Randomness thread, part two.

[Poopadoop]

the commentators.

Announcers are always trying to make things seem more interesting and exciting than they really are. Haven't you ever watched a sporting event? The guy misses the net by ten feet and the announcer goes "Ohhh! So clooose!"

They were all "wow!" at her pf and flop calls, when even Polk admits both were fine.

[Poopadoop]

Just noticed there's a big fat rail around the table. No way anyone sitting behind GA can see his cards. So unless they slipped a camera into his shirt pocket, there's that theory shot down.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Happy Halloween everyone.

May your trick-or-treaters be many and cute little monsters.


I, for one, love that we have a cultural tradition of teaching our children to extort our neighbors with threats of violence.
I am prepared with much candies and treats to assist in this cultural lesson.

[Poopadoop]

Happy Halloween everyone.

May your trick-or-treaters be many and cute little monsters.


I, for one, love that we have a cultural tradition of teaching our children to extort our neighbors with threats of violence.
I am prepared with much candies and treats to assist in this cultural lesson.

Trick or treat is not really a thing in the UK. My first year here I bought a big pile of candy and ending up eating it myself because no kids came by lol.

Halloween doesn't really seem to be much of a thing in general here either. You get the odd house putting a pumpkin up in their window but it's not a big production like in N. America.

[Vinland]

Its big here (Canada). Even though its cold AF outside.
We've got ghosts hung up on trees, fake spider webs, pumpkins etc, and candy for the ungrateful kids.

[OngBonga]

I used to like trick or treating as a kid but I couldn't give a toss about Hallowe'en as an adult. And I'm not likely to get any knocking on the door, given I live on a 50mph stretch of a busy A-road road with no path for half a mile.

[Poopadoop]

So Elon Musk bought twitter and is now planning to make people pay for tweeting and re-tweeting (if this guy is to believed). And not just a token amount either.

Bye bye twitter.

https://twitter.com/scottjshapiro/st...38507762470912

[Vinland]

I didn’t read any of that but I’m assuming it’s troll shit. I have to believe musk is a little smarter than that but who knows.

[Poopadoop]

I didn’t read any of that but I’m assuming it’s troll shit. I have to believe musk is a little smarter than that but who knows.

I know a bunch of people who are looking to get off twitter just because Musk bought it. I mean who cares who owns it. Even if he's a rich twat it's not like he's some kind of Dr. Evil figure is he? Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention to the guy, dunno.

[Vinland]

I know a bunch of LEFTIES who are looking to get off twitter just because Musk bought it. I mean who cares who owns it. Even if he's a rich twat it's not like he's some kind of Dr. Evil figure is he? Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention to the guy, dunno.

fixed your post

rich fucks owned it before Elon. People are just pissed bc now rightwings will be able to say what they want just like leftwings can
People wanted to elevate him to Buddha status when he was focused on electric vehicles because he was saving the planet. Now he’s somewhere in the same league as hitler
I guess he’s South African, I didn’t know that bc I don’t give a shit but one Media idiot actually claimed that he bought twitter, wants more free speech on the platform and so therefore obviously wants things to return to what it was like during apartheid. This was on a major US news network.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Elon is an engineer - rocket science mostly, but general mechanical and thermodynamic expertise. I've never heard him speak technically about the batteries a company of his is making, so I'm guessing he's softer on the electrical side.

He's also an accomplished entrepreneur, though not due to his charisma, due to his results.

He's a big fucking nerd, basically.


He sometimes talks about things outside his expertise, and says dumb shit. With so many eyes on him, he catches undue flak for his gaffs. Also, he has a parade of internet sycophants who will defend his every shit stain. So it does go both ways.


He's mostly just the rich guy who runs SpaceX, but owns a few other high-profile companies. He's as flawed as anyone, but can afford to be on any stage he likes, so... IDK. This is the world we live in.

[Poopadoop]

More trolling.

https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1587343099289812996

So, if this is correct, twitter is making a few billion a year but he wants it to make more. GL EM.

[OngBonga]

Mojo sums up Elon very nicely there. And Vinland nails it when it comes to who is moaning about Elon. Poop might not believe it but left wingers are able to get away with more than right wingers on Twitter. If you misgender someone you can get a ban, but if you threaten JK Rowling with death you're fine. These people who like their echo chamber are the people who won't be happy to see Elon take over.

There's absolutely no way that Elon is going to charge $5 per tweet. He's not stupid. He knows that will utterly destroy his investment.

1 cent a tweet might work. Maybe. I'll probably still leave though.

[Poopadoop]

Mojo sums up Elon very nicely there. And Vinland nails it when it comes to who is moaning about Elon. Poop might not believe it but left wingers are able to get away with more than right wingers on Twitter. If you misgender someone you can get a ban, but if you threaten JK Rowling with death you're fine. These people who like their echo chamber are the people who won't be happy to see Elon take over.

Lol, twitter is not an echo chamber unless you block everyone as soon as they tweet something you don't agree with. There's people from all over the spectrum spouting things that other people will hate to hear. There's people on the far left as well as the far right who spout nonsense on there all the time. There's people spreading misinformation from all angles, it's not as if it's a platform just for the left.

I've heard people on the left complaining that he'll allow Trump back. The mistake is to think Trump is forming opinions rather than reflecting them back at people. His supporters are those who already think what he's saying basically. If you can't deal with a world in which those kinds of opinions exist, you shouldn't be on social media in the first place.

What twitter should do is, to the best of their abilities, block misinformation and outright propaganda and threats and whatnot. But I don't think that's an easy job to do.

