I think this market has taught me why neither Manifold nor any of its competitors really support this kind of stock concept, despite it being popular a couple years back. Imagine incrementing DOWN in response to the double sieg heil!! People are doing it!

@Panfilo my heart goes out to you

@Panfilo I usually feel bad for people with inaccurate world views. I see them getting enraged over something minor because their worldview tells them it's something major. I usually ask myself "every time their worldview fails to predict the future, why don't they update their beliefs? Why do they stick with their incorrect worldview?" That's what usually happens as it's usually innocent. People read things and then believe things, no need to be snarky.

But this, I've never witnessed it. The people with incorrect worldviews, the ones who incorrectly predicted the future of this market based on an event, the ones who got outnumbered on a poll on a website who are mostly of a different political stripe than Musk, when do you introspect and admit your worldview is failing you and causing you unnecessary anger? I've never seen people adamantly defend their worldview in the face of contrary future events. The market didn't move the way you thought it would, okay, update your worldview then. But no, instead you write a comment claiming the market itself is wrong, caps locking words as well. Don't you want to be happy? The consensus is that Hitler, a man who is dead, doesn't get dibs on human dexterity. I am a homo sapien and have the right to stretch my arm. Most people agree

@PeterNjeim The post you're responding to is about how this market format, Stocks, is not useful because it never resolves/is subjective and thus people can afford to bet against evidence as a political statement. The general prediction market arguments you're making don't apply for precisiely the reason I made the post.

@Panfilo I agree with you in that the stock format/never resolving markets are odd, and I apologize for hijacking your comment to talk about the secondary point you were making (that a "sieg heil" was made)

@PeterNjeim "when do you introspect and admit your worldview is failing you and causing you unnecessary anger?"
The reason bad things don't happen when good people get angry is because good people get angry. Every time people see this sort of thing, they need to get angry. "This is not normal. This should not be normal. And we will not let it be normal, because evil triumphs when good men do nothing." First it's an "accident." Next time it's a "joke." And the next time it's real, but oh, "you're just being pansies, who cares?"

Normal people care. Because it's blatantly pandering to the alt-right neo-nazis, and that's really not a group anybody should be pandering to. Empowering them means empowering the people who think Hitler was right, and the people that want to take away every nearly every single societal improvement we've ever had.

@Gameknight poll says your interpretation is unpopular and it's deeply tragic that you think harassing someone and calling someone something they're not ad nauseum is okay. You're not good for pretending sharing your heart to someone is evil, it's a fundamentally asinine partisan attack. Even this very website, where the vast majority are not Republicans, agree that no such Hitler-praising occured. The comments on the poll also have self-confessed left wingers that claim it's asinine. Taking the moral high ground here, where you're literally stooping to moral lows is hilarious

@Gameknight also I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. Maybe you misinterpreted what I said? I'm talking about people who have anxiety or anger towards the world because things aren't turning out how they expect, and then either not realizing it's their worldview that's wrong and causing them the anxiety or deliberately claiming the rest of the world is "wrong"

@PeterNjeim

"poll says your interpretation is unpopular"

Excellent, a bunch of people on the internet disagree with me. I'm someone who should get very upset about this and argue with you incessantly. Your commentary is deeply insightful and most certainly does not reflect any tendency to "go with the crowd" rather than having your own opinions.

"you think harassing someone and calling someone something they're not ad nauseum is okay"

This is just shoving words in my mouth. I never said anything like that.

"You're not good for pretending sharing your heart to someone is evil, it's a fundamentally asinine partisan attack."

Oh boy, calling out a hitler salute for what it is is a fundementally asinine partisan attack. Woe is Elon Musk, who has been accused by someone on the internet, who he will never know or see.

"Even this very website, where the vast majority are not Republicans, agree that no such Hitler-praising occured."

I agree, there's no such hitler-praising, just doing the hitler salute to pander to an audience.

"The comments on the poll also have self-confessed left wingers that claim it's asinine"

And if I tell you I'm a right-winger and say it's valid, am I to be trusted in the same way you trust the "self-confessed" left wingers? I'm not saying they're not left-wingers, but your argument here is deflecting to the crowd, rather than having your own argument.

