The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think some of you guys should have a bit of a think about why you're so ravenously keen to infer such meaning from Roar87's post. It didn't even cross my mind that he was saying that, I've had a hard time working out what you guys were even saying, for me involves some mental gymnastics to work out how people have come to the conclusion that his post meant that.

Inb4 I'm called preferably racist or disabled.

:edit: sorry it was preferably disabled, not preferably racist!
 
Last edited:
Dialup said:
He's been promising self-driving level 5 since 2015...

Hasn't Ford and GM now over-taken Tesla?
Click to expand...

Audi/vw and Mercedes have also. Tesla is essentially at the back of the pack when it comes to self-driving cars . It is a shame but very typical Musk. He decided arbitrarily that self-driving cars only need cameras because humans only use vision. Other companies use lidar and ultrasound combined with cameras, which helps tremendously, especially in bad visibility like front-lit setting suns, fog, snow, dark.
 
Zefan said:
I think some of you guys should have a bit of a think about why you're so ravenously keen to infer such meaning from Roar87's post. It didn't even cross my mind that he was saying that, I've had a hard time working out what you guys were even saying, for me involves some mental gymnastics to work out how people have come to the conclusion that his post meant that.

Inb4 I'm called preferably racist or disabled.
Click to expand...
no mental gymnastics at all. At best it is just very ambiguous, but it is hard to give such a poster in GD much leeway when there are so many climate change deniers and other CT nut heads
 
What's wrong with CT nut heads? He didn't call Roar87 one.

I have an uncle in Australia who keeps posting that space lasers are being used to start wildfires so the global elites can buy up land cheap.
 
Last edited:
Colonel_Klinck said:
Elon thinks @AuschwitzMuseum should have to have holocaust deniers and antisemitic posts on their tweets because Elon.

Click to expand...



Good thing he cant actually do it



Elon puts his foot in it before he thinks because he believes he is the smartest person in the room and this is another case where Elon promises crap he can't deliver

If Elon removes the block feature then Twitter will be banned from Android and iOS phones worldwide. That's because both platforms require social media to have a block feature in order for people to protect themselves- imagine if a child using Twitter had to subjected to a pedophile online because there was no way to stop them

As there is no way Elon would happily remove Twitter from all phones (and mobile devices like tablets) worldwide, the chance that this block feature is removed is about zero because alienating your customers to only being able to access Twitter from a PC would mean losing more than half your customers overnight
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
Good thing he cant actually do it



Elon puts his foot in it before he thinks because he believes he is the smartest person in the room and this is another case where Elon promises crap he can't deliver

If Elon removes the block feature then Twitter will be banned from Android and iOS phones worldwide. That's because both platforms require social media to have a block feature in order for people to protect themselves- imagine if a child using Twitter had to subjected to a pedophile online because there was no way to stop them

As there is no way Elon would happily remove Twitter from all phones (and mobile devices like tablets) worldwide, the chance that this block feature is removed is about zero because alienating your customers to only being able to access Twitter from a PC would mean losing more than half your customers overnight
Click to expand...
From what I gather based on Roars post from a few days ago, there would be a "ignore" feature, so in your example, the child would still not subject to what you've said.
 
Zefan said:
I think some of you guys should have a bit of a think about why you're so ravenously keen to infer such meaning from Roar87's post. It didn't even cross my mind that he was saying that, I've had a hard time working out what you guys were even saying, for me involves some mental gymnastics to work out how people have come to the conclusion that his post meant that.

Inb4 I'm called preferably racist or disabled.

:edit: sorry it was preferably disabled, not preferably racist!
Click to expand...

What about "inb4 I'm called ignorant and inexperienced to Roars posting style"?

Just because you don't know a user well enough, doesn't mean everyone is wrong for assuming something of roar, which roar clearly felt the need to quickly clear up after saying it as what he said was ambiguous.

What roar said too was the exact same words that holocaust deniers use. That was his mistake. He wrote something that wasn't clear, and matched exactly the Ct nuts say.

So yeah people were right to assume the worst of roar because history shows us why to assume that of roar.

Check Roars clown of a post that he's too scared to reply to in the Biden thread. He posts clown material, gets laughed at, never returns while seeing everyone comment on his nonsense.

I will add once roar clarified his post, I then understood it and don't think he meant what he originally seemed to be meaning. It would have been better to edit/clarify on his original post.

But still, if you follow the original point colonel was making, Roars post with his actual meaning, doesn't make sense to what colonels was saying nor does it refute anything about xitter

It's like if the following happened

User A: "women have to work harder than men to be successful"
User B: "no there was a woman once he once ran a company, so women clearly are as successful as men. Do half the work get half the reward"

Everyone, "wow user b has repeated the nonsense that women work half as hard as men."

User b "no I meant if those who claim women have to work harder to be as successful as men, if they do half the work (don't research the true stats) then those users will get half the reward (the true answers)

Everyone: "OK if that's true, why does 1 women having success once disprove what user A initially said? Seems like you're backtracking"

Zefan "omg how did anyone take what user b said to mean anything about women not working as hard"
 
Last edited:
You're giving off waste of my brainwidth vibes. The fact that you think I don't have extensive experience of Roar87 (after 17 years membership here, most of that as a moderator), and lack the ability to see what a completely laughable take "'look things up for yourself' is a conspiracy theory dogwhistle" is, makes me conclude that you are not arguing in good faith. I hope you understand it isn't personal, I am simply trying my best to not engage with people who seem to not be doing so in a genuine manner.
 
