Controversial General Political Discussion

[Mr. Reloaded]

Recent data suggests he is making money because of rise in blue checks users and getting more advertisements - I guess because of all the controversies keeping twitter in focus amongst all media

Noted!

 

[Logiko]

Where's the source that she's using her royalty checks to find anti-trans programs or camps (whatever it is) keep hearing people use this argument but no source.

Dude. It is her money. Do you think that she will put all this money aside and say "no, I'm transphobe, but I don't want to use this specific amount of money to support my transphobe views, so I'll put it aside and do something else with it".

OF COURSE SHE WILL USE IT lol

It's just pure simple logic.... no source needed. xD

And assuming one is okay with what someone stands for simply because they bought a product is a huge reach

Would you buy your baker's bread if you knew he uses his money to traffic childrens ?

The clothes we wear for example were likely made in a sweatshop involving child labor. Does that mean I'm now okay with child labor because I need to wear clothes? 🤔

Like most of you guys, you forget two words in my sentence:

"If you KNOW what a person does and you KNOW that giving them money will help them hurt others THEN you are most probably OKAY with what they stand for."

If I know that a mark do child labor, I don't buy bro.

cancel culture

cancel culture is not a thing

 

[LANJI CUCKSMOKE]

By extension, far-right should bycott products where companies employ LGBTQ+ people.

This is what happens when people use cancel culture for their agenda.

Both are wrong.

it isnt wrong, One should be able to determine whether or not a product is for/not for them based on whatever value they ascribe to .
Have always wondered why folks cry about "cancel culture" because its not some new invention. Boycotts were pretty effective means of peaceful protest. Its not some invention by left or right leaning entities. at least here its always been embraced by both sides.


The crying about cancel culture happens not because it is one sided but because right wing positions are more common in the aging populace and not in the majority.

 

[Reborn]

Just my two cents - someone doesn't become a billionaire by caring about what people want or what people cares about

They became billionaires because they know how to run a business and make profits.


I won't be surprised if musk ends up making profit out of this regardless of what happens to Twitter.

 

[Logiko]

They became billionaires because they know how to run a business and make profits.

No. Usually they became billionaires because they are the son or daughter (usually son tho..hm) of someone.

 

[Reborn]

No. Usually they became billionaires because they are the son or daughter (usually son tho..hm) of someone.

That someone has to be millionaire or billionaire in the first place - which brings me to the same point I said - someone did know how to run q business

 

[Logiko]

That someone has to be millionaire or billionaire in the first place - which brings me to the same point I said - someone did know how to run q business

No.. usually, someone was just very lucky

 

[notAfanboy]

it isnt wrong, One should be able to determine whether or not a product is for/not for them based on whatever value they ascribe to .
Have always wondered why folks cry about "cancel culture" because its not some new invention. Boycotts were pretty effective means of peaceful protest. Its not some invention by left or right leaning entities. at least here its always been embraced by both sides.


The crying about cancel culture happens not because it is one sided but because right wing positions are more common in the aging populace and not in the majority.

"A boycott is economic in nature while cancel culture involves social ostracism. That ostracism often includes inflicting economic harm but it isn't a necessary component."

Bycott is ok to some extent. From what I have seen in cancel culture, an entire industry releases statements against that person/product.
Like Hollywood actors criticizing JK Rowling.
There is pressure to condemn them, etc.

 

[Mr. Reloaded]

Would you buy your baker's bread if you knew he uses his money to traffic childrens ?

Well no, because at that point he'd be behind bars 😂

 

[Reborn]

No.. usually, someone was just very lucky

Luck is everywhere.

My point is if "X" is billionaire then I see two ways he achieved it

First, X created his/her own business and build it's foundation - young entrepreneurs


Or, X is born in rich family and is son of "Y" - super rich person.

Then even in this case, Y did run a successful business or is highly corrupt official to make money and provide platform for "X"

 

[LANJI CUCKSMOKE]

Just my two cents - someone doesn't become a billionaire by caring about what people want or what people cares about

They became billionaires because they know how to run a business and make profits.


