Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote on 2022-11-20, 12:26:cancel culture
Twitter Bans Accounts Mocking 'Free Speech Absolutist' Elon Musk🤡
11 1 111 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 111 1 111 1 1 1 1 111
And that graphic about left and right is just biased as hell. Maybe the right went so far right that they‘d even storm the capitol 🤷♂️
Which would also explain the notion of companies being left. They aren‘t. Only the right moved so far right that beutral companies seem left to them.
Dominus wrote on 2022-11-20, 10:12:So here is to hoping that we can have a discussion or at least voicing our opinion without insulting each other
Guess I'm just really sceptical about the existence of a civil political discussion online or anywhere. The moment someone mentions 'Trump' it's guaranteed to delve into a far-left vs far-right namecalling angry catfight. The fact that it got 5x the views of an average Vogons thread in 2 days means that users are really amped up about the topic, especially now.
BTW people are already insulting each other, just not openly. The passive-aggressive tone is established that people use with reddit: a fine line that doesn't get you banned yet but it's enough to say FU to the other party and get them to react/fight back. Politely of course.
Jo22 wrote on 2022-11-20, 06:49:Okay, this is just an idea, but maybe it's also the times which have changed. Nowadays generations nolonger live for work, but work to live.
I think younger generations would (over)work as hard as their parents if they actually had the same outlook on life and the same possibilities.
I don't exactly know how it's working out over the pond (from what I've heard it's pretty bad) but here in Germany over the last 20 years politics have constantly held down wages while also increasing taxes and pensions of the old generation. There's also the massive field of temporary work here. People are shoved from one underpaid job to another and for a majority of people, salaries are just way too low. We have >10% inflation and the only solution our politicians had for that was "Well your company can give you a few thousand bucks tax-free, if they want."
This benefits companies, they can avoid paying higher wages and giving people permanent contracts. No company pays this one-time benefit except the ones that are already very wealthy, of course. So the rich get even more rich and the poor get nothing, just as usual.
Around 40% of the people here don't have any wealth at all, and they're living from paycheck to paycheck. Our pensioning system is so broken that every GenY/GenZ knows they'll be utterly f*cked when they get old. People have nothing and still they have to pay double:
1. Put a significant amount of your salary into the pension fund of the state (that only benefits the current boomer generation and will dry out soon).
2. Find methods to sustain yourself when you get old, like putting your money into ETF's etc.
It's just such a big mess. Imagine starting a family with a system like this, or trying to build a house for yourself. Event renting a nice apartment is impossible for a lot of people. I'm a ("well-paid") coder and I live in an absolute shithole. If I move out, I'll have to pay three times the amount I'm currently paying - putting 60% of your hard-earned money into a small room you can sit in just doesn't feel right for me.
While all of this happens wealthy boomers are taking interviews on the TV telling the young generation that they are all lazy and just need to work harder to get the things they want in life.
I am GenY and honestly? I've given up. I know I'll always be pretty poor, even though I still have it better than a lot of people here. So I try to make the most out of my life. I only work 30 hours a week (4-day-week) and I'm not burning myself out for a job anymore. There's no benefit in making your company 30.000 bucks more by improving it massively, because you will never see that money by yourself. Some people call that "quiet quitting", I'll call it just doing my job.
But I'm also pretty happy that I work in IT. At the end of the year I'll ask my boss to raise my salary because of the inflation, and if he can't/doesn't want to do this, I'll just quit and find another employer who does. Guess I'm entitled now because I want food on the table and a Voodoo II. 😀
Errius wrote on 2022-11-20, 12:41:Yeah, this is a toy to him. Other rich guys buy racehorses or boats or airplanes. Musk bought Twitter.
And this is a guy who doesn't seem to mind burning 44 billion to tear down Twitter and rebuild it according to his political views. Believe me, the result would be very interesting.
Firtasik wrote on 2022-11-20, 13:00:
Nobody said Twitter would be less toxic post-Musk. If anything, it may be even more toxic, but the shits will go the other way. However, it doesn't change the fact that pre-Musk Twitter is indeed vitriolic and toxic. An example is the attempt to cancel Chris Pratt for merely not participating in Biden's fundraising campaign. I'm not even an American, but this kind of thing bothers me. So what if Pratt is apolitical? Is there anything wrong with that? Is it mandatory for Pratt, or anyone, for that matter, to actively support a politician?