There's absolutely no way that Elon is going to charge $5 per tweet. He's not stupid. He knows that will utterly destroy his investment.

Not really caring one way or another, but he apparently paid a lot more for twitter than it's worth, and now he wants to get some of it back. Twitter has been making money for years, it doesn't have a revenue problem, Elon has an "I paid too much for something" problem.

And yeah, I'm not even paying 1c per tweet. Why? I'm not there to promote myself, I'll just go somewhere else.

[Poopadoop]

Still waiting for that video of an earthquake-causing vibrator btw.

[OngBonga]

Lol, twitter is not an echo chamber unless you block everyone as soon as they tweet something you don't agree with.

Ding ding ding.

I've been blocked by people I'm certain I've never interacted with. Either they've insta blocked me because I said something they didn't like, or I'm on a block list. Neither would surprise me.

They create their own echo chambers. But if right wing people start coming back in droves and trolling lefties, it means hurty feelings for a while so they'll threaten to leave and cry a lot while actually all they'll do is mass block people until they have their nice warm cosy echo chamber restored.

I've heard people on the left complaining that he'll allow Trump back.

Don't care either way. I don't think it'll happen because Elon is petty and Donald said mean things about him in the past. I quite like Elon, one of the reasons I like him is because he doesn't give a fuck. I might not agree with him, but I like his dgaf attitude. I would be amused by the meltdown people would have if Trump came back though. So part of me wants it to happen. But honestly I don't care.

What twitter should do is, to the best of their abilities, block misinformation and outright propaganda and threats and whatnot. But I don't think that's an easy job to do.

What's the difference between misinformation and antipropaganda? Would you know if what you're told is misinformation is really antipropaganda?

Is it Twitter's job to decide what is and isn't misinformation?

I'm afraid that's your job, the consumer of current affairs.

Not really caring one way or another, but he apparently paid a lot more for twitter than it's worth, and now he wants to get some of it back.

Well setting it on fire is the last thing he should be doing.

Targeting the blue ticks, that's not going to destroy Twitter. Non-intrusive advertising (pay to get rid of) will raise further revenue. Maybe even a model where people get something like 500 tweets a month for free and then have to pay.

He's not stupid. He must understand that charging for tweets is going to destroy his investment, not secure it.

[Poopadoop]

What's the difference between misinformation and antipropaganda?

I've never heard of antipropaganda, but if propaganda is lies then I assume antipropaganda is the truth. So the difference between misinformation and truth is that one is misinformation and one is truth.

Maybe I'm missing something though.

Would you know if what you're told is misinformation is really antipropaganda?

Is it Twitter's job to decide what is and isn't misinformation?

I'm afraid that's your job, the consumer of current affairs.

There is such a thing as an objective truth. The Holocaust happened, there's one. Holocaust deniers are spreading disinformation. Covid is a virus, not a microchip invented by Bill Gates. There's another.

Twitter can't be the arbiter of truth in every case, but if it wants to have any credibility as a business, it needs to at least look as though it is trying.

People get sacked from jobs for being Holocaust deniers. They get told to leave a business' property.

[OngBonga]

Aaaand blue ticks for all who want it! $8 a month for USA, adjusted for each country based on purchasing power of their currency.

Half as many ads. Should be no ads.

[OngBonga]

There is such a thing as an objective truth. The Holocaust happened, there's one. Holocaust deniers are spreading disinformation. Covid is a virus, not a microchip invented by Bill Gates. There's another.

Sure. I don't think there's many people who doubt the Holocaust happened. But does that mean everything published on the matter is objective proof? Does that mean everyone challenging the historical account is spreading misinformation?

If you can't challenge history, that gives a huge amount of power to those who write it.

People get sacked from jobs for being Holocaust deniers.

They shouldn't. Wrong opinions are allowed in a civilised society.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Covid is a virus, not a microchip invented by Bill Gates. There's another.

Funny how one of your examples of objective truth is, in fact, false.

COVID19 is the symptoms of infection by the virus SARS-CoV-2

I think ong's point is well made, there.


Your post shouldn't be deleted because you said something false that almost no one understands why it is false, I mean. No one's understanding of "objective reality" is without flaw. We all know we're not perfect and that we're wrong about some things. But we don't know what we're wrong about, so we keep thinking we're right about it, like the many other things we're right about.

[MadMojoMonkey]

They shouldn't. Wrong opinions are allowed in a civilised society.

Sure, sure... but ... bad behavior and/or harassment aren't allowed in a civilized society.

And it's hard to imagine someone just nonchalantly saying they're a holocaust denier without it being an intent to badger or harass someone.

So while I agree... if the person simply holds a belief that is unpopular, and demonstrably false, that's fine. If they use that belief to make other people feel cornered, or attacked, or threatened, or endangered, then that's easy grounds for firing them.

[OngBonga]

And it's hard to imagine someone just nonchalantly saying they're a holocaust denier without it being an intent to badger or harass someone.

I disagree. Those who do hold this view, I suppose it's paranoid people who are deep down the conspiracy rabbit hole. I'm sure some people have bad faith and just want to be an asshole but I believe it's mostly motivated by a lack of trust in the victors of war to accurately write the history. That's not an unreasonable position.

You can't ostracise people for being paranoid. Even more so if there's a non-zero probability that their paranoia is at least somewhat justified.

If they use that belief to make other people feel cornered, or attacked, or threatened, or endangered, then that's easy grounds for firing them.

