That’s quite the elitist argument, I’m sure shared by many an authoritarian, and against the principles of the founders, I would think.
Entertaining update about UCF student who tracks Elon Musk's jet
- Thread starter Knight Strength
- Start date
Man she is really going to freak out when she learns that the birds aren't real. Some tried to save American birds, but failed. The “deep state” had destroyed them all, and replaced them with surveillance drones. Every bird you see is actually a tiny feathered robot watching you.
#birdsarentreal
This psychological phenomenon is an established fact and your attempt to refute it demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the topic, or is an example of the phenomenon in action. Quick read here:
Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds
Why many people don’t let facts get in the way of their cherished beliefs.
For what its worth, I hold libertarian and objectivist leanings and strongly believe in the first amendment, so social media censorship makes me very uncomfortable. My wife and I have talked about this a lot over the past few years. It actually turns my stomach. That said, these platforms are very powerful and it's reasonable for private companies to want to reduce bigotry and baseless propaganda. Of course I do acknowledge there are some examples of them overreaching and the government should not censor books, tv media, etc.
Last edited:
I understand your argument. At some point you have to make a choice between freedom or not. Most of those choices are easy. The most valuable ones are not.IThis psychological phenomenon is an established fact and your attempt to refute it demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the topic, or is an example of the phenomenon in action. Quick read here:
Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds
Why many people don’t let facts get in the way of their cherished beliefs.www.google.com
For what its worth, I hold libertarian and objectivist leanings and strongly believe in the first amendment, so social media censorship makes me very uncomfortable. My wife and I have talked about this a lot over the past few years. It actually turns my stomach. That said, these platforms are very powerful and it's reasonable for private companies to want to reduce bigotry and baseless propaganda. Of course I do acknowledge there are some examples of them overreaching and the government should not censor books, tv media, etc.
How do you think freedom is lost in societies? It’s normally not because someone comes along and instantly ends it. It’s because authoritarians use emotions to justify measures that seems reasonable but are actually an erosion of freedom. “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Or “Science!”
Your study is perfectly fine and accurate. Yet we have to make a choice: do we believe that people should have the freedom to believe in crazy things or not? Or even dangerous things? If we allow (or worse, encourage) the government to manage the things that we can see, hear, or speak, then we are not free.
I share a lot of your feelings on this but want to point out two things.
1. No society on earth has pure freedom or zero freedom. Freedom is on a spectrum.
2. I fully agree with your point about erosion taking place but it's also possible to achieve a balance where safety and quality of life are ensured by regulating some behaviors.
Since you referred to government managing free speech, do you believe social media companies should be allowed to regulate speech on their own platforms without influence from government?
So you advocate for anarchy and absolute freedom of the individual. You would be perfectly fine with someone advocating, for example, that you and you family are dangerous and should be removed from society. You must be against registration of sex offenders because pedophiles should be able to believe in dangerous things and not be persecuted. It's their freedom.
Democracy and the American way allow freedom of speech but not unabated freedom of speech. (Can't yell fire in a crowded theatre) A perfect example of "free" speech gone awry can be found in the daycare sex abuse hysteria and false phenomenon that happened in the 1980s.
Truth be told we have more freedom today than we have ever had. Practically anyone except a non-citizen or person with criminal history can vote. Women and minorities have made huge strides in the workplace. We have unabridged religious freedom. Interracial and interfaith marriages are allowed. Women are no longer possessions and men can no longer arbitrarily rape or beat their wives. (Look up the meaning of rule of thumb) Many of these freedoms did not exist in your parents or grandparents world.
Yup. The this or that, all or nothing argument is a gross oversimplification and holds no water when it comes to the topic.
I always thought that was a myth more than anything.
The whole Twitter / Elon stunt was never about 1000% free speech no matter what. If it is, Twitter will become what 4chan was. But it won't, because this is about his portfolio, not free speech.
yeah 4chan/8chan/ Parler late 2020 is the direction many want it to go. If Elon is naive/dumb enough to allow that it will tank the value of twitter
Freedom to speak without criminal action taken by one’s government does not equate to an entitlement to a platform to broadcast any and all speech.
OJ is innocent!!!!
And so is Casey Anthony! 😉
Does it matter if people believe this though? Doesn’t change my life. Or if someone’s 75 year old mom believes stuff. Or people demanding a black HC or offensive coordinator. Or conversely only wanting white men in those positions. Opinions. Doesn’t change my life and people should be allowed to express them.
No, I don’t advocate anarchy. Clearly we cede some freedoms to have a functioning society. This particular hypothetical that we are debating is far different than rape and battery. This is an old woman harmlessly believing something that is different from the mainstream opinion. We should not be regulating that and it does the issue of eroding freedoms no good to instantly direct it to the most extreme example.
