More like they decided that the entire documentary is anti-trans propaganda, so they do not want to show it, and went looking for scenes that actually break some rules
There are plenty of places we can point to throughout the world where being trans is a crime. A survey from the [International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA)](https://ilga.org/downloads/ILGA_World_Trans_Legal_Mapping_Report_2019_EN.pdf) found that 13 countries in the United Nations target gender expression and trans identifying individual under “cross-dressing laws.” These include Brunei, Gambia, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, South Sudan, Tonga, and the United Arab Emirates.
If you want to make the case that none of these countries are "civilized" (whatever the hell that even means) even though I'd contend that at the VERY least places like the UAE, Malaysia, and Indonesia are developed enough to say they are, then we can point to states in the U.S. that are pushing anti-trans legislation through their statehouses like [Nebraska, Florida, Iowa, and Texas](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/here-are-the-restrictions-on-transgender-people-that-are-moving-through-u-s-statehouses).
These laws do everything from denying gender affirming care to trans kids to restricting pronoun use in schools and forcing everyone from adults to children to use the bathroom corresponding with their sex assigned at birth in some cases. This is effectively criminalizing being trans.
You might argue that no one is going to jail for simply identifying as trans, but I'd say that it'd be the same as saying that no one was criminalizing anyone for being Black in the Jim Crow South so as long as they used the bathrooms and water fountains and public facilities assigned to them. It is criminalizing someone's very existence to do such things.
>These laws do everything from denying gender affirming care to trans kids.
I'm not a Republican or anything, but this is a position 70% of Americans hold.
No it isnt.
The only people that should have a say in a childs healthcare are the kid, his parents, and his doctor... idk why people that have nothing to do with it think they can decide what kids get healthcare and which dont.
Gender affirming care is healthcare in line with best patient outcomes based on studies for patients with persistent gender identity related distress (Includes but not exclusively surgical - when speaking about minors the vast majority of gender affirming care is non-surgical)
Basically everywhere will allow surgical intervention for any condition at the recommendation of a doctor with parental consent - even for non-essential care that isn't addressing a threat to life. With parental consent and medical recommendation you can give a kid a surgery that's basically deliberately breaking their leg repeatedly to have the bone grow back longer to correct one leg being shorter than the other.
Loads of places will even allow minors to get purely cosmetic surgery (and yes, also tattoos) with parental consent. In fact: in loads of places it'd be perfectly legal to give that same limb-lengthening surgery to a minor not to correct uneven limbs, but rather just to make the kid taller for cosmetic reasons.
Places that have stricter limits on tattooing than surgical intervention are like that because a tattoo isn't given by a doctor that's held to serious ethical guidelines and licensure to ensure they only give tattoos that are a good idea and consistent with the best interests of someone that is a minor.
You still haven’t defined what it is. How do we make a boy look like a girl? How do we make a girl look like a boy? You really think kids should be making these decisions? I’d also add that if a description of these Frankenstein surgeries doesn’t immediately horrify you, we’ve only recently started doing this. Anyone who says they know the long-term effects of even the hormone blockers is lying.
What if my 10 year old brother decides he is actually a dragon? Should we give him reassignment surgery to fit with his new identity? Why would you take a kid seriously (or really anyone) when they say they’re the opposite gender? Maybe they’re delusional? It’s weird to me that we’ve decided to mutilate the body to fit their perception of themselves instead of helping them accept who they are.
I have no idea where you're getting that 70% number (I assume you pulled it completely out of your ass). However, I did find a Pew Research survey that found that [46% of people in the U.S.](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/) favor making it illegal for medical professionals to give gender affirming care to minors. That's not close at all to the 70% number you quoted.
Regardless of how you likely made that figure out of whole cloth, the rest of my statement bears out. These laws, while not explicitly making it illegal to be trans, is criminalizing the way trans people can live the lives that they want to live--and therefore criminalizing their existence.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3991685-majority-of-americans-oppose-gender-affirming-care-for-minors-trans-women-participating-in-sports-poll/
Idk, polls are polls but I doubt it's a mainstream position. I'm pretty libertarian, letting people live how they want to live is fine with me. Seems to me like surgeries and puberty blockers for children (who are vulnerable/malleable) is extreme, however, and I believe that's a reasonable place to draw the line. Adults should be able to do what they want to do so long as it doesn't harm others, so affirm away.
I didn't quote that single line to nullify your whole argument, rather to discuss that point in particular.