So long as simply being offended by someone's opinion isn't being portrayed as "causing alarm" or whatever language is used to present it as threatening. Hurty feelings are not sufficient alone. If someone simply says in the staff room over a coffee "well I don't think the Holocaust happened" and someone else says "I'm Jewish and I find that opinion to be an attack", whose side are you on? Does the Jewish person have a right to not hear someone utter those words?

[Poopadoop]

Funny how one of your examples of objective truth is, in fact, false.

COVID19 is the symptoms of infection by the virus SARS-CoV-2

I think ong's point is well made, there.

That's not deliberate misinformation, it's close enough to the truth that it's consistent with the facts. Surely if you're clever enough to notice the subtle distinction between a virus and its symptoms you're also clever enough to notice the much greater distinction between affirming the Holocaust happened and arguing that it's a hoax. It's millimeters vs. light years in the semantic distance between these two comparisons.

Your post shouldn't be deleted because you said something false that almost no one understands why it is false, I mean. No one's understanding of "objective reality" is without flaw. We all know we're not perfect and that we're wrong about some things. But we don't know what we're wrong about, so we keep thinking we're right about it, like the many other things we're right about.

No, my post shouldn't be deleted because no-one cares about a minor mis-statement of fact that is made in the spirit of objective truth.

The difference is if someone pointed out my error at most I'd be annoyed they were such a pedant, I wouldn't try to argue that I'm right and they're fos. Holocaust deniers and BillGatesChip fanatics, in contrast, continue to hold their position in the face of objective truth.

[Poopadoop]

I disagree. Those who do hold this view, I suppose it's paranoid people who are deep down the conspiracy rabbit hole. I'm sure some people have bad faith and just want to be an asshole but I believe it's mostly motivated by a lack of trust in the victors of war to accurately write the history. That's not an unreasonable position.

If the Germans denied the Holocaust, you might have a point. But they teach it themselves in their schools. So there's that.

A better argument is the Turks denying the genocide of Armenians. This is a popular view in Turkey, though by all other accounts it's objectively true.

Just being a Turkish person and being taught a lie in school though doesn't give you the right to promulgate the lie in the face of overwhelming evidence it's a lie.

You can't ostracise people for being paranoid. Even more so if there's a non-zero probability that their paranoia is at least somewhat justified.

Says who? You're using this murky ground argument to suggest that all kinds of crackpot ideas have some credibility and should be given equal time with objective truths. Should we thus give equal time to the Queen is a lizard people on a show about the royal family? Paranoid people don't add anything of value to society.

So long as simply being offended by someone's opinion isn't being portrayed as "causing alarm" or whatever language is used to present it as threatening. Hurty feelings are not sufficient alone. If someone simply says in the staff room over a coffee "well I don't think the Holocaust happened" and someone else says "I'm Jewish and I find that opinion to be an attack", whose side are you on? Does the Jewish person have a right to not hear someone utter those words?

It's not about picking a side, it's about not being a douchebag. Jewish people who likely lost relatives in the Holocaust or know someone who did, have a right not to have to listen to idiots pretending the Holocaust never happened.

[OngBonga]

Says who? You're using this murky ground argument to suggest that all kinds of crackpot ideas have some credibility and should be given equal time with objective truths.

Do you think it's reasonable for someone to not trust governments in general? Reasonable paranoia can develop into unreasonable ideas.

Paranoid people don't add anything of value to society.

Paranoia is an illness. Cancer victims don't add much to society either but we treat them.

It's not about picking a side, it's about not being a douchebag. Jewish people who likely lost relatives in the Holocaust or know someone who did, have a right not to have to listen to idiots pretending the Holocaust never happened.

You might think they have that right but they don't have that right in any legal sense. I mean, they have the right to not listen, to leave the room, but they don't have the right to silence someone freely speaking their sincere opinion.

I don't want to hear some things. If someone asked me if I wanted to listen to them describe a rape, I would not want to hear it. If they tell me anyway, I'll tell them to fuck off and then I'll leave. What I won't do is argue I have a legal right to not hear such conversation. I don't get to control what other people talk about. I only get to define what I find distasteful, and I get to decide what conversations I partake in. But I don't get to decide what sound waves enter my ears.

[Poopadoop]

Do you think it's reasonable for someone to not trust governments in general? Reasonable paranoia can develop into unreasonable ideas.

There's no such thing as reasonable paranoia, by definition paranoia is the belief of being persecuted that doesn't have a basis in reason and is objectively false.

Paranoia is an illness. Cancer victims don't add much to society either but we treat them.

And we should treat paranoids as well. That doesn't involve indulging their delusions though.

You might think they have that right but they don't have that right in any legal sense.

Hmm, I think they do. If an employer fires someone for spouting Holocaust denial, I think that's a legally defensible dismissal.

[oskar]

Elon is an engineer - rocket science mostly, but general mechanical and thermodynamic expertise. I've never heard him speak technically about the batteries a company of his is making, so I'm guessing he's softer on the electrical side.

Are you sure? His wiki says he dropped out of university. Which would be more in line with conversations like this:

[Poopadoop]

Run for your lives - giant baubles on the loose in London!

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status...70420420206603

[Poopadoop]

Been getting into these guys since they analysed the vibrating poker cheater thingy.

They're actually really good. I remember when this story happened I had a sense this woman was not right in some way but couldn't put my finger on it. These guys just nail her from the very beginning (I mean fair enough, they already know she's been found guilty, but still...)

[oskar]

I went down the rabbit hole on the JCS criminal psychology videos a while back. Murderers who think they can talk themselves out of getting prosecuted are peak entertainment. I'm not quite convinced by body language analysis. I would like to see one of those guys analyse a case they don't know the outcome of and then see their hit rate.

[Poopadoop]

I went down the rabbit hole on the JCS criminal psychology videos a while back. Murderers who think they can talk themselves out of getting prosecuted are peak entertainment. I'm not quite convinced by body language analysis. I would like to see one of those guys analyse a case they don't know the outcome of and then see their hit rate.

One of the four guys in the video above claimed they saw one of her early interviews and had her pegged then, but yeah you got a point.

Fwiw, they're all pretty confident Robbie isn't cheating, or at most that's she's very good at lying. They do have a few others videos where the outcome isn't foregone.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So long as simply being offended by someone's opinion isn't being portrayed as "causing alarm" or whatever language is used to present it as threatening. Hurty feelings are not sufficient alone. If someone simply says in the staff room over a coffee "well I don't think the Holocaust happened" and someone else says "I'm Jewish and I find that opinion to be an attack", whose side are you on? Does the Jewish person have a right to not hear someone utter those words?

I'm on both people's side if that's the whole story.

One person said what they believe. Another said how that makes them feel.
This is all good adulting so far.

No one has the right to "not hear" certain things. They have the right to be offended by someone's beliefs. That's all fine.

If either party starts to make it an HR issue about this, it's the person who can't simply be offended like an adult and still get their job done. GIVEN that the entire premise was totally benign.

You're allowed to be offended. You're not allowed to turn your offense into you personally being offensive as retribution.
That's childish. Act like a child get treated like one.

[OngBonga]

Hmm, I think they do. If an employer fires someone for spouting Holocaust denial, I think that's a legally defensible dismissal.

In Germany and Austria it's a custodial sentence, but in the UK I'm not sure that simple Holocaust denial is legally defensible dismissal. It should depend on the nature of the denial. If it's antisemitic in nature, that makes it easy. But Holocaust denial is not itself antisemitic.

There's no such thing as reasonable paranoia...

Sure there is. Like when parents don't want to let their children out. Locking your door at night. Not trusting people in authority. These are reasonable paranoias in my book.

[OngBonga]

I'm on both people's side if that's the whole story.

One person said what they believe. Another said how that makes them feel.
This is all good adulting so far.

No one has the right to "not hear" certain things. They have the right to be offended by someone's beliefs. That's all fine.

If either party starts to make it an HR issue about this, it's the person who can't simply be offended like an adult and still get their job done. GIVEN that the entire premise was totally benign.

You're allowed to be offended. You're not allowed to turn your offense into you personally being offensive as retribution.
That's childish. Act like a child get treated like one.

I agree with this. People can be offended by what they like. Just don't think that being offended means you have been attacked.

Holocaust denial is the extreme opinion that a normal person can have. It's a notch down from flat earth and lizards, which are scientifically illiterate. Holocaust denial is just straight up political, there's no science denial involved. It's probably on a par with climate denial in terms of rejecting the authority of science and/or history without rejecting testable science like the flat earth loons.

It's paranoia, and it's reasonable in my opinion because I understand why some people have an innate lack of trust for authority. I'm one of those people.

[Poopadoop]

Sure there is. Like when parents don't want to let their children out. Locking your door at night.

You're using a very broad definition here, where paranoia seems to mean having any fear of anything. I wouldn't say locking your door at night makes you paranoid, otherwise it would mean most people are paranoid.

Not trusting people in authority.

Getting closer. I mean, a mentally-ill paranoid would be someone who thinks the authorities are specifically out to get THEM personally, and that they're conspiring to do it. You can distrust authority without thinking there's anything personal about it.

But fine, I accept there's also a colloquial defintion of the word that means there's a suspicion that isn't necessarily well-founded or something.

There's also distrust of authority because authority has routinely done something bad. But that's not paranoia, that's just reasoning.

So I'm not really sure where you're going with this argument tbh.

[Poopadoop]

You can be deluded without being paranoid. I can think the cute girl at the petrol station has the hots for me when she doesn't, because she smiles when she hands me my change. That's a delusion.

But if I think she's deliberately trying to fuck with my head (key word: MY head) by smiling when she gives me my change, and that other people are also pretending to be nice to me just to mess with me, and that they're all in on it together, meeting up secretly to think up ways to screw with my brain, then that's paranoid.

Point is, the person who denies the Holocaust can just be deluded, they don't have to be paranoid. Even if they deny it for some weird reason like Jews are running the world or whatever, that's still not being paranoid. It has to be something directed at you personally to be truly reflecting paranoia, not just you having weird ideas about how the world works; that's delusion.

[Poopadoop]

in the UK I'm not sure that simple Holocaust denial is legally defensible dismissal.

If you can fired for being a ginger, being a Holocaust denier should be a sackable offense too.

[Poopadoop]

People can be offended by what they like.

It's strange that you put the responsibility for offense on the person being offended, as in they've considered the other person's behaviour, then made a deliberate choice to be offended.

Most people would put most of the responsibility on the person doing the allegedly offensive act.

[Poopadoop]

No! Not Stephen! OMFG I can't wait...

[OngBonga]

You're using a very broad definition here, where paranoia seems to mean having any fear of anything.

Not really. It's a fear of something that is highly unlikely to happen. You lock your door at night even though you could probably go your entire life leaving it open and nobody will let themselves in while you sleep. It's paranoia, but it's reasonable because we want to be safe while we sleep.

Yes, most people are paranoid. Most people have a fear of something that isn't a genuine risk. Spiders, clowns, heights, things with holes in (my sister's phobia). Phobias are paranoias.

