James105

Maths is difficult I know, but that poll says that 57% of people are in agreement with Musk suspending these accounts.

If people like Jack Sweeney had spoken out against Twitter when Twitter was banning accounts that also did not breach it's rules (Trump being a quite famous example) then maybe his account would not be suspended now.

It's equivalent and referred to as doxxing. Twitter has for years suspended accounts that did not actually breach any of it's rules, an actual sitting president being one of them. If Elon Musk posted any of those peoples private addresses you mention then I agree he should have his account suspended. Do you have any evidence he has done that? He is not spreading conspiracy theories, he is sharing his opinion, which I do not believe is a breach of Twitters rules.

Is he not allowed to change his mind once he realised just how unhinged the "be kind" brigade are? If these "journalists" do not like the rules that a private platform sets they can always go and start their own platform, can they not?

If I posted your private address on here (a public forum) would you like it to: a) be deleted or b) be kept online as its free speech If I kept doing it even though it's against the rules do you think my account should be suspended or should I continue to be able to do it because of free speech?

I read what you posted here. If the snippet isn't clear enough then perhaps do better? Besides, I have read about Roth. He endorsed allowing under 18 year olds to use a gay hook up app in a paper he wrote with the reasoning that they use it anyway. Most normal minded people who care about the safeguarding of children would advocate tighter verification standards for something like Grindr rather than allowing them in its shark infested waters. If Roth is a user of that app (and the fact he is writing a paper on it suggests he is) and he wants kids to be on it, then what conclusions are people supposed to draw from what he wrote exactly? Musk is right on this.

Right, so just because Qanon are against child exploitation then Musk supports Qanon? This is your point? Does that mean everyone who is against child exploitation is also a Qanon supporter? Where do you stand on child exploitation - with Qanon or against them?

I didn't say you specifically said they would, but one of their ex employees did here: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/11/08/1062886/heres-how-a-twitter-engineer-says-it-will-break-in-the-coming-weeks/

They were clearly stealing a living as evidenced by the fact no-one has noticed they are no longer working there. Any sign of any of those predications coming true that Twitter would fall over without them? Nope.

Good grief, people are unhinged and obsessed with this man. 'Follow the white rabbit' to anyone who has seen the Matrix means following an unlikely clue that leads to the truth, no matter how disconcerting it may be. I have no idea who Qanon is or what they stand for but if someone was referring to following white rabbits I would assume they were referring to that scene in the Matrix, or perhaps even the book where it refers to following an opportunity to an extraordinary situation. I really think you need to find a less obsessive hobby than regurgitating leftist propaganda that your fellow obsessives have literally made up from thin air.

Twitter is not censoring the leftist halfwits on Twitter and freedom of speech appears to be making a return on the platform which everybody (left and right) should be applauding. I think the point that was being made is that leftists are losing their censorious minds that people with differing opinions (note: a differing opinion does not equal hate speech) are allowed to disagree without being censored. I appreciate this is a scary time for far leftists as this leaves their ridiculous views open to challenge and mockery, but as was so often said in the time of great censorship by the left: "twitter is a private platform and can set its own rules, if you don't like it start your own platform etc etc..."

Yes, well there are conditions in there that would prevent them from granting permission (such as WWIII starting) but in normal times it is granted 100% of the time hence the reason I was able to leave when I wanted within 3 months of handing in my notice. So whilst "technically" they "could" but in reality they will not.

Yes. You can leave the military (in the UK) any time you like. No they cannot refuse you, and I have no idea why you would think that would be the case. Obviously it might be different in WWIII and people men get drafted to defend the country but not in normal times.

The military (and I was once in the military) are not allowed to strike. If they have a gripe about how much they are being paid, then they can either accept it or leave and seek new opportunities that have better pay. Which is exactly what I did. I didn't wait until there was a conflict in the world and try and seek to blackmail the government by withdrawing my services, I simply moved on. Yes, there is a shortage of nurses, but qualified nurses take advantage of this by quitting the NHS and then starting as an agency nurse with the NHS paying up to £2,500 per shift (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/11/nhs-pays-2500-shift-agency-nurses/). Which goes back to the age old problem with the NHS of not managing their enormous budget effectively. The solution to this cannot be to blackmail the public by effectively letting them die by not providing healthcare as they have withdrawn their services so they can get a bit more money. Just like the military if someone enters a trade that provides an essential public service (helping people not die with a treatable condition for example) then they should accept that being able to strike for better pay is off the table. Personally I'd prefer to see a solution that does give nurses better pay, but paid for by the immediate cessation of hiring agency nurses and offering the agency nurses a better deal to be employed by the NHS again along with all the other employed nurses.

There is a small sporting event on at the moment where the games (50% of the quarter finals and 100% of the semi finals) kick off at 2am. So there is that.

I had no idea that nurses were forced to work against their will and had no right to seek out alternative employment that offers better pay and conditions. On that basis I would support the right of nurses to strike until they gained the right to be able to leave their jobs and look for alternative employment as that does sound unfair to me. Even private sector workers who have had and will continue to have pay freezes over the last few years have the freedom to look for other jobs.

There was no need for me to imagine that you didn't form your own opinion. The conversion was not racist to anyone capable of reading the meaning of words in a dictionary, and just because an organisation bows down to those infected with the woke mind virus in a foolhardy attempt to appease the mob does not magically change the meaning of the word.

Good to see there are still some out there that still bow down and doff their caps to the "palace" and rely on their superior royal bloodlines rather than attempting to form an opinion of their own. I'd rather just use one of those old fangled dictionaries to understand the meaning of words then checking to see what the palace thinks, but each to their own.

The military do not have the right to strike. I see no reason that this same policy should not also be applied to other essential services such as nurses, teachers and transport. Postal workers can strike if they want, although I am not sure anyone would actually notice.

Yet another 2am game for England with all the bars closed. Sigh. This is not a great country to be in for this world cup with the puritanical joy sponges in charge not allowing the bars to be open for half of the matches.

Well, she was wearing African attire, with an African name (changed from her original British name), representing a charity that supports black women of African heritage. She wasn't 'presenting' as a British person was she? She was clearly presenting as someone that has a different heritage, which encouraged the exact question she was asked and then she pretended to be offended by it and garnered the attention she sought as the race baiter she is. This is all just a stupid game, played and encouraged by stupid people, which will probably end when white people (falsely) accused of racism simply start 'identifying' as black so they are granted immunity from being called a racist.

Actually, Stephen Fry summed this up perfectly in this quote: “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so f***** what." https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/706825-it-s-now-very-common-to-hear-people-say-i-m-rather If we went down your road then what is to stop me from saying I'm offended by the nonsense you post and demanding certain actions be taken?

Sigh

It's certainly impossible to foresee an anti-racist future when the needle for racism is dialled so low that a non-racist question is now deemed racist. I presume this was an attempt at humour?