udonnome.bsky.social
@udonnome.bsky.social
I think it's grotesquely disingenuous and dishonest to imply they are hypocrites when there are so many other possible explanations for their voting decisions.
January 11, 2025 at 5:30 PM
I think it's grotesquely disingenuous and dishonest to imply they are hypocrites when there are so many other possible explanations for their voting decisions.
Perhaps it was an objection to funding amounts in some other category. The article doesn't even attempt to examine the reasons these 44 Republicans had for voting against the act.
January 11, 2025 at 5:30 PM
Perhaps it was an objection to funding amounts in some other category. The article doesn't even attempt to examine the reasons these 44 Republicans had for voting against the act.
Perhaps it is the fact that the act covers federal spending, and Republicans may feel some of the funding should be the responsibility of individual states. Or perhaps they didn't feel the funding was enough and they wanted *more* federal funding allocated to wildfire prevention measures.
January 11, 2025 at 5:29 PM
Perhaps it is the fact that the act covers federal spending, and Republicans may feel some of the funding should be the responsibility of individual states. Or perhaps they didn't feel the funding was enough and they wanted *more* federal funding allocated to wildfire prevention measures.
3) Funding for firebreaks and other fire prevention measures was a tiny percentage of the funding put (or kept) in place by the American Relief Act 2025. There are myriad possible reasons why Republicans might have voted against it, and it may have nothing to do with wildfire prevention whatsoever.
January 11, 2025 at 5:29 PM
3) Funding for firebreaks and other fire prevention measures was a tiny percentage of the funding put (or kept) in place by the American Relief Act 2025. There are myriad possible reasons why Republicans might have voted against it, and it may have nothing to do with wildfire prevention whatsoever.
2) the problems have been in the making for many years, if not decades. Gavin Newsom is the one who closed the dams resulting in the fire department not having enough water to fight the fires, and failed to fund fire prevention programs such as clearance of deadwood and creation of firebreaks.
January 11, 2025 at 5:28 PM
2) the problems have been in the making for many years, if not decades. Gavin Newsom is the one who closed the dams resulting in the fire department not having enough water to fight the fires, and failed to fund fire prevention programs such as clearance of deadwood and creation of firebreaks.
1) There's no way that can have had any impact on the current wildfires situation. It's just way too recent.
January 11, 2025 at 5:28 PM
1) There's no way that can have had any impact on the current wildfires situation. It's just way too recent.
Not what which word means?
Who did he use for using their free speech to point out hate speech?
How do you know what he did or didn't try? He certainly does advocate for free speech in the world. That's why he bought Twitter.
Buddies with Putin and Ching Ping? What are you talking about?
Who did he use for using their free speech to point out hate speech?
How do you know what he did or didn't try? He certainly does advocate for free speech in the world. That's why he bought Twitter.
Buddies with Putin and Ching Ping? What are you talking about?
January 8, 2025 at 6:39 AM
Not what which word means?
Who did he use for using their free speech to point out hate speech?
How do you know what he did or didn't try? He certainly does advocate for free speech in the world. That's why he bought Twitter.
Buddies with Putin and Ching Ping? What are you talking about?
Who did he use for using their free speech to point out hate speech?
How do you know what he did or didn't try? He certainly does advocate for free speech in the world. That's why he bought Twitter.
Buddies with Putin and Ching Ping? What are you talking about?
There's no logical reason for you to measure Musk's intentions based on an artificially binary judgement of his success. That's a non-sequitur.
Restrictions exist in the real world. Policies and actions have to be realistic. Not achieving your goal doesn't mean you have abandoned that goal.
Restrictions exist in the real world. Policies and actions have to be realistic. Not achieving your goal doesn't mean you have abandoned that goal.
January 7, 2025 at 11:23 AM
There's no logical reason for you to measure Musk's intentions based on an artificially binary judgement of his success. That's a non-sequitur.
Restrictions exist in the real world. Policies and actions have to be realistic. Not achieving your goal doesn't mean you have abandoned that goal.
Restrictions exist in the real world. Policies and actions have to be realistic. Not achieving your goal doesn't mean you have abandoned that goal.
