202
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
202 points (100.0% liked)
Enough Musk Spam
2482 readers
430 users here now
For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.
No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.
Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.
Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.
Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You clearly didn't watch the video (how could you within 1 minute). It references the guy who wrote the first open letter.
"It references the guy who wrote the first open letter."
did you watch the video?
her conclusion is, "that guy was right before, the Republicans did steal the election in 2000, but maybe he isn't correct this time?"
maybe. let's do the recounts and see if those votes are there.
I think it makes sense to listen to the guy who was right about the Republicans stealing the election last time since we have evidence that they tried to steal the election 4 years ago, like straight up admitted by the electors who committed fraud.
your video supports my point.
lol, nope. Not what she said in the video. That guy didn't complain in 2000. He did so in 2004, though.
You didn't watch it.
also, the first open letter was written by eight different computer scientists who are not the guy you're trying to nitpick about.
Stop making things up.
sure, that's how I referenced all of her points and showed that they matched up with exactly what I said and what the article says.
We just happened to guess the exact right stuff together about a video that's been circulating.
What? When? Where?
Lol, sure. /s
literally above.
I get that reading is difficult for you so you don't want to mess with it, but if you read, and then you watch the video you didn't watch yet, she says the same thing I did.
The guy was right before, we should do a recount, she just wants to pretend that "conspiracies" aren't real despite the elector fraud scheme that happened 4 years ago.
while she literally lists conspiracies that happen every election season from the Republicans.
I can see why you were confused by the video, but I appreciate its support for my points.
That's not what she said. You can read it up in the transcript.
He never questioned the 2000 election. She agrees that that one might have been stolen, but the dude claimed that 2004 was stolen. Not 2000.
So, what did you edit your comments for, if not for editing you calling her "right wing". I can't prove it, because lemmy doesn't preserve edit history, but you called her right wing twice, then edited them, then called me a liar for referencing that.
So, why did you edit your posts? Why are you claiming pi-oting on what the video says? How is it defeatist, if it actually agrees with your points?
I get that you don't like edits, but you should get into that because you make a lot of mistakes with what you write.
I use speech to text and then edit manually.
doesn't change the facts Jack.
I edited my comments before you asked me any questions or made up your little stories.
also stop talking about 2000, the guy was right about the 2004 election (that's another edit I made again before you asked me the question).
you can scroll up and try reading for a change.
"How is it defeatist, if it actually agrees with your points? "
because she isn't calling for a recount, she's telling everyone to calm down and just accept this possible conspiracy even though we all know that conservatives perpetrated a similar conspiracy for years ago.
she doesn't like conspiracies I guess.
The word scares a lot of people.
it just means a group of people working together to do something.
those are the facts Jack.
Wrong. I edit all the time, since I make typos a lot. What I don't like is backpedaling liars.
Then edit them before you hit send. 🙄
Don't call me Jack.
What did I make up?
That's a horrible way to write on lemmy.
I read your comments. It's not on me to check every minute wether or not you edited them since then.
You brought it up, smartass.
Sure he was. /s
If you write shit you didn't want to and I reference what you wrote first, that's on you, not me.
wrong again. From the transcript:
Where does she claim that? I'd like a quote.
Don't call me Jack.
so you don't mind edits, but then you tell me that you specifically think me editing my comments is a terrible way to write?
yeah dude if you don't understand what I'm saying that's on you.
"I'd like a quote."
bully for you. I'm not getting bogged down in your tangential nitpicking.
Jack.
what, did I guess your actual name accidentally? The most common name in the states?
maybe don't broadcast that.
it's insane you don't know about the fake electors scheme and you have the hollow temerity to speak about politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
okay, but I guess if you don't even know about the fake electric spot I understand why you keep making things up and don't understand what I'm talking about.
I'll let the rest of this slide
go read up on the conspiracy that involved voting and fabricating votes 4 years ago, maybe you'll find it less outlandish that your buddy Trump might be trying it again.