You can be deluded without being paranoid.

Yes, and you can be paranoid without being deluded.

If you can fired for being a ginger, being a Holocaust denier should be a sackable offense too.

I joke about this because gingers don't get the same legal protection as homosexuals, trans, religious folk etc. But if you fire someone for being ginger, and you tell them that, good luck at the employment tribunal. You're still not really going to get away with it. It's just not illegal like the protected characteristics.

It's strange that you put the responsibility for offense on the person being offended, as in they've considered the other person's behaviour, then made a deliberate choice to be offended.


Most people would put most of the responsibility on the person doing the allegedly offensive act.

It depends on the context. If I go out of my way to offend someone, that's on me. If someone is offended by my opinion, that's on them.

If I say "I don't think the Holocaust happened", that's not offensive so long as I actually believe it.

If I then add "though it's funny if 6 million Jews really did die" that's obviously offensive.

You get offended by the former, that's on you. If you're offended by the latter, that's on me.

[Poopadoop]

Not really. It's a fear of something that is highly unlikely to happen. You lock your door at night even though you could probably go your entire life leaving it open and nobody will let themselves in while you sleep. It's paranoia, but it's reasonable because we want to be safe while we sleep.

Yes, most people are paranoid. Most people have a fear of something that isn't a genuine risk. Spiders, clowns, heights, things with holes in (my sister's phobia). Phobias are paranoias.

Yes, and you can be paranoid without being deluded.

Ok well you're making up your own definitions for paranoia and delusion here. That's not how they're defined though, so don't know what else to tell you. I can point you to the dictionary I guess but whatever, believe what you want.

[Poopadoop]

It depends on the context. If I go out of my way to offend someone, that's on me. If someone is offended by my opinion, that's on them.

Disagree. If you hold an opinion that's so out of line with what is considered acceptable, you generally know that it's going to offend people.

Say you honestly believe women are inferior beings and should be kept as slaves by men. You can't then argue that it's not your fault if people are offended by that opinion. It's your fault for expressing such an offensive opinion.

If I say "I don't think the Holocaust happened", that's not offensive so long as I actually believe it.

That's just a nice out for anyone expressing offensive thoughts. Basically you're saying a person can spout whatever offensive shit they want as long as it's their true belief. And since no-one can know what anyone's true beliefs are, ergo no-one should ever be offended by anything ever, and if they do the default judgment is that the offended party is the one to blame.

If I then add "though it's funny if 6 million Jews really did die" that's obviously offensive.

Why does this become offensive? If you truly believe it, you're just expressing an honest opinion, same as the Holocaust denier. Your own logic is falling apart here.

You get offended by the former, that's on you. If you're offended by the latter, that's on me.

Again, both are (hypothetically) your honest opinion, and by your reasoning I shouldn't be offended by you expressing an honest opinion.



I mean, there's something to what you're saying. If I say I'm a Buddhist and some Christian or Muslim fundamentalist gets offended by that, that's not my fault. But mostly that doesn't happen, and people can agree those people are nutters.

But if I say I'm a Satanist and believe in torturing animals and killing virgins or whatever, other people being offended doesn't seem strange at all.

Point is, it's the degree to which your stated belief (real or pretend) lays outside societal norms that determines whether or not it's considered offensive. Society has come to a consensus opinion that Holocaust denial is offensive; it's irrelevant (and unproductive) to try to work out if the person is saying it because they believe it or just to be a dick.

[OngBonga]

Disagree. If you hold an opinion that's so out of line with what is considered acceptable, you generally know that it's going to offend people.

So what? Knowing a comment or opinion is likely to offend someone doesn't mean the intention is to offend people. And just because most people find something offensive, doesn't mean they're right. For example, there was a time when most people were offended by homosexuality.

I don't think 9/11 happened like they say. That's offensive to some people. Should I lie if I'm asked my opinion on the matter so I don't accidentally offend someone?

Lying to not offend people is worse than telling the truth and offending someone. If people are offended by my honesty, fuck them, it's their problem to deal with, not mine. I'm offended by their cry baby attitude. We'll call it 1-1.

Say you honestly believe women are inferior beings and should be kept as slaves by men. You can't then argue that it's not your fault if people are offended by that opinion. It's your fault for expressing such an offensive opinion.

If someone really believes this, I'd rather they tell me rather than pretend they treat women as equals. I'd rather know this person's character. Honesty is better.

I don't have a right to not hear people promote misogyny. I have the right to like it or not. I have the right to be this person's friend or not. I don't have the right to silence them. Not unless their speech is illegal. Discrimination against women is illegal, though having opinions isn't. If this guy isn't employing women because he thinks they are inferior, well now it's an issue beyond simply having an opinion.

That's just a nice out for anyone expressing offensive thoughts.

Are you the thought police? Who cares if someone has offensive thoughts?

Basically you're saying a person can spout whatever offensive shit they want as long as it's their true belief.

Absolutely, and so long as they phrase their opinion in a way that isn't a direct attack on any individual or group.

"I don't believe the Holocaust happened"... ok, fine.

"Fucking Jews are lying"... not fine.

Stop being afraid of people having "offensive" thoughts. It's part of the human psyche. Accept it as part of who we are as a species and pick your friends based on whose opinions you can accept and those you can't. People you don't like - fuck them, ignore them, don't let them play a role in your life. It's really that simple. If people are going too far with their offensive opinions, let the authorities sort it out. If it's not a matter for the authorities, don't let it be a problem for you.

