Elon Musk and Twitter Reach Deal for Sale (2 Viewers)

[SaintForLife]

Elon Musk struck a deal on Monday to buy Twitter for roughly $44 billion, in a victory by the world’s richest man to take over the influential social network frequented by world leaders, celebrities and cultural trendsetters.

Twitter agreed to sell itself to Mr. Musk for $54.20 a share, a 38 percent premium over the company’s share price this month before he revealed he was the firm’s single largest shareholder. It would be the largest deal to take a company private — something Mr. Musk has said he will do with Twitter — in at least two decades, according to data compiled by Dealogic.

“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated,” Mr. Musk said in a statement announcing the deal. “Twitter has tremendous potential — I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.”

The deal, which has been unanimously approved by Twitter’s board, is expected to close this year, subject to a vote of Twitter shareholders and certain regulatory approvals.

The blockbuster agreement caps what had seemed an improbable attempt by the famously mercurial Mr. Musk, 50, to buy the social media company — and immediately raises questions about what he will do with the platform and how his actions will affect online speech globally.

Elon Musk and Twitter Reach Deal for Sale

Twitter agreed to be taken over at $54.20 a share, a 38 percent premium over the share price before it was revealed that Mr. Musk had been buying up the company’s stock.

www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org

If Musk does what he claims he wants to do it will be a big improvement and good for free speech.

 

[MT15]

Musk amplified and agreed with accusations that this Jewish college student is an undercover federal agent in a Nazi hate group and that he instigated a riot in Portland, even though he was in Southern California at the time, and has never worked for the government in any capacity. He was threatened, and he and his mom had to leave their home at one point. Even after the allegations were proven to be false, Musk refused to delete his Tweets about the kid. So the lawyer who sued Alex Jones has taken his case, and they are suing Musk.

 

[superchuck500]

Okay. That sounds like legitimate antisemitism, but I don't see how that relates to the Musk post and the conversation that preceded it.

That original post that Musk responded to didn't say that Jews "have conspired to replace white dominance in America by flooding the country with minorities."


The last part of his post that was cut off:

I'm deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shirt now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don't exactly like them too much.

You want truth said to your face, there it is.

The post was talking about how he didn't have any sympathy for Jewish populations, that use dialect hatred against whites, now realizing that large groups of minorities that they supported coming into their country don't like them. It seems like a stretch for you to claim that his post was somehow talking about a Jewish secret plan to replace whites.

His post was talking about the hypocrisy of some Jewish groups that complain about the hatred towards them when some of them do the same to whites. I don't see how you can claim that him pointing out that hypocrisy endorsed the idea that antisemitism in America is legitimate. It seems like a false claim of antisemitism to continue the left's campaign to hurt X and Musk because they lost their censorship machine in Twitter.


I'm not bringing anything into any fold. I support Jewish people's right to self defense literally and ideologically.

But I also, as a white person, have to acknowledge that it's been depressing to see Jewish communities not take a stronger stance against anti white dialecticism that is basically just repurposed antisemitism.


Musk other posts in that thread:


The replacement theory? Maybe if you go by how you incorrectly interpreted his post as referring to some secret Jewish plan, but he was simply calling out hypocrisy.

It's funny how often the left tries to link prominent people on the right to the great replacement theory. Falsely linking prominent people to mass shooters is another disgusting practice that the left loves to do except in cases like the Nashville shooter or the Congressional baseball shooter when those shooters espoused left wing rhetoric. In those cases there's crickets similar to the Nashville shooter thread here.

I've read and heard Democrats for years talk about how the demographics of the immigrant populations will help them politically as the percentage of whites decline. If a conservative talks about those same demographic changes then they are supposedly supporting the great replacement theory, but if a Democrat talks about it then it's just political commentary?


The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation’s political landscape for a generation or more — pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily.


The original post in the thread wasn't "literally a response to a post that basically said “don’t just say Hitler was right, say why.” It was the exact opposite. The post was calling out people who said Hitler was right who were hiding behind their internet anonymity. The poster's profile says he's a conservative Jew.

