Muskovite Birds of a Feather: Notes on the Great Twitterpation
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I remember. I asked you if you agreed with him and you asked me what I was talking about. Focus. I'm not Trump's spokesperson. Are you a communist?
When you throw support behind a neo-nazi party, it's fair game to refer to you as a neo-nazi, is it not?The fact of the matter is that most people in here have views that are "progressive" and in the US this is considered "far left". It wouldn't be particularly helpful to continue referring to those views as "communist" though would it?
Musk is "far right" in the US. He said something earlier about having read the policies of the AfD and that he didn't get why it was called "far right" and he said "maybe I'm missing something". Later after the attack in Germany he said the Chancellor was a fool and that maybe the AfD was the only party that could run Germany (or something like that).
You guys are to the left and Musk is to the right. You wouldn't like any of his polices even if he didn't make comments like this. Why not stick to the polices in instead of calling Trump a rapist and Musk a Nazi. Do all communists like to name call?
When you are found liable of digital insertion/sexual assault and battery, it's fair game to call you a rapist (in states other than NY, at least).
It's different to referring to the progressives as "communist", though, as the progressives have not supported, nor share, the same ideology, nor have enacted communist policies. I.e. referring to them as such would be false, whereas calling someone who supports a neo-nazi party a "neo-nazi", not false.
Define "agree". Define what it is to be "for" something. Define "support".
In your own words.
And maybe while your at it: define "relevant" and "nuance", as well.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Agreeing with an immigration policy is not the same as "supporting" the neo-Nazis.
If you want "affordable" anything or anything apart from a free market system you are "supporting" many of the planks of the Communist Party.
Seattle:
Then I take it you didn't understand.
Correct.
Could have fooled me.
Bizarre. Are you trying to troll me?
It's a slippery slope. Study your history.
Socialism you mean? Or social democracy, perhaps? An alien concept to you?
And if that's all that he agreed with then he should have said, as explained by others. He didn't. He said that the AfD were the only party that could save Germany. I.e. unqualified support for that party, not a qualified support limiting it to just a matter of immigration.
And if I or anyone else offers unqualified support for a communist party, by all means refer to us as communists.
Simples, really.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I don’t follow. I thought James said he didn’t know what Musk’s policies were. So then, logically, he can’t be either for or against them, can he? And what has Trump to do with this if the question is about Musk and his ideas, whatever they may be?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Are you a socialist?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
The problem is that it's a little too "simples".
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
That's my point.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Then what's this shit about telling James to "focus" in your post 182? You are not making sense.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Why are you so upset for James?
You know how James (and apparently you) works. He ends a post with some insulting comment and he asks for info that he himself didn't give.
I did the same back to him and now you are upset? Chill.
You guys are too literal and emotional and all you can do is name call. Any subject has nuance but not here. Trump is a rapist. If you want lower debt...you are supporting a rapist. It's juvenile.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
So no answer to my question, then. What did you mean by "focus"?
More accurately, James simply asked, "What are (Musk's) policies?" He said nothing with respect to his own knowledge or lack of knowledge of Musk's policies. Then, following this response from Seattle:
James clarifies with this response:
Followed by another inane, incoherent response from Seattle, James reiterates his query, and makes a futile effort to get Seattle to actually pay attention to the conversation:
Then we arrive at this:
and this:
So when Seattle say, "That's my point", said "point" is anyone's guess. I guess.
I guess I'll have to add the words "focus" and "point" to the list of terms that, apparently, have a number of meanings of which I am wholly unaware--partial list, so far: focus, point, agree, for, support, nuance, relevant and prose. I may be forgetting a few.
When I write for other contexts--blogs, liner notes, periodicals--I put in the effort to, well, write proper-like. I mean, I don't adhere to any particular style guide or anything, but I generally follow the commonly accepted rules.
On a discussion forum like this, I'm not a stickler over spelling, punctuation, grammar--I just want a poster to make sense. For instance, Clueluss Husband typically makes sense and he makes some pretty astute observations on occasion; his unique spelling doesn't bother me in the least and I have no difficulty understanding him. Not making sense, due to laziness or whatever, just seems disrespectful.
Way back in the day, we had a brief discussion/debate here over the ambiguity of certain English language prepositions--of, to, for and at, particularly. The equivalents in other languages, especially German but also in most Romance languages I think, are more precise. Well, that was my contention, as least. I think it was iceaura who emphatically disagreed, and we got onto the subject of regional variations within the US. Persons of German, Dutch and Jewish ancestry in the midwestern US generally do employ these prepositions in a very precise and specific manner.
Anyway, how did it come to this? Unless we're talking about God or the ineffable or whatever, we really oughtn't need to seek clarification on meaning when people are using fairly ordinary, unambiguous terminology.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Interesting observation on the differing linguistic heritage of people from different parts of the USA. I admit to being a bit of a grammar nazi* on occasions. Perhaps if I lived in the USA I would be more tolerant.
*
Back to Musk etc, the only actual political "policy" I'm aware of from him is this bonkers notion of slashing federal expenditure by a third. Edward Luce in the Financial Times pointed out this is unachievable unless Defence, Medicare and Social Security are cut. The latter two Trump has apparently said he will maintain. Luce thinks Musk is not really interested in cutting federal expenditure: what he wants is a (bogus) rationale for dismantling all the regulation that is so irksome to his and his friends' business interests.
This would expose the population to a huge variety of scams, health and safety risks, monopolistic practices and the effects of conflicts of interest that these regulatory systems and agencies have been painstakingly designed to control (Musk's own appointment to this task already represents a massive conflict of interest of course). But for him, it would be a big win.
Yanis Varoufakis (Verrucaface as I call him) has a word for the era we seem to be drifting into: technofeudalism*. Guys like Musk are now so powerful because of their money that they are overtly meddling in politics, not just in their own countries but around the world, in the interests of their own businesses. It's been curious to see the likes of Zuckerberg and Jeff "He-Thinks-He's-A-Spaceman" Bezos bending the knee to Trump, having junked their former liberal postures, now that they see the way the wind is blowing.
* https://www.wired.com/story/yanis-varoufakis-technofeudalism-interview/
Last edited:
On the subject of Musk, it seems that some members of the GOP are suggesting President Musk replace Johnson as the Speaker of the House. There's no legal requirement for the Speaker to be a member of the House, so if Musk wants the job he could almost certainly get it (a little word in co-President Trump's ear here, a threat of putting up money to oust anyone in the GOP who doesn't support him there etc).
An article on MSNBC's webtsite (https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc...e-speaker-republicans-debt-ceiling-rcna184884) suggests that if this is what the GOP want then the Dems should just sit back and let it happen, and be sure to let the GOP own the ensuing chaos. I'm not sure how serious the idea is, though. Would Musk even want the job, and all the minutiae that goes with it? Would there be enough support even in the House GOP membership? I doubt it.