Good to have a fighter against climate change on top.
why? Couldn't he "fight" climate change the same if he was the 20th richest person? Or the 100th? Or even thr 1,000th? Your response is something of a non sequitur.
When the Richest Person in the World earned his riches by fighting climate change:
(1) It bestows a higher level of prominence on and public awareness of the person and how they earned their riches, than if they were 20th, 100th or 1,000th.
(2) It proves that fighting climate change can be good business.
Of course his haters, detractors and grudgers won't recognize this, but as I've said, they really don't care about fighting climate change,
Good to have a fighter against climate change on top.
why? Couldn't he "fight" climate change the same if he was the 20th richest person? Or the 100th? Or even thr 1,000th? Your response is something of a non sequitur.
When the Richest Person in the World earned his riches by fighting climate change:
(1) It bestows a higher level of prominence on and public awareness of the person and how they earned their riches, than if they were 20th, 100th or 1,000th.
(2) It proves that fighting climate change can be good business.
Of course his haters, detractors and grudgers won't recognize this, but as I've said, they really don't care about fighting climate change,
Good to have a fighter against climate change on top.
why? Couldn't he "fight" climate change the same if he was the 20th richest person? Or the 100th? Or even thr 1,000th? Your response is something of a non sequitur.
When the Richest Person in the World earned his riches by fighting climate change:
(1) It bestows a higher level of prominence on and public awareness of the person and how they earned their riches, than if they were 20th, 100th or 1,000th.
(2) It proves that fighting climate change can be good business.
Of course his haters, detractors and grudgers won't recognize this, but as I've said, they really don't care about fighting climate change,
you are very strange
That's OK, I understand what you're going through.
For additional clarity about what Paul has been up to, I’ve been mentally replacing his references to “woke” with another word turned epithet, like “communist.”
Do you actually not understand what Eric Wemple wrote?
Best I can tell, the logic is "you people say mean things about Twitter, so here's some negative stuff about an outlet you read!"
No, it's an example of how over-the-top wokeness going after people and an organization that by most standards would be considered if not woke themselves, certainly sensitive to woke concerns.
the @nytimes statement on the open letters about its coverage of trans people. from Charlie Stadtlander, director of external communications pic.twitter.com/szaYfSoB5t
The Eric Wemple piece explains what I'm talking about. The other two links provide additional details. I've annotated the Wemple piece with comments in [ BOLD AND CAPS ]:
The New York Times newsroom is splintering over a trans coverage debate
By Erik Wemple Media critic|February 24, 2023 at 6:45 a.m.
It's a piece by a Washington Post columnist, viewing from the outside, commenting on internal debates at the NY Times.
The most important things to focus on would be the primary sources: (a) the reporting being discussed; (b) the criticisms in the "multiple open letters; and (c) the response from the NY Times. To the extent that the Wemple piece doesn't address that substance, it's best to look at the primary sources.
The last thing to pay attention to are the BOLD AND CAPS "annotations".
Links to primary sources are provided within the links that I provided.
Good to have a fighter against climate change on top.
why? Couldn't he "fight" climate change the same if he was the 20th richest person? Or the 100th? Or even thr 1,000th? Your response is something of a non sequitur.
Elon giveth with one hand, and taketh away with the other, such as restoring a "humor" hate and disinformation site to the Twitter.
The Eric Wemple piece explains what I'm talking about. The other two links provide additional details. I've annotated the Wemple piece with comments in [ BOLD AND CAPS ]:
The New York Times newsroom is splintering over a trans coverage debate
By Erik Wemple Media critic|February 24, 2023 at 6:45 a.m.
It's a piece by a Washington Post columnist, viewing from the outside, commenting on internal debates at the NY Times.
The most important things to focus on would be the primary sources: (a) the reporting being discussed; (b) the criticisms in the "multiple open letters; and (c) the response from the NY Times. To the extent that the Wemple piece doesn't address that substance, it's best to look at the primary sources.
The last thing to pay attention to are the BOLD AND CAPS "annotations".
Links to primary sources are provided within the links that I provided.
If you can take your NYT horseshit to this thread about NYT horseshit that would be great.
