Elon Musk watch (was Elon Muskrat watch)

cecilia said:
Errol Musk, Elon Musk's father, reveals that he had a second kid with his 35-year-old stepdaughter who he’s raised since she was 4.
Click to expand...
So what time can we expect Elon's Tweet calling his Dad 'pedo-guy'?
 
Robert said:
So what time can we expect Elon's Tweet calling his Dad 'pedo-guy'?
Click to expand...

AFAIK Elon has been distancing himself from his dad for many years.

But there was another side to Musk’s father that was just as important to making Elon who he is. “He was such a terrible human being,” Musk shares. “You have no idea.” His voice trembles, and he discusses a few of those things, but doesn’t go into specifics. “My dad will have a carefully thought-out plan of evil,” he says. “He will plan evil.”
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
35 is a bit old to still be calling a woman a child.
Click to expand...
Matters not. Elon proved in court that it was OK for him to call someone a "pedo guy" regardless of any evidence of paedophilia.
 
He should sue. These headlines were everywhere last 2 days.

Musk Responds To Accusations That He Slept With Wife Of Google Co-Founder​

“This is total bs. Sergey and I are friends and were at a party together last night!” Musk responded on Twitter. “I’ve only seen Nicole twice in three years, both times with many other people around. Nothing romantic.”

“WSJ has run so many bs hit pieces on me and Tesla I’ve lost count! It’s embarrassing for them, frankly,” Musk continued. “They once wrote an article saying FBI was about to arrest me, so I called FBI to ask what’s up and they said WSJ article was total bs. Just more shortseller fud.”

Musk said that “character assassination attacks” on him have reached “a new level this year” but claimed that they were all “nothing-burgers” and that he did not even have enough time to get in trouble.

“WSJ is supposed to have a high standard for journalism and, right now, they are way sub tabloid,” he added. “WSJ should be running stories that actually matter to their readers and have solid factual basis, not third-party random hearsay.”
 
Probably should go in the Propaganda thread instead...

Sergey Brin’s estranged wife, Nicole, calls Elon Musk affair an ‘outright lie’​

Google co-founder Sergey Brin’s estranged wife blasted a report claiming she had an affair with Elon Musk, calling it an “outright lie.”

Via her attorney, Nicole Shanahan even went so far as to suggest the rumors were defamatory.

“Make no mistake, any suggestion that Nicole had an affair with Elon Musk is not only an outright lie but also defamatory,” Shanahan’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, told Page Six Wednesday morning.

Elon is learning the hard way what happens when you do not follow the current far left official narrative on everything in complete lockstep.
 
Rather than continue to clog up the Q thread, I thought I'd post this one here.

It seems that Elon's version of free speech means that, while parodying Elon will now see you banned, calling someone "idiot nigger" is perfectly acceptable.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1589626567852195840
Whether his advertisers will agree remains to be seen.
 
Robert said:
Rather than continue to clog up the Q thread, I thought I'd post this one here.

It seems that Elon's version of free speech means that, while parodying Elon will now see you banned, calling someone "idiot nigger" is perfectly acceptable.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1589626567852195840
Whether his advertisers will agree remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
Parodying was always thin ice and parody had to be clearly indicated or it WOULD get you banned because it's walking too close to impersonation - and especially if you had a check mark which would make it look like you were the verified person you are parodying (parodies can't get verified because they are parodies!!!)
Also, getting banned for using the en-word was never uniformly enforced. You could get away with it or not depending on who you were.

Basically what we have here is the status quo being looked at with a different spin.

And now that twitter is an actual private company nobody seems to be saying that, as a private company twitter can do as it wishes.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
And now that twitter is an actual private company nobody seems to be saying that, as a private company twitter can do as it wishes.
Click to expand...
Twitter can do, and is already doing as it wishes. What impact that will have on Twitter, if any of more note than the current storm in a teacup, time will tell.
 
Robert said:
Twitter can do, and is already doing as it wishes. What impact that will have on Twitter, if any of more note than the current storm in a teacup, time will tell.
Click to expand...
Point being that when twitter was a publicly traded company the blue checks loved to mention that twitter was a private company when their followers would brigade the accounts of their foes with reports. It's the same policies as before still being enforced, just against people who were previously royalty.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Point being that when twitter was a publicly traded company...
Click to expand...
Point being that, regardless of whether publicly traded (which is an entirely different thing from publicly owned, although I'm sure you already know that) or privately owned, it's always been able to do what it wants.

One thing that strikes me as somewhat novel, is the owner of a major social media company explicitly asking people to vote a certain way, as Musk has with his still-pinned Tweet. I don't think I've seen that before but I could be mistaken. Perhaps somewhere down the line someone like Mark Zuckerburg pinned a post on FB, imploring users to vote democrat or something, but I don't recall such a thing.
 
Last edited:
Robert said:
Point being that, regardless of whether publicly traded (which is an entirely different thing from publicly owned, although I'm sure you already know that) or privately owned, it's always been able to do what it wants.

One thing that strikes me as somewhat novel, is the owner of a major social media company explicitly asking people to vote a certain way, as Musk has with his still-pinned Tweet. I don't think I've seen that before but I could be mistaken. Perhaps somewhere down the line someone like Mark Zuckerburg pinned a post on FB, imploring users to vote democrat or something, but I don't recall such a thing.
Click to expand...
Do people not post their political preferences including who they think people should vote for on social media? I suppose the argument could be made that it amounts to a $44 billion campaign donation - but it would be a specious one. The idea that Elon taking over twitter is a a play to sway the politics of a nation or the world is just the virtual admission that it was already being used that way.
 
"Vile hate"! Billboard Chris is a decent guy and he's right about a lot of things. Alejandra is an example of what's wrong with old style verification.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
"Vile hate"! Billboard Chris is a decent guy and he's right about a lot of things. Alejandra is an example of what's wrong with old style verification.
Click to expand...
the point of the 2nd tweet was that the former type of verification had to do with what a person did in the public sphere and the second type of blue check is because you paid 8 bucks. And unless you look at a person't profile you can't tell the difference immediately
 
cecilia said:
the point of the 2nd tweet was that the former type of verification had to do with what a person did in the public sphere and the second type of blue check is because you paid 8 bucks. And unless you look at a person't profile you can't tell the difference immediately
Click to expand...
And the point of the 1st tweet is that you have a foaming ideologue nutcase with the old school "deemed important by twitter commissars" blue check which was lorded over normies as a signifier of status - a status symbol which is showing tarnish and now has a monetary valuation of eight US dollars.

The alleged point of the "verified" check mark was to assure people that you were who you claimed to be on twitter. This is a principle which is violated by changing your twitter name to that of a well known person or some other (especially verified) person on twitter. Banning people from the platform for doing this is not unreasonable though it should be algorithmically impossible or, at the very least, should cause the loss of verification and the addition of further content markers to indicate an imposter or parody account.

If the check mark's purpose is to indicate that an account belongs to who they say they are then requiring payment through a credit card or via some other bank instrument is superior to allowing twitter staff to vet accounts on at least two levels.
a) it is much more efficient and less amenable to corruption
b) while it is not a crime to create multiple online accounts, in many jurisdictions it is a crime to set up fake financial identities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top