Zefan said:
You're giving off waste of my brainwidth vibes. The fact that you think I don't have extensive experience of Roar87 (after 17 years membership here, most of that as a moderator), and lack the ability to see what a completely laughable take "'look things up for yourself' is a conspiracy theory dogwhistle" is, makes me conclude that you are not arguing in good faith. I hope you understand it isn't personal, I am simply trying my best to not engage with people who seem to not be doing so in a genuine manner.
Click to expand...

You're boasting about being a moderator at one point, while replying with "k"

And then moaning at others not arguing in good faith.

Sorry but the majority disagrees with you, Roars post was ambiguous and misleading. He even felt the need to clarify it.

Seems you're not arguing in good faith here.

And also, Jesus get better come backs. "youre wasting my bandwidth". 0/10

Any way, realising this is well off topic now. Will leave it there
 
Last edited:
unwashed potato! said:
What about "inb4 I'm called ignorant and inexperienced to Roars posting style"?

Just because you don't know a user well enough, doesn't mean everyone is wrong for assuming something of roar, which roar clearly felt the need to quickly clear up after saying it as what he said was ambiguous.

What roar said too was the exact same words that holocaust deniers use. That was his mistake. He wrote something that wasn't clear, and matched exactly the Ct nuts say.

So yeah people were right to assume the worst of roar because history shows us why to assume that of roar.

Check Roars clown of a post that he's too scared to reply to in the Biden thread. He posts clown material, gets laughed at, never returns while seeing everyone comment on his nonsense.

I will add once roar clarified his post, I then understood it and don't think he meant what he originally seemed to be meaning. It would have been better to edit/clarify on his original post.

But still, if you follow the original point colonel was making, Roars post with his actual meaning, doesn't make sense to what colonels was saying nor does it refute anything about xitter

It's like if the following happened

User A: "women have to work harder than men to be successful"
User B: "no there was a woman once he once ran a company, so women clearly are as successful as men. Do half the work get half the reward"

Everyone, "wow user b has repeated the nonsense that women work half as hard as men."

User b "no I meant if those who claim women have to work harder to be as successful as men, if they do half the work (don't research the true stats) then those users will get half the reward (the true answers)

Everyone: "OK if that's true, why does 1 women having success once disprove what user A initially said? Seems like you're backtracking"

Zefan "omg how did anyone take what user b said to mean anything about women not working as hard"
Click to expand...

I take this user off ignore to see what Zefan has replied to and see this wall of meaningless dribble being typed on a Saturday night LOL
 
unwashed potato! said:
You're boasting about being a moderator at one point, while replying with "k"

And then moaning at others not arguing in good faith.

Sorry but the majority disagrees with you, Roars post was ambiguous and misleading. He even felt the need to clarify it.

Seems you're not arguing in good faith here.

And also, Jesus get better come backs. "youre wasting my bandwidth". 0/10

Any way, realising this is well off topic now. Will leave it there
Click to expand...
I replied with K because your wall of text was embarrassingly lacking in meaning, including probably the worst example of straw manning I've ever seen, so bad in fact that I'm going to use it as an example from now on.

Boasting? No, simply clarifying that it should be obvious that my experience extends well beyond that of a normal member, of course I'm going to have thorough awareness of user history. Anyone who's been a member here since 2006 should really get this, to suggest I was missing the point because of that is very odd and feeds in to my initial point of people being very very ready to assume the worst about people, almost without properly thinking things through. The truth is, people can be fully (even well in excess of yourself) experienced in an area, yet disagree with you.

The presence of a "correct majority" means nothing to me, actually no, it actually makes me more likely to challenge things. I make a habit out of speaking out against what I consider to be widely upheld untruths. It generally gets me in trouble but I think we have a duty say what we think is right so I do, regardless of the apparent size of the "correct" majority.

Better comebacks? Pls check the post I last quoted :o

Roar87's "need to clarify it" is absolutely mind blowingly poor evidence for him wording it badly. It wasn't just off his own back, it isn't like he realised something he had said and went to backpedal. It was following obvious misunderstanding of his post when quote replied by someone, something anyone would do. If you're misunderstood by someone, does that automatically mean you are at fault for being unclear? Let's do a little thought experiment as to his options, I'd like to know if you forsee any different outcomes:

Roar is being misunderstood as a holocaust denier and is being quote replied as such:
1. He doesn't reply. This is further proof that he is a holocaust denier, as he has obviously read the responses and is choosing not to correct people.
2. He replies correcting people. This is - according to you - evidence that his post was at best poorly worded, there is absolutely zero chance that the misunderstanding is other people's fault. Some members continue to believe their misunderstanding, despite clarification. There
3. He edited/clarified on his original post. This is treated as an admission of poor wording on his part, and I expect the people who call his clarification a lie would call foul and say that this is an attempt at erasing evidence.

Is there any other option for someone who's been misunderstood? If not, I look forward to purposefully misunderstanding your posts in future.

I'm not really too interested in a reply, as far as I'm concerned it appears you don't wish to actually engage properly. My posts ref this mainly intend to show that a challenge to the pile on above exists.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom