Off Topic Social Media and the death of Twitter

Two responses to the same post. Do you need a lie down after that strain?

 

It's their choice not to respond, I respect that, I just would prefer to be justifiably corrected more than left incorrect.

Tell you what.

You share, from what I can recall, fairly similar beliefs to me. Could be wrong, I'll stand corrected (arf).

Do me a favour, if you have time, objectively read what I put and then tell me where I went objectively wrong. As in, the bits that aren't correct or aren't subjective.

 

There's nothing strange about not wanting to get over involved with posters who have shown time and again that they don't so much debate as preach.

 

Thats very close minded of you. Sad.

 

Nope. For the reasons already mentioned.

 

please log in to view this image

 

He was asking Drew, not you. You seem very worked up all of a sudden.

 

Why would they want to kill us. They want us alive - we're farm animals, bred to consume and further the concentration of wealth into the hands of a few. Both the democrats and republicans and labour and conservatives want us for the same reason, they're just backed by different corporate entities. Musk wants you because you use his products, as do I. All the rest is just fluff.

Only one group of ppl/ideology have wanted me dead and targeted me as such in an attack.

 

It shouldn't do. You could have done it by now. In fact, if you know I'm wrong and exactly where I'm wrong, it won't take you any time at all.

I just literally told you to correct me if I'm wrong because if I am wrong, it's important to know where I was factually incorrect so I don't repeat it in future. It doesn't matter what I like or don't like, the heck's that got to do with it? Correct the mistake if you spot it, **** my feelings. Do you think I tell the kids I teach that "ekspress" is the correct spelling because it would make them sad if I corrected them?

It's helpful because I've done debates about this before and used some of the points I said, so if I'm wrong, it'd be massively helpful in knowing where I went wrong so that I don't repeat it. I don't understand why that causes you to take pause. Is the idea of helping me really that much of an issue?

 

Oh aye, and you wouldn't demand proof, and then drag out bits of the proof to try to justify your initial errors. I've seen you do it time and again. You may have noticed I haven't got all demanding for you to prove your claims, and that's for the exact same reasons.

As a token gesture, try talking to legal people about some of your claims, and you'll get a clear response, with examples.

 

If given the choice about the existence of LGBTQ+ folks, who do you think Musk would most likely take the side of? The eugenicists and xstian nationalists or the people who apparently infected his child with the "woke mind virus".

I agree with your statement about the corporate leeching of resources, it's an apolitical monster...most of the time. Except in this instance, whereby one of the monster handlers now has near executive power and unbridled influence over the most powerful nation on Earth. Some may argue "twas ever thus behind the scenes", but this is the first time it's been ratified with a presidential signature.

 

Well, if you asked for proof of a claim, of course I'd provide where I got it from, I'd hold anybody else to the same standard, wouldn't you? You know what tracks as verifiable proof and what doesn't, so if you provided a quote from a reputable source, a video or article as evidence, I wouldn't dispute it. I'd check it and verify it, but again, I'd expect the same of anybody else.

But just saying "you're wrong" and then leaving it there doesn't help anybody.

Taking your gesture, my future sister in law works as a lawyer here in Hull, which bit of the legal bit specifically should I ask her about? Or would it be quicker to just show her what I posted?

 

Okay, you're 100% right with absolutely every single thing you've said because you've clearly done so much, in depth and open minded, totally unbiased research.

 

Ah ok! My mistake, you meant LGBT as in us, I thought you meant you and I... As in two random ppl. This is why I shouldn't work and comment at the same time.

I think Musk will support whomever is most likely to financially and politically support his businesses/ventures and ambitions. He's clearly got stuck in a loop being involved in social politics and it's a shame. He should cash in his chips, donate 90% to charity and spend time and look after and rebuild relationships with his numerous children, life's too short to waste.

 

Anyone is entitled to not respond but people are also free to question why that might not be helpful to the discussion if they’ve already disagreed with something.

Objectively? No I didn’t see anything I thought was wrong. I am very wary of how ‘freedom of speech’ will affect justice systems across the world. There are often excellent reasons why things aren’t disclosed but unfortunately many sections of social media don’t understand why.

I am absolutely sure governments, law enforcement etc have hidden behind this as a convenient excuse at times - but equally collapse of trials is a real threat.

It might be useful for a high profile case to collapse - but they would be horrific for victims and not good for society so I wouldn’t want to see it happen.

I increasingly believe basic media and law studies are essential to a working society. What sort of stuff is on the curriculum now?

 

Musk is far too much of an meglomaniac for that

Theres no coincidence his government position is abbreviated as doge..

Its so edgelord its almost make believe
But its actually real

 

Maybe so, but a man's not a man if he doesn't spend time with and look after his children.

 

He supports the German neo-nazi party because they're not nazi's see, they're neo-nazis. Fabulous.

 

But which bit? The legal process, the bit about Tommy Robinson? I can't go in with "somebody said I was wrong when I said this, which bit is wrong?"

I'm not asking this in bad faith, please understand that, but also understand that these aren't random, arbitrary opinons I've copypastad from some ranting, socialist talking head on Youtube. I'm not a legal expert by any stretch (modesty...yeah?), but I've talked to some people who are and I've formed my opinions based on people that know better than me.

If you're now telling me they're wrong and you have the capacity to correct it, then that would be great and I'll be going back to those people to challenge what they said and so it goes on, that's how I learn about the world. But I can't do that because you're not providing me with anything specific to correct.

If you find the time, DM it to me, I would appreciate it.

 

ST trotting out Starmer's explanation as to why information was withheld. Matt Goodwin has given five examples of recent murders that were declared terrorist attacks within hours, details of offender(s) were given and their history. None of these were deemed prejudicial to a future trial. Legal experts not connected to the government have dismissed Starmer's explanation.