This is a false equivalence from the beginning. The far right has been more dangerous than the far left in America for at least a century.
And the far right seem much easier to upset. "Oh no, a trans person held a beer can!"
The fact that they've realise that "facts don't care about your feelings" is too hypocritical - even for the far right should tell you a lot.
"Far left"
Jesus christ, this is quite insane.
Ya, the far left. You know, the lunatics that want to tax you and give your taxes to schools. For extremist purposes like new books and free school lunches. The far left. The terrorists that want to put the good American insurance companies out on the streets, and take taxes away from the woefully under funded military industrial complex, so that the person without a job, because they are too lazy to grow their legs back, can get free housing and medical attention. They are just so extreme. Nothing like the good god fearing right that only want to protect the children. From eating, reading, and generally being able to form a coherent opinion. That's what the Bible is there for. Or the Qur'an. Depending on your flavor text.
Insert that FBI stat that 3/4 of terrorist attacks in the US are far right, 1/4 Islamist and 2% far left.
Well, Islam is a right wing ideology. So I'm guessing 3/4 of attacks are by white nationalist and Christian fundamentalists, makes the rights share close 98% if these numbers are correct
No, that's fallacious in two ways: equivocation and appeal to emotion. Neutrality is not defined by upsetting both sides equally, because that means one side could shift the definition of neutral in their favor by being (or pretending to be) more upset.
Actual neutrality requires objectivity and calling out crocodile tears based on exaggerations (or even wholly imaginary issues, for that matter) as what they are.
Neutrality is not truth
I beleive the first would be an appeal to moderation fallacy. I mean, you're right in calling out the illogical BS. I'm just saying I think it's this particular flavour of illogical BS.
I'm sure you can see your way out of one just fine but favourite way to call out an appeal to moderation fallacy is to ask "if I said the sky was predominantly yellow and you, rightly, corrected me and said it was predominantly blue, would it be logical for a third person to conclude that the sky was green?"
When since he bought it have they (justifiably) upset the right? I admittedly wouldn't necessarily know but I just haven't seen that
He eventually got rid of a few openly nazi folks under threat of shuttering his platform.
Took a long time and a lot of threats though…..
Before he took over it would upset the far right. Now it almost exclusively upsets the left. See? It's even now! /s
He probably thinks of the right as to the right of his worldviews and the same with the left.
so Twitter doesn't deserve public trust. seems obvious to me.
So do something that upsets the far right, then.
Plenty of things to choose from. You could, for example,
-Exist while not being a bright shade of pink or orange
-Know basic math
-Love your neighbor
-Not live in fear of strawmen
-Demonstrate the most basic of critical thinking skills
-Dislike dictators
-Not care about what other people do in their bedroom
-Support access to medical care
-Want rich people to pay their dues
-Not be a complete tool
Any one of those things would be enough, but for maximum effect, I suggest doing all of them.
Make him go bankrupt and fade into obscurity.
The best plan!
The mother of all necessities
Except it's not, he thinks he's consistent. Far left and far right are a matter of perspective, and from where he sits, far left is trying to not deadname someone, starting a union, or progressive taxation. His far right is somewhere past suggesting gas chambers for social deviants.
Musk has gone over to the dark orange lying side.
This dude sounds like he needs a boot to the mouth. I swear every time he tries to sound smart he comes off as incredibly dumb, just like his ugly weirdo mother and father.
Musk is a lot like Ben Shapiro in the sense that they are both a stupid person's idea of a smart person.
The difference is that Ben Shapiro is a no-influence kind of dude even in the circles he grifts. The Apartheid Manchild has a tragic amount of power and influence.
Everything he says like this is basically the same kind of shit I thought was deep at 12
This is a beautiful representation of enlightened centrism.
And a perfect example of how it's almost invariably disingenuous right-wingers performing it.
The far-right appropriated centrism, by exploiting the fact that many thinks that the historical nazis were just cartoon villains that just did stuff for the sake of evil, and didn't had some sort of justifications to their heinious actions, thus by having justifications they can avoid the "literal evil" allegations.
So he's in charge of xitter and a troll. Oh wait, we knew that too.
Then why only censor leftist posts on your platform Elon?
Anything that involves people at scale, will contain politics. Whether that's interpersonal politics or government politics. People will eventually become polarized based on their political views.
I'm gonna dissect a definition so I can agree with you: from dictionary.com: Politics: the activities associated with
the governance of a country or other area, especiallythe debate or conflict among individualsor parties having or hoping to achieve power.Seems pretty clearcut to me
No, they just equate "neutrality" with their way being the status quo. It is a very intentional choice to shift the Overton window by insisting that this is neutrality.
And yet X is now a Nazi bar. All the communists and anarchists are on Mastadon and Lemmy, X is a hellhole now.
waves hello in socialist on Lemmy
My mission as a Communist is to get everyone to read theory, lol
Yeah, so equal to them is "well, if I'm not allowed to say that all trans people should be murdered, you're not allowed to say they shouldn't all be murdered!"
