Musk has fallen off the rails completely in recent years. I guess being constantly told that you are the smartest man alive over and over does that to a man. He is genuienly embracing some fascist ideas lately though, and that's worrying because he is a global celebrity with a huge following, not some drunkard in a pub that no one listens to.
My impression is that he is certainly holding back less.
He is certainly less cancellable than ever, owning Twitter and ingrained with the US government via SpaceX, so I suppose perhaps he feels he can now afford to be bold.
Indeed, watching Hacker News go from a nearly unanimous Musk Cheerleading Squad to the precise diametric opposite of that -- literally in the course of one month -- because he didn't echo CIA talking points about Ukraine was hilarious to watch.
It's not his position on Ukraine/Russia that's worrying. It's his retweeting of known white-nationalist content pretending it's not. It's his complete faceplant of "free speech maximalism" and numerous public moves that prove he's the exact opposite (latest being his currying favor with Erdogan by hiding his opponents tweets during voting hours).
In short, it's him shredding his image and principles (even if that was a cover) that gave him any legitimacy in public discourse.
It's been way longer than a month, I stopped respecting him around the time when he kept pushing the idiotic self driving system in Teslas when it was already obvious that it's nothing more than a scam designed to extract your money. It was only downhill from there.
Sure. There were a few people, perhaps you, who tried pointing out how he was a charlatan, how Tesla's profits were wholly due to carbon credit sales and the core business was a disaster, how he rarely delivered on his insane promises, how the new Roadster, the Cybertruck, and the Semi were vaporware, how there was nothing revolutionary about SpaceX reusable boosters etc, who were roundly and consistently downvoted because the HN zeitgeist was to huff Elon's farts.
Literally one month after his infamous Ukraine tweet, it was completely reversed.
My comment really isn't even about Musk, it's about HN. HN doesn't care about facts or rational arguments, despite the relatively high IQ here. It's politics, and always has been. And this abrupt change demonstrated that quite well.
There's already been plenty of detractors, especially around the "full self driving" system.
The big shift seems to have come more from when he made a very public ass of himself with the Twitter acquisition and subsequent clear hypocrisy on free speech issues.
I used to be an admirer if not exactly a stan. I was an optimist that pushing FSD would result in safer roads. I liked the cheeky touches like a virtual whoopie cushion. Many tech bros are small-l libertarian without being asses about it. Who doesn't want regulation to be simple and government to be non-interventionist where there is no benefit?
Russia started a land war in Europe and Elon is an appeaser from the start. Not cool. The magnitude of Russia's aggression, and the extent to which it would have grown if appeased threatened to create a global conflict.
From there, Elon went on a weird red pill journey, boosting racists and outright Nazis with replies on Twitter that made him impossible to excuse.
The CIA is not the source of Elon's problems. He's got a screw loose.
He has started embracing white supremacists, far right politicians and even qanon conspiracy theories. it's a terrifying and dangerous situation for something as influential as social media (as if it wasn't bad enough)
.....literally the very article we're commenting on? Or you can go to his twitter account, no need for reading opinion peaces, just read what the man says.
yes but the article is terrible nonsense. Musk also allowed far left wing people back on. Secondly not risking being booted out of an entire country is kind of the default business decision, you are asking of him things that practically no company on the planet will do. You don't see Apple leaving China or Blizzard leaving China over chinese repressions. But because Elon Musk dared to go against traditional leftwing mass media, now we have to deal with these attack articles and its followers who get captured by their content.
...I feel like you read maybe the first two paragraphs of the article? There's a lot more to it than just his stance on Turkey.
>> But because Elon Musk dared to go against traditional leftwing mass media
The what now? I'm not american so I literally have no idea what that means, and I find the way americans use left/right to be confusing and not how the rest of the world uses it. Please explain.
He has a long record of bad behavior. It's not a secret. Each video below includes a link to a google doc of sources (tweets, articles, whatever), but it's not terribly well organized.
I think you have to be completely ignorant of Musk's actions to think he's just the victim of a media conspiracy. Sure he's associated with massive, probably overall good projects, but that doesn't make his individual actions good, nor does the success of those projects stem directly from him.
whether that's true or not he also has a long record of good behavior.
starlink to Ukraine, providing power to children's hospitals, working to make the human race multi-planetary, trying to end reliance on gasoline... and on and on
focusing the dialogue on bad behavior which may or may not be true instead of trying to interpret his behavior in a positive, neutral, or accurate light
Musk is responsible for his own behavior. The things you use to bolster his reputation are the actions of much larger groups that Musk exerts some control over. I'll take his direct actions when judging his character.
> article itself is an emotion driven ad hominem attack on Musk
No it isn't. I'm no great fan of Nick Cohen, but this article is at least well-argued enough to require as serious response, not a lazy dismissal. Cohen proposes a framework within which to interpret Musk's behavior and then provides any number of examples that support his interpretation, alongside historical parallels.
Personally, I'm more in the "Musk is a prick" camp than the "Musk is a proto-fascist" camp.
(Plus, please review what ad hominem means. It doesn't mean "saying nasty things about people I like" )
I asked if you could read the article? Literally thats all i did?
A while back I made a decision to stay well clear of any Musk related discourse as it generally attracts... not the best people. I kinda wish I had remembered that advice to myself now
So if you're describing someone's fascist behaviour, you now need to be fair to them? I'm sorry I didn't realize we have to find and explain the reasoning for someone's insane conspiracy theories - I guess next time Musk tweets that the moon landing was fake or some other crap, we'll have to find a reason why he thinks that, before being able to point out how stupid that is?
>>does it present numerous sides and possibilities for why Elon does the things that the article is attacking him for?
I'm really struggling to see how any of this is an attack. Is describing Erdogan's totalitarian practices also an attack on him? Or is it just when you don't preempt the article with a whole story as to why Erdogan behaves the way he does?
>>Or does the article present a singular interpretation for Elon's behavior?
Sure, it does. Like with any other article, you can read it and come up with a different conclusion, this is what the comments section is actually for. What isn't helpful is coming here and saying the whole article is an attack so should be dismissed - ok, cool, if you think Musk's general behaviour isn't leaning toward fascism lately then please explain why you think so, again, that's why we're here - to discuss.
you have to be very careful not to mix up possible interpretations with impossible interpretations if you're trying to find the truth.
otherwise you make your problem space infinite
>>This article presents a singular interpretation in a demonizing way.
It's an editorial not a news article, I think maybe you got confused as to what this is. If you read an article in the Economist then it's also exactly this - it's an opinion piece. If you want a balanced viewpoint then read about it on the BBC website.
And I feel like I have to repeat it again - describing fascist behaviour for what it is, isn't demonizing. If you have alternative explanations for any of Musk's statements then I encourage you - yet again - to please share them.
>>If you're not able to separate this from propaganda then it's very unfortunate.
I think you literally can't even legitimately consider the possibility that Elon Musk is genuienly slipping into fascism and you will accept any explanation other than the obvious one.
Have you wondered maybe the whole world is where it was and you’re veering off into an area of belief system that makes you think everyone else is Fascist?
I have. I don't think that's what it is - if you have a guy commiting mass shooting while literally covered in swastikas, and Musk says the whole thing is a "psyop", I really don't think it's me who is getting the situation wrong.
The shooter was wearing a "RWDS" patch. The same seen on several proud boys. The shooting followed convictions of proud boys related to January 6th the week before. Shortly afterwards this came in the news:
> A bulletin was sent by the FBI to law enforcement agencies about Garcia and that "an initial review and triage of the subject's social media accounts revealed hundreds of postings and images to include writings with racially and ethnically motivated violent extremist rhetoric, including neo-Nazi material and material espousing the supremacy of the white race." [0]
Up until that bulletin my news was mostly dominated by criticism of gun policies. Other speculation centered on the dead shooter's tattoos (some were seen in images from the scene), a mugshot of a man with the same name [1], and possible gang/cartel affiliations.
Remember when Covid lab theory was a “far right conspiracy”? Most of the conspiracies have just been a difference of opinion. And then they’re labeled in a gas lighting contest of political cultural war.
HN was so hung up on Science(tm), that everyone was flagged suggesting even a hint of it in 2020. Then the entire thing mob made a U turn in 2021.
Hell, I remember my comments were flagged for a mere suggestion of inflation when the dominant narrative was “transitory”.
What an epic failure of a forum that’s suppose to espouse and foster difference of opinion.
To be fair, it's because of the HN front page that I have read about the possibility and credibility of a lab leak.
A very well argued science based article with a reasonable timeline and explanation that allowed to me to know about a position made unhearable elsewhere.
Broad statements on the "HN crowd" don't make much sense to me. It's the internet and there's much more diversity than most other subgroups, get used to it.
Have you wondered maybe that HN is where it was and you’re veering off into an area of belief system that makes you think everyone else is "MSM" brainwashed?
I really can't say much about your situation but note that public discourse has gotten way crazier in the Trump era. It's now ok to say some crazy shit so I guess that makes everyone wary and reinforces conformism even more ?
Imagine you want to talk about hormonal water pollution created by contraceptives used in masse. The first thing I am thinking now when wanting to even mention the issue is to make very clear that I don't believe they are putting hormones in the water to make people gay and that this is not a trojan horse against contraception.
That’s not my recollection. Back in 2020, there were many intelligent and measured discussions about the lab-leak theory on Hacker News. I came away with the conclusion that a lab leak was certainly possible – but that there just wasn’t any strong evidence to indicate that it was a more likely source of SARS‑CoV‑2 than naturally-occurring zoonosis.
Discussions on Hacker News also convinced me to start wearing a face covering in late March 2020 – even though the mainstream orthodoxy was focussed solely on hand-washing and surface transmission. At the time,health officials and other public figures were advising that wearing a face-mask at best provided no benefit and at worse increased the chance of infection (by touching one’s face while donning or adjusting the mask).
Disclaimer: I don’t live in America or read anything on “social media” (other than the odd niche old-school forum).
in which the top comment is asking why the story is flagged/dead. Also if we search during the first four months of 2020 for comments mentioning "Wuhan lab" the first comment literally says:
> I'm actually going to flag this, since basically it seems to be working quite hard to pretend that the US was funding Gain of Function research in Wuhan, when that doesn't seem to actually be the case.
Thanks for providing those links. It’s interesting to back in time to previous discussions (three years already seems like a life-time ago).
I guess it’s a form of selection bias: I don’t recall the flagging of those articles/discussions because I never read them in the first place. I usually check https://hckrnews.com/ once a day or so (depending on available time) and scan the “top 50%” for topics that might interest me – or have a lot of upvotes and/or comments.
I'd like people to remember another quote, this one from Voltaire;
> You believe things that are incomprehensible, inconsistent, impossible because we have commanded you to believe them; go then and do what is injust because we command it. Such people show admirable reasoning. Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. If the God‐ given understanding of your mind does not resist a demand to believe what is impossible, then you will not resist a demand to do wrong to that God‐ given sense of justice in your heart. As soon as one faculty of your soul has been dominated, other faculties will follow as well. And from this derives all those crimes which have overrun the world.
It's why I genuinely believing in rancid conspiracy theories is dangerous. It's the prelude for what comes next. People start out at conspiracies hating some sub-group. They end up at the "Jewish question," or their cultural equivalent.
Reason and reason alone is what protects us from the insanity that has plagued humanity since the dawn of time.
"Reason and reason alone", it's a bit more complex than that, unfortunately. From Voltaire, Descartes (Le bon sens est la chose du monde la mieux partagée [1], "Common sense is the best distributed commodity in the world, for everyone is convinced that they are well supplied with it, and even those who are the most difficult to please in everything else are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they have."), and others, Enlightenment has risen. And there is a rather pertinent critique of enlightenment, as in the Dialectic of Enlightenment [2] by Adorno and Horkheimer. For them, the Nazis also think they must purify the race because it's the most rational thing to do, even if they view as the best leader a brown-haired, weakly-mustached, average height methamphetamine abuser.
[1] "Le bon sens est la chose du monde la mieux partagée : car chacun pense en être si bien pourvu, que ceux même qui sont les plus difficiles à contenter en toute autre chose, n'ont point coutume d'en désirer plus qu'ils en ont.", 1637, Descartes, Discours de la Méthode; the French, only their guillotines are sharper than their words.
Why do people think that it is somehow a contradiction in terms for a Mexican to be a white supremacist? ‘Mexican’ is a nationality. Mexicans can be white, and Mexico has a long history of color-based racism (which for example you can still see in the casting of Mexican TV shows - white out of all proportion to the population).
On top of that, there are innumerable instances of people supporting ideologies that are directly contrary to their interests. People are weird. Someone who commits mass murder is especially unlikely to be a particularly rational and consistent thinker.
At this point there’s overwhelming evidence that the individual in question was fixated on Nazi imagery and far right ideology. If that doesn’t fit your priors, then they may be due for update.
The individual in question was quite obviously Latino. His photos were plastered all over the news. He very well might have had far-right, extreme and racist views, but it's rather hard to believe that he specifically subscribed to an ideology that hated him. But the media really likes the tagline "white supremacy", so that made it into all the articles regardless of the specific factual accuracy.
Latino isn't a race. You can be white and Latino. This person may have considered themselves white, for all we know. In many countries he would be regarded as white.
