Why do you think everyone who criticizes Musk falls into a single bucket? What makes you think you are able to know how they would behave in an alternative history? If all his critics are shrill and hysterical as you say, but you actually share this criticism, why is it you are uniquely exempt from being shrill and hysterical?

From where I'm standing, this seems like just another empty rhetorical device to dismiss people you'd rather not engage with, to paint them with a broad brush and then hold them accountable for hypothetical scenarios you invented. (Not wanting to engage with people is fine, framing that as being about their being hysterical rather than you being disinterested isn't.)

If the previous post was the moral equivalent of telling someone to stop hitting themselves, claiming they'd have supported this policy without Musk without any evidence (which I find extremely hard to believe, people get very upset when platforms do anything like this) is the equivalent of getting upset with your spouse because you had a dream they were unfaithful.

The recent NPR spat is just that.

"This does not come from authoritative sources and is potentially fake news." disclaimers? "YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA----"

"This account is state affiliated." disclaimers? "NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY----"

The one standard those people have is having no standard at all.

^ This

I don't know when or why adults acting emotionally fragile and wearing it like some sort of badge of honor has become fashionable.

For the record I actually think blocking substack (if that is even what is actually happening) is lame.

> This is the moral equivalent..

Girl, bye.