I looked look up the Musk quote. The full quote is not better.

Musk made this statement during an interview at All Thing D's D11 conference in May 2013. The exact spoken quote was, "If you think about the future of humanity, it's going to fundamentally bifurcate in two directions, all life as we know it. Either it's going to become multiplanetary, or it's going to be confined to one planet, until some eventual extinction event."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/musk-multiplanetary-extinction-event/

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219756874

This is the one that's also awful but about the economy.

“We have to reduce spending to live within our means,” Musk said. “And, you know, that necessarily involves some temporary hardship, but it will ensure long-term prosperity.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/economy-if-trump-wins-second-term-could-mean-hardship-for-americans-rcna177807

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-warns-hardship-americans-163015991.html

It's one thing to be the world's richest and soon very likely to be the most politically powerful grifter. It's another to publicly craft a narrative that he will steal everyone's money and then leave them for dead.

Your argument in the previous post was establishing a false equivalence. An attempt to show a pattern between two dissimilar things. That was the bailey.

With this post you have retreated to the motte, hyperfocusing on another group of arguments to distract from the arguments that refuted your central point.

Because if not you are literally the “so you hate waffles” guy in the post

By obfuscating your position, by pretending you were misunderstood, you were hoping to be unchallenged in a hypothetically more defensible position so you could claim victory.

You conveniently ignore this in order to get some seratonin from writing me paragraphs about “exposing truth”??!!, and that’s super sad. 😔 You could be having fun interesting discussions along the same lines if you hadn’t made it weird. Sorry, man.

As my argument has exposed this deception your argument is now relying on ad hominen attacks. Your playbook lacks the means to interact meaningfully with an argument that engages and refutes both your argument's desired bailey, attacking the word neurotypical because it exposes privilege, and what turned out to be a not so defensible motte, misleading accusations of assumptions and new usages of the word nuance.

Group B identified your argument's desire to undermine the validation people feel from using the word neurodivergent. Your argument's goal was to get people to stop using the word neurodivergent. Your argument's motivation for this is to undermine a mechanism that exposes the privilege that neurotypical people enjoy,

and that’s super embarrassing for you. XD

Your declaration of victory has defeated you.

Your argument disregarded the arguments that refuted your central point, group A, in a very cheerful manner and instead hyperfocused on arguments that were easier to disparage, group B.

My arguments focused on group A because that it is what should have been the end to a good faith discussion. Your insistence on going after group B, a more defensible position, is an attempt to continue this discussion under a veneer of good faith.

Multiple arguments have established your argument's position to be false. If you want to continue to have these discussions in good faith I highly recommend you engage with the implications of your argument and its position being incorrect.

please, im begging. i don’t want to be an ass and block you but if you come into a separate thread of mine to give your reading on dozens and dozens of comments, read all of them? :(

I read the other post and did not engage because I saw it had reached the limits of a good faith discussion. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Now I see a new post that attempts to continue that discussion without addressing the lessons learned or misconceptions exposed.

You're not begging you're threatening. I will not comply in advance. I will tell the truth and expose the truth. And, thankfully I am not the only person who will do so.

In the context of this self-referencing observation, I would say, I see lots of waffles pretending to be pancakes.

The short answer is that the trend you are describing does not apply to the word neurodivergent because neurodivergent is not a medical term.

Neurodivergent is a nonmedical term that describes people whose brains develop or work differently for some reason. This means the person has different strengths and struggles from people whose brains develop or work more typically. While some people who are neurodivergent have medical conditions, it also happens to people where a medical condition or diagnosis hasn’t been identified.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23154-neurodivergent

Your argument was a false equivalency that the r-slur and neurodivergent share the same origin and thus will share the same fate. The implication of such a line reasoning is that since all of these ableist words became known as insults we shouldn't be concerned about the usage of any of them. In other words, legitimizing the r-slur and other ableist language because eventually neurodivergent will be as bad.

People in that thread explained how neurodivergent is fundamentally different. Neurodivergent is a nonmedical word people are choosing to describe themselves as that validates them as a opposed to a medical word that was chosen for them that pathologizes them. Your argument then attempted to dismiss this by saying all of these words have different origins. When in fact they have two, medical and nonmedical.

The euphemism treadmill argument presented by your meme attempts to ignore that distinction to make all the words seem equivalent. When in fact the words used before neurodivergent were always ableist because they were always hurtful even if that wasn't initially recognized as such by neurotypical people using them.

Like trans and cis, neurodivergent and neurotypical acknowledge a difference without being opinionated about which side of that difference is normal or abnormal. These terms are opinionated about which side has privilege and which side does not. These kind of terms receive backlash from the people who find themselves in the privileged cis and neurotypical categories because they realize these labels exposes the power that comes from the privilege of being the default.

Rather than engaging in a good faith discussion about this privilege, those fearful that they will lose this privilege engage in bad faith discussions intended to undermine the mechanism that exposed that privilege. These discussions tend to involve fallacies and usage of words like nuance and objective to obscure what is really happening.

The problem for the people acting in bad faith now is, we've all done this song and dance multiple times now. We know what to look for. We will call it out. We get to keep telling the truth and using words that expose the truth.

I see more Motte-and-bailey fallacy.

I see less "I like pancakes" and more "I think pancakes are superior to waffles" from the first commenter.

Then the second commenter responds, "So you hate waffles?"

Then the first commenter retreats to "No, I just like pancakes. Why are you assuming what I'm saying? Don't you understand I'm being nuanced?"

Also, nuance is one of the more recent words to have a new usage like literally, which can now mean figuratively. When people say their argument is nuanced they mean it is good or correct. It reminds me of the use objective to describe a person to pretend they don't have biases to incorrectly validate their arguments.

The most starter decks they have released with a set is 3. Maybe it could be rereleased starter decks as opposed to 8 brand news ones.

Even with duplicates it seems like most of the cards in the set would have to present amongst those 8 decks for them to be different and viable as starter decks. Maybe they will feature reprints.

And for all these other reasons too.

In a statement on his website, Weckert said his intention was to make changes in the physical world by using digital means.

"Through this activity, it is possible to turn a green street red, which has an impact in the physical world by navigating cars on another route to avoid being stuck in traffic," he wrote.

He said he was interested in the day-to-day use of technology in all aspects of life within cities, including in navigation, accommodation, dating, transport, and food-delivery.

Citing a journal article by anthropologist Moritz Ahlert, he wrote: "Google's map service has fundamentally changed our understanding of what a map is, how we interact with maps, their technological limitations, and how they look aesthetically.

"All of these apps function via interfaces with Google Maps and create new forms of digital capitalism and commodification," the article continued.

i don’t usually comment on this stuff on ‘wild lemmy’ to this depth,

What is this in reference to?

Okay, so in my minds eye, my comment was really for any scientist/stakeholder with an ongoing specific interest in an ongoing green project or something of that nature.

This context was important, thanks. This definitely work on neocons, because they actually care about this country. Unlike fascists, for whom the nation is just a means of implementing their racism. The issue at the end of the day, is that Trump and his cronies he wants to put in the White House are grifters. They know it's a scam, so there's nothing to manipulate on the nationalist side for the actual individuals in power. Trump's a fascist, he probably does believe in some kind of racial superiority for white people. But he has no loyalty to other white people or any people, only himself.

I agree, its murky at best.

I would say what the people in the MAGA movement classify as MAGA is murky. A lot of Trump's cabinet picks think they are MAGA, but a lot of MAGA people seem to disagree. Trump is one of the elites. He inherited wealth from his dad. If his supporters can spot problems with his cabinet picks why can't they spot those same problems with him? It's like the cabinet picks don't match up with the Trump that lives in their head. Because they definitely match up with the Trump who lives in real life.

I’m definitely uncomfortable classing MAGA as a cult in the traditional sense. Maybe its a movement. My key point here is the strong and continued correlation between Trump voters and Bernie, and AOC voters. This is key in my understanding. It means theres a broad rejection of the status quo.

There's definitely a desire for populism that rejects the status quo from the electorate. As far as MAGA being a cult, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and shoots lasers from a minigun, then it's a duck with a laser minigun. MAGA has grown to include attributes beyond a cult. It's a full christo-fascist movement, but it also still contains the elements of a cult within it. Thus it can still be classified as a cult.

Lastly, appeals to nationalism aren’t MAGAs or fascists, or Conservatives, or what-evers exclusive domain. If your proud of where your from, even if its in the most roundabout ways, then you have some nationalism. Don’t let a words bad reputation hold you back from making the place you love somewhere you can be even more proud of, Liberals, leftists, whatevers can be nationalistic to. Use that USA flag of yours in your own ways, theres no need to cede that shit to authoritarians.

That's the distinction between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism being a healthy love of one's country that can include the belief the country has something worthwhile to offer its citizens and the world. Nationalism being an unhealthy and destructive belief in the country's superiority that excludes a peaceful or cooperative coexistence with the rest of humanity. We can definitely have and many of us do have a sense of patriotism for our country. There's no sense in letting fascists claim everything good in the world for themselves. edit: typo

=P

I think I'm going to go Rick Roll myself, it's such as catchy song. XD

Candace Owens is definitely using anti-zionism as a cover for antisemitism.