"Taking the moral high ground here, where you're literally stooping to moral lows is hilarious"

Yes, yes, the moral high ground... does that include arguing in bad faith and making these self-aggrandizing statements? And how am I stooping to moral lows?

"Maybe you misinterpreted what I said? I'm talking about people who have anxiety or anger towards the world because things aren't turning out how they expect"

You made your comment on the "is elon musk a white supremacist" market and expect for people to not tie the two things together? I'm replying to you specifically that people who are angry, especially those who are vocally angry, about events prevent worse events.

So. Everything you said was either a strawman or deflection. Aren't you the one refusing to keep an open mind?

@Gameknight Let's clarify what I mean. It's not just that a bunch of people disagree with you, it's that those people aren't the ones who typically like Musk in the first place. This isn't any crowd. Claiming I merely "go with the crowd" is false, especially when I make other points supporting my case (like when I cited Shai's comments in our other discussion).

I'm claiming you're harassing an individual named Elon Musk by repeatedly and falsely calling him a neo-Nazi panderer. I'm saying this is unethical behavior.

Nobody did a "Hitler salute", he shared his heart with the crowd. Nice try though.

Thanks for doing mental gymnastics and admitting there is no Hitler-praising, only the atoms in his hand moving a certain way and totally irrelevant to things happening decades ago. (I already know your response: "I never admitting anything as that wasn't my claim in the first place!" That counter doesn't hold due to the following). Let's take your position at face value: "Musk didn't praise Hitler by doing a hand motion that is used to praise Hitler, but the same hand motion pandered to people who do." It's quite literally illogical. Either he did the symbol to praise Hitler or he didn't, he can't somehow not praise Hitler with a Hitler-praising symbol but simultaneously pander to people who do.

You seem to really like giving Hitler, a dead man, power over today's homo sapiens' limb movements (reminds me of the OK hand symbol being co-opted by a fringe group to mean "white power". I couldn't believe that COD Warzone removed the OK hand symbol from the emote list. Activision, in that moment, empowered white supremacists by giving them dibs over a harmless symbol. Please don't make the same mistake as them. Extending your arm for any reason, by default, should be taken to mean an arm extension. Coupled with the words uttered in the moment, you get the full picture. To assume by default some fringe group's usage of the symbol must've been the intention is to make a false assumption. Did you see those clips of other politicians making the same gesture? Nobody cared because the words coming our of their mouth perfectly aligned with their hand motion, just like in Musk's case. In fact, to assume something nefarious happened, you would have to deliberately ignore the speech itself, which is disingenuous and warrants no further discussion. My rationale: we defeat fringe groups by refusing to recognize their claims on symbology, not by respecting them.)

The reason someone being left-wing matters is because that's an indication they dislike Musk (and this platform is mostly those who lean left). You claiming to be right wing could be ignored because you're calling someone a Nazi non-chalantly, a big no-no in the conservative community. It isn't deflecting to any crowd, it's citing specific commentary, something you did as well in our earlier discussion, so no reason to be opposed to it when I do it.

I said you were stooping to moral lows because you're proclaiming that someone else is a Nazi-sympathizer despite the mountains of evidence against said interpretation. It's asinine.

Your reply to my quote didn't address it. You seem to be confused. I'm talking about people who are chronically offended, shocked, horrified, etc. who don't seem to understand that it's themselves with an incorrect worldview leading to those emotions, not the world itself. You, on the other hand, are talking about people standing up against Nazis/bad people, which isn't related to what I was talking about, but it is a correct point and I am not here to argue against it

@PeterNjeim This is disingenuous in a lot of different ways:

"It's not just that a bunch of people disagree with you, it's that those people aren't the ones who typically like Musk in the first place."

Okay. So? I'm sure a lot of holocaust deniers like meat, just like me. Should I share the exact same set of beliefs?

"Claiming I merely "go with the crowd" is false, especially when I make other points supporting my case"

Why, I never said you did! Quoting my previous comment, "Your commentary is deeply insightful and most certainly does not reflect any tendency to "go with the crowd" rather than having your own opinions."

"I'm claiming you're harassing an individual named Elon Musk by repeatedly and falsely calling him a neo-Nazi panderer. I'm saying this is unethical behavior."

