- Joined
- Jan 3, 2022
I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about what transpired, as I understand. Elon Musk doesn't own Twitter. A private holding company, that he has heavy stakes in, owns Twitter.
(even this is untrue; BOD of Twitter approved the sale, but there's still a ton of red tape to cut through before the sale is finalized; expectations are the sale to be finalized towards the end of this year)
What happens Nov 2022? Why is BlueAnon upset about this business transaction? hunter biden
At least, that's my understanding. Musk had to secure loans and I believe he has a few other investors on board with him.
Some developments of note are:
edit - primary: https://archive.ph/kWywz
To borrow the Voxsplain, This Is a Good Move for Tim and Here Is Why.
I've been off of forums for so fucking long I've nearly forgotten how they work, so forgive me when my OCD compels me to edit for clarity, organization, etc. I try not to ever censor or misrepresent my view and own my mistakes. If I edit anything significantly out, it's usually because I think it's superfluous/unproductive, not to be malicious/deceitful
Tim's biggest issue (from an ethics standpoint) is that he is very rigid. Deontology is basically just setting and following rules. Most famous is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative, one example being that it is unethical to lie. (this is PHI 101 stuff, tons of resources to learn more if you want) Seems fine at first glance, right? However, to immediately invoke Godwin's law, "is it wrong to lie to Nazi soldiers that you're hiding Jews under your floorboards?"
Having a moral/ethical mooring is vital, such as that murdering innocent people for no reason is wrong, otherwise you drift to wherever. But is murder wrong? Nope. Does that mean it's okay to indiscriminately murder? Nope. Because we're not bots in a video game designed in 1992. Most people operate on a case basis that tends to be a sliding scale beyond the capability of advanced algorithms.
EX: You have a local gang of 10 people show up to a neighborhood party. A gang member, notoriously hotheaded, starts an argument and then shoots someone. The entire gang flees in the ensuing chaos.
Q: In absence of a formal legal framework, how do you (and/or do you not) met out punishment?
You could say the whole gang bears the burden and they all suffer. Maybe the party guest was an asshole and nobody really cares. Maybe just the shooter suffers. Maybe the shooter plus any gang member who doesn't agree with an ultimatum to disavow.
That's the problem with setting ethical and moral arguments on a rigid deontological framework. A lot of conservatives hate the term "moral relativism" (deservedly when taken to absurd extremes), but it's how we all operate. It's why no two murder trials are ever the exact same. You're never dealing with a list of binary facts of absolute certainty. You're dealing with a list of binary and float-value facts, plus assertions that are varying degrees of certainty.
Addendum:
Tim is the same age as Zuby.
Last edited:
