Edit
Seems to be false don't want to spread misinformation so I'll leave this here as well seems to be a handy to tool to check Twitter shadow bans
The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
- Status
Being not banned now isn't evidence of not being banned earlier 
Another genius decision from Elon 'I'm Really Concerned About Child Porn on Twitter' Musk:
'Twitter disbands Trust and Safety Council.'
imaginemyshock.jpg
'Twitter disbands Trust and Safety Council.'
imaginemyshock.jpg
Last edited:
Who is being banned for insulting Elon?
I just used some obvious # and there's absolute tons of Elon insults.
Bloke claims he's shadowbanned, people look into it to see if he is, find out he isn't, bloke doubles down and then claims 24 hours afterwards that he has finally been unbannedBeing not banned now isn't evidence of not being banned earlier
Na man, seems just right.
Bloke claims he's shadowbanned, people look into it to see if he is, find out he isn't, bloke doubles down and then claims 24 hours afterwards that he has finally been unbanned
Weird that someone not him would be posting a check that says he was then. The one I linked to you.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
The sycophancy is nauseating it really is.
It was a fallacious appeal to authority.
In order to convince someone of your position, you told them to watch two particular videos. Why else would you post them if the objective was not to lend weight to your argument?
I criticised your choice of source on the basis that the individual was not qualified in the area, and was therefore not an authority on the subject; and furthermore I highlighted his track record of promulgating medical misinformation.
I understand that you're arguing that you only used those two specific videos as a means of getting information across in a digestible format, but that only makes the point more potent. This almost certainly isn't a topic that can actually be dumbed down to simple, 20 minute long, digestible YouTube videos with any sense of reliability. Any creator who does so will be likely end up injecting their own biases into their presentation of the facts, and in the case of summarising research papers, will be prone to misrepresenting that research due to a lack of specialised understanding.
But it is totally relevant:
- Any conclusions that he comes to have a fairly high likelihood of being erroneous due to his lack of expertise.
- Any summarisation of research that he does, will also have a fairly high likelihood of being incomplete and/or incorrectly misinterpreted, again because of his lack of expertise.
- Anything he says at all, has to be treated as somewhat suspect until proven otherwise, given his track record of misinformation.
- He is now a professional YouTuber who has amassed a large following, which now gives him a vested financial interest in maximising engagement over accuracy and playing to that audience's biases.
Dismissing non-qualified sources who have a history of misinformation, is absolutely not being closed minded.
You and I, and probably most of his 2+ million followers, are not remotely qualified enough to know whether or not his conclusions on anything relating to this topic are reasonable; we simply do not have the required understanding or experience to be able to effectively gauge that. As such, for layman like you and I, dismissing sources of that sort and sticking purely to reputable ones is the most reliable pathway to the truth that we have available to us.
Honestly, although I think the Covid stuff has gone on long enough in this thread, it does at least speak to epistemology, which is absolutely relevant to the discussion around Elon and how we disseminate information; but I don't think that us dragging this into our own little GordyDemonHole would benefit either of us. I don't expect much agreement from you on the back of this post but I think that I've been about as clear as I possibly can be now, so I don't really have anything further to add.
For me, back to Elon...
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Coming from a man who was brainwashed into believing some of the funniest nonsense I've ever seen posted on here back in Trump's days that is a little rich. I mean talk about being influenced by what you saw on the internet
Trump would have been banned long before if he wasn't president, he stepped over the line at which others would have been banned but wasn't due to his position. IMO he fully deserved his ban after Jan 6th. That was all on him and his constant lies about an election he lost but his ego couldn't handle and still till this day can't handle. The ultimate man child got sent to detention.
What does being anti-woke or having some unpopular view on pronouns and (hard) lockdowns (note not vaccines or some covid restrictions, he's not some lunatic) have to do with stances on things like healthcare or general liberal values etc..?
People seem to have gone for some weird and quite flawed pattern-matching thing here, because lots of people on the left, including liberals, are woke and Elon is anti woke then Elon must no longer be liberal and must be like the right-wing people who are anti woke, in fact because he's been trolling and getting lots of attention on the bird app he must be like the very worst right-wing anti woke people... therefore Elon = Trump.
You can write all of this but it doesn't make the video linked wrong, this is just such a long ad hominem lol
The guy encouraged people to vote the GOP into Congress a few weeks ago, said he would support DeSantis in 2024 if he ran and has been **** posting all the common GOP talking points/conspiracies on Twitter like a right wing fever dream.
If you can't work out what his politics are now, then I think you have some issues with observing objective reality.
Last edited:
Of course it doesn't. Why would you be under the impression that's what's being argued?
I can only assume that you're either not reading what I've written, or you're not understanding it.
Have I or have I not gone to great lengths to point out from the very beginning that I, along with probably everyone else in this thread, do not have the expertise required to be able to reliably gauge whether or not he is right or wrong in any his conclusions; and am therefore advocating for deferring to those who absolutely do have that expertise.
Good grief.
Presumably you mean a fallacious ad hominem? In which case, no it's not.
Pointing out that a source is not a qualified authority, lacks reliability and has a history of misinformation is absolutely not a fallacious ad hominem.
If I had said something silly like - "He's wrong because he has a bald head and thinks that Mrs Browns Boys is funny" then that would be an ad hominem fallacy.
As it stands, I've not even argued that he's wrong about anything, let alone used a fallacious ad hominem.
Ad hominem - Wikipedia
Last edited:
He may genuinely feel that way, however I am struggling to not see his gross attempt to play 'dumb' as eye brow raising..
Fair play, from your link:
I'd have to agree..
when it comes to misinformation.. but does that negate his abililty to read a report that doesn't need requirement of being a medical authority or training? Not so sure.
Last edited:
I heard Elon Musk doesn't have a formal engineering degree yet literally does engineering at SpaceX, apparently no one told him he doesn't have the expertise required to do the actual engineering he has done. To be fair though I did land a rocket on the Mun in Kerbal Space Program so I guess it's pretty much the same as that.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,276
- Location
- The South
- Status