Elon Musk goes low against Zuckerberg as Twitter-Threads spat intensifies
Elon Musk goes low against Zuckerberg as Twitter-Threads spat intensifies
Twitter owner calls Facebook founder a ‘cuck’ as rancour grows over launch of Threads, a competitor to Musk’s network
"Twitter owner calls Facebook founder a ‘cuck’ as rancour grows over launch of Threads, a competitor to Musk’s network"
Man I thought this was The Onion at first
You're viewing a single thread.
Zucc gives an impression of an android-reptilian hybrid, but he handles PR a lot better. And this is because he doesn't spout every thought that runs in his head on social media without filter.
Every time the “reptile” line gets trotted out, I can’t help but feel it’s insulting neurodivergent people that don’t exactly share neurotypical body language or traits or mannerisms, but it gets a pass because it’s Zuckerberg, a person people really don’t like.
I also really don’t like ad hominem stuff. By all means, hate Zuckerberg for the actual stuff he’s done wrong. But his looks and mannerisms aren’t why he’s a bad person and I feel bad for innocent people who share a physical resemblance or some mannerisms and constantly see his get dunked on. “Am I also unacceptable? Are they just bringing up anything they can to be hurtful, or does this have an actual basis in reality and they legit have a problem with his looks and mannerisms? What does that say about how people think about me, about how I’ll be treated? Am I commonly perceived as a robot who’s faking their way through humanity too?”
The reptilian conspiracy theory can be considered at least antisemitism-adjacent, which makes its popularity with respect to Zuckerberg... interesting.
As someone of Jewish heritage, I agree there was anti-Semitism attached to the idea in the past, it's passed into public discourse as a joke without that malice attached, especially as people were laughing at nutters like David Ike, that I don't see the harm in it at this point.
As a fellow Jew, I agree, but it's worth noting. I wouldn't ever call someone an antisemite for referring to someone as a lizard-person, because at this point no one intends it that way. I have a friend who's pretty receptive to social justice issues and mentioned it to her recently just as an interesting point of conversation.
A weakness of inclusive leftist language is it removes most of the rhetorical shorthand insults that are useful for negative propaganda. What is rhetorically sticky is insulting people looks, behaviors, etc. But it also participates in the stigma of that stuff. Explaining the real reasons your political enemies are bad takes more work, which makes it lose out in comparison to your opponents who don't have this limit.
There are ways to walk this line, but it's very difficult. Stigmatizing language is the norm with stuff like "stupid" and "crazy" which are ableist. There often aren't better alternatives that are equally effective rhetorically.
I don't really have a point here, just acknowledging that this is an issue that arrives from a conflict that isn't as easy to solve as it seems at first.
rhetorical shorthand insults that are useful for negative propaganda
Honestly never thought of the insults as actually useful, just people wanting to vent aggression. “Hateful fascist” has meaning and depending on context, it might make me investigate the person being called such to see if that checks out, or even totally dismiss them. It tells me about the other person’s views. “Inhuman reptile” gets thrown in the trash immediately. And stuff about someone being ugly, that’s a reason for me to not hire you as a model or take your advice on how to look good. Not a reason to join the side against you. A lot of it really just looks like aggression. This stuff is mostly useful for evaluating “how popular is this side and how much can I expect to be personally attacked for it if I publicly side with them?”
I’m also neurodivergent. So perhaps in this case what’s effective on others might not work on me. I also have a history of getting emotional and hating any “not nice” behavior even if it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the ocean of legitimate awful behavior the other side does. I end up recognizing and siding against the ocean of awfulness, but still get very upset at “not nice” behavior against them that seems to serve zero purpose to actually stop them. And this kind of insulting definitely flags as “not nice” regardless of its ends. Unlike violence in self-defense against someone trying to punch you, I can’t think of when this would become a necessary evil. But again, it’s through the lens of my own experiences, where this kind of talk immediately gets tossed out.
EDIT after we seem to have finished discussion, just saw a relevant thought somewhere else online (old Reddit comment of mine that I was in the process of deleting) that seemed very relevant to this conversation. Adding it for any onlookers.
Some of the insults could be taken as conditional acceptance for minorities. If you stay in line, your identity is valid, if you step out your identity is now unacceptable. I’m thinking things like misgendering an awful trans person. The point is probably just to hurt that person and show disapproval for their legitimately harmful actions, but it could probably make other trans people wonder if the person doing the misgendering is actually a trans ally, or if they don’t actually accept trans people but keep their mouth shut around pleasant people and now they’re going mask off now that their target is someone they don’t care about. Keeping your mouth shut around pleasant people is still better than always being visibly unaccepting, but I imagine seeing a person misgender a bad trans person could shake the faith of trans people in just how much support they have. After all, we don’t misgender horrible cis people.
Same deal with insulting based on stuff we are fighting against. Do you really accept us neurodivergent, us less-than-conventionally-attractive and it’s just a propaganda tactic, or do you not accept us but choose to hold your tongue in most situations? How much real support do we have? If you dislike us, will we get the same identity-based insults that we see online towards people like Zuckerberg or do you just reserve that for big public figures and murderers? Is your acceptance of our demographic/identity conditional on your personal feelings towards us?
It sounds like you already have values that align you against him, which makes you not the target of the rhetoric. When people characterize others using ad hominem it's usually with a subtext of alienating then from empathy.
Calling Musk a Boomer Karen buffoon for example, is much more effective than calling him a hateful fascist to people who aren't politically opposed to him. Same with posting ugly pictures of him at the beach or calling him super divorced. All of these things are participating in stigmatizing things that should be fine. But they click with people brains and turn society against people sometimes more than accurate descriptors like calling him a fascist.
