> What matters (for the argument at hand) is if the facts were minimally enough to justify my opinion.
They were not. You were downvoted because you broke the rules of site, therefore there's no evidence of Elon Muskery. Try to have a discussion without breaking the rules first.
> By arguing that they weren't, what was left of your credibility for this argument has evaporated. My guess at this point is that you were probably one of the "moderation massagers" when this PR piece for Musk's Truth Social of chatbots was posted. You got irritated a little too quickly when I commented on the moderation.
You're attacking my credibility and character, instead of attacking my arguments. That's ad hominem.
> Further proof that this post was being PR-managed comes from the fact that my comment at the root of this thread was flagged many hours after the original post, maybe even a day later. Only someone who's keen on PR appearances would bother to do that, probably someone within the organization.
That's no proof of anything. Timing of the flags is random and depends on the attention of registered users. Your comment was flagged because you broke the rules [0] again:
Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
An "evidence" is a fact that indicates that something is true. A comment that breaks the rules being flagged isn't evidence of anything. That line of reasoning is akin to attacking a police officer, then shouting "police brutality!" after they fight back. Yes, police brutality may exist, but it's not applicable to your particular situation.
Start following the rules, and then if you get flagged, your argument will make sense.
They were not. You were downvoted because you broke the rules of site, therefore there's no evidence of Elon Muskery. Try to have a discussion without breaking the rules first.