First of all, how does this have any effect on him? Is he going to be emotionally distraught over the opinion of some guy on the internet (actually, hasn't he indeed been distraught over a lot of remarks)? And how is this unethical? I sincerely believe that he is a neo-Nazi panderer, and I have the right to speak freely of my opinions.

"Thanks for doing mental gymnastics and admitting there is no Hitler-praising, only the atoms in his hand moving a certain way and totally irrelevant to things happening decades ago. [...] Either he did the symbol to praise Hitler or he didn't, he can't somehow not praise Hitler with a Hitler-praising symbol but simultaneously pander to people who do."

You too, thanks for simply being wrong. Yes, he can do a hitler salute without actually praising hitler. Just like how I can turn on a light without actually needing the light myself, he is doing a hitler salute to pander to the neo-nazi audience. Whether he himself is a neo-nazi or not is both difficult to prove and irrelevant for the sake of my point. To pander to an audience, he needs to look the part. Whether he is a neo-nazi or not is, again, irrelevant.

"we defeat fringe groups by refusing to recognize their claims on symbology, not by respecting them."
I agree - but the hitler salute is not the claim of some "fringe group," it is the universally accepted gesture of loyalty to Hitler.

"You claiming to be right wing could be ignored because you're calling someone a Nazi non-chalantly, a big no-no in the conservative community."

Again, this is idiotic argumentative 🐴💩. Conservatism is an ideology, and has nothing intrinsically to do with calling people neo-Nazis or not. I can believe in states' rights while also thinking some guy who did a hitler salute is pandering to a neo-nazi audience. Similarly, someone who is left-wing and believes in federal oversight can believe that it was not intentional. Being left-wing or right-wing is irrelevant to the conversation.

"It isn't deflecting to any crowd, it's citing specific commentary, something you did as well in our earlier discussion, so no reason to be opposed to it when I do it."

No, these two things are not equivalent. I cited specific commentary and logical reasoning (namely, that Musk's salute was a form of 4chan internet humor meant to 'troll the libs') - you said "but a bunch of people calling themselves left-wing disagree with you, so you must be wrong." This is not the same. I am specifically pointing to an argument and line of reasoning; you are pointing to all the people that disagree with me and implying that those people invalidate my argument.

"You, on the other hand, are talking about people standing up against Nazis/bad people, which isn't related to what I was talking about, but it is a correct point and I am not here to argue against it"

If we can agree on this, then let us stop here, for any further debate is meaningless: it would only reflect a difference in opinions on whether Elon Musk intentionally or unintentionally did the hitler salute (which I'm sure neither of us will be able to convince the other, judging from what we've already said so far) and would not be a productive argument. We can agree that Hitler and Nazism are bad, and hitler salutes are bad, etc. As for whether Musk really did or didn't mean to do it, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

Although, here's some arguments that support the "he did it on purpose" opinion:

Response for anyone saying that Elon's Nazi salutes were

----A: a sweet my-heart-goes-out gesture

----B: the Roman salute

----C: "the same as others have done in the past"

--You can NOT be serious. Nobody on earth uses that gesture for "my heart goes out to you". That isn't a thing. It doesn't even make sense for it to mean that, and it has never been used for that by anyone in any context. Look at this https://i.redd.it/6p4k6uu76bee1.gif

--The Roman salute isn't a thing in this era. It has no historical backing, and anyway, that gesture has forever been usurped by the Nazi salute and you damn well know it. When was the last time you saw anyone do that and intend for it to be the Roman salute? The Roman salute wasn't even part of the public consciousness until Elon's Nazi salute made the headlines.

--There are collages of pictures of mostly Democrats making what look like the Nazi salute with captions saying that it's the same as what Elon did. However, if you watch the videos from which those photos are taken, it's incredibly obvious that those images are just freeze-frames of tiny moments during normal hand gestures while talking or waving to the crowd. They are obviously not anything like Elon's aggressive, purposeful intent to do only the Nazi salute and nothing else.

Elon musk knows full well how to do a normal "my heart goes out" gesture.

And remember that, if we normalize this, we also open the door to normalizing more:

"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way."

