The Elon Musk Thread…

[Irving Cowboy]

Glen Beck? That's what you've got?

I wouldn't even post a Wolf Blitzer video if he said he had proof.

 

[Cotton]

Glen Beck? That's what you've got?

I wouldn't even post a Wolf Blitzer video if he said he had proof.

Beck barely even spoke in that video. I knew you wouldn't watch it.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

Beck barely even spoke in that video. I knew you wouldn't watch it.

If I posted a video by MSNBC would you watch it? Fack no, and I wouldn't blame you.

 

[Cotton]

If I posted a video by MSNBC would you watch it? Fack no, and I wouldn't blame you.

Fine, keep your head in the sand. It seems to be where you are most comfortable anyway.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

If I posted a video by MSNBC would you watch it? Fack no, and I wouldn't blame you.

Dude, you just posted a Daily Beast article. Do you not know what they are?

 

[Cujo]

Glen Beck? That's what you've got?

I wouldn't even post a Wolf Blitzer video if he said he had proof.

Let's be honest, proof from Jesus Christ himself wouldn't convince you.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Let's be honest, proof from Jesus Christ himself wouldn't convince you.

Well yeah, but that guy is a far-right extremist. Maybe even a Christian nationalist.

 

[Smitty]

Oh please forgive me for not thinking that it was just a bunch of tourists...

So now they have to burn shit down and/or shoot people for it to be wrong? GTFO.

You are doing exactly what he pointed out... rationalizing it. BLM idiots rioted too. No one in their right mind would say otherwise. But the Jan 6 morons are NO BETTER.

It's embarrassing that you try to conflate the two.

 

[Smitty]

The difference is, no one sane on the Right defended January 6. What they objected to was the word "insurrection" and the overprosecution of the rioters.

There's way more differences than that.

 

[Smitty]

I get it. You don’t care that officers of the law were assaulted on 1/6. You don't think the whole thing was a big deal.

Police are only useful when they support your narrative.

Of course we care.

But like, I care to one degree when a criminal gets away with petty theft and I care a lot more when they get away with murder.

No one is changing any minds here.

You are free to be laughably, idiotically wrong. It's your right.

 

[Smitty]

Well, the last time Republicans “protested”, they unlawfully broke into federal buildings, brandished weapons, assaulted police, and wanted to hang Mike Pence. So, it’s not like they aren’t capable of violence, either. The fact is that both sides are fucking lunatics, and that’s what your political overlords want. Pit people against each other while they collectively violate the Constitution and strip us of our liberty.

Not a single person actually wanted to hang Mike Pence. This is what it's wrong with the January 6th narrative: It's mostly so entirely blown out of proportion that it has entered the realm of nearly complete fiction.

It's like we "wish," Jerry would die.

We aren't actually trying to will any harm on him.

January 6th essentially amounts to trespassing, vandalism, and resisting arrest.

Anyone who conflates those relatively minor crimes - and yes, they were crimes, and yes, Trump was wrong to imply that he could do anything about the election - with the mass violence and destruction of property of the summer of BLM, well, you know not to take that person seriously.

 

[Smitty]

One building (the Capitol), and no one to my knowledge had serious weapons, which makes assertions of "overthrowing the government" laughable.

It's not a defensible claim in the slightest.

 

[Smitty]

The question is who placed those pipe bombs. (I believe there was only one)

And define "pipe bomb." What kind of damage was it capable of inflicting? And where were they placed? Etc, etc.

Pipe bomb sounds scary but some of these idiots get off on role playing as Rambo Wrapped in a Gadsden Flag.

That makes them idiots but it doesn't mean there is any intent for insurrection.

These people foolishly thought there was a legal way to challenge the outcome of the election and that if they were loud enough they could pressure the existing politicians to avail themselves of that legal method.

They were wrong. And stupid.

Jail time measured in anything more than days was completely inappropriate as a sentence for any of them. Jail time at all was completely inappropriate for almost all of them.

 

[Smitty]

Both are/were wrong, and anyone associated with either should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. There is no justification for mob rule and violence like that.

Lol, no.

There's a wide range of sentencing options and it's a big leap to say "the fullest extent of the law," based on the most simple set of facts.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Lol, no.

There's a wide range of sentencing options and it's a big leap to say "the fullest extent of the law," based on the most simple set of facts.

Yeah I completely agree. People have no idea what a prosecutor can shoehorn into a criminal charge if you say "to the fullest extent of the law"

 

[Sheik]

When I get bored, I have a conversation with Grok.

My main goal when doing this is to see if I can get Grok to see things my way, ultimately my aim is to get it to admit it was actually incorrect in its original thought.

I failed miserably with trying to get Grok to admit that Richard Gere is in to gerbling. That went on for some time and I gave up.

Tonight, I got it to admit that Social Security is in fact a Ponzi scheme. Initially it gave the guarded and canned answer that you’d normally expect. “I can see why you may think that, but SS is actually a blah blah blah, guaranteed by the US Federal Government blah blah.”.

By the end, this was the response:




I’m calling that a win. It wasn’t even hard to get there. I think it took maybe going back and forth 5 or 6 times with questions.

 

[Sheik]

And yes, I do realize I have entirely too much time on my hands.

 

[Genghis Khan]

When I get bored, I have a conversation with Grok.

My main goal when doing this is to see if I can get Grok to see things my way, ultimately my aim is to get it to admit it was actually incorrect in its original thought.

I failed miserably with trying to get Grok to admit that Richard Gere is in to gerbling. That went on for some time and I gave up.

Tonight, I got it to admit that Social Security is in fact a Ponzi scheme. Initially it gave the guarded and canned answer that you’d normally expect. “I can see why you may think that, but SS is actually a blah blah blah, guaranteed by the US Federal Government blah blah.”.

By the end, this was the response:

View attachment 696233


I’m calling that a win. It wasn’t even hard to get there. I think it took maybe going back and forth 5 or 6 times with questions.

I've done that a couple times. I won once (can't remember off the top of my head what the topic was but I was so so excited I read the exchange to my 11 year old who was polite but unimpressed), and lost once.

The loss was trying to get Grok to properly make a Stephen Jones picture, or alternatively trying to get him to make a picture of Rosie O'Donnell doing finger quotes. Both failed spectacularly.

 

[Cujo]

When I get bored, I have a conversation with Grok.

My main goal when doing this is to see if I can get Grok to see things my way, ultimately my aim is to get it to admit it was actually incorrect in its original thought.

I failed miserably with trying to get Grok to admit that Richard Gere is in to gerbling. That went on for some time and I gave up.

Tonight, I got it to admit that Social Security is in fact a Ponzi scheme. Initially it gave the guarded and canned answer that you’d normally expect. “I can see why you may think that, but SS is actually a blah blah blah, guaranteed by the US Federal Government blah blah.”.

By the end, this was the response:

View attachment 696233


I’m calling that a win. It wasn’t even hard to get there. I think it took maybe going back and forth 5 or 6 times with questions.

Excuse me, but who is Grok?

 

[bbgun]

Excuse me, but who is Grok?

an AI tool on twitter