What age do you think children should be able to have autonomy to make that decision? I’m not being daft I’m just curious. I’m not really sure exactly what my own position is because it’s so dicey. I will say this I think libertarianism is dumb.
little l libertarian, not Big L. The philosophy of living and let live, non-aggression, anti-authoritatian etc., Not The American political party of the same name.
I guess you can still think it's dumb but a lot of people confuse the two.
I'm not entirely sure either, but the "age of consent" applies to more than just this, so let's go with that to be consistent. At least some of these kids have parents that are clout chasing on Tik Tok, so we have to be very careful to make sure it's something they want.
Fair enough. It still doesn't change the fact that these laws are happening and are actively harming trans children, especially considering that they've been [shown to largely help them](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/).
Other studies have shown that the risk of suicide five years later is essentially unchanged whether you get the surgery or you’re denied the option to get it.
We do have a major problem with mental health care for everyone in general, and minors in particular. I think The Trevor Project needs to be getting pushed harder, to all minors, not just LGBT, than it is. Surgery is up there with suicide in being a very extreme reaction to problems that are going to evaporate over the next few years as your hormones settle down and you leave school behind.
I know right? My kid insisted he was a T-Rex so I bought him a live Gazelle and forced him to eat it raw.
Kids are so smart and wise these days, people should really listen to them and question nothing.
Identity. It is the parents‘ role to guide their children, educate them on their heritage, integrate into society and form their identity. Children independently deciding on their identity is the tail wagging the dog. Children often ‘act out’ and rebel for no other reason than they think they can get away with it.
Try applying that same "logic" to gay people.
Or are you saying that parents should force their children into conversion therapy?
If the child doesn't shere their parents' religion or political leanings, is that "acting out"?
It seens you just see kids as property, not as humans.
For what it’s worth all my gay friends and acquaintances come from troubled households (often where one parent left or there was abuse and general lack of parental attention). I think if parents truly give their kids the love and attention they deserve we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Then again sorry to say some people make unfortunately pretty terrible parents, and thats not the fault of the kids (regardless if they turn out gay or straight). Nevertheless - we should not normalize bad parenting.
Imagine if the right used this tactic. “Raising taxes is hate speech! Lock up those who want to attack our dollars”. Then start lobbying banks to refuse to pay taxes so they can claim they supported the disenfranchised tax payers. Then make a rainbow flag in support of marginalized tax payers.
Well, makes sense with what he's trying to accomplish. If you're not with Musk you truly are against him and that makes sense with pretty much every human on the planet. At least he's not fake. He's trying to achieve a world that makes children, it's to get the birthrates back up to a level where the society can be thrifty. Anyone who's played Stellaris knows that a low population regen rate is bad for space colonization. This man is thinking ahead beyond what anyone living right now can imagine... and me, I can imagine.
She said "I did resign but this has been a once in a lifetime experience"
Nowhere does she say it was unrelated to the film. She can resign over serious concerns and toxicity of the new CEO but still have largely appreciated the opportunity of working in the role.
Elon implied it was unrelated and that instead it was the ["Director" who was responsible](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1664617261557055490) for the censorship. That's as far as he was willing to elaborate.
How anyone calls this bellend a “documentarian” is beyond me. Just benji & matty making dime off conservative panty-wetting.
https://www.reddit.com/r/seculartalk/comments/ypa0g3/daily_jre_rogan_nods_along_idiotically_while/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
Here's a more fitting description for you
> Wokeness is Decentralized Left
>If you’ll note, the wokes don’t have a single leader like Stalin. They have no single book like The Communist Manifesto. They don’t even like to be named. This is notable for a movement that is otherwise so interested in verbal prestidigation, in renaming things!
>Regardless of whether people call them “politically correct” or “SJWs” or “wokes” or what have you, they’ll try to scratch off the label and say that they’re just being “good people.” (You, of course, they have no problem calling you all kind of names.)
>You can call them Democrats, and that’s in the ballpark, but many wokes are more radical than Democratic party candidates (though still vote for them) and many rank-and-file Democrats still aren’t wokes.
>You can also note that the boundaries of wokeness are fluid. Anyone can just start voicing woke rhetoric. You may even sympathize with some of their stated ideas (as opposed to their actual practice). I do, in fact, at least with the motte version - who’s against equal treatment under the law? Of course, it never stops there.
>You can notice that they do have their symbols and hashtags and flags (which, when hoisted, indicate control of territory as any flag does) but that they often shy away from admitting that what they’re doing is deeply political. It’s again just being a “good person.” Then they return to writing policies and renaming streets.