I appreciate that you have processed it with this much detail and I don't think you're being disingenuous or trolling - I think this is how you see it. But I do think you have taken quite a bit a latitude to move the question away from what the issue with Elon and X is. And you're fitting it into your view that this is all back to the battle for "censorship" on Twitter/X, which I find to be substantially misplaced and misconceived anyway, but that's another discussion.

The additional commentary the poster Eric is not terribly relevant - the question is the original exchange that Elon Musk agreed was "the absolute truth." It is Musk's comment/opinion that is relevant here, not Eric's apart from what Musk agreed. Your summary of that tweet, that Musk wholeheartedly agreed with is this:

The post was talking about how he didn't have any sympathy for Jewish populations, that use dialect hatred against whites, now realizing that large groups of minorities that they supported coming into their country don't like them. It seems like a stretch for you to claim that his post was somehow talking about a Jewish secret plan to replace whites.

His post was talking about the hypocrisy of some Jewish groups that complain about the hatred towards them when some of them do the same to whites. I don't see how you can claim that him pointing out that hypocrisy endorsed the idea that antisemitism in America is legitimate. It seems like a false claim of antisemitism to continue the left's campaign to hurt X and Musk because they lost their censorship machine in Twitter.

This is indeed a recitation of rhetoric that is classically antisemitic and fits precisely within my analysis on the two main ideas. First, it presumes there is a monolithic Jewish community in America that is "pushing dialectical hatred towards whites." Hatred is a very strong word, and dialectical hatred presumably refers to systematic and fully oppositional hatred.

You seem to be agreeing with both Eric and Musk that this is true - your analysis accepts it as a legitimate claim. Of course it isn't true, there is no Jewish American bloc with the agenda of "dialectical hatred" of "whites" - there's no meaningful evidence of this at all, and I certainly haven't witnessed it. Claiming that Jews must be opposed/mistrusted/punished because they are advancing an agenda against whites is a classic antisemitic theme . . . it serves to justify rhetoric and action against Jews, but it isn't a factual construct. A certain segment of "whites" in America may perceive that "Jews" or "Jewish communities" espouse "dialectical hatred" of whites but I think the most rational and factual conclusion about that idea is that it is false and has origins in antisemitism. It's a classic antisemitic theme and this is rather obvious to the rest of the Twitter/X landscape and in and of itself, is problematic - and negative response from the business community for the owner and self-proclaimed most-important poster on the site to be fully concurring with the idea that Jews push "dialectical hatred" toward whites is wholly justified.

And the second paragraph is, to your point I will admit, not express in its advocacy of the Jewish conspiracy to replace whites but it does indeed convey that point - it is built on that foundational idea. As you said the idea is that the "large groups of minorities" that "they" (the Jews) supported "flooding" into America don't like Jews. Again, this presumes that there is a monolithic bloc of Jewish policy support to flood America with large groups of minorities. If this isn't Replacement Theory 101, what else is it? Of course this is false, and classically anti-semitic. Jews as a single demographic make up 2.2 percent of the United States and they aren't monolithic about immigration - nor is is remotely realistic that they wield control over U.S. immigration policy which they, then, manipulate to "flood" America with minorities. The only people who believe that this is a rational, demonstrably true idea are those who believe that there is a Jewish agenda (i.e. conspiracy) to harm their standing in America by diminishing their relative social power . . . this is also known as replacement theory. He doesn't have to expressly say it - the whole premise is the foundational construct of replacement theory. And it is both false and classically antisemitic.

I don't agree that there is equivalency between the view that immigration will improve the relative democratic power of Democrats and their policy agenda, and the right-based idea that immigration will dilute the social power of White Christians. One is a democratic (lower case) calculation and the other is based on racial/religious zero-sum games about social values. But I don't think your point is entirely misplaced as long as it is couched in discussion about immigration policy and not some great race war . . . because that leads to precisely the problem here: a supposition that there is a Jewish agenda to flood the United States with minorities because there is Jewish hatred of whites and this minority hoard is how the Jews dilute/replace white Christian dominance in America. Because that is false and it is just another manifestation of a long-running anti-semitic theme that anti-semites use to justify their rhetoric and even leads to violence against Jews.

