I think not wanting something you created to be used to kill people is fine.
Edit: Jesus Christ, I did not think the idea that a corporation would want to stay out of a national conflict would be such a controversial idea!
If I had invented something that I had designed to improve and benefit the world and I found out that it was being used for the purpose of killing, I'd be absolutely horrified, regardless of my allegiance to any side.
Downvotes away I guess!
Then he should stop making self driving cars. lol. lmao.
I know you're being fecetious, but there is clearly a difference in using something as a tool for the purpose of killing and accidental road traffic deaths.
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.
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.
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.
I think allowing an offensive username and actually killing people with something you helped create are different things.
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.
When did I defend them? Please don't put such vile accusations towards me.
I'm merely saying the situations aren't comparible. I did NOT say that I condone antisemitism or twitter's decision on the matter, I literally said that the username was offensive. Jesus Christ.
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.
Fucking hell. I DID NOT MAKE THAT CLAIM. YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH AND INCREDIBLY INCENDIARY ONES AT THAT!!!!
I'm sorry that you have incorrectly interpreted my claim of two situations being different as defence of one of them. My claim that two situations are not comparable is not synonymous with with the idea that one of them is OK, you have read between the lines when there is nothing there to read.
For the record, I would like to state that I am against antisemitism, nazi propaganda, genocide, "twitter killing people" or whatever this fucking moron is going to accuse me of next.
JFC!
"I think not wanting something you created to be used to kill defend people against genocide is fine" there, fixed that for you.
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.
I think not wanting something you created to be used to kill people is fine.
Edit: Jesus Christ, I did not think the idea that a corporation would want to stay out of a national conflict would be such a controversial idea!
If I had invented something that I had designed to improve and benefit the world and I found out that it was being used for the purpose of killing, I'd be absolutely horrified, regardless of my allegiance to any side.
Downvotes away I guess!
Then he should stop making self driving cars. lol. lmao.
I know you're being fecetious, but there is clearly a difference in using something as a tool for the purpose of killing and accidental road traffic deaths.
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.
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.
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.
I think allowing an offensive username and actually killing people with something you helped create are different things.
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.
When did I defend them? Please don't put such vile accusations towards me.
I'm merely saying the situations aren't comparible. I did NOT say that I condone antisemitism or twitter's decision on the matter, I literally said that the username was offensive. Jesus Christ.
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.
Fucking hell. I DID NOT MAKE THAT CLAIM. YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH AND INCREDIBLY INCENDIARY ONES AT THAT!!!!
I'm sorry that you have incorrectly interpreted my claim of two situations being different as defence of one of them. My claim that two situations are not comparable is not synonymous with with the idea that one of them is OK, you have read between the lines when there is nothing there to read.
For the record, I would like to state that I am against antisemitism, nazi propaganda, genocide, "twitter killing people" or whatever this fucking moron is going to accuse me of next.
JFC!
"I think not wanting something you created to be used to
killdefend people against genocide is fine" there, fixed that for you.Semantics
Homie... 💀
You don't think people being murdered in Ukraine are worthy of being defended?
That's absolutely not what I'm saying.
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.