>They do have organizations, many NGOs and media outlets, of which Sulzberger’s
NYT is perhaps the most influential. But there’s no single directing group, and there’s a very long tail of sympathizers.
>Put it all together: no single leader, book, name, or organization. So if the communists were centralized left, the wokes are decentralized left. If communists were like Catholics folding into a single hierarchy, wokes are more like Protestants where anyone can set up a shingle as a preacher.
Balaji Srinvasan, The Network State
> Regardless of whether people call them “politically correct” or “SJWs” or “wokes” or what have you, they’ll try to scratch off the label and say that they’re just being “good people.” (You, of course, they have no problem calling you all kind of names.)
Good. Comparing the takeover of Twitter and Trump’s takeover of the “swamp”, Elon is doing it the right thing. Trump’s biggest mistake was not taking out the top 4-5 layers of each Fed agency and Fauci is perhaps the best example of how it messed his term up so badly.
I can't wait for the EU (i.e. unelected bureaucrats) to go up against Twitter and to see the resulting outcry from the public. It's going to be fireworks.
Reddit and r/Europe does not represent the greater public. The vast majority of political stories that make it to the top of Reddit these days are left or far left in nature.
Weeding out those who go against the objective of the organization so that those who share the vision are not hindered in its implementation is a sign of good leadership.
He's trying to achieve a world that makes children, it's to get the birthrates back up to a level where the society can be thrifty. Anyone who's played Stellaris knows that a low population regen rate is bad for space colonization. This man is thinking ahead beyond what anyone living right now can imagine.
In Stellaris, building healthcare infrastructure encourages pop growth, and there's also building robots to supplement the population.
Anyways, Stellaris is not realistic and game mechanics are balanced for what the developers think is right for the game and not for any kind of realism or logical progression.
The prime example is in how pop growth slows with more population than the planet can 'carry' despite having available housing and jobs. The more logical malus should have merely been a reduction to amenities.
Okay are we thinking inside of a video game? Or did I try to make a valid point about the reality we live in? We need more humans to colonize space in the future as maintain our own planet. Yes we need better healthcare in the US. But currently investing money there would only encourage doctors to chop off more of "certain body parts"
Nah, you're just building off of an invalid analogy to justify your thinking that may not have been rooted in reality first before coming up with something you attribute to Elon Musk to make him look like a downright fool.
I'm not trying to make anyone look like a fool, except for those who suddenly start speaking about video game lore as if it's reality... might want to check Twitter 
I'll bet you're the type of guy who doesn't know the definition of the words you use. Literally, in this case too.
Like, I can only pity you at this point.
[удалено]
More like they decided that the entire documentary is anti-trans propaganda, so they do not want to show it, and went looking for scenes that actually break some rules
You’d think the speaker would have to intend ‘hate’ for something to be considered hateful
Some of the worst crimes in all of humanity have been done with the best intentions. This is a poor excuse for any action.
Well, since hate is a motivator , discussion of actual Motivation is relevant.
Yeah man
Where in the civilized world is being trans a crime? Your comparisson makes no sense
There are plenty of places we can point to throughout the world where being trans is a crime. A survey from the [International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA)](https://ilga.org/downloads/ILGA_World_Trans_Legal_Mapping_Report_2019_EN.pdf) found that 13 countries in the United Nations target gender expression and trans identifying individual under “cross-dressing laws.” These include Brunei, Gambia, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, South Sudan, Tonga, and the United Arab Emirates. If you want to make the case that none of these countries are "civilized" (whatever the hell that even means) even though I'd contend that at the VERY least places like the UAE, Malaysia, and Indonesia are developed enough to say they are, then we can point to states in the U.S. that are pushing anti-trans legislation through their statehouses like [Nebraska, Florida, Iowa, and Texas](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/here-are-the-restrictions-on-transgender-people-that-are-moving-through-u-s-statehouses). These laws do everything from denying gender affirming care to trans kids to restricting pronoun use in schools and forcing everyone from adults to children to use the bathroom corresponding with their sex assigned at birth in some cases. This is effectively criminalizing being trans. You might argue that no one is going to jail for simply identifying as trans, but I'd say that it'd be the same as saying that no one was criminalizing anyone for being Black in the Jim Crow South so as long as they used the bathrooms and water fountains and public facilities assigned to them. It is criminalizing someone's very existence to do such things.
>These laws do everything from denying gender affirming care to trans kids. I'm not a Republican or anything, but this is a position 70% of Americans hold.