As to your last point about "Hitler was right", I just don't see your point. The original tweet was indeed calling out those who say "Hitler was right" but hiding behind drive-by tweets made anonymously - instead, he called for those who share that sentiment to state their case and be public about it. It's not surprising at all that the person who made this accusation is Jewish, but it certainly isn't essential, you shouldn't have to be Jewish to oppose antisemitic rhetoric

But the point is that Eric responded to that , "okay, I'll take you up on that - here's what I think" . . . even if you remove the Hitler reference, it is still a response to the request for those who think that antisemitic or at least anti-Jewish opinions are legitimate should state them and defend them rather than with drive-by anonymous posts. So yes, saying that the tweet is a defense of a certain line of thinking that is critical of Jews in America is legitimate. But then, as demonstrated, the ideas conveyed are classic anti-semitic themes that presume (1) a monolithic Jewish community with power to manipulate policy and social action to their agenda, that (2) have genuine "hatred" of whites, and (3) act to flood America with minorities implicitly to advance their hatred of whites by replacing or at least diluting them.

It's absolutely antisemitic, and Elon Musk described it as "absolute truth."

 

[UriUT]

I'm waiting on the Rothschild reference drop.

 

[MT15]

I'm waiting on the Rothschild reference drop.

Or Soros. Either one will do.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Suppose there is a group within the United States that harbors a desire to limit any power, social or otherwise, of white Christians, aka Southern Baptists. In that case, it is the white northern protestants, not the Jews.

Fundamentalist–modernist controversy​

The fundamentalist–modernist controversy is a major schism that originated in the 1920s and 1930s within the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. At issue were foundational disputes about the role of Christianity; the authority of the Bible; and the death, resurrection, and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.[1] Two broad factions within Protestantism emerged: fundamentalists, who insisted upon the timeless validity of each doctrine of Christian orthodoxy; and modernists, who advocated a conscious adaptation of the Christian faith in response to the new scientific discoveries and moral pressures of the age. At first, the schism was limited to Reformed churches and centered around the Princeton Theological Seminary, whose fundamentalist faculty members founded Westminster Theological Seminary when Princeton went in a liberal direction. However, it soon spread, affecting nearly every Protestant denomination in the United States. Denominations that were not initially affected, such as the Lutheran churches, eventually were embroiled in the controversy, leading to a schism in the United States.

By the end of the 1930s, proponents of theological liberalism had, at the time, effectively won the debate,[2] with the modernists in control of all mainline Protestant seminaries, publishing houses, and denominational hierarchies in the United States.[3] More conservative Christians withdrew from the mainstream,[3] founding their own publishing houses (such as Zondervan), universities (such as Biola University), and seminaries (such as Dallas Theological Seminary and Fuller Theological Seminary). This would remain the state of affairs until the 1970s, when conservative Protestantism emerged on a larger scale in the United States, resulting in the rise of conservatism among the Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, and others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist–modernist_controversy

 

[SaintForLife]

Let's look at the President of Meda Matters and what he posted to his blog in the past.

Media Matters President Wrote Blog Posts About ‘Japs,’ ‘Jewry’ And ‘Trannies’

Media Matters president Angelo Carusone is currently leading a boycott against Tucker Carlson, a co-founder of The Daily Caller News Foundation.

dailycaller.com

This is the same Media Matters that manipulated the X profile they created just to make their BS report. Now they have a lawsuit on their hands. Media Matters doesn't care about antisemitism. If they did then Carusone wouldn't be their president.

 

[SaintForLife]

Or Soros. Either one will do.

Would mentioning Soros be considered antisemitism? I've seen people on the left claim any mention or criticism of Soros is antisemitism.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Let's look at the President of Meda Matters and what he posted to his blog in the past.

