow the offensive, ad hom, straw man, bullshit of yours, then I'm not going to censor others just to make you feel superior. You are free to censor for whatever random, inconsistent reasons you choose at your blog. Unfortunately, you don't get to make the rules here.
Please. Just don't waste everyone's time with more bullshit.
Unfortunately for Dan, in order to appear more pious, more "Christian", he's painted himself into a corner. He can't provide any science which rebuts the fact LGBT people are abnormal. He simply asserts it so as to provide a foundation....false as it is...which rationalizes his unChristian support for LGBT folk and their narrative which is based on nothing but wishes, desires and fantasy. He's a liar for denying scientific and Christian truth, but oh, how the LGBT folk and other "progressives" love more allies for the cause. It's fashionable to demean those who truly adhere to scientific and Christian truth, so he's safe on the side of lies. His fallback position, "being mistaken won't deny my salvation" further assures him he can continue portraying to the immoral and disordered he's one helluva good Christian. But God won't be mocked and science isn't confusing.
I said nothing about censorship. I asked you to do the right thing and condemn his attacks on the oppressed.. like this...
May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the children of the needy, and crush the oppressor!...
Your iniquities have turned these away, and your sins have kept good from you. For wicked men are found among my people; they lurk like fowlers lying in wait. They set a trap; they catch men. Like a cage full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; therefore they have become great and rich; they have grown fat and sleek.
They know no bounds in deeds of evil; they judge not with justice the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy. Shall I not punish them for these things? declares the Lord, and shall I not avenge myself on a nation such as this?”...
Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the ruin that will come from afar? To whom will you flee for help, and where will you leave your wealth?
.....
Unfortunately, you've chosen to side with the oppressors. Shame.
Unfortunately, I let you comment virtually unhindered, and this is what I get. I can choose the route of censorship (like you) and delete comments right and left at a whim, or I can choose to allow freedom of speech (within some very broad limits). What I probably won't do is to make decisions on deleting comments based on your hunches.
Art,
The act of male/male (possibly female/female) sexual intercourse does show up in some animal species. Therefore, there is some small justification to call it "normal" in a very limited sense. However, "transgenderism" doesn't occur in nature, or at least can't be detected. Now the vast majority of the animal kingdom (particularly mammals as they're the closest to humans) demonstrates binary division along M/F lines and reproduces sexually with M/F being necessary. So, even though "same sex" acts occur in nature (rarely), they still don't clear the statistical barrier to be considered "normal".
What I've always found interesting is that back in the day, as a counter to the Scriptural unanimity against same sex sex, the argument (They didn't have the same sort of healthy, loving, same sex relationships back then that we see now.) was supposed to put the focus on the relationship aspect of homosexuality, not simply the sex facet. This argument seems to undercut the "natural (occurring in nature) because the instances of same sex sex we see in nature are virtually never instances of "loving, healthy, nurturing" relationships. They're much more likely to be instances of one animal exerting dominance over another, in other words, rape. So, to use rare instances of same sex rape to justify the normalizes of human homosexuality doesn't seem like a good loophole to justify the use of the term normal.
Of course, the fact that homosexuality is counter to the very basis of "evolution", and is a genetic and population dead end doesn't seem to argue for it being normal either.
I have to disagree because the fact of what's regarded by some as "homosexuality in the animal kingdom" is merely dysfunction and disorder as well, especially given animals act on instinct as opposed to conscious decision making ala humans. What's more, the percentage of animals with that dysfunction is clearly a tiny percentage and thus "normal" is a word which is inappropriate for the case.
Art,
That's essentially my point. Those who equate one male animal instinctively trying to assert dominance over another animal, isn't analogous to their claims that homosexuality is all about "loving, committed, relationships). Further, the minuscule presence of this non analogous behavior is so small as to not constitute "normal" anyway. Finally, the fact that it is an evolutionary dead end also disqualifies it from being "normal" as "normal" from an evolutionary perspective is to procreate with as many females as possible to ensure the survival of your species.
Post a Comment