MovieChat Forums > Elon Musk Discussion > Hate Speech, and why Elon doesn't get it...

Hate Speech, and why Elon doesn't get it.


It is hard to define "hate speech", like it is "pornography".

Hate speech is something where the negative emotional content overweighs or hurts or insults or degrades peolpe and where the actual content contribution of the speech is swamped by the hateful content.

Kind of like "fighting words" I would liken it to.

In a forum context, hate speech infringes on the rights of the participants and audience to engage productively, and it may even be intended to stop or cripple the forum and thus democracy.

I think Elon is an intelligent guy. But I also think that he is so busy and spread around mentally that he does not have the time and depth necessary to weigh in or manage political issues.

Elon expresses a lot of very immature ideas that he takes seriously because he doesn't have the time, bandwidth or inclination to find out about the experiences of other people outside his bubble.

Elon is repeating a lot of Conservative tropes and ideas he picked up somewhere non-critically and takes them seriously because he just doesn't care to learn about things - it is too much for him.

Not because he is stupid or mean, but because it is too much him with all the things he is doing. It is like an overload, so he just switches off and relies on what he thinks he already knows - and says he doesn't care what other people think.

That sounds like someone who thinks of himself as a king or dictator ... or CEO ... and wants to frame the whole world in those terms. This is why billionaires should not have outsized political power in a democracy - and it is also why a lot of billionaires in their hearts really hate democracy.

reply

Hate speech is a legal term with varied meaning. It has no single, consistent definition. It is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation". The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution states that hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation". There is no single definition of what constitutes "hate" or "disparagement".
Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Wikipedia isn't good in all articles, but it's always helpful.


Btw. I don't think that Elon Musk "hates democracy".

reply

He sure hates everything the government does, and open about it or not he supports Trump and the elite billionaire extreme Right that want to "drown the government in a bathub" or "dismantle the administrative state".

I don't think you can point to anything that indicates Musk supports democracy.

reply

Who said to "drown the government in a bathub" or "dismantle the administrative state"?
I cannot remember Elon Musk saying that.

reply

Sorry you don't understand the question.

reply

Sorry, I understand my question well.
The first question asked in this thread. 😉​

reply

> I don't think that Elon Musk "hates democracy".

Is that your question?

reply

No, look above...easy to find with the question mark.

reply

> Who said to "drown the government in a bathub" or "dismantle the administrative state"?

Why the italics?

The extreme Right-wing is anti-democratic and anti-government. Not Republicans, or what the Republican party per se used to be before Reagan and Trump. If you readd between the lines of what Elon Musk espouses is it anti-democratic and anti-government. Of course he is not going to be so stupid to so it blatantly.

reply

If you deliver a quote it should be said and not "read between the lines".

So, Elon Musk never said that.
Thanks for the confirmation.

reply

Things you should never do if you care about credibility - just claim victory when you fail.

reply

Where did I "claim victory"?!
You're confusing me with someone else. ☻

I prefer the saying:
Never underestimate your enemy. 😎​

reply

That definition is useless for all practical purposes.
Did you watch the Lemon-Musk interview?

reply

Did you watch the Sorkin-Musk interview?

However...Keelai just gave you some more "legal" definitions in your other thread.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65fa64ced2adc075bee2cb47/Elon-Musk-and-his-free-speech-v-hate-speech-inconsistency 👋​ 👋 ​👋​

reply

Keelai is an super-partisan ignorant a-hole on ignore.

reply

I agree with your opinion about Keelai. ☺

reply

His comments are so full of lies, hate and false accusations he should be banned from this platform.

reply

Musk is one of the few, maybe the only, billionaire who actually does value democracy, as his purchase of Twitter demonstrates. The OP only shows that what he regards as "hate speech" is basically that which goes against liberal dogma (e.g., "Conservative tropes"). That's exactly why Twitter had to change. Thanks, Elon, for your contribution to democracy.

reply

> Musk is one of the few, maybe the only, billionaire who actually does value democracy, as his purchase of Twitter demonstrates.

The two have nothing to do with each other.

reply

What 'democracy'? Dude, are you high?

EM is focused on legal speech, not on hate speech. If hate speech is legal, then he allows it.
Having said that, Lemon did point out that hate speech is explicitly noted in X policy.

"You may not directly attack other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease." https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy#:~:text=You%20may%20not%20use%20hateful,%2C%20group%2C%20or%20protected%20category.

So, that was the one single failing point during that interview. X policy says one thing, while EM says something else - odd, no?

reply

It was. Elon is incoherent in his policies and ideas.

reply

Again, that was one losing point during that interview.
The rest though? Lemon was completely off the mark, spewing out BS - no evidence of this, no evidence of that - google it, you creep - lol

If taking all points being made during that interview into consideration, EM had more wins than losses.
A well designed interview would have had them pulling up 'evidence' on the spot, including the X policy.

reply