Who are you arguing with? Just because I don't agree with the dumbest authoritarian solution to a problem that means I'm all for that problem?
Who TF knows what you agree with? Last year you said you could vote for Ron DeSantis. Now you say you could vote for his former opponent. You're like a political Wacky Waving Inflatable Tube Guy for authoritarians. Keep waving those arms, terpboy, you're doing great and thanks to you, everyone wants to shop in your used car store.
I sure am slippery. I guess that means people can be presumptuous and assume any old thing.
I don't get how DeSantis is an authoritarian. He ran just about the most free state during COVID. And took a ton of heat for it from the people who are supposedly less authoritarian.
I don't understand this position. Anthony "Dr Science" Fauci makes people socially distance, makes.pre-schoolers mask up with Zero scientific evidence, funds diabolically evil studies on beagles, conspires to censor lab leak stories, pushes vaccine mandates even after the evidence of their effectiveness gets very questionable, is an all around great guy. Yet the guy who tried to open businesses, schools, etc is an authoritarian.
The problem with DeSantis is that he has no personality. And his party's front runner has the biggest personality in the political sphere.
I thought of this thread after several attempts over about 15 minutes to get the graphic on this Tweet right, made possible by the new editing feature on X that gives you an hour to make changes. I haven't seen the text of this excellent resolution published elsewhere, something else that made me think of this thread
why put this on a twitter thread though? Why not put on a more relevant thread or start a new topic. Or is this specific to X .
It's a reference to prior discussions on this thread of the features available to Blue Check subscribers (editing posts now increased to one hour) as well as denials of the importance of X as a source of (non-right-wing propaganda) information.
I sure am slippery. I guess that means people can be presumptuous and assume any old thing.
I don't get how DeSantis is an authoritarian. He ran just about the most free state during COVID. And took a ton of heat for it from the people who are supposedly less authoritarian.
I don't understand this position. Anthony "Dr Science" Fauci makes people socially distance, makes.pre-schoolers mask up with Zero scientific evidence, funds diabolically evil studies on beagles, conspires to censor lab leak stories, pushes vaccine mandates even after the evidence of their effectiveness gets very questionable, is an all around great guy. Yet the guy who tried to open businesses, schools, etc is an authoritarian.
The problem with DeSantis is that he has no personality. And his party's front runner has the biggest personality in the political sphere.
your ability to consume, believe and then spread bullsh!t is formidable. I bow to you.
Sorry I’m late to the chat - been busy helping raise $$$ for local chemo unit via a High Morning Tea (we raised $12500.00 AUD). Purchasing a treatment chair, and the rest goes to dedicated cancer patient transport.
Anyway, I thought what the initial response to your post was about, was it might have found better response in the War thread…
It's a reference to prior discussions on this thread of the features available to Blue Check subscribers (editing posts now increased to one hour) as well as denials of the importance of X as a source of (non-right-wing propaganda) information.
why put this on a twitter thread though? Why not put on a more relevant thread or start a new topic. Or is this specific to X .
If he doesn't share his xits to other platforms how will anyone know he xitted?
If a man xits in the woods, does anyone hear it?
Good to see that you're still busy posting on X despite the monicker "Not EXiting yet".
"Not EXiting yet" means not leaving, so maybe you're misunderstanding what the phrase means.
And to use another word whose definition you've mangled here - if you're looking at what I wrote on the Twitter, I guess you're still "stalking" from behind a block.
Interesting theory as to what sparked the change re: "likes" -
You can still see the number of likes, you just can't see *who* liked the tweet.
My guess: Elon is upset that everyone gets so excited about @MarkHamill liking their tweets when decent people are embarrassed about @ElonMusk liking theirs. https://t.co/xWFeBk0Ba0
so, terp, what do you think of Rand Paul putting a hold on this bill, which does nothing but help consumers? You've profusely praised this numbnut in the past, I think
The No Hidden FEES Act was co-authored by Reps. Kathy Castor (D-FL) and Young Kim (R-CA), a “frontline” Republican in a swing seat in Orange County, California, that Biden won in 2020. Here’s Kim speaking about the bill in ways that sound more like Elizabeth Warren: “These unexpected, deceptive fees hurt families, bottom line.” Resort fees cost travelers an estimated $2.9 billion in 2018, according to Consumer Reports.
This is actually the second junk fee disclosure bill passed by the House in the last month; the TICKET Act, which would also force all-in pricing, this time for concert and event tickets, passed 388-24. Clearly, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) thinks it’s good politics for Republicans to empower Lina Khan to stop businesses from enacting bait-and-switches on their customers. The only no votes came from the likes of Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and their colleagues in the Freedom Caucus.
There hasn’t been a vote on the TICKET Act in the Senate, and the Prospect has learned that the No Hidden FEES Act immediately drew a hold from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who is fighting desperately for the rights of Hilton and Marriott and Airbnb to deceive customers. This isn’t about campaign money: Paul got all of $41 from Marriott this cycle, and nothing from other major hoteliers. He just has the libertarian belief that Americans should be left with no help to navigate the tricks-and-traps economy of corporate deception.
The Stanford Internet Observatory, which published some of the most influential analysis of the spread of false information on social media during elections, has shed most of its staff and may shut down amid political and legal attacks that have cast a pall on efforts to study online misinformation.
I haven't seen anything about the right-wing reaction to this news, but I assume they must be high-fiving themselves.
This is the stuff that really scares me regarding free speech.
He really wants to get away from woke advertisers, which are basically all of them except for reverse mortgage companies and gold coin sellers. A percentage of every transaction is his only hope.
The Stanford Internet Observatory, which published some of the most influential analysis of the spread of false information on social media during elections, has shed most of its staff and may shut down amid political and legal attacks that have cast a pall on efforts to study online misinformation.
I haven't seen anything about the right-wing reaction to this news, but I assume they must be high-fiving themselves.
This is the stuff that really scares me regarding free speech.
I don't know if you paid any attention to the Fauci hearings but there apparently was no science behind things like distancing and masking children and closing schools etc. Does it bother you at all that people who questioned those policies were written off as purveyors of misinformation?
I don't know if you paid any attention to the Fauci hearings but there apparently was no science behind things like distancing and masking children and closing schools etc. Does it bother you at all that people who questioned those policies were written off as purveyors of misinformation?
of course a complete misreading of the Fauci hearings. the lack of science about whether the actual distance was 6 feet is true. The fact that distancing is a factor in the spread of airborne illness is not in question. And did anyone seriously challenge distancing when it was being recommended?
and if you can show me anyone who questioned the other two policies in real-time on the basis of a lack of science, please do so. I'm pretty sure there were none. Also show me how they were being written off, and by whom?
the subject is being falsely accused of spreading disinformation, and specifically by the Stanford Internet Observatory.
did this apply to the purveyors of the GBD? no? then why toss them into the discussion?
(and we won't mention how thoroughly discredited these guys are anyway)
They were blacklisted.
”[Media Matters] political machine pivoted to focus on Musk and Twitter, criticizing him for helping Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya look into the Twitter Files to see why he had been placed on a “blacklist.”"
They have been proven correct. They were smeared by the authorities. You cheered them on. People like you think we can have democracy without debate. That is the most charitable take I can muster.
they were not "smeared" by authorities. their ideas were criticized for being unsound.
that's called debate, which you somehow seem to think was lacking regarding Barrington. my recollection is that there was a great deal of debate. their ideas were widely disseminated.
exactly what else do you want? a complete lack of criticism and blind acceptance of their contentions?
Its clearly possible under your model.