Media Matters President Wrote Blog Posts About ‘Japs,’ ‘Jewry’ And ‘Trannies’

Media Matters president Angelo Carusone is currently leading a boycott against Tucker Carlson, a co-founder of The Daily Caller News Foundation.

dailycaller.com

This is the same Media Matters that manipulated the X profile they created just to make their BS report. Now they have a lawsuit on their hands. Media Matters doesn't care about antisemitism. If they did then Carusone wouldn't be their president.

just because he's as big a dbag as Moosk doesn't make his report BS.
And Musk's Lawsuit ain't going anywhere just like all the rest of his attempts to sue people who call him out. he tries to bully people into backing off and it isn't working for him anymore. he got his butt handed to him so many times since this Twitter thing. from losing to the Twitter board to force him to buy to having to pay so many people he wrongfully fired. i have no doubt he'll lose this to. and not only is he losing advertisement, he will now have a hard time bringing on new high profile clients because they'll be scared he'll try some dumb legal stuff on them if they decide to pull advertisement..

 

[MT15]

Would mentioning Soros be considered antisemitism? I've seen people on the left claim any mention or criticism of Soros is antisemitism.

Not in and of itself, but you know as well as I do, that both the Rothschild and Soros name are used by anti-Semites as a kind of code for Jews.

 

[SaintForLife]

...This whole thing would be merely a petty spat between political antagonists, except Media Matters has been a major driver of this general type of story, in which an offense is first invented, then made the focus of ginned-up outrage, then massively propagandized via unscrupulous press partners. The technique has been used to suppress interest in damaging revelations but more often to destroy or defame political figures on the right (Donald Trump), left (Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders) and in between (Tulsi Gabbard, for instance).

As our own Matt Orfalea pointed out yesterday, Media Matters had a key part in one larger known con, being a primary trafficker in stories sourced to Hamilton 68, the phony “dashboard” purporting to track Russian bots created by the Alliance for Securing Democracy and New Knowledge. MMfA also pushed info from the Steele reports, hyped Steele-generated details like the “Michael Cohen in Prague” story, bashed figures who dared question the “collusion” narrative, and even went after reporter Jeff Gerth for writing a Columbia Journalism Review opus about Russiagate reporting snafus via headlines highlighting how much “Trump and right-wing media amplified” the “questionable” CJR story

...In this case, it might be. MMfA is accused of creating a news story, reporting on it, then propagandizing it to willing partners in the mainstream press. Again, the X allegations need to hold up in an adversarial process, but the company claims to have fully captured a dollhouse version of a generation’s larger media frauds, making this a fascinating case to watch. From the suit:


Media Matters… exclusively followed a small subset of users consisting entirely of accounts in one of two categories: those known to produce extreme, fringe content, and accounts owned by X’s big-name advertisers. The end result was a feed precision-designed by Media Matters for a single purpose: to produce side-by-side ad/content placements that it could screenshot in an effort to alienate advertisers…

Media Matters therefore resorted to endlessly scrolling and refreshing its unrepresentative, hand-selected feed … until it finally received pages containing the result it wanted: controversial content next to X’s largest advertisers’ paid posts.

The defining paradox of the fake news/“anti-disinformation” era is that the people deemed authorities on what is and is not fake news consistently prove to be, themselves, purveyors of the product. Their episodes have mostly involved media tales too far-reaching to litigate. This case is small and contained enough to fit in an ordinary courtroom. Irrespective of one’s feelings about X/Twitter, this Media Matters suit could be a long-overdue chance to put the venomous and generationally influential David Brock media machine on trial. For once, MMfA does matter.

Media Matters and the Fake News Era Go to Court

The X/Twitter lawsuit against David Brock's media arm could become a referendum on the fake news era

www.racket.news

 

[SaintForLife]

Not in and of itself, but you know as well as I do, that both the Rothschild and Soros name are used by anti-Semites as a kind of code for Jews.

I'm aware of that and I'm also aware of people on the left using the antisemitism card when Soros name is brought up.

Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case )

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process. Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads...

madaboutpolitics.com

That was in response to this post:

Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case )

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process. Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads...

madaboutpolitics.com

That false accusation of antisemitism and racism was just from bringing up the fact that Soros financially supports prosecutors running for office who don't prosecute a lot of crimes.

Would Politco be considered an antisemite and racist for talking about the same subject?