There's edits which clarify and there's edits which completely change the message retroactively. Guess which one is horrible?
That's what the madman shouting gibberish at the town square claims, too.
ok, so I take that as an admission that you didn't watch the video. You've yet to mention one singular point she actually made. And you called her "right wing". XD
Sugar, you're adorable if you think you're clever.
Willie knows and Willie doesn't care.
so... how was the 2004 election stolen? The one where the most popular candidate won and all that?
"Guess which one is horrible?"
are they the ones you're making up?
"That's what the madman shouting gibberish at the town square claims"
literally what you said in the last comment, you're calling yourself a mad man.
"Sugar, you're adorable"
Thanks, Jack.
"Willie doesn't care."
you should, Willie. it means you've basically been arguing against yourself this whole time because you didn't know that it's all already happened before.
don't be a trump, take personal responsibility and adjust your behavior accordingly.
Ok, enough fun. Again: Stop wasting your time on electoralism. You want conspiracies? The US is completely run by lobbyists and capitalists. Liberal democracy is a scam. Read Marx and Peter Gelderloos.
I'll block you now. Have fun hunting down the Illuminati.
have fun believing facts aren't real.
actually must be pretty fun.
I've seen that defeatist video several times.
Rebecca Watson right-wing? 🤣🤣🤣
Yeah, sure you did. /s
" Rebecca Watson right-wing"
Why do you think she's right-wing?
"Yeah, sure you did"
Just because you don't care about the facts doesn't mean nobody else does.
enjoy your nitpicking.
You claimed she was right wing and then edited your comment. What the fuck are you trying to pull off here.
sorry I edited a comment before you replied to it.
you could have actually made a point.
must be rough.
Yeah. and then you acted as if you never called her right-wing.
you're just going to keep making things up?
super convincing.
no wonder you don't like numbers.
So you don't even admit that you called her right wing?
nope, sorry you're making that up too.
What did you edit your comment for, then. You called her right wing twice and then edited it to say first "lying", then "defeatist".
you are making things up.
then you accuse me of lying by not agreeing with your fantasies.
besides, despite agreeing with me on all three points , If she's defeatist enough to support Trump winning this election despite admitting the evidence is they're supporting a recount, she's right-wing enough for me.
you are too, just like everybody else supporting Trump.
bye.
You are quite a good example of a blueAnon user. Have fun in your fantasy world where everyone but you is stupid and right wing.
The very fact that you use the word blueanon unironically one presented with concrete facts is kind of tipping your hand.
but keep riding on your unicorns or whatever, I really don't mind if you tell yourself stories to feel better.
i know some people feel like they need those stories
lol
I've never necountered the term before. But your delusional, lying style is exactly how I would picture democrat simps who drink a Qanon style kool-aid
you literally don't believe in the fake electors game?
none of the convictions, none of the affidavits, none of the courtroom admissions reported on are real to you?
you just live in this fantasy world where only the things you've heard of before from YouTube videos exist?
I mean it checks out, but...you must have a rough life If you have to make that many things up.
Edit your comment. I don't understand squat.
no, that one looks good.
edit: forgot a comma
"Cordroom sins"? O.o
*courtroom admissions
okay, that one was pretty bad.
sorry, I've got like three other people who have never heard of the fake elector's plot talking to me at the same time as you are, so I have to basically explain it over and over to you guys.
and then you're like yeah. but what about conspiracies not being real?
haha, nope, there are groups of people that do things together.
happens all the time.
Then that's on you. Don't multitask that much if you'd like to be taken seriously.
As I've already pointed out. I know of that shit and I don't think it's plausible that it would have worked this year if it was already public and didn't work 4 years ago. Also: I don't care. I'm not an electoralist. Stop wasting your time with elections.
Yup. Guess what: the conspiracyis that electoralism alone will lead to progressive change.
I'll take my own advice and not waste any more time with your stupid conspiracy theories of your useless elections. I'd suggest you'd do the same, sugarplum.
Next rude comment will result in a permanent block.
you are delusional.