Are we living in a fascist society where active political participation is mandatory, while being politically neutral is considered a crime? I hope such thing will never ever happen in my own country (although it may already have in 2014, when the so-called supporters of tolerance and diversity were bullying others for merely disagreeing with their views).
"You are not participating hard enough, comrade!"
Dominus wrote on 2022-11-19, 16:46:they ran into trouble for this... who knows and it isn't on topic.
Yes, but not from Twitter. It shows that Twitter moderation team was okay with posts that suggest to kill the entire male gender. And this is the same moderation team who claimed to be against hate speech, thus making them sound like hypocrites.
And no, nowhere did I say Twitter will be better under Musk. In fact, I have posted that Musk may drive Twitter into bankruptcy, and I have also posted that Musk seems to make a lousy business decision. In fact, post-Musk Twitter may even be more toxic, although the shits will go the opposite direction (there are always those who want revenge). However, it doesn't change the fact that Twitter was already a cesspool before Musk's acquisition.
Dominus wrote on 2022-11-20, 12:42:It wasn‘t 51.8% of Twitter users only of those that knew about the short lived poll and voted. How many of the 420 million users voted? 14 Million?
So that‘s ~ 1/30 who voted and a mere 1/60 of Twitter users who want Trump on the platform…
By the same logic then there are also less than 1/60 of Twitter users who want Trump stay banned.
The truth is, until they have another vote --with proper quorum-- that shows otherwise, then the "Twitter majority wants Trump to return" is the best truth for the moment. Far from absolute truth, of course, and could be disproved in the future, but we haven't got new evidence(s) that suggest otherwise regarding this matter.
Dominus wrote on 2022-11-20, 13:07:And that graphic about left and right is just biased as hell. Maybe the right went so far right that they‘d even storm the capitol 🤷♂️
By the same logic, the mostly peaceful protest in Kenosha indicates that the left went so far left that they set dozens of buildings on fire. You may call it 'whattaboutism', I call it applying the same standards into similar situations. But at the end, it is moot point. Both the left and the right may have gone too far to their respective directions, but regardless of whatever happens, Musk believes that the left has gone so far left, and he was under such belief when he acquired Twitter.
Whatever happens next will be far from boring.
Dominus wrote on 2022-11-20, 13:07:Which would also explain the notion of companies being left. They aren‘t. Only the right moved so far right that beutral companies seem left to them.
Nope. The right may have moved so far right (and in all fairness, the left may have moved to far left as well), but that doesn't explain the notion of large corporations leaning left. Big business support progressive left causes for their own ends. In other words, big businesses are probably the most opportunistic virtue-signalers. At one hand, they support conservatives policies like tax cuts and the likes. But on the other hand, they're probably the most vocals in supporting Social Justice Warriors: LGBT, feminism, workplace diversity, you name it, as long as it's not minimum wages. Or does anyone naive enough to believe that Nike is genuinely concerned about black people?
In their attempt to win the "cool people" (that is, the progressives), big businesses may want to disassociate themselves from Musk's Twitter. Problem is, they're advertisers --Twitter's primary source of income. Thus, Musk's attempt to make Twitter "less left" could be a bad business decision.
That being said, some big businesses attempts to appeal to the "cool people" may backfire. Ever heard the phrase "go woke, get broke"? This mostly happens on entertainment companies though.
People may call me right, or left, or whatever, I don't care. I just miss the day where entertainment were entertainment, instead of blatant, unentertaining push of certain political agenda.
Never thought this thread would be that long, but now, for something different.....
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman.
Kreahna, can you please, pretty please stay on topic and not try so very hard to steer the discussion away from the topic with countless whataboutisms?
It’s really annoying and a well documented way of bringing a discussion down by bringing in a lot of different topics that has potential to derail the original topic.
Hollywood has always been very liberal, but in the past the studios were run by big assholes who didn't allow politics to get in the way of business, and who were willing to crack the heads of writers, directors, etc. who thought otherwise. (See Barton Fink). I don't know why this has changed.
Is this too much voodoo?
Dominus wrote on 2022-11-20, 17:58:Kreahna, can you please, pretty please stay on topic and not try so very hard to steer the discussion away from the topic with countless whataboutisms?
It’s really annoying and a well documented way of bringing a discussion down by bringing in a lot of different topics that has potential to derail the original topic.