George Soros' quiet overhaul of the U.S. justice system

Progressives have zeroed in on electing prosecutors as an avenue for criminal justice reform, and the billionaire financier is providing the cash to make it happen.

www.politico.com

 

[MT15]

In that case the prosecutor wasn’t “Soros-backed”. IIRC he won a one-time $1000 award from a foundation with which Soros was involved that was meant to help minorities working in law. He never met Soros and never talked with him. Soros didn’t even know who he was.

In that case it was absolutely bogus and anti-Semite fear-mongering and racist to call him “Soros-backed”.

 

[MT15]

SFL: the only reason you don’t like Media Matters is because they are opposed to your preferred beliefs. It could be quite possible they are both crappy and correct about some things. Your sources often lie, twist the facts and propagandize, as you can see with the post above which tries to smear that prosecutor. You never care about that, though, because you like the message.

I will pay attention to Media Matters and see if I can find anything shady. I do know I have personally seen ads right next to racist, hateful posts on Twitter. You don’t have to manipulate the algos to find that. I have also seen myself that the hateful stuff has just exploded on Twitter since Musk invited all the Nazis back. Go figure….

 

[SaintForLife]

In that case the prosecutor wasn’t “Soros-backed”. IIRC he won a one-time $1000 award from a foundation with which Soros was involved that was meant to help minorities working in law. He never met Soros and never talked with him. Soros didn’t even know who he was.

In that case it was absolutely bogus and anti-Semite fear-mongering and racist to call him “Soros-backed”.

So you are saying he wasn't Soros backed, but he received funding from a non-profit funded by Soros? Alrighty then

 

[SaintForLife]

SFL: the only reason you don’t like Media Matters is because they are opposed to your preferred beliefs. It could be quite possible they are both crappy and correct about some things. Your sources often lie, twist the facts and propagandize, as you can see with the post above which tries to smear that prosecutor. You never care about that, though, because you like the message.

I will pay attention to Media Matters and see if I can find anything shady. I do know I have personally seen ads right next to racist, hateful posts on Twitter. You don’t have to manipulate the algos to find that. I have also seen myself that the hateful stuff has just exploded on Twitter since Musk invited all the Nazis back. Go figure….

Media Matters is an activist arm of the Democrat Party that was created by David Brock who is one of the most vile and deceitful people we've seen in US politics.

They got caught knowingly and maliciously manipulating the system to manufacture images to show advertising where it didn't exist for the purpose of trying to damage X and Musk. I hope Musk bankrupt them.

They also do the same thing to Rumble. What a coincidence. X and Rumble are the only social media companies that have resisted the censorship machine.

Media Matters used the same dirty tactics against Rumble:

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

SFL: the only reason you don’t like Media Matters is because they are opposed to your preferred beliefs. It could be quite possible they are both crappy and correct about some things. Your sources often lie, twist the facts and propagandize, as you can see with the post above which tries to smear that prosecutor. You never care about that, though, because you like the message.

I will pay attention to Media Matters and see if I can find anything shady. I do know I have personally seen ads right next to racist, hateful posts on Twitter. You don’t have to manipulate the algos to find that. I have also seen myself that the hateful stuff has just exploded on Twitter since Musk invited all the Nazis back. Go figure….

you have now become fake news according to SFL

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I don't think, or most people for that matter, Musk is purposely putting certain ads next to these kind of Tweets. i have no doubt it's random as can be according to your browsing history, cookies, etc. . the advertisers don't care why or how there ads are getting next to these hateful racists dangerous tweets. but they ARE and that's all they care about, being associated with the Tweets they are next to, whether they are run by terrible people themselves or not.

 

[SaintForLife]

just because he's as big a dbag as Moosk doesn't make his report BS.
And Musk's Lawsuit ain't going anywhere just like all the rest of his attempts to sue people who call him out. he tries to bully people into backing off and it isn't working for him anymore. he got his butt handed to him so many times since this Twitter thing. from losing to the Twitter board to force him to buy to having to pay so many people he wrongfully fired. i have no doubt he'll lose this to. and not only is he losing advertisement, he will now have a hard time bringing on new high profile clients because they'll be scared he'll try some dumb legal stuff on them if they decide to pull advertisement..

This tweet was from 2021, but it perfectly describes Media Matters Angelo Carusone and people like him.