Every time we want to add regulations to thought and behavior it should be asked if we should cede this freedom to the government. The answer may be yes but we should stop and ask it every time.
And yes, I believe that private companies should be able to regulate their own content. The issue with Twitter is that they are working with government at the moment to define who gets censored. That and apply undue market and legislative forces to kill competition (such as strong arming ISPs to drop apps). When they stop acting like private entities and collude with the government for each other’s good at the expense of the free market and consumers, that’s when things need to change.
Last edited:
It affects you when society around you continues to degrade and people aren't able to have productive discussions. I know of a handful of people/life-long friends I no longer talk to because they simply can't distinguish between factual/logical info and pure rubbish.
"Trump riotors weren't his supporters, they were paid Biden supporters"
Yea, ooookay.
It was using as a extreme example to show absolute free thought and speech can't all be protected.
Also it shows that sometimes we prosecute people even after they have done their "time" because we are worried about their dangerous thoughts or speech. This isn't to say that I don't agree with sex offender registration, only used it as an extreme example.
I also love to hear different sides of an argument and listen to how other people may see the same issue. Often times if you listen you may learn things you never even thought. This is especially true when many people surround themselves with only a sounding board.
There has to be rules else it becomes ChatRoulette.IThis psychological phenomenon is an established fact and your attempt to refute it demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the topic, or is an example of the phenomenon in action. Quick read here:
Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds
Why many people don’t let facts get in the way of their cherished beliefs.
For what its worth, I hold libertarian and objectivist leanings and strongly believe in the first amendment, so social media censorship makes me very uncomfortable. My wife and I have talked about this a lot over the past few years. It actually turns my stomach. That said, these platforms are very powerful and it's reasonable for private companies to want to reduce bigotry and baseless propaganda. Of course I do acknowledge there are some examples of them overreaching and the government should not censor books, tv media, etc.
If the rules are for me and not thee. Then that is censorship and against American values.
Be able to have a conversation with those you disagree with people. You cant just hide under a rock and ignore alternate points of view.
This all depends I've had several friends where no matter how much you try to avoid politics everything becomes about politics. Want to talk about sports, they're boycotting them because of the players political views. Want to talk about music they only like certain artists because of their political views and won't listen to anything else. Want to talk about the weather they will literally tell you some theory on how the weather is affected by X political party.
And I've seen this on both sides of the political spectrum. Most people don't realize most of the time left wing/right wing -same bird.
You are absolutely correct. He has no unique skill set other than being a pain in the ass. Many times I have found out who currently owns a plane I have seen in old movies or tv shows. This kid is not a genius.
Maybe you're right. I figured some of us would be interested but it is not UCF sports related.
I’m hearing the jet tracking kid might be transferring to Ole Miss*
I find most people with that view, see themselves as smarter/better than the general public, when in fact they are not. I think the last statement is true of almost everyone once they accept something as fact. Most of those in charge, live and think in a narrow band formed by the ideology they hold to be true. Logic has almost nothing to do with it.
No issues with the original thread... Political sewage seeps through any crack it finds.
So the same 8 people can argue and not change anyone else’s mind.
Yup. Tried to have good conversations. Don’t think that’s possible anymore.
The teen who tracks Elon Musk's jet agreed to stop monitoring Mark Cuban's flights on Twitter after the billionaire offered business advice: 'By ending this you have me as a friend for life'
The teen who turned down a $5,000 offer from Elon Musk said he stopped tracking Cuban's jet on Twitter in exchange for business advice.
This kid gets it.
Seems like he crossed the line of extortion...
The teen who tracks Elon Musk's jet agreed to stop monitoring Mark Cuban's flights on Twitter after the billionaire offered business advice: 'By ending this you have me as a friend for life'
The teen who turned down a $5,000 offer from Elon Musk said he stopped tracking Cuban's jet on Twitter in exchange for business advice.www.yahoo.com
This kid gets it.
I would applaud him if he converted his skill/effort to a position with one of those juggernauts... Short sighted to settle for cash/tesla
Our guy is back in the news.
www.cnbc.com
Elon Musk has taken even shorter flights than Kylie Jenner's 17-minute trip, says jet-tracking teen
Jack Sweeney, a college sophomore who tracks billionaires' and celebrities' jets, says Elon Musk has taken shorter flights than Kylie Jenner's recent 17-minute trip.
Short flights are not that uncommon. There are a lot of small cities that have 2 terminal airports that are like 100 miles to the nearest hub. Those flights take like 15 minutes.Our guy is back in the news.
Elon Musk has taken even shorter flights than Kylie Jenner's 17-minute trip, says jet-tracking teen
Jack Sweeney, a college sophomore who tracks billionaires' and celebrities' jets, says Elon Musk has taken shorter flights than Kylie Jenner's recent 17-minute trip.
You don't fly to the hub as a destination, it's usually a stop to connect to another airport.