My points have been clear from the very start:
It was you who brought things like "the right were storming the capitol" and "Musk graphics is biased". And I have said that whether Musk is right or wrong is moot point. Musk is probably wrong, or right, or whatever. It doesn't matter. The fact is that he was under such belief --wrong or otherwise-- when he acquired Twitter; could explain his messy management policies.
Could you please pretty please actually point out which point(s) of mine fall into the category of whataboutisms? Or are you just offended that I use these toxic Twitter posts as examples that Twitter was already a cesspit even before Musk's acquisition?
Are you offended by me using these as examples? And how?
Never thought this thread would be that long, but now, for something different.....
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman.
Errius wrote on 2022-11-20, 18:10:Hollywood has always been very liberal, but in the past the studios were run by big assholes who didn't allow politics to get in the way of business, and who were willing to crack the heads of writers, directors, etc. who thought otherwise. (See Barton Fink). I don't know why this has changed.
Indeed. We expect business to be rational; that business should do everything to maximize profits. I came to realize that business is still run by humans, and humans are not wired to be rational.
In fact, businesses seem to be less and less rational these days. What Musk is doing with Twitter could be a right-wing version of "go woke, get broke", although we haven't seen the end of the story yet.
Never thought this thread would be that long, but now, for something different.....
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman.
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote on 2022-11-20, 18:13:My points have been clear from the very start: […]
Dominus wrote on 2022-11-20, 17:58:Kreahna, can you please, pretty please stay on topic and not try so very hard to steer the discussion away from the topic with countless whataboutisms?
It’s really annoying and a well documented way of bringing a discussion down by bringing in a lot of different topics that has potential to derail the original topic.My points have been clear from the very start:
- Musk has very likely made a lousy business decision, which may severely impact his financial position, but since he is worth 190 billion, he may be able to handle it.
- Musk may drive Twitter to the ground, and I say it is a great thing, because Twitter was already a cesspool even before the take over.
It was you who brought things like "the right were storming the capitol" and "Musk graphics is biased". And I have said that whether Musk is right or wrong is moot point. Musk is probably wrong, or right, or whatever. It doesn't matter. The fact is that he was under such belief --wrong or otherwise-- when he acquired Twitter; could explain his messy management policies.
Could you please pretty please actually point out which point(s) of mine fall into the category of whataboutisms? Or are you just offended that I use these toxic Twitter posts as examples that Twitter was already a cesspit even before Musk's acquisition?
Are you offended by me using these as examples? And how?
First of all, no I‘m not offended at all by these examples. Why would you even think that? It’s pretty ridiculous, even more so by asking it twice.
2nd you gave the example of a whataboutism yourself.
3. you brought up many points in an off hand way that I took the bait (leftist companies for example, the graphic). And you brought up many other questionable points in an offhandish way.
I recognize this tactic. Flooding a discussion with a lot of things that bait people and then steers the discussion away from the main topic. And each time someone takes the bait you (general you, not you) bring in more questionable things that again baits people.
In the end the discussion is not about the topic anymore, it’s about the bait, the bait‘s bait and people having to answer that they are not offended by pictures and why they answered to a bait.
For sci-fi fans (like myself) it's even worse, since all writers, including Hollywood SF writers, see themselves as creative, free-spirited, bohemian, artistic, etc. figures. i.e. the polar opposite of the stereotypical 'trekkie'. They despise their fans, and take pleasure in insulting them.
This is where you need the Big Asshole to come in and whack them over the head, reminding them that "you do NOT insult your audience, no matter how 'dorky' you think they are."
Is this too much voodoo?
Dominus wrote on 2022-11-20, 19:15:First of all, no I‘m not offended at all by these examples. Why would you even think that? It’s pretty ridiculous, even more so […]
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote on 2022-11-20, 18:13:My points have been clear from the very start: […]
Dominus wrote on 2022-11-20, 17:58:Kreahna, can you please, pretty please stay on topic and not try so very hard to steer the discussion away from the topic with countless whataboutisms?
It’s really annoying and a well documented way of bringing a discussion down by bringing in a lot of different topics that has potential to derail the original topic.My points have been clear from the very start:
- Musk has very likely made a lousy business decision, which may severely impact his financial position, but since he is worth 190 billion, he may be able to handle it.
- Musk may drive Twitter to the ground, and I say it is a great thing, because Twitter was already a cesspool even before the take over.