Why does this become offensive? If you truly believe it, you're just expressing an honest opinion, same as the Holocaust denier. Your own logic is falling apart here.

Do you really not see the difference? Thinking the Holocaust didn't happen is a purely political opinion. Finding amusement in people dying is an indication of an extremely unpleasant person. Actually saying you find the idea of Jews dying to be funny is antisemitic, and illegal.

The difference is antisemitism. When you deny the Holocaust, you're treading a very fine line, you have to be very careful not to be antisemitic. If your opinion is motivated by hatred of Jews, and you're making that obvious, you're not freely expressing a legal opinion. You're being antisemitic.

But if I say I'm a Satanist and believe in torturing animals and killing virgins or whatever, other people being offended doesn't seem strange at all.

What if you're a Satanist who doesn't sacrifice goats or virgins? What if you just light candles and draw a pentagram and recite verses from a book? That's gonna offend people, but fuck them.

When the Satanist starts doing illegal things like killing animals, then it ceases to be a matter of "fuck them" and now is a matter for the authorities.

Society has come to a consensus opinion that Holocaust denial is offensive

Yes but here in the UK it is not illegal, and nor should it be. It is no different to being a Satanist. That was a good example. Something we mostly find offensive but an individual is free to believe.

We're free to believe what we like. And we're free to express our opinions so long as we do not break the law.

[OngBonga]

I mean this began with a conversation about getting fired. That's a grey area because it's possible that in their contract they have agreed not to discuss extreme political opinions with colleagues or on social media where your followers and the general public can see who your employer is. idk what legalese nonsense they'd put in your contract to cover that but if it's there then they can totally fire you for talking about Holocaust denial in the staff room. Fair enough in that case, you signed the contract.

But without such clauses, it's free speech.

[oskar]

I think the holocaust happened.

[OngBonga]

Yeah but you spell it with a lower case H which might be antisemitic. Why did you do that? Is it because you hate Jews?

[oskar]

I knew this would ruffle some feathers, but I think the holocaust happened, and the jewish people, like all people have a right to live in peace on their own land. I just want to make this clear to everyone who's reading this, be it you, the other guy, or whatever agent got a red alert on their desk after you guys dropped every conceivable keyword an IDF taskforce might search for.

[OngBonga]

lol I forget you're in Austria where you can get strung up by your testicles for daring to suggest the historical account might not be accurate.

For the record I think the Holocaust happened, Israel should exist but stop stealing more land, and I should be allowed to smoke weed.

[Poopadoop]

I knew this would ruffle some feathers, but I think the holocaust happened, and the jewish people, like all people have a right to live in peace on their own land. I just want to make this clear to everyone who's reading this, be it you, the other guy, or whatever agent got a red alert on their desk after you guys dropped every conceivable keyword an IDF taskforce might search for.

Nice callback to the debate on "what is paranoia" there. Well played, sir.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Lol. Nice.

[oskar]

Lol. Nice.

I think I'll stick with "The holocaust happened", tyvm. But you do you!

[Poopadoop]

"The holocaust happened"

When I was a postdoc I worked for a professor who was Jewish. One day he told me a bunch of his ancestors, uncles and aunts or whoever, had died in Auschwitz. I said "That's horrible!", and his response was just to shrug and say "yeah but what're you gonna do?"

After that me and my friends in the lab, instead of saying "shit happens," when something broke or whatever, would say "Holocaust happens." (Not when he was around obviously, we weren't that big of dicks.)

[Vinland]

Lol - what are you gonna do...

[boost]

Elon is an engineer - rocket science mostly, but general mechanical and thermodynamic expertise. I've never heard him speak technically about the batteries a company of his is making, so I'm guessing he's softer on the electrical side.

He's also an accomplished entrepreneur, though not due to his charisma, due to his results.

He's a big fucking nerd, basically.


He sometimes talks about things outside his expertise, and says dumb shit. With so many eyes on him, he catches undue flak for his gaffs. Also, he has a parade of internet sycophants who will defend his every shit stain. So it does go both ways.


He's mostly just the rich guy who runs SpaceX, but owns a few other high-profile companies. He's as flawed as anyone, but can afford to be on any stage he likes, so... IDK. This is the world we live in.

How are you defining engineer, and what evidence do you have that Elon Musk is one? You're obviously much better positioned to judge his expertise in that realm than I am, but I've seen so much out of his depth expertise larping and fudging of his origin story that I'm fully skeptical of this idea that he's some sort of real life Tony Stark.

Billionaires have both the means and motive to embellish or even fabricate their personal myths. I think we'd all do well to be more critical of the tales they spin.

As for undue flak: stop talking authoritatively outside of your field of expertise, or expect due flak. The man's utterances move markets, bend the ears of world leaders, and motivates a throng of rabid sycophants-- I'm sure glad there's flak when he says some dumb shit.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Musk knows rockets and rocket science. I've seen him do interviews while walking through his rocket facility in the desert. He talks the talk about engines, knows what every part of the engines is and what it does and why it's a headache and compromise like literally every part of a rocket engine is. He understands the processing layout of his factory and what's going on and at what stage it is in its process and how it fits into the bigger picture of rocket assembly.

I'm sure he's not making every decision on any of those things, but he does understand it all with an intuitive depth that can only be ascribed to engineers.

I've heard a lot of talk on the internet lately that he's some idiot with money and just hires people to be smart for him, and I don't really know where that comes from aside from his social / political gaffs.



