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

Status
Not open for further replies.

That's very generous of her as an individual, bit of a difference between someone who creates wealth and still holds it by virtue of the ownership stake in the venture(s) they founded and someone who is handed it as liquid investments they aren't tied into and doesn't have a productive use for it though.

I do think it is a good thing for billionaires to pass on wealth with big gifts like that, ideally to more effective causes though*. Gates and Zuckerberg have donated billions and both have pledged to give away the majority of their wealth, it's clearly been better for those people to keep on running successful ventures and not just knock it all on the head when they made one or two billion but instead, they've been able to pledge so much more and to more effective causes and all while creating jobs, creating products that have real value and driving technological progress.

*As a result of her gift some of the highest paid salarymen and women in the US will have less student debt when they graduate from medical school and their lifetime net worth of a few million gets to be a bit more (maybe a few are encouraged to apply that may have been otherwise discouraged), there are rather a lot more good causes out there that she could have donated to and that would have had a much bigger impact (I really wish people would look more into effective giving, charity giving can vary a great deal in terms of it's impact) but still it's very generous of her to donate it regardless.
 
Last edited:
Plenty people have replied, and plenty people have had some fun. This is GD. This is Roars posts. Rarely should they be taken seriously as he is someone that has literally said "I'm glad you can't have kids because you'd be a bad dad", or "I bet you have thin arms", or "you're such a loser posting on a Friday night on a forum"

It is fair for people to then laugh at his latest post where he defends the amount billionaires are taxed, because luckily they have allowed us to order food on our phones.

I didn't mention taxation in my post.

Here's an idea, read the post, respond with points you disagree with. Break the post down, highlight a point I made and explain why you disagree with it. Otherwise just don't reply to me. I'm not interested in some childish forum squabble, it's genuinely pathetic and sad. There are plenty of users on here you can reply to who aren't me.
 
I didn't mention taxation in my post.

Here's an idea, read the post, respond with points you disagree with. Break the post down, highlight a point I made and explain why you disagree with it. Otherwise just don't reply to me. I'm not interested in some childish forum squabble, it's genuinely pathetic and sad. There are plenty of users on here you can reply to who aren't me.
Are you OK roar?

You've literally read my post, but didn't break down the post, didn't highlight a point I made and explained why you disagree with it. You then called it pathetic and sad. Then you tell someone else to reply to other users, while you reply to the user.

You've literally done exactly what you've complained about.

I've never seen a good lookin unwashed potato.

You're not my target audience plus I'll pretend that's not true so that my fragile ego isn't hurt.

In other news, I see tesla stock has gone up almost 10 percent in last month. Any one know why given it'd had a drop over the last year, and given the news about the increase in demand dropping for EV vehicles ahead.
 
Are you OK roar?

You've literally read my post, but didn't break down the post, didn't highlight a point I made and explained why you disagree with it. You then called it pathetic and sad. Then you tell someone else to reply to other users, while you reply to the user.

You've literally done exactly what you've complained about.

You didn't raise any serious points about the topic, you made some statement about taxation which I didn't mention and then attacked my post history and me as a user, while encouraging others not to take my posts seriously. I said squabbles on a forum are pathetic and sad, not your post.
 
then attacked my post history and me as a user
Roar, you have done it again. Respond to the points you disagree with. Highlight the point. You tell someone not the reply while you reply.

How can it be that you moan others aren't highlighting the points, or quoting bits within a post they disagree with, while you yourself can't figure out how to do that. and then you ask others to take you seriously.

Attacked your post history by simply mentioning it! Lol what do you think you're doing right now.

So again are you OK? You are literally moaning at the very thing you're doing, while everyone else was just messing and having fun while also replying to posts with legit points. Lighten up and have fun like everyone else. I know the right are poor at comedy and all but you are allowed to not take things so seriously. If you want serious why don't you go to speakers corner.

Why don't you take your own advice and...


There are plenty of users on here you can reply to who aren't me.

My advice is make like a tree, and go reply to something else if you have more fun.

I'm all for #freespeech my backside!

Of which let's see how that #freespeech is going on xitter

BBC News - Eni Aluko says X allows people to 'vomit hatred unchecked'
 
Last edited:
She's a complete cry baby who is playing the victim because she's poor at her job and was hired based on her gender/race rather than any sort of talent/ability.

This is a post from 2011 where users criticised her performance as a footballer, she couldn't take criticism then - none of which was race related - and she can't take it now. Complete victim mindset.


I'm so glad I don't pay for a TV License.
 
Last edited:
She's a complete cry baby who is playing the victim because she's poor at her job and was hired based on her gender/race rather than any sort of talent/ability.

This is a post from 2011 where users criticised her performance as a footballer, she couldn't take criticism then - none of which was race related - and she can't take it now. Complete victim mindset.


I'm so glad I don't pay for a TV License.
You know for sure she never got private messages that were far worse?

I highly suspect she would have.
 
Wouldn't she have mentioned them?
The messages they sent often began with a comment about football, but quickly moved to personal attacks - frequently about gender and race.

you decided they don't exist, but then i suspect that's because she's a women of colour so why give her any benefit of the doubt her and assume she's lying/over playing it.

do you see the irony that users would report posts if they said something like calling someone a cartoon characters name? that too felt over played being the victim

She's a complete cry baby

playing the victim

because she's poor at her job

was hired based on her gender/race

rather than any sort of talent/ability

Complete victim mindset

blimey. you can do better than this
 
Last edited:
I very much doubt that he can!

You're on the wrong account again Penfold?

you decided they don't exist, but then i suspect that's because she's a women of colour so why give her any benefit of the doubt her and assume she's lying/over playing it.

do you see the irony that users would report posts if they said something like calling someone a cartoon characters name? that too felt over played being the victim


blimey. you can do better than this

Maybe we could get some examples? Every time I've seen an article with Joey Barton mentioned that allows comments, they almost unanimously agree with his criticism of her, which is simply that she's just not very good at her job. Then she plays the victim, like she has done for her entire career. I mean I'm sure she might get the odd racist comment (welcome to the internet, where people can mouth off as much as they want free of consequences), but it doesn't change the fact she was hired due to her gender and race, and she just isn't very good at her job.
 
But you don't know this. Just say "in my opinion, I'm wiling to bet, looking at her skills it may be... That she was hired due to her gender/race "

Rather than claim it to be a fact.

It's fact lol. I say things how they are, she's 100% a diversity hire and it's pathetic. Why would I self censor? Do you self censor? I will literally never do that.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
So you’re saying every BAME person employed by the BBC is just because of these targets. Got it.

"So you're saying" - okay Kathy Newman. I'm actually saying if you set gender and race targets then naturally you will not be hiring based on merit, and in the case of this particular BBC commentator it is obvious she is not in her position based on merit because she is poor at her job, refuses to accept any criticism - which has also been the case historically, and instead blames it on racism and plays the victim card where ever possible. She actually just cannot stand criticism.

What do you think happens at a job interview when you tell managers they need to hit targets for recruitment based on gender and race?

Oh never mind, we've seen first hand https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66060490
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom