America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,462 comments
  • 1,776,392 views
y'all have too much free time stalking Elon's every tweet :D he's the boss now, get over it :D
Amazing. This one posts this after a nearly four-year hiatus from this subforum following this bitchfit they noped the **** out of:
I mean if I child is born with a penis, it is a male no matter what it feels like. It can undergo any operation in the world but in the end, its DNA will always be the one of a male individual. If scientists take its bone in 1000 years after its death, they will not care what it felt like and what operations it underwent. They will say "this was a male".
Ron Swanson Smile GIF
 
y'all have too much free time stalking Elon's every tweet :D he's the boss now, get over it :D
Yet another post that backs up my theory that the right only care about "owning the libs" no matter the consequences or eventual implications for them or the people around them. Politics is simply sport to them.

*"the libs" basically means anyone they disagree with and usually aren't even actual liberals
 
Right. And it's really, really, really funny.

The dude is speedrunning destroying a $44 billion company, it's not every day you get to watch something of that magnitude. Quality entertainment.
The continuous spectacle of thousands of musketeers crawling out of the wooodwork to defend him like cockroaches scurrying out from under an upturned rock is very nearly as entertaining. #elongate

d5jdx73mbi091.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ah sure, the best way to solve Twitter's monetary problems is this plan!


Can't envision many people wanting to pay to be insulted/experience hate speech.

Here's the quoted text image if anyone is having trouble reading it:
FhAXrOEVIAAJOSg.jpg
 
Last edited:
Is this some sort of reaction/plan against advertisers pulling out?
I think this is the plan to get any sort of revenue. He has basically screwed himself out of advertisers and he's hoping that making it a pay to tweet environment will engage the most users.

The drawback is that a lot of users aren't going to be interested in staying on an app where you need to pay to be verified (and provide no evidence that you are who you say you are), can be harassed by random people who won't get banned for hate speech and now have to pay just to pay to be verified (Bonus? There are reports going around that you cannot block Musk's account). Nickel and dime tactics won't work very well (read: at all) if there are suitable alternatives that can satisfy the same product you are providing. It also proves there is no "free speech", but Musk is an egomaniac who cannot stand to be ignored so who is surprised about this.
 
I think where Elon went wrong was vastly overestimating the number of people waiting in line to kiss his ass as well as the number of people in said line willing to do more than stan over him online.

I'm not sure what the future holds in store for Twitter, but at the rate it's going I'm not sure if it will even survive to be one of those brands that just never seems to die.
 
Is Elon living a real life Brewster's Millions scenario? Making the majority of Twitter subscription based is a horrendously bad idea.
 
I think where Elon went wrong was vastly overestimating the number of people waiting in line to kiss his ass as well as the number of people in said line willing to do more than stan over him online.

I'm not sure what the future holds in store for Twitter, but at the rate it's going I'm not sure if it will even survive to be one of those brands that just never seems to die.
I wonder if Elon would ultimately care if it crashed & burned, but at the same time, didn't he have his Tesla stock used to secure the loan he needed to buy Twitter? So, if Twitter crashes, the stock is in jeopardy?

At least, that's the basic description I've heard of how he actually bought the platform so I may be missing more details.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Elon would ultimately care if it crashed & burned, but at the same time, didn't he have his Tesla stock used to secure the loan he needed to buy Twitter? So, if Twitter crashes, the stock is in jeopardy?
Yes, massively at risk, as it effectively unwrites a business that owes circa a billion dollars a year in interest alone.

At least, that's the basic description I've heard of how he actually bought the platform so I may be missing more details.
It's Musk's hubris at it's finest, and with any luck, it will (metaphorically) bury him.
 
I genuinely hope he doesn't kill twitter - don't know how many more big footprint offices in downtown SF can close before the whole business district is a ghost town. As much as I detested all of the relentless hype startup noise in SF over the past 8 years it's decline has made me genuinely sad. I wouldn't be surprised if Musk moves the twitter HQ to Texas and downsize the staff to a few hundred people.
 
Yet another post that backs up my theory that the right only care about "owning the libs" no matter the consequences or eventual implications for them or the people around them. Politics is simply sport to them.

*"the libs" basically means anyone they disagree with and usually aren't even actual liberals
Funny how the left start to care about big corporations' wellbeing when it's not the left running it.
 
Funny how the left start to care about big corporations' wellbeing when it's not the left running it.
The left wasn't running it before. Left and right people were being canned for breaking the site's policies.

It's not just the left pointing out that Elon is likely to have a bad case of FAFO, either. And they aren't caring about corporations' wellbeing but that of the site's users and the workers who were arbitrarily dismissed without consultation.

So that's at least three more bad takes in a row.
 
Last edited:
Funny how the left start to care about big corporations' wellbeing when it's not the left running it.
Spider Man Lol GIF


You see what makes this particular bitchfit so hilarious to me is the tacit acknowledgment of a supposed transition from the state that had countless sad sack mother****ers caterwauling about supposed unfairness to the point that they advocated for and in some cases even affected the passage of laws infringing upon free exercise of associative and expressive rights of private actors.

God damn!

The left.

:lol:
 
Last edited:
I don't believe the two situations are analagous. Funding crime prevention is supposed to reduce the overall crime rate. The police are seen as overbudgeted by its proponents with little effect on overall crime rates.

Funding social care won't improve general health. The health service still needs the money for people who are sick and need those beds. Their respective mandates don't overlap to the extent that money can be taken from one to fund the other without the situation worsening, because unlike the above their aims aren't the same. Money used to reduce bed blocking should come from somewhere else.

I'm pretty sure health cuts aimed at reducing bloat and inefficiency in health care are a thing. I'm not sure governments have a similar appetite for doing the same with law enforcement budgets or at least not to the same extent.
That makes sense, although I will quibble the point about funding social care not improving general health as a well maintained social care sector has positive effects on health outcomes in direct and indirect ways. I'm guessing the best testable metric of this would be QALYs, and there is research to show how increasing funding for social care may increase these.

----------

Meanwhile....how on earth did this happen?

 
Back