- Milton Sandford Mayer, They thought they were free: The Germans 1933-1945

@Gameknight I never said you should share their beliefs, I said it's good evidence that your position is wrong, not merely because people disagree with you but that people who typically don't like Musk disagree with you. It's not that you and them are part of the same group, which your meat analogy implies, I never made a comparison, I simply said that this crowd is good evidence. The analogy for you would be that Holocaust deniers are people who tend to rabidly believe other genocide claims but not the Holocaust.

Lol.

Whether or not it actually has an effect on him doesn't matter, harassment is defined solely by the actions of the abuser, and is not dependent on the sensitivity of the victim. I sincerely believe you're wrong and know it and are making a disgusting partisan attack, and have the right to call you out on your unethical behavior.

The mental gymnastics is insane here. Just to ground myself, I'm going to ask ChatGPT (which I consider a neutral 3rd party, you may disagree) about our back and forth on this specific tangent to see what it thinks of it. No prompt engineering on my part btw. (And looks like it agrees with me, that your position is untenable: https://chatgpt.com/share/6791861a-ba5c-8001-bc0e-73091ae5e9a1:

.) Just to respond myself, I'm not sure what purpose "looking the part, but not actually supporting Hitler" would be for. Like, I genuinely don't understand so much so that I am confident you're deliberately lying for partisan reasons. (This is a secondary counter, my main counter remains that it's impossible to do a Hitler salute, universally agreed to show loyalty to Hitler, which you admit, and not show loyalty to Hitler.)

You're right that there is a hand motion that is considered the Hitler salute, luckily Musk took his heart and shared it with the crowd. If you were standing in front of Hitler and said "thank you, thank you" and slapped your heart and did a single-handed dab (Hitler salute is famously a directly forward hand movement, not a diagonal one), then said "my heart goes out to you" and slapped your heart again, Hitler would awkwardly wait 4 seconds before having you executed on the spot.

I didn't refer to conservatism, I referred to the conservative community. Nice try strawmanning me though. And the argument is the opposite of idiotic. Left wingers, by and large, are opposed to Musk due to his right wing policy positions, that's the only relevance it has here. You're right that being right wing or left wing isn't integral, but it is telling that when there's a partisan advantage to be had to interpret something in a disingenuous way and many of them do not (the poll on this platform).

You cited an opinion comment that was comically weak. I cited Shai's great putdown (and his other amazing comments in the comments section). I referenced unnamed left wingers in the comments, they're not hard to find. Here's one: Dan Homerick. I never said you "must be wrong due to the presence of left wingers disagreeing with you". What a bizarre strawman. The sole relevance of me bringing up them being left wing is that despite the powerful partisan incentive to interpret it in the worst way possible, the offer wasn't taken by many. It's a sign of sincere, strong opposition to your interpretation. Of course, reading their comments is even better, they handily put down the snarky anti-Musk comments on there.

Welp, I started typing reading paragraph by paragraph, didn't read your last paragraph until I already finished writing the previous ones so I won't be letting it go to waste lol. In your final paragraph you still seem to insist that a Hitler salute did indeed occur. I can only disagree

@PeterNjeim Your chatgpt image is obviously doctored. It literally uses the specific wording "mental gymnastics", which is rarely used anywhere besides your specific paragraph.

"Just to respond myself, I'm not sure what purpose "looking the part, but not actually supporting Hitler" would be for."

Again, you haven't read a single word I've said, it's literally just Musk being an absolute dipsh*t scumbag who wants to normalize fascism. I've never said that he wasn't a neo-nazi, I just kept it out of my arguments because it's difficult-to-prove-beyond-reasonable-doubt speculation and I'd rather argue on facts and not have you nitpicking me on motives. Sadly you have brought it right back around to motives.

"I didn't refer to conservatism, I referred to the conservative community."

"I don't refer to meat-eating, I referred to the community of meat-eaters" is hilarious

"I never said you "must be wrong due to the presence of left wingers disagreeing with you". What a bizarre strawman."

Yes, say "here's everyone who disagrees with you," then backtrack on the obviously implied continuation of "thus you are likely wrong"

"You cited an opinion comment that was comically weak. I cited Shai's great putdown"

What putdown? There isn't shit in his counterargument.