In any case, if you just want to make a distinction between 'white supremacist' and 'far right, extremist and racist', then are you not splitting hairs somewhat? We know which race the people who liked swastikas favored, and it wasn't the Mayans.
But whacky far-right racist beliefs always find a way. Here's an amusing line from the Wikipedia article on a Mexican fascist movement that I linked in another comment:
>Rodríguez claimed that blood tests carried out by ethnographers showed that Mexicans and Nordic peoples were racially equal.
What sort of reception would Mr. Garcia have received had he attempted to interact with white supremacists in real life? For some reason I don't think they would accept his census self-identification...
Sure, it is a fairly fine distinction, but an awful lot of people saw a news story about a Latino "white supremacist" and just uncritically believed it. Despite the sheer inconsistency of such a thing. Yes, crazy people do exist, but it's important to critically examine news particularly when it is ridiculous. And that's really what the original parent post was about: the ability to convince people of something ridiculous simply by saying it. Elon doesn't have that power, but in many cases the media as a collective does. Eg. The media acted as cheerleaders for the war in Iraq, fabricating the WMD story which should have collapsed under even the slightest scrutiny.
If anything, Elon seems to be usually out of step with the legacy media consensus. That's a good thing if it makes people stop and consider what they are believing and why, on a more frequent basis.
> Thanks to Elon Musk, I found a Garcia post where he tells the story of a “PC” Jewish chemistry teacher who tried to reason Garcia out of his Hitler worship by insisting that he isn’t white but Hispanic. He repeatedly taunts the poor woman, greeting her by saying “white power”, “Final Solution”, and giving her Nazi salutes.
Musk thought he was being very clever because he thought ‘Latino white supremacist’ was like ‘square circle’. It’s not. You can keep insisting that it’s a contradictory concept, but we have an instance.
> Garcia himself was not white but Latino, something that occasionally bothered him. He wrote that there “was a time when I was ashamed of being Hispanic.” However, he added, “I’m Hispanic whether I like or not. I’ve made peace with that.” In another incident, Garcia claimed someone asked, “Are you Hispanic?”, to which Garcia allegedly replied “Yuck, don’t remind me.”
Only 272 years ago, one B. Franklin, that Franklin from your pocket, was wondering if the Germans are really white in "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc." [1] and if the German immigrants would really fit in the American spirit, 25 years before the foundation of the country. Just as a helper: white is never about the levels of melanin in the skin, it's about the we, the powerful. And now to fully blow your mind: one of the richest person in the history of our collapsing society is the orthodoxy.
[1] "in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth", actual quote from that one B. Franklin, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observations_Concerning_the_In...>
I don't usually reply to such comments, but there are more things in heaven and earth, Pseudo0, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
> we live in a society where men can give birth
Biology doesn't deal in absolutes. Chromosome anomalies are extremely common. Here's an example of an XY woman who is/was fertile and had a child, "Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/
I think it applies to our world. The world is complicated and we want simple solutions.
Can speech be violence? Yes. If I incite a mob and use that to murder someone, then the speech I used to commit that act was a form of violence. Speech is powerful. It can be thoughtful. It can also cause people to view one another as cockroaches and then go around slaughtering their neighbors until all is a pile of rubble.
I don't mind people calling Musk names, but I dislike this because there is no sense of proportion. Musk isn't a unique evil, or even an unusual evil. Anyone wealthy enough to own their own PR firm deserves the same level of scepticism. The more power someone has, the more they do, the easier it is to write an article being nasty about them. The solution isn't to focus on Musk, it is to preserve systems that distribute power and reduces the damage any one person can do.
But it is common to learn the wrong lesson, and respond to Musk by trying to create an even more powerful body (usually in the government) to "protect" people - which then doesn't protect anyone when the situation is analysed holistically and usually has a raft of second order effects that kills off any real chance for the situation to improve.
Very few people are “uniquely evil”, and even then, those folks tend to do very same things, albeit sometimes on a difference of scale determined by their resources they had at the time.
The article quotes Sartre: "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies". Slavoj Žižek's point is better however: even if all the things anti-Semites say are true (Jews control the banks, the movies, whatever), the anti-Semitic fixation is still pathological: they need this fixation in order to assert their own identity [1].
The author is right on at least one point, we do not really have fascism in the west right now, it's only protofascism. Even the Italian 'postfascism' is in fact proto-fascism.
Its quite easy to notice if you read enough political books of the early 20th century, and compare them to current day nationalists/supremacists.