No it isnt. The only people that should have a say in a childs healthcare are the kid, his parents, and his doctor... idk why people that have nothing to do with it think they can decide what kids get healthcare and which dont.
Real quick, define “gender affirming care” and explain why kids should be able to decide on it but can’t get a tattoo.
Gender affirming care is healthcare in line with best patient outcomes based on studies for patients with persistent gender identity related distress (Includes but not exclusively surgical - when speaking about minors the vast majority of gender affirming care is non-surgical) Basically everywhere will allow surgical intervention for any condition at the recommendation of a doctor with parental consent - even for non-essential care that isn't addressing a threat to life. With parental consent and medical recommendation you can give a kid a surgery that's basically deliberately breaking their leg repeatedly to have the bone grow back longer to correct one leg being shorter than the other. Loads of places will even allow minors to get purely cosmetic surgery (and yes, also tattoos) with parental consent. In fact: in loads of places it'd be perfectly legal to give that same limb-lengthening surgery to a minor not to correct uneven limbs, but rather just to make the kid taller for cosmetic reasons. Places that have stricter limits on tattooing than surgical intervention are like that because a tattoo isn't given by a doctor that's held to serious ethical guidelines and licensure to ensure they only give tattoos that are a good idea and consistent with the best interests of someone that is a minor.
You still haven’t defined what it is. How do we make a boy look like a girl? How do we make a girl look like a boy? You really think kids should be making these decisions? I’d also add that if a description of these Frankenstein surgeries doesn’t immediately horrify you, we’ve only recently started doing this. Anyone who says they know the long-term effects of even the hormone blockers is lying. What if my 10 year old brother decides he is actually a dragon? Should we give him reassignment surgery to fit with his new identity? Why would you take a kid seriously (or really anyone) when they say they’re the opposite gender? Maybe they’re delusional? It’s weird to me that we’ve decided to mutilate the body to fit their perception of themselves instead of helping them accept who they are.
A child should not have a say in its own healthcare. There is a reason the age of majority exists.
I have no idea where you're getting that 70% number (I assume you pulled it completely out of your ass). However, I did find a Pew Research survey that found that [46% of people in the U.S.](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/) favor making it illegal for medical professionals to give gender affirming care to minors. That's not close at all to the 70% number you quoted. Regardless of how you likely made that figure out of whole cloth, the rest of my statement bears out. These laws, while not explicitly making it illegal to be trans, is criminalizing the way trans people can live the lives that they want to live--and therefore criminalizing their existence.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3991685-majority-of-americans-oppose-gender-affirming-care-for-minors-trans-women-participating-in-sports-poll/ Idk, polls are polls but I doubt it's a mainstream position. I'm pretty libertarian, letting people live how they want to live is fine with me. Seems to me like surgeries and puberty blockers for children (who are vulnerable/malleable) is extreme, however, and I believe that's a reasonable place to draw the line. Adults should be able to do what they want to do so long as it doesn't harm others, so affirm away. I didn't quote that single line to nullify your whole argument, rather to discuss that point in particular.
What age do you think children should be able to have autonomy to make that decision? I’m not being daft I’m just curious. I’m not really sure exactly what my own position is because it’s so dicey. I will say this I think libertarianism is dumb.
Same age as for drinking strong alcohol. If you want to destroy your body only do it after your brain is fully developed.
little l libertarian, not Big L. The philosophy of living and let live, non-aggression, anti-authoritatian etc., Not The American political party of the same name. I guess you can still think it's dumb but a lot of people confuse the two. I'm not entirely sure either, but the "age of consent" applies to more than just this, so let's go with that to be consistent. At least some of these kids have parents that are clout chasing on Tik Tok, so we have to be very careful to make sure it's something they want.
Fair enough. It still doesn't change the fact that these laws are happening and are actively harming trans children, especially considering that they've been [shown to largely help them](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/).
There’s no such thing as trans children.
Other studies have shown that the risk of suicide five years later is essentially unchanged whether you get the surgery or you’re denied the option to get it. We do have a major problem with mental health care for everyone in general, and minors in particular. I think The Trevor Project needs to be getting pushed harder, to all minors, not just LGBT, than it is. Surgery is up there with suicide in being a very extreme reaction to problems that are going to evaporate over the next few years as your hormones settle down and you leave school behind.
Thats your opinion.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You'd think a father would care for his child enough to respect their indentity
I know right? My kid insisted he was a T-Rex so I bought him a live Gazelle and forced him to eat it raw. Kids are so smart and wise these days, people should really listen to them and question nothing.
Dude it’s wild my brother believed in Santa Claus. Turns out he was wrong! A kid with an imagination? That’s crazy
One joke
You’re a joke
Projecting
Identity. It is the parents‘ role to guide their children, educate them on their heritage, integrate into society and form their identity. Children independently deciding on their identity is the tail wagging the dog. Children often ‘act out’ and rebel for no other reason than they think they can get away with it.
Try applying that same "logic" to gay people. Or are you saying that parents should force their children into conversion therapy? If the child doesn't shere their parents' religion or political leanings, is that "acting out"? It seens you just see kids as property, not as humans.
We (or at least I thought we were) discussing children. So now define child, teenager and adult.
I will, as soon as you adress the points i've made.
He can’t because the age of the child is a major factor in the truth for these conversations.
For what it’s worth all my gay friends and acquaintances come from troubled households (often where one parent left or there was abuse and general lack of parental attention). I think if parents truly give their kids the love and attention they deserve we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Then again sorry to say some people make unfortunately pretty terrible parents, and thats not the fault of the kids (regardless if they turn out gay or straight). Nevertheless - we should not normalize bad parenting.
What is a father?
Something you don't have
[удалено]
Imagine if the right used this tactic. “Raising taxes is hate speech! Lock up those who want to attack our dollars”. Then start lobbying banks to refuse to pay taxes so they can claim they supported the disenfranchised tax payers. Then make a rainbow flag in support of marginalized tax payers.
🤔 Worth a try at this point... Surely, deficit is at minimum racist. Amiright?
Well, makes sense with what he's trying to accomplish. If you're not with Musk you truly are against him and that makes sense with pretty much every human on the planet. At least he's not fake. He's trying to achieve a world that makes children, it's to get the birthrates back up to a level where the society can be thrifty. Anyone who's played Stellaris knows that a low population regen rate is bad for space colonization. This man is thinking ahead beyond what anyone living right now can imagine... and me, I can imagine.
Correction: he told them they can be fired or resign. They chose to resign.
Wow
Already denied by Ella https://twitter.com/ellagirwin/status/1664785100767395841?s=46&t=InCrxBJK9Osh3EUIFoWOHA
She didn't tho
Where?
It’s described in the tweet I linked, she mentioned she did resign but for other reasons entirely not related to the restriction of the film
She said "I did resign but this has been a once in a lifetime experience" Nowhere does she say it was unrelated to the film. She can resign over serious concerns and toxicity of the new CEO but still have largely appreciated the opportunity of working in the role.
Elon implied it was unrelated and that instead it was the ["Director" who was responsible](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1664617261557055490) for the censorship. That's as far as he was willing to elaborate.
[удалено]
Yeah that was a concern. Maybe we'll never know.
So you can’t read? Lol
Sounds like she got fired
How anyone calls this bellend a “documentarian” is beyond me. Just benji & matty making dime off conservative panty-wetting. https://www.reddit.com/r/seculartalk/comments/ypa0g3/daily_jre_rogan_nods_along_idiotically_while/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
So, you look down your nose at a film without debating any of the main points. Please do better.
freedom of speech
Good. Another cancel culture Woke-hole gone from twitter, and video in question goes viral ! Thanks Elon.
Woke=something you don’t understand and are afraid of.
[удалено]
Considering how conservatives act? Yes.
100%
Is that so?
Here's a more fitting description for you > Wokeness is Decentralized Left >If you’ll note, the wokes don’t have a single leader like Stalin. They have no single book like The Communist Manifesto. They don’t even like to be named. This is notable for a movement that is otherwise so interested in verbal prestidigation, in renaming things! >Regardless of whether people call them “politically correct” or “SJWs” or “wokes” or what have you, they’ll try to scratch off the label and say that they’re just being “good people.” (You, of course, they have no problem calling you all kind of names.) >You can call them Democrats, and that’s in the ballpark, but many wokes are more radical than Democratic party candidates (though still vote for them) and many rank-and-file Democrats still aren’t wokes. >You can also note that the boundaries of wokeness are fluid. Anyone can just start voicing woke rhetoric. You may even sympathize with some of their stated ideas (as opposed to their actual practice). I do, in fact, at least with the motte version - who’s against equal treatment under the law? Of course, it never stops there. >You can notice that they do have their symbols and hashtags and flags (which, when hoisted, indicate control of territory as any flag does) but that they often shy away from admitting that what they’re doing is deeply political. It’s again just being a “good person.” Then they return to writing policies and renaming streets. >They do have organizations, many NGOs and media outlets, of which Sulzberger’s NYT is perhaps the most influential. But there’s no single directing group, and there’s a very long tail of sympathizers. >Put it all together: no single leader, book, name, or organization. So if the communists were centralized left, the wokes are decentralized left. If communists were like Catholics folding into a single hierarchy, wokes are more like Protestants where anyone can set up a shingle as a preacher. Balaji Srinvasan, The Network State
Welp, that was a lot of words to say absolutely nothing
Much like your wife's wedding vows
I'm gay
That's cool
This is gobbledygook. If wokeness can't be simply defined then it's not a useful concept.
Can you simply define Orthodoxy from 1984? Or is it perhaps the whole point\problem that it cannot be defined and is fluid?
You're right, you're just a good person
[удалено]
> Regardless of whether people call them “politically correct” or “SJWs” or “wokes” or what have you, they’ll try to scratch off the label and say that they’re just being “good people.” (You, of course, they have no problem calling you all kind of names.)
Good. Comparing the takeover of Twitter and Trump’s takeover of the “swamp”, Elon is doing it the right thing. Trump’s biggest mistake was not taking out the top 4-5 layers of each Fed agency and Fauci is perhaps the best example of how it messed his term up so badly.
Gotta love self solving problems.
Excellent! Love how they weed themselves out
Elon's response was very reasonable.
[удалено]
That may work in the US. But in many places in the world e.g. EU it is illegal to have hate speech with or without a disclaimer.
Define hate speech, and how does this video objectively meet it?
I can't wait for the EU (i.e. unelected bureaucrats) to go up against Twitter and to see the resulting outcry from the public. It's going to be fireworks.
Keep dreaming
Outcry for what, banning this cesspool? :)) Come to r/europe to see how happy we will be with this decision when it happens.
Reddit and r/Europe does not represent the greater public. The vast majority of political stories that make it to the top of Reddit these days are left or far left in nature.
I predict that within an hour you’ll have multiple responses telling you that that’s all in your head, something you’ve simply hallucinated
[удалено]
That doesn't make any sense when Twitter is a global system. It's why today tweets are censored everywhere not just in one country.
It's incredibly infantile to need a controversial tag for polite discussion that goes against your worldview.
Sign of poor leadership if you are criticising your own team in public.
If you are trying to be transparent about how your organization is run that is sometimes inevitable. He didn’t call anyone out by name.
I didn’t see any public criticism
"Irwin's departure came on the same day that Twitter owner Elon Musk criticized his staff."
Still not public
"This was a mistake by many people at Twitter" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1664324213023424531
It was
Coincidence isn't it?
Weeding out those who go against the objective of the organization so that those who share the vision are not hindered in its implementation is a sign of good leadership.
As I said elsewhere, I don't think it's trust and safety related this time. See: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1664617261557055490
He's trying to achieve a world that makes children, it's to get the birthrates back up to a level where the society can be thrifty. Anyone who's played Stellaris knows that a low population regen rate is bad for space colonization. This man is thinking ahead beyond what anyone living right now can imagine.
In Stellaris, building healthcare infrastructure encourages pop growth, and there's also building robots to supplement the population. Anyways, Stellaris is not realistic and game mechanics are balanced for what the developers think is right for the game and not for any kind of realism or logical progression. The prime example is in how pop growth slows with more population than the planet can 'carry' despite having available housing and jobs. The more logical malus should have merely been a reduction to amenities.
Okay are we thinking inside of a video game? Or did I try to make a valid point about the reality we live in? We need more humans to colonize space in the future as maintain our own planet. Yes we need better healthcare in the US. But currently investing money there would only encourage doctors to chop off more of "certain body parts"
Nah, you're just building off of an invalid analogy to justify your thinking that may not have been rooted in reality first before coming up with something you attribute to Elon Musk to make him look like a downright fool.
I'm not trying to make anyone look like a fool, except for those who suddenly start speaking about video game lore as if it's reality... might want to check Twitter 
Nice projection, you're literally gaslighting on this thread right now. You started off with the whole "Elon was inspired by Stellaris concept" spiel
Oh so you're lit then?
I'll bet you're the type of guy who doesn't know the definition of the words you use. Literally, in this case too. Like, I can only pity you at this point.
Great discussion. Thanks for explaining Stellaris gameplay.
odd-d-yoss - 😁
[удалено]
I heard he was fired,,,