Gary Marcus

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 83
9/5/2024, 12:46:53 PM
X
In reply to:
XVesselX
@XVesselX
·
504d
@GaryMarcus @WholeMarsBlog You are Canadian. Have you lived in the US? Did you serve in the US? Why are you even posting on American politics & Elons political view? As a Cuban American, who watches Canadians vacation in Cuba, knowing I lost family to Castro & Communism, your opinion is absolutely 💯 chit.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
504d
@WholeMarsBlog Like that time when he lost 72% on X in two years?

Or the dozens of times when he wrongly predicted FSD was 12 months away? Or his predictions re fleets robotaxis by the end 2020? That covid was no big deal and would be all gone by April 2020? Or the time he implied Nancy…
Whole Mars Catalog
@WholeMarsBlog
·
505d
Elon Musk has completely lost his mind. He’s gone completely insane MAGA cult. He’s completely lost it, his tweets are all misinformation.

That’s the mainstream narrative at least. Let me propose a forbidden alternate narrative, that few even dare breathe:

What if the guy who…

The statement by @XVesselX in response to @WholeMarsBlog and @GaryMarcus constitutes public discourse as it engages in a debate about political opinions and the qualifications of individuals to comment on American politics. The tone is defensive and somewhat confrontational, aiming to assert the speaker's credibility and right to participate in the discussion.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but is defensive and confrontational, which could escalate tensions. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but it does not promote respect for the privacy and dignity of others either.
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue and instead focuses on defending the speaker's right to participate, which could be seen as a personal attack. [-1]