Jared Birchall is Elon Musk’s right hand man. He controls Elon Musk’s family foundation and is in charge of hiring bodyguards to protect Elon. He is one of the very few people that Elon Musk trusts.
With his wife Laura, he lives in Austin, Texas.
According to public documents, they are located at 16715, Destiny Cove, Austin, TX 78738-7421.
Donald Trump falsely said migrant families living in Springfield, Ohio, were stealing pets and eating cats and dogs.
Elon Musk amplified these lies on X.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/18/media/elon-musk-trump-rally-bomb-election-misinformation
As a result, these families received thousands death threats.
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/19/nx-s1-5114047/springfield-ohio-haitian-migrants-trump-safety-concerns
Jared Birchall laughed about it. He absolutely loved it. His lovely wife Laura Birchall thought this was very funny.
Jared is obsessed about his privacy. He doesn’t want anyone to know who he is.
“Why are you posting their picture?”
I don’t owe them shit.
I’m fine with a truce. They get rid of flock cameras, mass collection of communications metadata, etc, which includes our children, and I’ll support censoring posts like this.
But unilateral disarmament is what got us here.
Cool. So you agree. It’s only bad when they do it. Honesty counts for something at least.
Its a breaking of social contract argument.
Its bad when everyone does it, the point isn’t whether its a good thing to do or not. The social contract only works if people largely adhere to the conditions. The argument is that these people have broken their part, therefore are no longer entitled to the benefits of the bargain. It is a loss for society in general, and the action is a proposed remedy (as a social cost) aiming to restore the social contract.
Yeah. That’s not how that works as I see it. If we agree that murder is bad, and someone murders, that’s not open-season for everyone else to freely murder.
If there’s a social contract that is broken by one side- the invitation to break it from the other side is not (or should not) be the default. This is why there is a system of law. Going vigilante is how societies collapse.
Ah, no your argument is definitely on the same page then, but at different ends of that page.
So your disagreement goes to degree of breaking and ability for remedy.
Their argument is, the degree of targetting and surveillance has surpassed normal constraints while the ability for a remedy within the normal constraints of the social contract is no longer possible.
To take your example if a murderer is arrested and tried then order is restored and with it the social contract begins to heal. If the murderer however isn’t arrested and tried, then continues to murder, then what alternative remedies are available to be resorted to.
According to the person you’re replying to, the alternative remedy is bending over and spreading when the murderer comes for you.