This is a problem with free market economics. They produce and enable people like Musk and Bezos to have influence outside their actual areas of expertise. Their acquisition of extreme wealth opens doors for them and puts them on stages where they do not have any business being. I can fault them to a certain extent for taking advantage of the system and using it to their advantage as they see fit. But to a greater extent, I kinda thing them existing shows the proof that allowing unregulated acquisition of wealth has serious problems.

IDK the solution, but people don't even want to admit there's a problem, and that kinda baffles me.

[OngBonga]

According to his Wikipedia page, Musk has degrees in physics and economics.

He's no dumbass. When he was getting interested in space exploration, he wanted to buy repurposed ICBMs from Russia so he could grow plants on Mars. Russia offered him a missile for $8m, he rejected and instead decided to make his own. So he sold PayPal and set up Space-X. It almost bankrupted him, but ultimately its success propelled him from millionaire to billionaire. His role at Space-X is Chief Engineer, as well as CEO. His father is an electromechanical engineer.

I agree with boost that when Musk speaks with authority outside of his expertise, any flak he gets is due, not undue. But I don't think Musk is faking his engineering expertise.

[Vinland]

I don’t know what it’s like in Europe, but in North America we often elevate people with a lot of money to god status. Usually unwarranted.
We listen to athletes talk about social issues, or even worse political issues, celebrities talk like they know what’s going on and people listen to them.
I know nothing about Musk but I assume he did something right and assume knows a thing or two about rockets and electric cars, but outside that I don’t give a fuck what he thinks. So when him, Gates and others start talking about outside shit that’s when I tune out.

I don’t know if stopping people from acquiring wealth is the answer, idk, I feel they should be free to do so, but if regular people are going to listen to every talking point they make, that’s kinda on them

[OngBonga]

The absurd thing is that the only people who actually listen to the political virtue signalling of athletes, celebrities and even corporations, are those who oppose wealth accumulation. The left.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't oppose wealth accumulation. I've never heard anyone seriously speak about opposition to wealth accumulation that wasn't pushing a hard line communist political system or a hard line socialist economic system.

I'm concerned that a cause of human aggression is wealth inequality. It's not the only cause, and it's not the only concern I have about our society's inner workings.

I'm not against free market economics. I'm against the fact that they are perfect for 99.99% of humans, but that 0.01% that abuses them does a lot more overall harm than good. It's not a fast slide. We've been OK for a couple centuries. But that slow decline is showing its consequences.

If I was against the accumulation of wealth, I'd be saying that I have an answer to the runaway wealth inequality. Just take money from the wealthy, or make laws that limit their accumulation. I'm not saying that, though. I don't think a naive solution is best. I think a naive solution like that wouldn't actually change anything except who has the ability to pull the strings.

[Poopadoop]

The absurd thing is that the only people who actually listen to the political virtue signalling of athletes, celebrities and even corporations, are those who oppose wealth accumulation. The left.

Donald Trump and Boris Johnson were both celebrities before they became politicians. Who listens to them? It's not "the left."

[OngBonga]

I should have said the hard left rather than the left.

There already is a solution. We tax rich people more than poor people. That makes it better for the economy for one person to earn $85k and another to earn $15k, than it is for two people to earn $50k.

Tax is the solution. Getting the balance right between tax and creating a competitive economic environment is the challenge.

[OngBonga]

Donald Trump and Boris Johnson were both celebrities before they became politicians. Who listens to them? It's not "the left."

Nobody gave a fuck about them before they were politicians.

[boost]

Nobody gave a fuck about them before they were politicians.

I can't speak on Boris, but you're dead wrong about Trump. He spearheaded the whole birtherism movement.

[OngBonga]

Well Boris before he was a politician was a "journalist", though I'm using the word generously. He made up a quote and credited it to his grandfather, and abruptly got fired for it. Even as a political commentator for a tabloid, it's not like he had any real influence. Few people read it, and fewer hang on his every word. He was a nobody until he was the Mayor of London.

idk about Trump, I didn't really know who he was until he became a politician. Not sure if he was just famous or actually influential. Maybe I am wrong about him, maybe he had a cult following of a significant size before he ran for office.

[boost]

According to his Wikipedia page, Musk has degrees in physics and economics.

He's no dumbass. When he was getting interested in space exploration, he wanted to buy repurposed ICBMs from Russia so he could grow plants on Mars. Russia offered him a missile for $8m, he rejected and instead decided to make his own. So he sold PayPal and set up Space-X. It almost bankrupted him, but ultimately its success propelled him from millionaire to billionaire. His role at Space-X is Chief Engineer, as well as CEO. His father is an electromechanical engineer.

I agree with boost that when Musk speaks with authority outside of his expertise, any flak he gets is due, not undue. But I don't think Musk is faking his engineering expertise.

He has a bachelors of arts in physics. The light version of an undergraduate degree in physics.
His titles at his companies are evidence of exactly nothing and this should not need explaining.
His dad was a successful engineer. Sure this gives us some useful info that supports his engineering capabilities, but really only the tiniest bit
The rest is fluff from his self authored myth.

I'm not claiming that he's dumb, I just think that taking his personal myth at face value is naive.

[boost]

Well Boris before he was a politician was a "journalist", though I'm using the word generously. He made up a quote and credited it to his grandfather, and abruptly got fired for it. Even as a political commentator for a tabloid, it's not like he had any real influence. Few people read it, and fewer hang on his every word. He was a nobody until he was the Mayor of London.

