Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

Hey, I'm just denying the idea that "we can't dox our sources" is code for "we made it up".  I'll concede that not every journalist has always been truthful at all times, sure.

My point was that Elon Musk has no credibility, and the Wall Street Journal- a shitty neoliberal rag that leans pretty conservative- has no reason to make stuff up about the druggie professional liar, and *everything* to lose.

What I actually think is that Elon Musk was talking about donating to Trump.  People told the WSJ about that because he's surrounded by people who hate him.  Later he changed his mind because he's incredibly strung out and capricious and constantly tries to break even legally-binding contracts.

I also think MS leapt to his defense because modern conservatives behave entirely in lockstep, including 90% of the "libertarians".
inb4 "you don't know my situation, you're making assumptions, that wasn't my point at all"
Yeah that's what every cryptofash says instead of clarifying their point.  Whinging, personal insults and obfuscation.
Am I wrong?  Say what you mean, and my point will be void.  Or keep vagueposting.

As a general note:  I've been accused of being fash many times before.  You know what defeats it?  Explaining my actual positions, showing that I have at least *basic* understanding and passion for them.
Cryptofash will do literally anything other than do that (while moderates are watching).  Sometimes that means playing identity politics, even.  Hypocrisy doesn't matter when you and your opponent already know you're lying... only spinning a convincing lie for the crowd.

[ChairmanPoo]

To be clear, Musk never said he was going to donate that in the first place.

That's correct. He never said he was going to donate 45 million.

He said he was going to donate 180

[hector13]

Hey, I'm just denying the idea that "we can't dox our sources" is code for "we made it up".

Are you allowed near naked flames with all that straw?

I'll concede that not every journalist has always been truthful at all times, sure.

My point was that Elon Musk has no credibility, and the Wall Street Journal- a shitty neoliberal rag that leans pretty conservative- has no reason to make stuff up about the druggie professional liar, and *everything* to lose.

What do they have to lose in this case, exactly?

They got to sell their papers/clicks, he was unaffected beyond the time it took him to load up his account, tweet “fake gnus” and ignore the media requests for a response. As far as I’m aware, that’s the end of it.

What I actually think is that Elon Musk was talking about donating to Trump.  People told the WSJ about that because he's surrounded by people who hate him.  Later he changed his mind because he's incredibly strung out and capricious and constantly tries to break even legally-binding contracts.

Cool.

I also think MS leapt to his defense because modern conservatives behave entirely in lockstep, including 90% of the "libertarians".
inb4 "you don't know my situation, you're making assumptions, that wasn't my point at all"
Yeah that's what every cryptofash says instead of clarifying their point.

It’s also what people say when they’ve been deliberately misrepresented by someone.

Whinging, personal insults and obfuscation.

Some self-reflection may do you good.

Am I wrong?  Say what you mean, and my point will be void.  Or keep vagueposting.

See, I’m struggling to believe you’d admit to ever being wrong because you strawmanned my initial point that anonymous sources aren’t the most credible when you said I think WSJ is engaging in a conspiracy (for or against Musk? Trump?), then when I clarified that by saying anonymous sources are not the most credible with an example of such, you strawman again by suggesting I think WSJ should have doxxed their source.

At what point should we accept it’s just strawman all the way down?

As a general note:  I've been accused of being fash many times before.  You know what defeats it?  Explaining my actual positions, showing that I have at least *basic* understanding and passion for them.
Cryptofash will do literally anything other than do that (while moderates are watching).  Sometimes that means playing identity politics, even.  Hypocrisy doesn't matter when you and your opponent already know you're lying... only spinning a convincing lie for the crowd.

So, your argument here appears to be if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, even if you’ve never really seen it or heard it properly, it must be a fascist?

@poo

$45m/month for 4 months (the time between the tweet and the election) is $180m.

[ChairmanPoo]

I know. I was being sarcastic.

Notice I kinda provided a source. The man himself

[hector13]

My sources tell me he’s a liar not to be trusted.

[Strongpoint]

JD Vance says parents should have a bigger say in U.S. democracy than people without children: “When you go to the polls in this country as a parent, you should have more power...than people who don’t have kids"

American politics are so fun. This level of nonsense is something I hardly imagine coming even from some fringe extremely religious far-right politician in Ukraine. And here we have a very probable ruler of America spewing that.

[EuchreJack]

JD Farce is a shit bag. He'll literally say anything that he thinks will skew the vote more favorably to himself.

He's also kind of an idiot, since he underestimates the number of older people without children, and the additional resources of time and money that childless people have.


He's also funded by a billionaire that openly stated that he doesn't believe in Democracy or democratic government...

fringe extremely religious far-right politician

To be fair, in America, they're now called "Republicans". Although you forgot "gun toting".

[Rolan7]

Hey, I'm just denying the idea that "we can't dox our sources" is code for "we made it up".

Are you allowed near naked flames with all that straw?

Gods, I wish I was making it up, but

They cited “people familiar with the situation” which is journalistic talk for “we are probably talking out of our arse”.

Musk said it was fake news at the time, and the PAC he was meant to be donating to haven’t listed him as a donor.

