When someone calls essentially half the population as "reprobates" and "racists", then please explain how my tone and my response is inappropriate? It is more than appropriate! It is far past time to call out that the actual demons are those who spend their time dishonestly demonizing others.
Not even in the most feverish reactionary vision of America does anybody seriously think that 50% of Americans believe the drivel that comes out of Twitter's racist peanut gallery.
Put another way: you may or may not believe it, but the overwhelming majority of people do not. Plenty may find it entertaining or even cathartic (given preconceptions about their own political tribe), but that's a far cry from agreeing with it.
Who are the censored racists that got freed under Musk? Did you view the links in my posts? Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is not a racist. Neither is the Babylon Bee. Neither is the attorney general of Texas. Neither is Jordan Peterson. These peoples' views represent mainstream conservatism, and their censorship was dissolved under Musk.
Now, point me to the throng of racists Musk also unshackled. I'm guessing you can't, because not a single person in this comment thread can be bothered to come up with a spec of evidence supporting their claims.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
This is far from the “strongest possible interpretation” of that comment. You’re not ChatGPT; stick to what’s written not a hallucinated interpretation.
It is not even remotely far from the "strongest possible interpretation" at all. It is a mainstream belief of the democrat party that Republicans are racist reprobates. Someone who won the popular vote for presidency of the United States has said as much: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables
Whenever anyone makes a blanket statement about a group of people being racists and has zero evidence of said alleged racism, it is a very plausible interpretation that they are blanket-insulting conservatives en masse.
Regardless, My criticism stands even without this interpretation. He claimed a bunch of racists and reprobates got unshackled on Twitter via Musk. He has provided zero evidence to back that up despite me challenging his claim and calling his behavior reprobative.
I don't give a shit what the "mainstream belief" is. I don't give a shit what the house minority leader said. I don't give a shit what you think the parent commenter said. Stick to what was actually said and the best possible interpretation of it. The parent commenter did not talk about any of that. They did not bring it up. You are entirely the one that brought this whole 50% topic in here when it wasn't being discussed, and then hyperfixated on it instead of what was actually being talked about.
> He claimed a bunch of racists and reprobates got unshackled on Twitter via Musk. He has provided zero evidence to back that up despite me challenging his claim and calling his behavior reprobative.
Great, focus on that instead of something that just plain wasn't said in this comment thread.
You also never "challenged his claim". You straight up said you don't believe him based on one sentence, and then immediately flew off on a tangent based on something that wasn't said. At no point did you stick to the topic being talked about. That is the antithesis of that HN guideline, plain and simple.
As I previously said, you're not ChatGPT. Don't hallucinate things into this thread that wasn't said and then fly off on a tangent based on those.
I don't really care what you care about either. I directly challenged one of his claims. That is extremely obvious in my post. I only brought the 50% up later in response to another person's comment. So OP didn't even need to address that directly. You are the one now not taking people's words at face value, and therefore violating HN guidelines based on your own intepretations.
> Great, focus on that instead of something that just plain wasn't said in this comment thread.
That was my focus. How well did you read my original comment?
> You also never "challenged his claim".
I certainly did. I said I no longer trust him because of his claim. How much stronger of a challenge could you get than that?
> and then immediately flew off on a tangent based on something that wasn't said
False.
> Don't hallucinate things into this thread that wasn't said
If you think mainstream beliefs held by people in society who make similar statements isn't relevant context to an Internet discussion, then you and I probably aren't going to agree on much.
> When someone calls essentially half the population as "reprobates" and "racists",
Half the population wasn't banned from Twitter before Musk bought it.
Half the population doesn't consist of people like Andrew Tate and Donald Trump, and Andrew Anglin (Shout out to him and his boys at the Daily Stormer for getting their megaphone back), and Alex Jones (Although that last one's still banned.) Why do you think that it does?
Because the twitter bots says so. Twitter amplifies extreemist views. In this case it has agin amplified extreem opinions, convincing someone that an extreem is actually a norm. That person then amplifies that in anohter froum, where a twitter bot or ai will no doubt pick it up, returm it to twitter and repeat the cycle.