Thanks for filling me in, I truly had no clue about any of that. Pre-prime minister Boris, other than what you've just told me, is an absolute blank for me.

idk about Trump, I didn't really know who he was until he became a politician. Not sure if he was just famous or actually influential. Maybe I am wrong about him, maybe he had a cult following of a significant size before he ran for office.

Yeah, I just told you that he spear headed a conspiracy movement that had real influence on national politics, so, you know, weird to follow that up with these three sentences.

Did he have the following he currently has? No, of course not. Does your point about his status pre-politician stand? No.

Care to revisit your assertion that it's only the left that rallies around celebrities opining on social and political issues that they lack expertise in? No, I suppose not...

[Poopadoop]

Nobody gave a fuck about them before they were politicians.

Boris never expressed an opinion about politics before he entered politics, so there was nothing to give a fuck about.

But when he did enter politics he got credit because he was a celebrity and people knew him as the funny bloke off the telly. So yeah, it's not just people on the left who give credit to celebrities.

I think it's a question of familiarity. A lot of people are basically shallow when it comes to politics. They can't be bothered to learn about the issues, that's too complicated. Instead they just vote for the guy with the funny hair and the posh accent, who they recognize.

As for Trump, he presented himself as the stereotype of the American dream success story, and people bought it. So he had two sources of appeal.

[OngBonga]

@boost

Fair enough, I'm not really trying to big him up. But his old man being an engineer certainly has me thinking that Elon would have had a healthy interest in engineering as a kid, and that's going to result in a smart kid. And a healthy interest in such a complicated subject can only get you so far. I have a healthy interest in General Relativity and could probably wing a ten minute conversation with experts, but any more than that and my lack of credible education on the subject will become rather clear.

I don't think he's any more brilliant a person than anyone else could be. He had the right environment as a child, the right education, some good decisions and good luck along the way, now he's the richest motherfucker in the world. Good for him. I like him more than most other rich wankers. At least he has a bit of personality. Sure he can say stupid things and make himself look like a complete idiot. Some of us can relate to that rather than judge him for it.

[Poopadoop]

Oh yeah I forgot Boris worked for some low-level newspaper at one time. So he probably was talking about politics then (and he famously prepared both a pro-Brexit and an anti-Brexit column before the referendum, then decided to go with the former. Still, being a journo is a kind of celebrity, and he was on TV quiz shows and shit doing his "Pwah! Who me?" act with the messy hair before he entered politics too.

[OngBonga]

But when he did enter politics he got credit because he was a celebrity and people knew him as the funny bloke off the telly. So yeah, it's not just people on the left who give credit to celebrities.

Being "the funny bloke off telly" is not "credit". Fuck me. He was a disgraced journalist. Nobody gave him any credit until he became Mayor. Then people started to like him a bit because he's a goofball. Then he became PM and everyone decided to hate him because fuck the Tories. That's basically his career in a nutshell.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, I just told you that he spear headed a conspiracy movement that had real influence on national politics, so, you know, weird to follow that up with these three sentences.

Would you like some ice for that burn, Ong?

[boost]

Musk knows rockets and rocket science. I've seen him do interviews while walking through his rocket facility in the desert. He talks the talk about engines, knows what every part of the engines is and what it does and why it's a headache and compromise like literally every part of a rocket engine is. He understands the processing layout of his factory and what's going on and at what stage it is in its process and how it fits into the bigger picture of rocket assembly.

I'm sure he's not making every decision on any of those things, but he does understand it all with an intuitive depth that can only be ascribed to engineers.

I've heard a lot of talk on the internet lately that he's some idiot with money and just hires people to be smart for him, and I don't really know where that comes from aside from his social / political gaffs.



This is a problem with free market economics. They produce and enable people like Musk and Bezos to have influence outside their actual areas of expertise. Their acquisition of extreme wealth opens doors for them and puts them on stages where they do not have any business being. I can fault them to a certain extent for taking advantage of the system and using it to their advantage as they see fit. But to a greater extent, I kinda thing them existing shows the proof that allowing unregulated acquisition of wealth has serious problems.

IDK the solution, but people don't even want to admit there's a problem, and that kinda baffles me.

I've never worked as a mechanic, much less a mechanical engineer, but working on motorized stuff has been a hobby/interest for me since I was a teen. I believe I could not only convince a lay interviewer but even most engineers in adjacent fields that I have a robust understanding of internal combustion engineering-- things I would need to do this: the backdrop of a successful internal combustion engine based business, the lay interviewer tossing me softballs (potentially ones that I gave them to pitch), and a little practice playing up whatever little bit of autism I might have. Nevermind being free to tinker with my hobby to my hearts content, pick the brains of actual internal combustion engineers on my payroll, etc.

I'm not saying he for sure isn't an accomplished rocket engineer, but I am saying that it's also possible that he's passing and you're failing a sort of Turing test, and further that he has every incentive and all the leverage to set the parameters of that test in his favor.

[Poopadoop]

Being "the funny bloke off telly" is not "credit". Fuck me. He was a disgraced journalist. Nobody gave him any credit until he became Mayor. Then people started to like him a bit because he's a goofball.

How do you think he got from fired journalist to Mayor of London?

Then he became PM and everyone decided to hate him because fuck the Tories. That's basically his career in a nutshell.

lol yeah, he was doing such a good job as PM. If only he'd been in a different party he'd still be popular today.

[boost]

Sure he can say stupid things and make himself look like a complete idiot. Some of us can relate to that rather than judge him for it.

bubblegum, chew, walk

[Poopadoop]

a sort of Turing test,

Funny you should mention that, because our last PM (the one who lost to a lettuce) routinely failed the Turing test imo.