It was you who brought things like "the right were storming the capitol" and "Musk graphics is biased". And I have said that whether Musk is right or wrong is moot point. Musk is probably wrong, or right, or whatever. It doesn't matter. The fact is that he was under such belief --wrong or otherwise-- when he acquired Twitter; could explain his messy management policies.
Could you please pretty please actually point out which point(s) of mine fall into the category of whataboutisms? Or are you just offended that I use these toxic Twitter posts as examples that Twitter was already a cesspit even before Musk's acquisition?
Are you offended by me using these as examples? And how?First of all, no I‘m not offended at all by these examples. Why would you even think that? It’s pretty ridiculous, even more so by asking it twice.
2nd you gave the example of a whataboutism yourself.
3. you brought up many points in an off hand way that I took the bait (leftist companies for example, the graphic). And you brought up many other questionable points in an offhandish way.
I recognize this tactic. Flooding a discussion with a lot of things that bait people and then steers the discussion away from the main topic. And each time someone takes the bait you (general you, not you) bring in more questionable things that again baits people.
In the end the discussion is not about the topic anymore, it’s about the bait, the bait‘s bait and people having to answer that they are not offended by pictures and why they answered to a bait.
The topic is bad management, and my point is Musk is vry likely to be politically motivated, hence his messy management. I don't see the reason why such thing derail the original topic.
Let me remind you again that it was you who posted irrelevant posts like "the right stormed the White House" and "Musk's graphics is biased", and it was me who reminded you that it is all moot points. Like I told you, whether Musk's political views are right or wrong is irrelevant. The point is that Musk is very likely to be politically motivated, explaining his bad management.
If I tried to derail the topic using "whataboutism" as you accused, then I wouldn't even bother to remind you about the moot points. Instead, we would be debating about Kenosha peaceful riot vs occupy the White House. But no, I decided not to take that bait, and stayed in the topic about bad management decisions instead.
As for big businesses leaning left --or appear to lean left, it is already common knowledge, like Nike supporting Kaepernick, or Starbuck's supporting LGBT. Such phenomenon are quite well-known that people write analysys about it. And it's still relevant to the topic, because Musk unbanning Trump may drive such companies away --and they are advertisers; Twitter's potential source of income. Like I said, Musk unbanning Trump may achieve the former's political goals, but it makes lousy management decision.
As for cases of "go woke, get broke", they are examples of politically-driven bad management decisions. Batwoman TV show is probably the mirror image of Musk unbanning Trump.
I'd like to kindly remind you that it was you who derailed the topic by bringing things like occupy the White House, Musk's political bias, and big businesses not leaning left. And only after I refute your points while reminding that some of them are moot, then you accused me again of doing whataboutism. Am I missing something here?
Now, could we please pretty please do away with accusations, and go back to the topic about politically-driven bad management decisions? Because it is what likely happens on Twitter. In fact, Errius and I are discussing it right now.
EDIT: also, Dominus, if you insist that my point #2 is whattaboutism, allow me to remind you that I'm not the first on this thread who want to see Twitter dead. The difference is that I showed specific examples that Twitter is a cesspit. But for some reason I'd probably never knew, you accused me of doing whattaboutism.
Never thought this thread would be that long, but now, for something different.....
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman.
Errius wrote on 2022-11-20, 19:17:For sci-fi fans (like myself) it's even worse, since all writers, including Hollywood SF writers, see themselves as creative, free-spirited, bohemian, artistic, etc. figures. i.e. the polar opposite of the stereotypical 'trekkie'. They despise their fans, and take pleasure in insulting them.
This is where you need the Big Asshole to come in and whack them over the head, reminding them that "you do NOT insult your audience, no matter how 'dorky' you think they are."
It should be noted that, in certain cases, the Big Asshole may find it profitable to appeal to the progressives. An example is Nike supporting Kaepernick. Of course, it is all virtue signaling. I highly doubt Nike genuinely cares about black people.
In some other cases they may backfire, like Charlie's Angels and Ghostbusters.
And yes, including Twitter.
If I were Musk, I would never have bought Twitter on the first place, let alone for 44 billion. As much as I dislike censorship, especially when the censorship is double standard, I'm not politically motivated enough to fix Twitter according to my political views.
Not to mention Twitter is bleeding money. No, no way in hell would I ever buy the cesspool. If I were Musk I'd focus on SpaceX instead, or focusing on building nuclear power plants, because electric cars don't make sense when the primary sources of electricity are coal-based.
But then again, we haven't seen the end yet. Although I still believe,.from pure business standpoint, that Musk unbanning Trump is a bad management decision.