Good to have a fighter against climate change on top.
Greta is great isn’t she? She’s tops in my books…From her Twitter account…
“ the people in power don’t need conferences, treaties or agreements to start taking real climate action. They can start today. When enough people come together then change will come and we can achieve almost anything. So instead of looking for hope - start creating it.”
The most important things to focus on would be the primary sources: (a) the reporting being discussed; (b) the criticisms in the "multiple open letters; and (c) the response from the NY Times. To the extent that the Wemple piece doesn't address that substance, it's best to look at the primary sources.
The last thing to pay attention to are the BOLD AND CAPS "annotations".
Links to primary sources are provided within the links that I provided.
Whether they are or not, you could have read them, instead of relying on second-hand descriptions - because your BOLD AND CAPS "annotations" don't evidence that you did read them, in particular the actual criticisms by the signatories to the open letter.
A similar comment applies to your erroneous description ("over-the-top wokeness") here -
No, it's an example of how over-the-top wokeness going after people and an organization that by most standards would be considered if not woke themselves, certainly sensitive to woke concerns.
When the Richest Person in the World earned his riches by fighting climate change:
(1) It bestows a higher level of prominence on and public awareness of the person and how they earned their riches, than if they were 20th, 100th or 1,000th.
(2) It proves that fighting climate change can be good business.
Of course his haters, detractors and grudgers won't recognize this, but as I've said, they really don't care about fighting climate change,
got it.
So you're saying it sends a message to everyone who's already got a billion dollars that they can invest in green technology. And that it's a message that won't resonate if Musk had "only" $100bn?
This thread is about Twitter is a private company and Elon Musk is a douchenozzle. Thanks.
Paul's comments aren't criticisms of the NYT, they're criticisms of the "over-the-top wokeness", or something like that.
Paul seems to be awfully perturbed that advocacy groups are advocating for themselves. I thought that was exactly how free speech and the "public square" are supposed to operate.
Paul seems to be awfully perturbed that advocacy groups are advocating for themselves. I thought that was exactly how free speech and the "public square" are supposed to operate.
Just as long as you advocate what Russia and China…and some others who spent their weekend at a rally for peace…. Are saying.
This thread is about Twitter is a private company and Elon Musk is a douchenozzle. Thanks.
Paul's comments aren't criticisms of the NYT, they're criticisms of the "over-the-top wokeness", or something like that.
Paul seems to be awfully perturbed that advocacy groups are advocating for themselves. I thought that was exactly how free speech and the "public square" are supposed to operate.
You seem to be so perturbed that I'm criticizing the merits of whatis being advocated -- not the advocacy itself -- that you feel compelled to distort what I've been saying.
This thread is about Twitter is a private company and Elon Musk is a douchenozzle. Thanks.
Paul's comments aren't criticisms of the NYT, they're criticisms of the "over-the-top wokeness", or something like that.
Paul's comments are supportive of the NYT's reaction to the over-the-top wokeness attack on its coverage of transgender issues and the ill-informed view of some staff members that criticism of the editorial policies are protected speech under the NLRA.
Good to have a fighter against climate change on top.
why? Couldn't he "fight" climate change the same if he was the 20th richest person? Or the 100th? Or even thr 1,000th? Your response is something of a non sequitur.
Elon giveth with one hand, and taketh away with the other, such as restoring a "humor" hate and disinformation site to the Twitter.
Many years ago Judge Brandeis enshrined the principle that the solution to bad speech is not censorship but more speech. That's the principle that Elon Musk follows in general and in the specific case of Greta Thunberg:
The sheer amount of brand awareness achieved by Greta within a few years is astounding. I think she’s cool tbh.
Paul's comments are supportive of the NYT's reaction to the over-the-top wokeness attack on its coverage of transgender issues and the ill-informed view of some staff members that criticism of the editorial policies are protected speech under the NLRA.
So far as I know, my earlier comment is correct, that you haven't even explained what the "over-the-top wokeness" is. How can you support the "reaction" to something you haven't read for yourself?
Links to primary sources are provided within the links that I provided.