This same principle applies to the association with reptiles which is stigmatizing neurodivergence.
That doesn't make all of them the same of course, because people have different priorities and make different judgements on what stigmatizing is too far in different situations. So your assessment of the language accepting a degree of stigma is accurate. Just also want to be clear its a messy layered decision that can't be reduced to black and white in all context for all stigmatizing, without a lot of tradeoffs.
You're also right that using rhetoric that throws certain groups under the bus also alienates those groups, and comes with downsides. It can even plant seeds that can evolve into actual bigotry in movements (a lot of the "boomer" talk for example has basically evolved into general ageism against the elderly, and Karen has transformed into something you can call any women who annoys you or is complaining about something).
So there's a lot of good reason to push back on this stuff. But it can also be effective, particularly with fascists who loath feeling humiliated and form cult of personalities around being charismatic. But also in just turning neutral people into psudo allies. Sometimes. It's complicated, is all I'm saying.
a lot of the “boomer” talk for example has basically evolved into general ageism against the elderly
Hey, just thanks for acknowledging this. Bothers me so much.
To be honest, when I was a mildly-homophobic 8 year old, the “they can do what they like in the privacy of their own homes but keep it away from public view” type, flinging insults didn’t do anything to alienate gay people from empathy. Using “gay” as an insult and saying the f-slur would actually turn me away from you and to look at LGBTQ+ with more sympathy.
I’m guessing most people don’t work like that, though. I would like to figure out how we can have most people turn off that part of their brain, that’s susceptible to the name calling, and only responds to peoples’ views. Aside from that complete disconnect in understanding an experience where insults might alienate people from my empathy and helping sway neutrals over to pseudo-allies, understanding how that happens, thanks for explaining, it was pretty helpful. I appreciate it 😊
Elon is just doing whatever possible to get attention and keep publicity circling him and his shitpile website. He has no dignity left to sell, and is now hyping his genitals in the public square to try to help his business. I have serious doubts that Zuckerberg’s wife has cuckolded him given what I know about them, but the behavior described above is objective proof that Elon is a whore.
I don’t like a billionaire like the rest of us poor people. But I’ve met quite a few working in a tech and being in leadership. I’m ADHD/spectrum, Zuck reminds me of me. I feel like a reptile when I’m forced to talk about shot I don’t want to, but talk about what I want like “smoking meats” I’ll talk your fucking ear off.
Trump isn’t a reptile nor is Clinton just rich assholes. I’ve also met non assholes that are rich. Zuck and Bezos were the non assholes.
Same bro, same.
Jokes aside, Zucc's non-verbal side reminds me of people on the autistic spectrum. This also gives people the creepy vibe, even though it isn't intentional. My favorite YouTube channel Charisma on Command made a good video about the subject.
I am autistic. I want to make friends with other people and not alienate them. So I watched that video and there’s a part I’m having trouble with.
The part about his smile going away pretty fast, which causes people to subconsciously assume it’s faked, has a comparison video to someone else. That person doesn’t stop smiling at all! So how am I supposed to figure out how long I need to drag out the transition between going from happy to neutral in order to not seem like I’m faking stuff?
Lol techies were never met to be in the spotlight… here I am doing talking engagements and being awkward as fuck. Thanks for the share!
Unless it's Sweet Baby Rays, then he can't help himself
Yet both are mega rich, can we assume theres no correlation between the decorum of their posts and their success?
it's not an assumption at this point. They are just a pair of losers who got lucky. They are the best argument imaginable for restoration of a 90% tax rate and inheritance taxes.
Do you want a stagnant society?
Right, because the US immediately post-WW2 was an incredibly stagnant society with no visible benefits to the middle class.
What the fuck are you on about
Not American but the US had an extremely high tax rate on the rich for most of its prosperous years. It was only recent removed and you now have massive wealth inequality
Not to mention fantastic spending on college/university (GI Bill) to both slow the impact of returning military on the job market and to create a highly educated work force. Also, incredible help for people to become homeowners, creating generational wealth (GI Bill again), unless you were black.
People act like high taxes on the wealthy would be a problem, when in reality what happened is the wealthy poured more of the excess wealth into their businesses, which benefitted everyone. It's so annoying that we freaking know what works and what doesn't (trickle-down), yet still argue about their efficacy.
I love how the "conservative" idea is to return to 1950s socially, but sure not economically! It's also pretty clear that this idea that somehow having a 1% is driving the nation. Case in point this spat! Does Musk and Zuck fighting or competing in social media do much of anything for the country as a whole? At most, it's similar to what DC and Marvel competing in entertainment IMHO. I guess Twitter vs Facebook does something regarding society, but making it non-stagnant? I guess a lot of people were introduced to the term 'cuck'.
Well slap my balls, TIL.
Bet you thats why trusts and such were invented…
Also, the reason people throw out the 90% figure is because that's about what it was at the time. Granted most of the rich still managed to only pay ~70%.
Here's a couple jumping points: Historical chart, US tax history on Wikipedia
We also had a far less globalised market at the time where it wasn't as easy to move your money or citizenship to a country with friendler taxes.
Maybe do some reading on the history of taxation in the US. I'm surprised you're unfamiliar with what they're referring to when you hold such strong opinions on the matter.
I see now, didn’t know
Not OP, but we actually had a tax rate that high back then, and the US experienced unprecedented economic growth and technological innovation, along with an insanely strong middle class.
Well I don't, so I strongly support anti-trust legislation and much higher taxes on the wealthy, on wealth, to prevent stagnation.