Are you being meddled with? Am I? How would we know?
When controversy raged around the reaction of HM Queen Elizabeth to the prospect of a mixed-race baby entering the royal family, a correspondent at The Guardian newspaper recalled a time when he had been selected to interview for joining the British secret service. He was confronted with a supposed situation and asked for his reaction, which was ultimately countered with the statement, "Why do you think that we should need to take a position on this situation at all?" That, by way of his conclusion that the Queen's view on mixed-race babies is not a matter on which he requires to take a position.
Is that fathomable? Is there anything on which a secret service doesn't need to, or, whether it needs to or not, take a position? And, whether it's about some far-flung island in the Pacific or a matter closer to home, why wouldn't anyone take a position on any situation that presented itself? And, whether wittingly or otherwise, don't we all in fact take positions on whatever situations come to our knowledge, and even some that don't, under the aegis of the hypothetical?
And, once a position taken, were it in the position-taker's power to bring influence to bear, why wouldn't they?
But, I return to the initial question: do you feel meddled with?
I have had forum posts labeled as false when they were true. I place a lot of value on the first amendment so when agents of our own government attempt to control the public forum I am affected. So are you.
Having someone disagree with you (if that's what "labelling as false that which is true" means) isn't meddling, it's ... disagreeing. I'm quite happy for someone to disagree with me, because that is debate and debate helps find agreement. What debate doesn't always find, however, is truth. Just agreement. Or it establishes disagreement. But debate establishes neither truth nor falsity.
Your essay claims that Musk purchased Twitter for entertainment and attention.
Understanding that the essay was written a while back, when I too was dismayed as to his motive I gave you the benefit of doubt. I observed that he had plenty of worthwhile causes to tend, so why Twitter?
Once the purchase was consummated it became quite clear what was his purpose. Knowing that our own government is involved in censoring news and manipulating political discourse, everyone has become acutely aware that even the justice department has been weaponized against it's own citizens, and as such there would never be a public trial of the evidence. Musk is one of the few individuals with the will and the resources to purchase the evidence and reveal it publicly.
So After reading your old essay, I asked if your opinion had changed given new information. You replied no.
Subsequently you have danced around the issue with strange tales of British royalty and your philosophy of "truth". You ask questions and dissect the responses with animated but unrelated tales from afar but avoid answering the questions of others.
So I will trouble you no more since further attempts at honest conversation between us appears unlikely.
You'll need to relate that a little closer to events for me to understand it. Who's the little brother?
The piece was inspired by a comment I read that Mr Musk had asked his managers why his following was failing. One replied "Because people aren't interested any more in you." So he fired the manager. My tack here is that he might, instead, have enquired why people are less interested in him. Because firing the manager would indicate that he disagreed that people are less interested in him, but that he himself cannot otherwise explain the drop in following. Nor can I, to be honest, except to say that people are less interested in him.
Little brother is the agencies we use to meddle overseas. They now do it at home.
Are you being meddled with? Am I? How would we know?
When controversy raged around the reaction of HM Queen Elizabeth to the prospect of a mixed-race baby entering the royal family, a correspondent at The Guardian newspaper recalled a time when he had been selected to interview for joining the British secret service. He was confronted with a supposed situation and asked for his reaction, which was ultimately countered with the statement, "Why do you think that we should need to take a position on this situation at all?" That, by way of his conclusion that the Queen's view on mixed-race babies is not a matter on which he requires to take a position.
Is that fathomable? Is there anything on which a secret service doesn't need to, or, whether it needs to or not, take a position? And, whether it's about some far-flung island in the Pacific or a matter closer to home, why wouldn't anyone take a position on any situation that presented itself? And, whether wittingly or otherwise, don't we all in fact take positions on whatever situations come to our knowledge, and even some that don't, under the aegis of the hypothetical?
And, once a position taken, were it in the position-taker's power to bring influence to bear, why wouldn't they?
But, I return to the initial question: do you feel meddled with?
I have had forum posts labeled as false when they were true. I place a lot of value on the first amendment so when agents of our own government attempt to control the public forum I am affected. So are you.
Yes, I have been meddled with.
Are you concerned?
Having someone disagree with you (if that's what "labelling as false that which is true" means) isn't meddling, it's ... disagreeing. I'm quite happy for someone to disagree with me, because that is debate and debate helps find agreement. What debate doesn't always find, however, is truth. Just agreement. Or it establishes disagreement. But debate establishes neither truth nor falsity.
You are being obtuse. Is it intentional?
You're being rude. Is that intentional? If I am perceived as obtuse, could it be that your explanations lack clarity?
Let's take this from the top.
Your essay claims that Musk purchased Twitter for entertainment and attention.
Understanding that the essay was written a while back, when I too was dismayed as to his motive I gave you the benefit of doubt. I observed that he had plenty of worthwhile causes to tend, so why Twitter?
Once the purchase was consummated it became quite clear what was his purpose. Knowing that our own government is involved in censoring news and manipulating political discourse, everyone has become acutely aware that even the justice department has been weaponized against it's own citizens, and as such there would never be a public trial of the evidence. Musk is one of the few individuals with the will and the resources to purchase the evidence and reveal it publicly.
So After reading your old essay, I asked if your opinion had changed given new information. You replied no.
Subsequently you have danced around the issue with strange tales of British royalty and your philosophy of "truth". You ask questions and dissect the responses with animated but unrelated tales from afar but avoid answering the questions of others.
So I will trouble you no more since further attempts at honest conversation between us appears unlikely.
Do you have a better understanding today of why he bought Twitter?
No.
Evidence of our own agencies engaging in domestic misinformation to affect an election.
My analogy is this. We taught our little brother to deceive and rob our neighbors. Today we learn that he has stolen our inheritance.
But he's family, right?
You'll need to relate that a little closer to events for me to understand it. Who's the little brother?
The piece was inspired by a comment I read that Mr Musk had asked his managers why his following was failing. One replied "Because people aren't interested any more in you." So he fired the manager. My tack here is that he might, instead, have enquired why people are less interested in him. Because firing the manager would indicate that he disagreed that people are less interested in him, but that he himself cannot otherwise explain the drop in following. Nor can I, to be honest, except to say that people are less interested in him.