"Whether or not it actually has an effect on him doesn't matter, harassment is defined solely by the actions of the abuser, and is not dependent on the sensitivity of the victim."

If there is a victim, let him stand up now and speak for himself. If nobody claims personal offense here, then let the case rest.

"I sincerely believe you're wrong and know it and are making a disgusting partisan attack, and have the right to call you out on your unethical behavior."

That's great. I'm saying you're wrong. We are both within our rights to say so, if we genuinely believe what we are saying.

@Gameknight Odd that you're continuing to debate despite claiming you yourself wanted it to end. But I digress.

There is no such thing as a "my heart goes out to you" gesture. You just improvise and touch your heart or make a heart and bring your hand or hands to who you're sharing it with. Your bizarre requirement that there must some sort of standardized gesture is insane. You also make several false statements in absolute terms about how often such a gesture is made. Your carefully chosen GIF shows Hitler clenching a fist, not even touching his body with it, probably near the center of his torso (the angle is also deliberately chosen to mask this). Musk slapped his hand on his heart, his torso rotating to support his gesture. Hitler's torso stayed perfectly straight, as are all Hitler salutes (look at the Wikipedia page). It's just so painfully obvious.

The Democrat example is really good, as it proves that gestures towards the crowd are normal and unrelated to Hitler, as Hitler doesn't have dibs over hand movements, he's dead. Basically, if someone's words aren't Hitleresque as they extend their arm, then it isn't a Hitler salute. Thanks for agreeing!

Normalizing what? Partisan hacks get less influence?

Anyways, I think my comment here will sum up most of what I have to say. If you're still unconvinced, I can't be bothered arguing your bad-faith bullshit.

@Gameknight My ChatGPT image cannot possible be doctored, I even shared the link to prove its authenticity. The fact you assumed it was doctored is the ultimate proof that you aren't here in good faith, you're here to lie, smear, and perform partisan attacks. That's enough. Bad faith actors like yourself deserve none of my time.

Why would Musk want to "normalize fascism"? See how in order to support your viewpoint, you'd need to make additional assumptions like this one? It's a never ending cascade of absurd assumptions. You claim that he's possibly a neo-Nazi? What kind of possible neo-Nazi uses a Hitler salute but not for the purpose of praising Hitler? Again, utterly insane mental gymnastics. Thanks for exposing yourself though. The more you elaborate the quicker the house of cards falls.

What? I said your meat-eater analogy is incorrect. I created an analogy that actually makes sense. Notice how it has nothing to do with you, it has to do with the people making the claim. You still think I'm claiming something about your group identity. I'm not, I'm talking about the group identity of the commenters I'm talking about. Please re-read that paragraph because you're still not understanding it.

The connotation was the even people with an incentive to attack Musk didn't choose to do so. I've said that explicitly so many times it's hard to believe you're even reading my comments.

What? There doesn't need to be much to put down a short, almost comically bad opinion. Also, Shai's other comments in the thread are beautiful, take a read.

Thanks for leaving open the option that you are an abuser instead of claiming innocence. Musk has indeed responded on X to those who peddle this lie.

Indeed, but it's clear you don't even believe what you're saying. It isn't really possible to make these many strawmen, this many misinterpretations, this many assumptions, this many bad faith actions, and pretend you're serious. You're not.

Good chat though, thanks for linking to a comment that I already debunked, not sure why you think that will help your case but honestly, if you think that's convincing then I don't even care, to each their own and let's call it here then

@PeterNjeim oh boy, I should really stop getting baited by your bullshit, but it's so hard to resist. Okay, one last time:

"Odd that you're continuing to debate despite claiming you yourself wanted it to end. But I digress."

You replied to me.

"There is no such thing as a "my heart goes out to you" gesture. You just improvise and touch your heart or make a heart and bring your hand or hands to who you're sharing it with. Your bizarre requirement that there must some sort of standardized gesture is insane."

Sure, there's no such thing as a singular "my heart goes out to you" gesture, but there's certainly wrong ones, like the one Musk just did. And no, I never said that there must be some sort of standardized gesture. So thanks for more strawmanning!

"You also make several false statements in absolute terms about how often such a gesture is made."

...never have I ever, lmao? You just drop this statement without pointing specific statements, so IDK what you're doing here.

