There are several instances of left wing folks being banned, he stated that "cis" will be disallowed on the platform, he's removed tweets at the behest of governments like the Saudis, and this post is literally about text disappearing, lol.
It's not hard to find instances.
Note, I think it's fine for companies to moderate speech on their platforms. No objections there. Just don't simultaneously claim you are some sort of free speech absolutist.
> There are several instances of left wing folks being banned
You understand that you were asked for one, right? This is not one, this is a vague claim being repeated.
> he stated that "cis" will be disallowed on the platform
No, he didn't. He said that "cis" being thrown as an insult to people who didn't wish to be called "cis" wouldn't automatically be discounted as harassment. Maybe I'm wrong about this - can you find a single person that was banned or censored by twitter for saying "cis?"
> It's not hard to find instances.
If it's too hard for you to do, why do you expect others to believe you when you say this?
Police in America exist universally in a position where using their authority is basically unchecked and assumed by default to be "the right thing". They have incredibly dangerous powers, and by and large the response to them wielding those powers is, "if you did nothing wrong, then the police won't harass you."
This dynamic invites bad behavior, and no cop operates outside of this environment.
Add onto this the fact that cops take courses like "killology" that teach them that they are warriors, not servants, and it's a recipe for abuse after abuse.
And the actions of a police officer can send someone to an underfunded justice department, causing an innocent person to be sent to jail to await trial, and then lose their job or relationship or community.
So, when I say, "All Cops Are Bastards", I'm not saying cops are rude or mean, I'm saying, all cops exist in a system that is set up to encourage exactly the sort of behavior this article shows. It's not a judgement on whether I think an individual cop is polite or friendly, it's a condemnation of the systemic issues that exist.
There are ways we could fix this, there are ways we could get to community led policing that would make me change my tune. They are probably expensive and would take time to get right before they got cheap again. But until then, ACAB.
Musk is absolutely not anti censorship. He's proudly removed views he disagrees with and fulfilled government requests to remove tweets (which is about as definitionally censorship as you can be.)
And there's a second amendment contingent on the left now too. Organizations like the socialist rifle association (SRA), Pink Pistols, John Brown Gun Club (JBGC) and several others. It's far from the majority position left of center, but there's plenty of folks who recognize the disproportionate impact gun laws have on minorities, and the difference in arms between an increasingly violent right and the minority groups in America.
I don't ask my kid to volunteer because he got a chicken pox vaccine, he just gets to not have chicken pox for free. And that's ok.
We can choose to make the next generations lives better than ours, even if we gain no material benefit ourselves. (Though I'd argue that an educated youth does materially benefit the populace.)
Nothing is free. It is estimated that state and local governments spend 9 percent of state and local direct general spending on higher education [1]. One could argue that the opportunity cost of higher education to taxpayers is 9% of their work life.
As someone who was homeless in high school (but still graduated thanks to some incredible non-familial adults), it's very easy to think, "fuck it, I'm out, I don't need this extra stress". Doing homework is real fucking hard when you don't have anywhere that's home.
That's not how the language works. We have long ago decided that "free", when used in the context of social services, is correct enough to be understood.
Do you think that definition is bad? If so, maybe you'll catch more nibbles by trying to engage in a dialog?
That is incorrect. Social services are “free”, adhering to the legal and traditional definitions in that the entity offering the service is indeed not charging for the service. That is well understood.
It is also understood that the source of funding for institutions which offer free services is taxes, fees, and levies from the general population. Regardless of what MMT proponents imagine, costs will eventually be repaid by resources, labor, or war.
I find it intellectually dishonest to advocate for “free” services without acknowledging how those services are funded. It does seem more of the population is interested in immediate gratification regardless of long term costs (see deficit spending, consumer debt, etc.), but that doesn’t make the cost disappear because it is ignored. It’s no different than suggesting because birds fly, they must not be affected by gravity.
I've seen a lot of terms used for social services: subsidized, covered, available by grant, available to those who qualify.
But I don't always see those social services tossing around the word "free".
Sure, sometimes there are "free haircuts for the homeless" or "free medical services for the needy", or "free help to apply for benefits", but generally in the context of entitlements, we're not freely bandying this word around.
Well of course voters accept this vernacular, slang usage! It works great! March into the principal's office, slam your fist down on the desk, and demand your free public schools for your kid. Stagger into the E.R., slam your fist down on the triage nurse's desk, and demand your free health care!
It works great at the ballot box too! "Vote now for your free stuff! Everybody gets more free stuff when they vote for me! Support the bill for free stuff!" Because if you called it "using other people's money", then the Ghost of Margaret Thatcher would arise and invade Puerto Rico.
While you're voting, consider whether you're in that hacker demographic that gets a chuckle out of the meme that says "The Cloud Is Just Someone Else's Computer."
"Taxpayer funded" is a gross oversimplification, for any sort of government entitlement and college funding alike.
But anyway, I have seen students in college who were sent there by their employer. They work full-time, have families with young children, and they were expected to pick up several credit-hours to upskill. You've never seen a bunch of sleepier guys. A lot of people, sent by their employer picking up the tab, don't wanna be there, and it shows. They're really disengaged with the class, and that frustrates classmates and professor alike.
Then there's students whose parents paid for it, and family expectations on them finishing college so they get a "real job", or even support the parents and buy them a nice house soon.
Students who work their way through school adopt another distinct attitude. They will get tired too, but they make every credit-hour count. It's their own money and their own blood, sweat, and tears that bring them to the finish line.
There are students who apply for scholarships and get through college that way. There's all sorts of funding for scholarships: corporate sponsors, non-profits, churches, community-based organizations, philanthropic foundations. Someone came to speak at the fraternity meeting and she said she'd been awarded six million dollars in scholarships. I was unsure how you'd spend all that at a community college, but hey?
People who are spending, or supported by, other people's money spend it differently than if it were their own money in their own bank account with them watching the bills and transactions. The incentives are different. The risk/reward calculation is different. That's how it goes.
I'm a leftist, left of democratic socialist and definitely left of social democrat. But can we please not point fingers and question people's motives? If someone says they are X, then we should believe them until there's a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