Whether they are or not, you could have read them, instead of relying on second-hand descriptions - because your BOLD AND CAPS "annotations" don't evidence that you did read them, in particular the actual criticisms by the signatories to the open letter.
Paul seems to be awfully perturbed that advocacy groups are advocating for themselves. I thought that was exactly how free speech and the "public square" are supposed to operate.
Just as long as you advocate what Russia and China…and some others who spent their weekend at a rally for peace…. Are saying.
Sir, this is the Twitter and NYT horseshit thread.
Many years ago Judge Brandeis enshrined the principle that the solution to bad speech is not censorship but more speech. That's the principle that Elon Musk follows in general and in the specific case of Greta Thunberg
And rejects it in the specific case of Ron DeSantis.
I'd argue that the latter case -- which involves supporting someone with real political power in the physcal world using the force of the state to suppress speech and action he disagrees with -- far outweighs whatever free speech pose he's adopting online.
Paul's comments are supportive of the NYT's reaction to the over-the-top wokeness attack on its coverage of transgender issues and the ill-informed view of some staff members that criticism of the editorial policies are protected speech under the NLRA.
So far as I know, my earlier comment is correct, that you haven't even explained what the "over-the-top wokeness" is. How can you support the "reaction" to something you haven't read for yourself?
Links to primary sources are provided within the links that I provided.
Whether they are or not, you could have read them, instead of relying on second-hand descriptions - because your BOLD AND CAPS "annotations" don't evidence that you did read them, in particular the actual criticisms by the signatories to the open letter.
"Over-the-top wokeness" is manifested in the letter I linked from GLAAD as expressed in, but not limited to, its following demands for censorship at the NY Times -- which the NY Times correctly says are based on misrepresentations of NY Times coverage.
The demand that effectively calls questioning science a form of heresy should be pointed out as a particularly pernicious manifestation of how over-the-top wokeness seeks to use "shame" to silence discussion.
Stop the anti-trans narratives immediately. Stop platforming anti-trans activists. Stop presenting anti-trans extremists as average Americans without an agenda. Stop questioning trans people's right to exist and access medical care. Stop questioning best practice medical care. Stop questioning science that is SETTLED.
Many years ago Judge Brandeis enshrined the principle that the solution to bad speech is not censorship but more speech. That's the principle that Elon Musk follows in general and in the specific case of Greta Thunberg
And rejects it in the specific case of Ron DeSantis.
I'd argue that the latter case -- which involves supporting someone with real political power in the physcal world using the force of the state to suppress speech and action he disagrees with -- far outweighs whatever free speech pose he's adopting online.
Musk's "support" for DeSantis is a bit exaggerated.
Are you seriously saying that questioning a group of people’s (whom have committed no heinous crimes) right to exist in “the paper of record” is appropriate?
"Over-the-top wokeness" is manifested in the letter I linked from GLAAD as expressed in, but not limited to, its following demands for censorship at the NY Times -- which the NY Times correctly says are based on misrepresentations of NY Times coverage.
The demand that effectively calls questioning science a form of heresy should be pointed out as a particularly pernicious manifestation of how over-the-top wokeness seeks to use "shame" to silence discussion.
Stop the anti-trans narratives immediately. Stop platforming anti-trans activists. Stop presenting anti-trans extremists as average Americans without an agenda. Stop questioning trans people's right to exist and access medical care. Stop questioning best practice medical care. Stop questioning science that is SETTLED.
You're attacking the criticism without showing that you understand what they are criticizing.
If someone was saying, "Stop questioning the settled science that theories of white people being superior to nonwhite people are wrong", you wouldn't say that was "over-the-top wokeness".
So, if you think you have an honest argument, first go back and read the actual "open letter" that started this, and which you claim is the "wokeness" you criticize. Don't read about it, or a summary of it, or just that excerpt you reprinted.
When the Richest Person in the World earned his riches by fighting climate change:
(1) It bestows a higher level of prominence on and public awareness of the person and how they earned their riches, than if they were 20th, 100th or 1,000th.
(2) It proves that fighting climate change can be good business.
Of course his haters, detractors and grudgers won't recognize this, but as I've said, they really don't care about fighting climate change,