I have beef with MS because of some *really* shitty things they've said about me personally.  With you, I'm literally just pushing back on that first statement.  That's really all, and I don't think we fundamentally disagree.

I'll concede that not every journalist has always been truthful at all times, sure.

My point was that Elon Musk has no credibility, and the Wall Street Journal- a shitty neoliberal rag that leans pretty conservative- has no reason to make stuff up about the druggie professional liar, and *everything* to lose.

What do they have to lose in this case, exactly?

They got to sell their papers/clicks, he was unaffected beyond the time it took him to load up his account, tweet “fake gnus” and ignore the media requests for a response. As far as I’m aware, that’s the end of it.

Journalistic integrity, which has to be build up over decades, is the measure of a media outlet.  It's THE resource they need to sell papers and clicks in the future.  I am skeptical that this story bought them many clicks, but even if it did, to fabricate it would require a conspiracy within the company which would absolutely devastate them if it got out.

That would be high and existential risk for questionable temporary reward, so, I think it's more likely that the lying liar lied again.  He has no reason not to- more lies don't damage his credibility any farther.

That's why I was speaking about Musk's credibility.  I wasn't (just) attacking the guy because I hate him (for hating people like me).
I think that we're currently in an information ecosystem where people aren't held accountable for their words, and so *naturally* certain people are lying whenever it benefits them at all.  I think confronting people with their words, and considering their record of honesty or lack thereof, is more important than ever.

(and that extends to me defending the WSJ's integrity, despite me making it clear I don't *like* them whatsoever.  principles~)

[hector13]

Nowhere in my assertion did I say that doxxing was preferable over anonymous sources, hence the strawman. The same with the conspiracy thing, but that appears to be borne of differences between what we both think of journalism than a willful fallacy.

I disagree that journalistic integrity is the primary resource they use to sell papers. The Sun still sells, the Washington Post still sells, there are various other shitty tabloids in the UK who have been through the courts (and still are going through the courts) and despite engaging in thusly provable illegal activity to get their stories, they still sell. I imagine there are papers in almost every country in the world that have made errors, willful or otherwise, big or small, that still sell now.

Indeed, those court cases are why I have such issue with “anonymous sources said”, because when they say it, “the person we paid to dig through their bins, impersonate them to get protected data, and hack into their phones said” is what they mean.

It doesn’t take a conspiracy within the paper to have this story printed. Heck, it doesn’t even require one particularly corrupt journalist to do it. Could just be lazy, or under time pressure, or bored. The anonymous source could be lying, the journalist can’t be bothered to check properly if they’re being honest,or the journalist just needs a story. The source might not even exist, but whatever, they can get away with submitting it because nobody’s really going to dig deep enough on that anonymous source to check an entirely uncontroversial premise like “Trump supporter supports Trump.” or “World’s richest man spends lots of money on politics.” particularly when the response is, reasonably, that they can’t reveal their sources. If the source exists, they wanted anonymity, if the source doesn’t exist, the journalist doesn’t want to drop themselves in the shit.

I don’t like Musk either, but the things you were using to attack his credibility don’t really affect his ability to be honest. Being an addict, other than being skilled at lying about their addiction, doesn’t mean someone is incapable of telling the truth. Being anti-trans doesn’t make him dishonest, it makes him an idiot. Being a weaselly shit, sure, I’ll concede that. I would suggest him being a glorified hype man may also fit the bill.

[Maximum Spin]

Eh, better if I don't get involved anyway

[hector13]

I’m protecting my own honour here, man. Rolan’s initial reaction may have been because of you, it doesn’t excuse them jumping to the conclusions they have on my position.

The differences in our positions regarding the trustworthiness of journalism and/or anonymous sources is interesting enough to me to continue though *shrug*

[EuchreJack]

I find it most interesting how people jump to defence of rich shitbags like Elon or Trump, even though they would never give any other human being that level of support. 

[pisskop]

My personal hot take is that Both want to be in the news, neither much cares for the other, but by trolling around and muddying the water both can have their turn.  It costs nothing to say something and then take it back the next day if you constantly do it.  And a lie by omission is no worse than a lie by inference.

Its just business between 2 people who 'understand how the game is played'.  afai understand it part of 'project 2025' is a very healthy bribe to several industries, Elon's AI being amoung them

[Maximum Spin]

I find it most interesting how people jump to defence of rich shitbags like Elon or Trump, even though they would never give any other human being that level of support. 

I think it's interesting that neutral factual statements are interpreted as defense, myself. Is it better to promote any falsehood that works for your side? I don't think that way.

[Random_Dragon]

The problem here is that there is no credible source for EITHER interpretation. He may have said some shit or he may not have, and all we have is a "one rich dirtbag's word against another rich dirtbag" kinda situation as any promises made with actual weight would be in the form of backroom deals.

Given it's a "X's word against Y's" type situation, any actual debate on this matter is little more than speculation and character arguments. Which does technically mean that defending Musk in this matter serves no practical purpose except to say you think his version of events is honest, when it's demonstrably clear he's a snake who can't be trusted in any matter. But conversely I wouldn't trust the people demanding he put his money where his mouth is either, since their motives would be suspect too.

So in the end the only logical answer is to laugh at the rich idiots and not really bother turning this into a giant argument like you guys have been doing.