He didn't set a precedent. All platforms have been doing this since the beginning of social media.
January 7, 2025 at 11:01 AM
He didn't set a precedent. All platforms have been doing this since the beginning of social media.
If a dictator wants to ban X in their country, it might be necessary to compromise, temporarily, in order to prevent the total shutdown of the platform. This isn't a compromise on views, though. It is not ideological pivoting. Some free speech is better than none.
Please answer my question.
Please answer my question.
January 3, 2025 at 1:56 PM
If a dictator wants to ban X in their country, it might be necessary to compromise, temporarily, in order to prevent the total shutdown of the platform. This isn't a compromise on views, though. It is not ideological pivoting. Some free speech is better than none.
Please answer my question.
Please answer my question.
I am more or less a free speech absolutist, but authoritarian leaders are not. In dealing with them, you may have to make unsavoury compromises to enable any speech at all. Some speech is better than no speech.
I'd still like to see examples of Nazis being platformed on X where leftists are not.
I'd still like to see examples of Nazis being platformed on X where leftists are not.
January 3, 2025 at 12:58 PM
I am more or less a free speech absolutist, but authoritarian leaders are not. In dealing with them, you may have to make unsavoury compromises to enable any speech at all. Some speech is better than no speech.
I'd still like to see examples of Nazis being platformed on X where leftists are not.
I'd still like to see examples of Nazis being platformed on X where leftists are not.
Totally agree with the OP.
January 3, 2025 at 8:47 AM
Totally agree with the OP.
You may have a point about him blocking tweets in Turkey and other authoritarian states, although I think there are, debatably, good reasons for doing so. As for boosting Nazis, please give me one example.
January 3, 2025 at 8:44 AM
You may have a point about him blocking tweets in Turkey and other authoritarian states, although I think there are, debatably, good reasons for doing so. As for boosting Nazis, please give me one example.
"freedom of speech only if that speech agrees with his world view"? For that to be true, tweets and comments which disagree with Musk's world view must be being routinely deleted on X. Is that happening? Can you give me an example?
It was happening pre-Musk, but I don't think it's happening now.
It was happening pre-Musk, but I don't think it's happening now.
January 1, 2025 at 9:27 AM
"freedom of speech only if that speech agrees with his world view"? For that to be true, tweets and comments which disagree with Musk's world view must be being routinely deleted on X. Is that happening? Can you give me an example?
It was happening pre-Musk, but I don't think it's happening now.
It was happening pre-Musk, but I don't think it's happening now.
The meme shows an incredible propensity for missing the point. Musk's tweet about being insulted on his own platform is about his dedication to free speech. It's not a call for sympathy.
December 31, 2024 at 5:35 PM
The meme shows an incredible propensity for missing the point. Musk's tweet about being insulted on his own platform is about his dedication to free speech. It's not a call for sympathy.
Why does God allow things like this to happen in the first place? Wanker.
December 31, 2024 at 11:39 AM
Why does God allow things like this to happen in the first place? Wanker.
Surely the OP is satire?
December 31, 2024 at 11:04 AM
Surely the OP is satire?
You don't choose not to believe based on the benefits of atheism. The inability to believe comes from a logical rejection of all evidence that has ever been offered. It's an immutable characteristic. I can't help not believing or force myself to believe, whatever the benefits either way.
December 31, 2024 at 11:00 AM
You don't choose not to believe based on the benefits of atheism. The inability to believe comes from a logical rejection of all evidence that has ever been offered. It's an immutable characteristic. I can't help not believing or force myself to believe, whatever the benefits either way.
2 good points in the OP. However, Khan has succeeded only in duping people into voting for him despite his objective failures on many fronts.
December 31, 2024 at 10:58 AM
2 good points in the OP. However, Khan has succeeded only in duping people into voting for him despite his objective failures on many fronts.
There's no evidence that Jesus actually existed at all, and quite a lot of circumstancial evidence that he didn't.
December 25, 2024 at 9:51 AM
There's no evidence that Jesus actually existed at all, and quite a lot of circumstancial evidence that he didn't.