Never thought this thread would be that long, but now, for something different.....
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/elon-musk-reportedl … -193504274.html
Still too many people left at Twitter, it seems...
darry wrote on 2022-11-20, 20:22:https://ca.news.yahoo.com/elon-musk-reportedl … -193504274.html
Still too many people left at Twitter, it seems...
Twitter has been bleeding money even before the acquisition, and I doubt it will stop bleeding even after Musk mass-firing. All the chaos and controversies may drive advertisers away, not to mention unbanning Trump.
I still don't understand why Musk bought it on the first place, let alone for 44 billiom. The only viable explanation is that Musk wanted a 'political playground' so bad, that he believed he could take the losses.
Never thought this thread would be that long, but now, for something different.....
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman.
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote on 2022-11-20, 20:28:I still don't understand why Musk bought it on the first place, let alone for 44 billiom.
It feels like something that started out as a joke until he realized he was committed to it.
Let me remind you again that it was you who posted irrelevant posts like "the right stormed the White House" and "Musk's graphics is biased"
you could go back and see it was a reply on your take, then it was your reply bringing more bait.. etc. All good, I see what you are doing and called you out on this. I understand that you can't agree to this.
I still don't understand why Musk bought it on the first place, let alone for 44 billiom. The only viable explanation is that Musk wanted a 'political playground' so bad, that he believed he could take the losses.
There is a theory that he suggested it to take a stab at the presumed leftist company, sure that they would not take that bait, he made it a ridiculously big offer. But then it turned out that the people owning the stock are rather business people and of course took him up on his offer. And then he wanted out and realized that the terms he agreed on were just bad and he would loose the billion and a lot of lawyer fees (and here I am not sure, he probably would still be held to his agreement and be forced to buy).
nihilists take note: the shuttering of twitter is extremely devastating for international artists and creators (I don't mean influencers). I've followed a lot of artists I probably can't otherwise.
Being an “international audience “ here it is strongly important to understand that there are no “radical leftists “ in the us federal government. (We used to have actual strong arm, Bomby, armed militant leftists that would manipulate and kidnap opponents late 60’s and 70’s which would seem very similar to current alt right entities in structure)
Those movements died by 1982 and simply don’t exist with the framework and Infrastructure s the radical right has.
Those claiming far left ideology usually are not apart of any organized movement and act alone.
Many anarchists and criminals follow legitimate protests using (sometimes literally) the umbrella of protection they gain from the crowd and the group to comit wanton acts of violence and theft.
About half of protests had organized far right “umbrella men” lighting fires and creating mayhem. Most of the folks found stealing and breaking windows were white and had flimsy or non existent connections to any group.
Per independent neutral foreign groups that track politics
All of U.S. politics democratic Or republicans has moved right, most Democrats are by international standards “moderate “ even the handful that claim to be “communist or socialist “ are far and away from individuals wearing that badge overseas let alone in south/central America.
There simply is no radical or far left individual at the federal level that would pass the mustard on all issues, they may have one or two “radical views” (assuming gender rights , universal minimum income, and universal healthcare is radical)
but the rest will be white bread, boring and moderate.
It’s very important to understand that comments being called “politics “ have become insults a 5 year old would throw, such as obviously if anyone disagrees with your candidate they are a groomer and a communist pinko fag, even though said individual may actually hold more conservative views than the individual throwing said insult.
Quite sad we allowed the retardation of politics and government to occur. There are no real issues discussed and just childish insults with no solution or substance being presented.
Mandrew wrote on 2022-11-20, 17:09:Guess I'm just really sceptical about the existence of a civil political discussion online or anywhere. The moment someone mentions 'Trump' it's guaranteed to delve into a far-left vs far-right namecalling angry catfight.
The trouble has nothing to do with “political discourse “ of which there is none.
I have not seen any political discourse since the tea party rise.
What I have seen is that as religion has died a sub class of individuals appear to be unable to operate without a religion and have substituted “state run religions” as both their spiritual and “political “ affiliations.
If we look at the sub classes that are groomed to make up displaced male Muslim insurgents or displaced unruly Russian men you will find minimal differences between them and the so called pervasive “Incel culture “ in the west that follows alt right groups befriending and grooming vulnerable people to make up paper armies that believe whatever they are told, no matter how far fetched or ridiculous.
The key to defeating these entities is to stop treating them as being political when they are not and to break their ability to reach a wide audience, many times you get their BS in your face whether you want it or not,.
It is amusing the childish juxtaposition that has moved the bar of “radical leftist” from meaning bombing, strong arming and kidnapping opponents to meaning supports
“universal healthcare “ or
Green initiatives
I wonder “who did Pelosi bomb?”
Her opponent said he wanted to beat her with her gavel and now someone hit her husband with a hammer, irony is not lost even if it’s very sad how one directional the violence has become.
We have good reason to keep “religion “ out of government , especially “the religion of hate“ as that ain’t the way to have fun son.
Shponglefan wrote on 2022-11-20, 21:12:Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote on 2022-11-20, 20:28:I still don't understand why Musk bought it on the first place, let alone for 44 billiom.
It feels like something that started out as a joke until he realized he was committed to it.
Dominus wrote on 2022-11-20, 21:31:There is a theory that he suggested it to take a stab at the presumed leftist company, sure that they would not take that bait, he made it a ridiculously big offer. But then it turned out that the people owning the stock are rather business people and of course took him up on his offer. And then he wanted out and realized that the terms he agreed on were just bad and he would loose the billion and a lot of lawyer fees (and here I am not sure, he probably would still be held to his agreement and be forced to buy).
All of this makes me wonder: didn't Musk have at least a team of lawyers before making such offer? One that could help him making a less binding agreement, so that he would have easier time getting out of it. Or how about a team of financial analysts to help him make a less excessive offer.
Musk has made many bad management decisions after buying Twitter, but I believe his worst decision is buying Twitter on the first place. The company bleeds four million a day, that I doubt if its business model is sustainable. At least Facebook has started to be profitable since 2009, while Twitter is still losing money as far as 2021. That's why I believe the only sensible explanation is Musk wanted so bad to have his own political playground, that he didn't mind losing a quarter --or even much more-- of his net worth.
Of course, Musk would still live quite comfortably even if his net worth is reduced to 5 billion, or even 1 billion (Dwayne Johnson lives pretty well with less than that), but from business point of view, buying Twitter for 44 billion is still a bad decision.
Or perhaps Musk was aiming for 2024 US presidential election, where he would "sell" Twitter's power and influence over the public to the highest bidder? Perhaps he has prepared various bots and AIs , or at least a moderation team that obey his every whim, so that he could steer Twitter to push whatever narrative he wants to push? Then he would lend such power to the highest bidder? But I remain skeptical about this. For example, Biden's campaign fund is merely 1 billion. Assuming that a 2024 presidential candidate would spend the entire 1 billion to buy Twitter's power to sway public opinion, it is still far from the 44 billion Musk have wasted to buy Twitter on the first place.
In any case, the worst management decision is the one Musk made to buy Twitter on the first place, anything that follows are small potatoes compared to that.
Mandrew wrote on 2022-11-20, 17:09:Dominus wrote on 2022-11-20, 10:12:So here is to hoping that we can have a discussion or at least voicing our opinion without insulting each other
Guess I'm just really sceptical about the existence of a civil political discussion online or anywhere. The moment someone mentions 'Trump' it's guaranteed to delve into a far-left vs far-right namecalling angry catfight. The fact that it got 5x the views of an average Vogons thread in 2 days means that users are really amped up about the topic, especially now.
BTW people are already insulting each other, just not openly. The passive-aggressive tone is established that people use with reddit: a fine line that doesn't get you banned yet but it's enough to say FU to the other party and get them to react/fight back. Politely of course.
The funny thing is that one of the reasons I joined Vogons on the first place is because this board is probably the coziest, the least politically-inclined discussion forum at that time. Politics always tend to be toxic, and that's also the reason I've been avoiding social media since 2014. That's also the reason why I've been holding such negative views on social media, especially Twitter, where toxicities like this, this, and this take place.
But then again, I may be blinded by my utter dislike of social media, that it has made me overlook things like this:
leileilol wrote on 2022-11-20, 22:22:nihilists take note: the shuttering of twitter is extremely devastating for international artists and creators (I don't mean influencers). I've followed a lot of artists I probably can't otherwise.
I should have realized that the death of Twitter could have negative impact on innocent people's livelihood. Though I'm not the first to say on this thread that Twitter's death is a good thing, your post made me realized it was uncalled for, thus I sincerely take it back. My apologies, leileilol.
Never thought this thread would be that long, but now, for something different.....
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman.