"Your carefully chosen GIF shows Hitler clenching a fist, not even touching his body with it, probably near the center of his torso (the angle is also deliberately chosen to mask this). Musk slapped his hand on his heart, his torso rotating to support his gesture. Hitler's torso stayed perfectly straight, as are all Hitler salutes (look at the Wikipedia page). It's just so painfully obvious."

These differences are superficial, like saying wrench 2 is not a wrench because the handle is slightly longer and more curved compared to wrench 1.

"The Democrat example is really good, as it proves that gestures towards the crowd are normal and unrelated to Hitler, as Hitler doesn't have dibs over hand movements, he's dead."

Hitler most certainly has dibs over the specific hand gesture of putting your hand over your chest and thrusting it up and forward with your hand in that form.

"Basically, if someone's words aren't Hitleresque as they extend their arm, then it isn't a Hitler salute. Thanks for agreeing!"

That is absolutely not what I said lmao

"Normalizing what? Partisan hacks get less influence?"

Normalizing fascism. Isn't it obvious, Mr. Illiterate?

Anyways, it's been a fun ride with you. Thanks for reminding me again that there is no discourse to be had with neo-nazi apologists without copious amounts of bad-faith everything. Have fun in the blocked section!

@Gameknight Why do you keep saying you're going to leave then come back? I don't even get it, can you be honest for once?

No? You wrote a comment saying you wanted to stop, then proceeded to, unprompted, write a second comment. Why are you lying about such easily verifiable order of events?

You definitely said there must be some sort of standardization. That's the only interpretation of "that's not even a thing, it doesn't make sense to mean that". You're saying there's rules to the gestures and Musk didn't follow them. Gaslight failed.

You said "and it has never been used for that by anyone in any context". That's a comedy-skit level absolute statement, not sure how you couldn't tell I was referring to this but whatever.

Slapping your heart to share your heart with someone is not an important difference to clenching a fist and carefully moving your hand in a salute, whereas Musk did a whole body movement? Wikipedia article shows the much more common Hitler salute, it's a pretty stark difference.

Luckily Musk didn't do that gesture though, but the "dibs" I'm talking about is for people who actually put their hand in a Hitler salute motion, and it still not mattering (like those Democrat examples).

That is what you said. You granted Democrats leniency because they obviously weren't supporting Hitler as their hands moved in a similar manner to the Hitler salute.

Earlier you made sarcastic comments and were capable of understanding them, now you can't understand it? I'm obviously critiquing your insinuation.

Look, another baseless accusation that someone is a neo-Nazi. You thought that final comment was a harmless one, but in reality it is the ultimate proof you're a hack. You actually feel good calling random people neo-Nazis, you're trigger happy with it. It's just yet more evidence that you aren't serious, it's just a bizarre personality type. Thanks for taking the time to talk with me though, I had lots of free time today and it was an unexpectedly nice use of time. Cheers and take care, and I hope I can get off your block list in the future as I don't actually dislike you

Edit: Actually lol'd reading this: https://chatgpt.com/share/6791968e-1380-8001-b974-e61216f9539b

words words
fancy words words

He truly is the Henry Ford of our era. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/elon-musk-gives-nod-german-far-right-party-election-looms-2024-12-20/

@Panfilo The characterization of AfD is rather lacking in nuance, but that is Reuters for you. From what Ive read, AfD is rather schizophrenic in its favored policies, with a lot of internal disagreement in many areas. But regardless, the media's mission is clear: any resistance towards open borders and globohomo must be equated with fascism. Oh, and in the news today:

Almost 70 injured in German Christmas market ‘terror attack’

@AlQuinn are you updating any of your priors now that it turns out the terror attacker, while from Saudi, was an atheist AfD supporter?

How is that evidence of anything to do with this market?

@Panfilo

I'm writing to try to push the discussion up a level - and explain that I'm rejecting this "linkage" argument style, and why.