I watched your silly video.
do you also not believe in the fraudulent electors scheme that has been documented and happened and people have been convicted for?
do you not believe in the call Trump made to Georgia to try to literally create votes out of nothing?
you can post baseless YouTube videos all you want, they don't contradict the facts.
When? In the one minute it took you to reply to me posting it? /s
Have fun in your world of conspiracies.
I've seen that trash several times now
mega heads have been posting it.
have fun making things up.
Says the person whose primary source pretty much only writes in conditionals and calls them "facts".
If you watched it so often, why don't you address her points, then?
I literally addressed her points in the other comment.
which part confused you?
she basically agrees with me.
the guy was right before in 2004, we know that Republicans do steal elections and try to steal one 4 years ago, so we should do recounts this time.
you didn't watch her video did you?
you just went along with the headline.
You didn't at the time I wrote the other comment. Again: wtf are you trying to pull off, lying and shit?
No, she doesn't. He didn't claim anything like that in 2000. From the transcript:
First, you call her right wing, then you claim that she's lying, then you claim that she agrees with you by misquoting her. Pathetic.
yeah dude, i didn't answer you before you asked a question.
do you understand how questions work?
go ahead. keep making stuff up, anyone can scroll up.
1.you're being so informal and dude-ish with me, though.
haha, because I'll tell you, that's not how you do it.
again the facts:
4 years ago, Trump and his team perpetrated the fake electors game and try to steal the election.
2 years after that, we had proof that they stole voting software.
now, many security experts are telling us that because of that stolen software and the fake electro scheme, we should manually count the votes in the states that determined the presidential election because they easily could have been manipulated or fabricated.
you don't like this one other scientist guy.
fine, write him a me and letter where you make stuff up about him.
but all that other stuff is real and all those other computer scientists?
also real, whether you like it or not.
I don't like you assuming my gender, homie.
I'd like for people not lying about shit they said.
Edit: so you think that shit went puplic 4 years ago and didn't even work back then would work now, when everybody knows he already tried to pull that shit?
I don't understand how the software sourcecode having leaked means that machines have been compromized. That only means thatecurity through obscurity policies won't work anymore. But that's a horrible policy.
your gender?
what the tangent are you talking about?
okay, you don't understand how manipulating software means voting machines could be compromised.
dang, really?
I'm going to try and analogize this....
okay, you can think about compromising a software program like physical sabotage.
so let's say you have an ice cream machine with two levers sticking out front that gives out chocolate and vanilla ice cream.
If you pull the chocolate tap, you'll get chocolate ice cream.
If you pull the vanilla tap, you'll get vanilla ice cream.
let's say you only like chocolate and have access to the inside of the ice cream machine.
so if you can get inside the machine, you connect both lovers to the chocolate press tab but remove the vanilla press tab, so now, pulling either the chocolate or vanilla will only dispense chocolate ice cream.
The machine might look normal on the outside, but now regardless of the input, it's giving you the output that you want.
so if you get inside something, you can change how it works, so that it gives you the result you want.
does that make sense?
you can do the same thing with a computer program.
you can go inside, change what it says, to do what you want.
Yes. My gender. Don't call me Jack.
Sugar, I'm an embedded software engineer. Try mansplaining tosomeone else.
The source code was leaked. It didn't say anything about compromized firmware being flashed.
go ahead and call me sugar, Jack.
Why is Jack used in a common phrase a gendered name to you?
do you get angry if people say "guys" to a mixed group?
your concerns seem unnecessarily exhausting. for you.
You don't get to police what gender people find acceptable to be called. You're closer to Trump's ideology than I am if you don't get that.
what are you talking about?
you called me sugar.
you are implying that you get to police what gender people find acceptable?
besides, I literally said those are the facts Jack.
which is a very common phrase and Jack isn't even a gendered name.
Why are you assigning gender to it?
"You're closer to Trump's ideology than I am"
Trump is obsessed with gender.
I'm not.
you seem obsessed with gender.
so who's closer to trump?