It’s funny cause the reply had “celebrating or praising violence” as it’s second bullet point. Pretty sure if you don’t interpret “gasthejews6969” as celebrating or praising violence you’re kind of fucking retarded.
Yes, they’re different. Ukraine needed Starlink to defend itself. I don’t think Gasthejews6969 has a valid self defense claim and only advocated for ethnic cleansing, which historically has proven to be quite successful.
But I do love that you defend Gasthejews6969. Tells everyone who you are.
You claim Gasthejews6969 is harmless, merely joking about genocide of jewish people. He, among many other on Twitter, are spreading genocidal rhetoric, be it against Jews, Ukrainians or some other ethnic group. Civilized countries criminalize such behavior recognizing measurable harm that they cause. Nazi propagandist have been tried and found guilty as well.
Twitter is being used to kill people, Musk is fine with that. It’s entirely comparable, but the comparison looks damning for Musk and anyone who defends him.
Then don’t enter into a contract at all with a nation at war to supply their military with Internet. They basically pulled the rug out from under Ukraine here which is way worse than just not supplying Internet in the first place.
Musk seeking the contract and providing starlink certainly isn’t but the broader concept of not providing a good or service of benefit to one side in a conflict is emblematic of non-interventionism. The most true incarnation of non interventionism in this kind of situation would have been to never get involved in the first place.
I’m in no way implying musk isn’t and idiot without consistent guiding principles or beliefs.
Removed by mod
Then he should stop making self driving cars. lol. lmao.
Removed by mod
Am I? There might be a difference; How would we know the FSD deaths were accidental? Could be a sort of Roku’s fender bender.
Do we know Elon didn’t cause those autopilot crashes?
For all we know the passengers were nazis with nukes 🤷♂️
He is fine with that:
It’s funny cause the reply had “celebrating or praising violence” as it’s second bullet point. Pretty sure if you don’t interpret “gasthejews6969” as celebrating or praising violence you’re kind of fucking retarded.
Removed by mod
Yes, they’re different. Ukraine needed Starlink to defend itself. I don’t think Gasthejews6969 has a valid self defense claim and only advocated for ethnic cleansing, which historically has proven to be quite successful.
But I do love that you defend Gasthejews6969. Tells everyone who you are.
Removed by mod
You claim Gasthejews6969 is harmless, merely joking about genocide of jewish people. He, among many other on Twitter, are spreading genocidal rhetoric, be it against Jews, Ukrainians or some other ethnic group. Civilized countries criminalize such behavior recognizing measurable harm that they cause. Nazi propagandist have been tried and found guilty as well.
Twitter is being used to kill people, Musk is fine with that. It’s entirely comparable, but the comparison looks damning for Musk and anyone who defends him.
Removed by mod
Then don’t enter into a contract at all with a nation at war to supply their military with Internet. They basically pulled the rug out from under Ukraine here which is way worse than just not supplying Internet in the first place.
“I think not wanting something you created to be used to
killdefend people against genocide is fine” there, fixed that for you.Removed by mod
Homie… 💀
Are you being anti semantic rn?
Removed by mod
Yes, and you’re mentally unwell.
Removed by mod
Apologies, I was unaware you were a liberal.
You don’t think people being murdered in Ukraine are worthy of being defended?
Removed by mod
It may not be what you meant, but it is what you said.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/pentagon-buys-starlink-ukraine-statement-2023-06-01/
It would appear he had a DoD contract for the service depending on the actual contract he may be in violation.
That said this sub has a serious war hawk problem. Non-interventionism isn’t some evil philosophy.
Musk intervening is not non-interventionism.
Musk seeking the contract and providing starlink certainly isn’t but the broader concept of not providing a good or service of benefit to one side in a conflict is emblematic of non-interventionism. The most true incarnation of non interventionism in this kind of situation would have been to never get involved in the first place.
I’m in no way implying musk isn’t and idiot without consistent guiding principles or beliefs.
K