Musk buys Twitter

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Oerets

I have stopped making any attempt at discussing subjects like global warming, politics or current events with any of those who have chosen to for what ever reason to suspend and ignore reality. Live in their twisted echo chamber of silence. Refusing the news unless it is from their leaders, thinking the media is corrupted.

I do it for fun, in anticipation of schadenfreude. You know, stuff like the Rittenhouse verdict. When you get your information from reliable sources, stuff like that verdict don't surprise you.

I have several rules regarding sources, but they can be summed up in this one example: Never trust a source that had to settle with Nick Sandmann.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Those who see the world as a place of them verses us. One where everyone that matters must have the same views. Refuse to believe any facts unless told this is the truth. Fool themselves by ignoring everything that challenges or disagrees with their concept.

I'm with you on that one as well. When those people try to shout down those they disagree with or try to get people censored or cancelled, it really gets my panties in a bunch. They are hyperventilating over musk bringing freedom of speech back to twitter. Suddenly these folks will have to actually support their point of view, rather than just keep pulling out their tried and true ( and now failed) primary debate tools:
ad hominem attack
Projection
Deflection

We can now have a debate, and let folks' words stand or fall on their own merit.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Simple facts that can not be denied, the planet is warming, ice that has been around for millions of years is melting. CO2 levels are increasing. The cause is plain right in front of us.... US! Ignored because of selfishness arrogant laziness.

OK, That paragraph is silly. I'll not get into an AGW debate with you, but I will at least back up my opinion with something:

Real Climate Science

I've been debating this subject since even BEFORE the infamous and ridiculed "An Inconvenient Truth".

But now that people are free to make their statements on Twitter, effectively leveling the playing field, perhaps all sides will get their soapbox and each reader can decide for themself which side(s) have the greater body of evidence on their side.

Remember, the "consensus" is what got Galileo excommunicated. Of course, we're now in "modern times", but we were then too.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by bobabode

I get it that for 'your' purposes you've employed 'parsing' another member's statement to make a point despite it's relevance. It's a common tactic that's utilized to deflect/obfuscate from the point being made.

Actually, I do it to address specific points and not get lost in rabbit trails. It is important to determine what someone actually means when they say something before you can respond. It's critical when I read contracts. Sometimes you have to read a sentence two or three times to understand what is actually being said. I was probably in error in my first response to the "echo chamber" comment because I had not CAREFULLY tried to analyze the meanings of all the words and divined what he meant with words like "silo" and "farm"

As to folks getting themselves banned, ie "cancelled"? When you violate the terms of use that one agreed to in advance of joining any online forum, expect consequences. It's not that opaque or even nefarious as some are wont to complain such as the former, twice impeached guy. In fact, herr T'Rumpolini was given far more leeway than most.

I've never been banned for a rules violation. That is why I was active in internet forums since 1997, but once the cancel culture kicked in after the virus mandates started, I was being banned from several sites for saying things they "didn't like". No ad-hom. No profanity. I wasn't even going "off topic. It was for just not toeing the line of group think.

I was banned from one site for merely posting a video of senate testimony, and the reason for banning? "Posting conspiracy theory crap."

That's why so many people are ecstatic about what's happening at twitter. We'll see if it sticks.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Who kicked over his rock, LOL.

DeSantis, I suspect.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

DeSantis, I suspect.

Nah, he hails from Perdooland.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

Actually, I do it to address specific points and not get lost in rabbit trails. It is important to determine what someone actually means when they say something before you can respond. It's critical when I read contracts. Sometimes you have to read a sentence two or three times to understand what is actually being said. I was probably in error in my first response to the "echo chamber" comment because I had not CAREFULLY tried to analyze the meanings of all the words and divined what he meant with words like "silo" and "farm"

I've never been banned for a rules violation. That is why I was active in internet forums since 1997, but once the cancel culture kicked in after the virus mandates started, I was being banned from several sites for saying things they "didn't like". No ad-hom. No profanity. I wasn't even going "off topic. It was for just not toeing the line of group think.

I was banned from one site for merely posting a video of senate testimony, and the reason for banning? "Posting conspiracy theory crap."

That's why so many people are ecstatic about what's happening at twitter. We'll see if it sticks.

Must've been some hogwash from that possum headed senator Randi Paul. (rolls eyes)

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

I was banned from one site for merely posting a video of senate testimony, and the reason for banning? "Posting conspiracy theory crap."

Conspiracy Theory...a well worn tactic to shut down an opposing view.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Conspiracy Theory...a well worn tactic to shut down an opposing view.

Yep. That. And calling someone a troll.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

For it to be an echo chamber, all parties must agree. That's what it was becoming. It just got derailed.

Not so overall, various groups gather around differing posters for affirmation of common points of view/opinion. The round-robin of affirmation basically becomes an echo chamber silo amongst many other silos of differing outlooks. The good ones may allow for a discussion of differing opinions hopefully based on agreed factual verifiable information.