I won't be surprised if musk ends up making profit out of this regardless of what happens to Twitter.

completely different product
completely different ways of sourcing revenue
I quite frankly do not see a successful turn around
He's effectively politically at least drawn a pretty enough picture , the moment a viable alternative comes out , movement should be swift.

 

[NikaInParis]

Would you buy your baker's bread if you knew he uses his money to traffic childrens ?

You're surely aware that this is an actual crime, while being transphobic isn't?

 

[Logiko]

"A boycott is economic in nature while cancel culture involves social ostracism. That ostracism often includes inflicting economic harm but it isn't a necessary component."

Bycott is ok to some extent. From what I have seen in cancel culture, an entire industry releases statements against that person/product.
Like Hollywood actors criticizing JK Rowling.
There is pressure to condemn them, etc.

Have you example of people that are ostracised by society (lost job, became homeless for ex.) because of the so called "cancel culture" ?

Well no, at that point he'd be behind bars 😂

No necessaraly, you could know it without them being behind bars

Luck is everywhere.

Indeed.

My point is if "X" is billionaire then I see two ways he achieved it

First, X created his/her own business and build it's foundation - young entrepreneurs


Or, X is born in rich family and is son of "Y" - super rich person.

Then even in this case, Y did run a successful business or is highly corrupt official to make money and provide platform for "X"

I agree with this logic.

You're surely aware that this is an actual crime, while being transphobic isn't?

Indeed, and ?

 

[Reborn]

completely different product
completely different ways of sourcing revenue
I quite frankly do not see a successful turn around
He's effectively politically at least drawn a pretty enough picture , the moment a viable alternative comes out , movement should be swift.

It definitely can come to bite his ass so I won't deny what you said


I simply stated that there is a possibility that he might end up earning profits and fill his pockets regardless of what happens to Twitter.

It's pretty evident that he doesn't care about Twitter or people using it. So, why he is pulling all such moves? He can be crazy but one thing I am sure about is he definitely has some plans to make money - will he achieve it? Not sure -...

 

[notAfanboy]

Luck is everywhere.

My point is if "X" is billionaire then I see two ways he achieved it

First, X created his/her own business and build it's foundation - young entrepreneurs


Or, X is born in rich family and is son of "Y" - super rich person.

Then even in this case, Y did run a successful business or is highly corrupt official to make money and provide platform for "X"

Or...

Compounded luck is a thing.

Generation 1 was hardworking and they made right choices. They made their first million.

Second generation was lucky to have that 1 million as a headstart. They turned it in to 10 million.

Same with third generation, they got 10 million to start with. They used 10 million to make first billion.

And so on.

If you want your 3rd or 4th generation to be a billionaire start making right choices.
You have to sacrifice a lot to give next generation a chance.
If they #uck up, it will be back to ZERO.

 

[NikaInParis]

Indeed, and ?

Thus it's a faulty and hyperbolic comparison.

 

[notAfanboy]

Have you example of people that are ostracised by society (lost job, became homeless for ex.) because of the so called "cancel culture" ?




No necessaraly, you could know it without them being behind bars


Indeed.



I agree with this logic.



Indeed, and ?

It is the definition. Go find an example yourself if you need one.

 

[Mr. Reloaded]

Thus it's a faulty and hyperbolic comparison.

 

[Logiko]

Thus it's a faulty and hyperbolic comparison.

Hyperbolic yes, fallacious or faulty, no.

It is the definition. Go find an example yourself if you need one.

My point is that it doesn't exist. You have to prove that it exist, not me lol.

 

[LANJI CUCKSMOKE]

"A boycott is economic in nature while cancel culture involves social ostracism. That ostracism often includes inflicting economic harm but it isn't a necessary component."

Bycott is ok to some extent. From what I have seen in cancel culture, an entire industry releases statements against that person/product.
Like Hollywood actors criticizing JK Rowling.
There is pressure to condemn them, etc.

boycott is ok in any scenario . you invest your personal resources in products you want to invest your resources into .
there is also absolutely nothing wrong with actors choosing to disassociate with Individuals who they find detestable . if the issue here is a sort of hivemind developing whereby even folks who dont speak out are also ostracized or whereby they are pressured to , then that I think is is a more regressive outcome. At its core individuals have every right to choose to not associate , to not partake based on whatever values they hold important.