First, here's my attempt to summarize what I interpret your post and general arguments to be - trying to make this fair, so I wouldn't mind improvements & corrections. "Panfilo has found tweets of Elon using or referencing bad or controversial ideas, which he then posts, and then expects that since he's shown that Elon is willing to discuss an idea which is bad, that the audience will agree that Elon is a White Supremacist"

In this one, Elon is engaging with a concept that is currently in lots of people's list of "forbidden ideas": concepts around using judgment not just on individuals, but on the behavior of larger groups, cultures, civilizations, religions, nations. Many people think now that even pretty general or low-level summaries or generalizations about any group is a forbidden thing to do, even to the point that saying things like "The way current-day religious group X treats minority group Y is bad" can be seen as a provocative statement.

If that's a fair summary, then I'd like to explain that I'm resisting this argument style.

First, I think that allowing other people's lists of what is allowed/not allowed to discuss into my judgment system without examination isn't right, since I don't know how the lists was made. Also, if using lists like this is correct at all, I don't get why we need to adopt such a high pressure tactic to push that specific list without justification. Why can't you explain and convince me to adopt it? And also why they've changed, what the process for maintaining the list is, how we find mistakes or manipulations, etc. and how we can be safe to adopt such an accepting viewpoint that would limit our freedom to ask and discuss concepts.

Secondly, even if this overall structure of keeping a list of taboo ideas is right, what do we do when people have different lists of forbidden ideas? I just don't get how it's supposed to work. I have a list of things I believe and would hold to, too, but I'm willing to explain why I put things there, and not just assume everyone has agreed to my personal list.

But when I've asked you to define what your list is, and why, you haven't responded. That's what I can't accept. In my personal experience, I've run into this pattern in religious groups, which then led me to read more about it - which led me to my view now, which is that sometimes groups get into "human social judgement spirals" where they go really far into obsessing over words, and it leads to some really bad outcomes. Examples are things like medieval religious doctrinal conflict, the French Revolution, The Cultural Revolution, the internals of how cults work, etc. A good grounding point that would have helped those people is to explain what and why they believe, and moreso to look for "actual harm". i.e. to really challenge their mental ideas that say "this concept itself is evil", by looking at reality. If a group won't do that, and explain how they are so sure that their single focused cause of evil really works, conditions in the groups I read about tended to get worse. So, grounding to experience, discussion, explanation, curiosity about others was the way out for people in those groups; some took it, and some didn't. So for me, I'm generally against the pattern of accepting a social expectation and pressure to conform to never-proven assertions of good/bad. From your point of view, how did you decide what viewpoint to accept, given that there really are so many conflicting ones in the world?

When I ask for definitions, can you understand that I'm doing it as a way to check whether this particular set of views about what is good and bad about the world is valid, because I believe there are many predefined worldviews and I am not willing to just jump into one, but instead ask them all to prove and explain themselves? Is there a way we can open up the discussion a bit, basing it on what I assume might be a shared basis of the importance of human rights, individual freedom and dignity, which I do hold as an American? That's a good start, (although I'm willing to discuss challenges to it too).

Summary: You linked Elon to <concept X> and seem to expect us all to believe he's bad, since <concept X> should not be discussed. You haven't explained what specifically concept X is, why it's bad, or why it shouldn't be discussed. I don't find this convincing.

I'm familiar with the concept of poisoning the well, and of libertarian vs. mainstream attitudes towards topic taboos. The things I've posted don't fit your framing, though. Elon is not merely mentioning, debating, or acknowledging these subjects. He is explicitly agreeing with Gad Saad, TheWhitePost, breakingbaht, and others about specific statements that include such sentiments as "jewish communities pushing dialectical hatred against whites," and the great replacement theory (not just organic immigration trends, but the belief that a fortress of western European ethnicities are being debraded by a conspiracy of immigration by Arabs and Africans).

Elon repeatedly and openly supports these beliefs. He doesn't stop at saying things that may be earnest intellectual curiosity such as "we should be alowed to discuss IQ variance across population groups" or "what are the best and worst reasons to fully close or open borders?" Rather, he stands with bad actors on specific bad sides of these issues. If you want to defend him, you can't just appeal to the tendancy of other people (centrists, liberals, leftists) to overcorrect away from openly discussing problematic issues. You have to say why calling TheWhitePost's view "accurate" is either correct, or unrelated to white supremacy.

