Elon Musk and the ADL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Back then, the ADL adhered to the values America was founded upon. It existed to protect Jews from attacks and did so within the confines of free speech values, albeit with a liberal slant. I know because after my encounter with ADL in 1987, I volunteered as an ADL legal intern. It was fun, and I did believe I was doing good. Everyone believed that. And it was true.

The ADL taught me that nastygrams from Jew haters were just the price we pay for liberty, worthy of being filed and forgotten. This is not Weimar Germany; it is America. We have a First Amendment, we have civil rights, we have a working democracy. That is part of the good we have done.

But the ADL no longer believes this. It has become part of a great online censorship machine that is being exposed day after day as an anti-free speech enterprise.

The national ADL, like the ACLU, the NAACP, and other formerly "apolitical" civil rights groups, is now merely a tax-exempt cadre of the national Democratic Party. Anyone paying any kind of attention knows this. And as the Democratic Party has moved further into the fringes of Left-wing lunacy, the ADL has moved with it—whether a Jewish "antidefamation" issue is at stake or not. The party requires it.

So it should come as no surprise that "X" (Twitter) CEO Elon Musk is now claiming the ADL has engaged in relentless efforts to delegitimize X, falsely smearing the platform and its owner for providing an antisemitic haven for "hate speech." Per Musk, the ADL has gone so far as to lean on advertisers not to do business there. No shrinking violet himself, Musk has gone as far as threatening to sue the ADL for defamation. Naturally, Musk's objections to being defamed "just prove" that Musk "really is" an antisemite.

My own disdain for the formerly righteous ADL reached a peak a few years ago, when I learned just how far its commitment to leftist dogma went. I encountered it as part of my work as a lawyer who does both defamation and free speech litigation. Trying to get my arms around the ways smear groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center go about deplatforming disfavored personalities, I kept bumping into the same rogue's gallery, and ADL was, far more often than not, part of the pro-censorship coalition.

This is an Op Ed piece called "The Daily Debate", where NewsWeek invites someone from the left and the right to advocate for each side of an issue. This is not the opinion of NewsWeek.

Ron Coleman is a joke. He's a litigator frequently found on OAN, NewsMax, and Fox and Friends.

The opposing opinion, written by Ian Haworth from Off Limits, is entitled "Elon Musk Is Stoking Antisemitism for Clicks"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"This is quite an extraordinary situation and shows how the Overton window has slide on the topic of anti-Semitism. If you will remember, early in the Musk era of Twitter, Kanye West was suspended from Twitter because of anti-Semitism. West was recently allowed back on the platform. In the meantime, Musk has been platforming and promoting Nazis. Now he is arguably engaging in anti-Semitism himself, scapegoating Jews for his own failures. "

Sysadmin - explain this.

Musk is not "scapegoating" Jews at all. Free speech to controlled speech is a whole spectrum with infinite points on it, and people can be in any camp from locking down and deleting accounts to taking the view that the provider is not responsible for the content of posters.

Musk has not been promoting Nazis. Do you even know what a Nazi is? Do we have anyone in this country sending anyone to camps to be exterminated? I take great offense at you cheapening the events of the mid-1930's to the mid-1940's to underscore political differences.

Furthermore, I would like to get your view on CNN firing Jeffrey Toobin and then rehiring him eight months later. Does that mean CNN is engaging in sexual-harassment themselves?

My final question you, Sysadmin: Why did you feel it necessary to open this can of worms? The whole premise is offensive.

+100

It is quite something how progressives are so eager to shut down speech.
Traditional liberals used to be champions of free speech. Those days are long gone.

Even more ironic is that often times the “hate speech” which is being censored is factually correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Musk can't keep his dumb mouth shut.

My Jewish MIL literally just canceled her Tesla order today. It was going to be her first EV. But she's been a financial supporter of the ADL for 40+ years and she's not going to support a dude who attacks the ADL and blames them for the failure of his company.

The problem with Elon is that he arrogantly thinks people are stupid and if they just listened to him they would come around to his "correct" understanding of any particular issue.

I'm the PP. Fine, your MIL canceled her Tesla. I would not have bought on in the first place, but that's because of the high subsidies to Musk at the expense of the tax payer.

BTW, I was at a Wawa in Manassas today with a row of five Tesla chargers at the station. Not a single one being used.

But that was a great government mandate with tax payer subsidies to install. /sarcasm

We couldn't have spent that money better on other things, huh? I'm sure Tesla and the employees enjoy the benefits of those corporate subsidies by force of government, but I don't.

Superchargers in cities tend to be low usage.... people charge at home and only use Superchargers--- which are hard on a battery-- while traveling or in a pinch. I am not sure those 5 chargers can really be used to measure demand for teslas.

[Anonymous]

Most hate speech is constitutionally protected. It’s also constitutionally protected speech to condemn hate speech. I’m no Elon stan but he is right in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most hate speech is constitutionally protected. It’s also constitutionally protected speech to condemn hate speech. I’m no Elon stan but he is right in this case.

He's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most hate speech is constitutionally protected. It’s also constitutionally protected speech to condemn hate speech. I’m no Elon stan but he is right in this case.

He's not.

Specifically, he is right to keep twitter as open as possible. Regarding the lawsuit, maybe not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Musk can't keep his dumb mouth shut.

My Jewish MIL literally just canceled her Tesla order today. It was going to be her first EV. But she's been a financial supporter of the ADL for 40+ years and she's not going to support a dude who attacks the ADL and blames them for the failure of his company.

The problem with Elon is that he arrogantly thinks people are stupid and if they just listened to him they would come around to his "correct" understanding of any particular issue.

I'm the PP. Fine, your MIL canceled her Tesla. I would not have bought on in the first place, but that's because of the high subsidies to Musk at the expense of the tax payer.

BTW, I was at a Wawa in Manassas today with a row of five Tesla chargers at the station. Not a single one being used.

But that was a great government mandate with tax payer subsidies to install. /sarcasm

We couldn't have spent that money better on other things, huh? I'm sure Tesla and the employees enjoy the benefits of those corporate subsidies by force of government, but I don't.

Superchargers in cities tend to be low usage.... people charge at home and only use Superchargers--- which are hard on a battery-- while traveling or in a pinch. I am not sure those 5 chargers can really be used to measure demand for teslas.

The point is, these are deployed all over the country. What could the government have spent that money on instead of forking it over to Tesla to buy charging stations?

Why is the government even involved in buying charging stations? Let Tesla, a private company, roll the charging stations out on their own dime to create demand for their cars. A tax payer doesn't need to pay for this. This is not a legitimate function of government.

In fact, those government funds were not spent on something else because of this spending to subsidize Tesla. How is that a good decision?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most hate speech is constitutionally protected. It’s also constitutionally protected speech to condemn hate speech. I’m no Elon stan but he is right in this case.

He's not.

Is the ADL is going after advertisers as he says?

We would have to see evidence. I don't think he has made that info public just saying x amount of advertising lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most hate speech is constitutionally protected. It’s also constitutionally protected speech to condemn hate speech. I’m no Elon stan but he is right in this case.

And ADL is free to criticize him for allowing it. And advertisers are free to shun X because he allows it. But Elon is not allowed to sue ADL or the advertisers, so the only one in the wrong here is Elon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most hate speech is constitutionally protected. It’s also constitutionally protected speech to condemn hate speech. I’m no Elon stan but he is right in this case.

And ADL is free to criticize him for allowing it. And advertisers are free to shun X because he allows it. But Elon is not allowed to sue ADL or the advertisers, so the only one in the wrong here is Elon.

Elon can most certainly sue the ADL. The outcome is determined on what actions the ADL did and did not do regarding twitter.

This whole debate is so stupid. Next the ADL will decide to go after the history channel if they air footage of Nazis.

[Anonymous]

Elon is an anti-semite.

End of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Elon is an anti-semite.

End of story.

She’s spoken, guys. “End of story.” So pack it up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most hate speech is constitutionally protected. It’s also constitutionally protected speech to condemn hate speech. I’m no Elon stan but he is right in this case.

He's not.

Is the ADL is going after advertisers as he says?

We would have to see evidence. I don't think he has made that info public just saying x amount of advertising lost.

So what if they are? Right wingers are calling for boycotts of a hundred businesses. It’s legal. Asking companies to stop advertising on an offensive platform is legal. Everyone including you knows it’s all true. Elon is slobbering all over neo-Nazis for their approval.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most hate speech is constitutionally protected. It’s also constitutionally protected speech to condemn hate speech. I’m no Elon stan but he is right in this case.

He's not.

Is the ADL is going after advertisers as he says?

We would have to see evidence. I don't think he has made that info public just saying x amount of advertising lost.

So what if they are? Right wingers are calling for boycotts of a hundred businesses. It’s legal. Asking companies to stop advertising on an offensive platform is legal. Everyone including you knows it’s all true. Elon is slobbering all over neo-Nazis for their approval.

It depends on what specifically ADL has said and what evidence there is or is not regarding defamation, aka false statements. We don’t yet know what if any false statements that ADL made about musk or twitter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Musk can't keep his dumb mouth shut.

My Jewish MIL literally just canceled her Tesla order today. It was going to be her first EV. But she's been a financial supporter of the ADL for 40+ years and she's not going to support a dude who attacks the ADL and blames them for the failure of his company.

The problem with Elon is that he arrogantly thinks people are stupid and if they just listened to him they would come around to his "correct" understanding of any particular issue.

I'm the PP. Fine, your MIL canceled her Tesla. I would not have bought on in the first place, but that's because of the high subsidies to Musk at the expense of the tax payer.

BTW, I was at a Wawa in Manassas today with a row of five Tesla chargers at the station. Not a single one being used.

But that was a great government mandate with tax payer subsidies to install. /sarcasm

We couldn't have spent that money better on other things, huh? I'm sure Tesla and the employees enjoy the benefits of those corporate subsidies by force of government, but I don't.

Superchargers in cities tend to be low usage.... people charge at home and only use Superchargers--- which are hard on a battery-- while traveling or in a pinch. I am not sure those 5 chargers can really be used to measure demand for teslas.

The point is, these are deployed all over the country. What could the government have spent that money on instead of forking it over to Tesla to buy charging stations?

Why is the government even involved in buying charging stations? Let Tesla, a private company, roll the charging stations out on their own dime to create demand for their cars. A tax payer doesn't need to pay for this. This is not a legitimate function of government.

In fact, those government funds were not spent on something else because of this spending to subsidize Tesla. How is that a good decision?

It depends on whether you agree with expanding EV ownership. I am a long time owner of hybrids and EVs. The reason tesla has most of the market share for EVs is that it's extensive supercharger network makes range less of an issue. You don't need to have a backup gas car for long drives if you can be assured that you'll be able to quickly charge along the way. The second reason is that teslas charging technology is massively superior. Most EVs require extensive charging time. By contrast, I can usually fill up my tesla in 20 minutes, so it's not substantially more time spent refueling as compared to a gas car.

Other EV makers simply haven't produced charging technology that makes EVs feasible as a sole car option for most families. Being totally EV is possible with tesla. I only have EVs. And I do long trips quite frequently. This is why the government encouraged tesla to make a deal with the other EV makers that they could use the Tesla network. There's no other fast pathway to making non-tesla EVs into a vehicle option that anyone who travels more than 300 miles on a single day-- ever-- could use.

All this said, I also wish they wouldn't do this. One, I selfishly don't want to deal with crowded charging bays. And two, I don't really care if EV ownership expands. I am not convinced of the environmental benefits. And I don't think the grid can handle a massive increase in EV ownership. Petroleum is a form of energy diversification and shedding it before we have sufficient energy capacity with coal, nuclear, and (lolz) wind/solar isn't smart.