It would be one thing if I was taking a single instance of Musk talking to a white supremacist neutrally and blowing it out of proportion. But context and association does count for something. There is a reason ethos was a pillar of classical rhetoric, and it's not the same as pathos. Gad is yet another person themselves immersed in racist/islamophobic/antisemitic/etc. circles (RadioGenoa and the like), that Musk not only considers non-toxic, but philosophically correct. But I get the impression this may be something you fundamentally don't believe in; that you believe Musk would have to send out a signed memo saying "don't hire anyone with a lot of melanin" in order to be considered potentially racist. And if he said "don't hire any Samoans" you'd say "well he just means their culture, not their ethnicity".

Lots of words there, but I still don't get how defending certain western values using a sharp rhetorical style is white supremacy. Gad is writing about defending memes, not genes.

Would you mind letting me know what you mean by white supremacist? is it a racial, like biological ethnicity origin thing, or is about social practices, religion, culture etc and the alleged claims of superiority of european views/culture/society or something like that? I am not the one bringing up the term, that's you, so could you explain what you mean please?

you said Elon was a baddie for supporting an idea of Gad, and you proved it by offering, without source, another quote from Gad that wasn't present in the tweet Elon supported.

So it seems that you are still applying the rule "If person X approves an idea of person Y, and person Y has other bad ideas, then person X is bad"?

Or are you claiming that what Gad said in the actual tweet was bad?

You mentioned a conspiracy great replacement theory. I didn't see that in the tweet at all. The tweet seems to blame western liberals themselves for not balancing their admirable empathy with a dose of realism and defensiveness about our values and reality.

It's just so ironic that you and Gad are both pronouncing yourself virtuous: You, for auto-ignoring the ideas of anyone who would dare to criticize another group, and him for being strong enough to take the social approbation of going against the grain and ensure a good future where liberalism and democracy exist in the world (unlike in the parts of the world that are growing, which are very cruel) [this is my guess at his self-view, not a statement of agreement]

Yet you claim that you are the virtuous one, and systematically refuse to actually address his arguments, or even talk to/convince him. Instead you strawman them as a conspiracy theory, avoid discussion, keep sliding back into playing to the crowd to crush discussion rather than help convince and save unfortunate people who get sucked into in your view racist systems.

And you call people who acknowledge problems with other groups views and try to help victims there racist, for example people who crusade against middle eastern systematic cultural anti-semitism, anti-feminism, anti-gay, and anti-apostasy views.

Like I said, it's ironic. And the answer is right there. Rather than keeping on slandering Gad, just address his points. Explain how we are going to help everyone in the world, confront our own and also their mistaken practices, convert & convince people who would do harm if possible, or exclude them from harming the vulnerable if we aren't able to convince them.

To improve communication:

1. Both parties could benefit from explicitly acknowledging valid points made by the other, which could help build mutual understanding.

2. They could try to find common ground on basic principles (e.g., the importance of free speech, the danger of uncritical acceptance of ideas) before delving into specific disagreements.

3. Ernie could address some of Panfilo's specific claims about Musk's statements to show they are engaging with the concrete examples provided.

4. Panfilo could engage more directly with Ernie's concerns about the dangers of unexamined taboos and explain their perspective on why certain ideas are considered problematic.

5. Both could benefit from using more "I" statements to express their personal views and experiences, which can be less confrontational than making broad claims.

6. They could agree on definitions for key terms they're using (e.g., "white supremacy", "racist") to ensure they're talking about the same concepts.

Overall, while there are areas for improvement, this interaction shows a relatively high level of engagement and thoughtfulness from both parties on a challenging topic.

@Panfilo I appreciate that you are engaging at all, which is rare for this type of discussion. I agree that it's not ideal that Musk is being opaque, and that doubt about his views is a reasonable position.

I request your viewpoint on my questions about definitions, and about the general framework of how you are arguing. I would ask that you be precise about distinguishing between whether you are willing to engage with a line of argument itself and admit that the discussion is legitimate, versus cases where you attempt to go to higher levels and broadly define even the existence of the discussion as invalid or as demonstration of ill will or something negative. The way you express this about Musk makes it very hard for me to argue, since I am wary that you may apply the same (lax, in my view) standards of evidence to make claims or assert too strongly your views about what I believe, even when I have denied it or when contradictory evidence exists.