They don't have finished ideas. They don't have much ideas at all to be honest. It's mostly stupidity without a plan or vision. Their books (not a lot of them tbh) are either plain and dumb rehash of 1930s books, or interesting rehash of 1890s ideas (hello Renaud Camus, if you want, I know other books you can leech of, send me a message!).
I think they're just a tool to get political power.
The American far right is mostly too illiterate to understand, much less formulate a coherent fascist outlook. So we get social engineering hobbyists manipulating Christian White Nationalists to blindly, if incoherently, support fascism in return for support on taking the bodily autonomy of women, for example. This is an issue of very limited value to fascists except by way of coalition building.
Yes, I wrote a paragraph on that, but I removed it at it was caustic and a bit insensitive, but to me, this neo-fascism in the west and in the USA in particular have no aim, doesn't really change policy, and in general have no agency. At the most, its kind of the useful idiot of this weird Christo-conservatism.
That's interesting. It sees the beast and that the beast has no direction. But that could change at the drop of a hat and then suddenly you go from 'no problem' to 'lots of problems'.
yeah, every time a topic exposing right-wing loonies in Silicon Valley is posted here, it gets insta-nuked... from a site owned by Graham, a known loonie himself
Anything that can be done regarding this? Imagine if Paul Graham was defending a white supremacist murderer or spread anti-Semitic rhetoric or saying things were psyops conspiracies, would that be quickly outlawed and flagged here?
The more interesting conversation is about outspoken individuals with wealth, sustaining power, massive communication reach, and what ethical behavior responsibilities they have.
'far-left' in the US mean tankies, and while some of them are anti-republican (not political party), the majority is not, so it would not be classed as far-left. And even those who are anti-republic want to go to a previous state, which is quite different from usual far-left who wants to go beyond republicanism, towards a libertarian commune (libertarian in the sense of anarchism/plateformism).
I just realized that US politics captured a lot of political words that used to have a meaning, and changed that.
Yes, it is getting ever more challenging for trying to understand US politics, particularly at the fringes.
Note that we have loonies too, sure, and what is interesting is that they pick their garbage mostly from US loonies, but this garbage does not fit well into the local settings, so that the result is often even crazier.
US cultural influence is enormous and there's no hiding from it. That means we export our right wing lunacy. You can see the influence in, for example, right wing gun fetishism even in places with strict gun laws.
The US bears responsibility to not let so much of our pollution float into other countries.
Personally, I admire Musk for just getting out there and doing shit. Yes - he has a lot of money, but every other stupid-mega-rich person also has a lot of money. What I don't get, like with this article, is this weird obsession a lot of people seem to have with him - either thinking he is the messiah or a super villain.
Was not the point of musk that there was no actual proof he was a nazi / white supremacy at that time and that a single report form a source which is extremely left wing to take with a grain of salt ?
In some way I've always found it made no sense to take pathological people such as lone shooters, or even ISIS/"islamic" terror attack in europe and trying to make political analysis from this. It just doesn't make sense to me and I feel that people who do it are kinda manipulating events to advance their agenda or generation media attention. "Another crazy person shoot some people" is sure less catchy but maybe more true ?
Not trying to defend musk, I'm 100% out of the loop and didn't even read his tweets, only trying to find another explanation that "he's a fascist" or "he's dumb"
It's become a pattern of behavior with Musk to sow doubt this way. To me he doesn't just come off as a good steward. He's obviously aware of the ability of his tweets to direct a spotlight on things, and his bent becomes apparent after you watch him do it repeatedly. Sometimes it's random Doge pushes and TSLA rallies, other times it's used to direct his massive audience toward particular conclusions, but with some plausible deniability thrown in.
As an advice, if you're "out of the loop," maybe not try to defend a person everyone says has become a fascist sociopath.
Unless you are very well in the loop, but the loop of casting doubt on all these accusations as the "far-left" going crazy, which I guarantee is certainly not happening.
Well not "everyone" says he is a fascist sociopath precisely and there are so many hyperboles thrown at each other in american political parties that doubt is nothing but sane.
And I also stand by my other point, that calling a tatooed redneck with mental illness "white supremacist" as if he was a normal member of a political movement is maybe not the best apporach (and I say the same for "islamic" attacks).
edit: Also i'm confused where he's "defending" the guy
Would this “tattooed redneck” that we shouldn’t call a “white supremacist” be the same person with a literal nazi swastika and SS runes tattoos, and a “RWDS” (Right Wing Death Squad) patch?
Jesus man. What more would it take to call him a neo-nazi white supremacist? A notarized letter found on his body, that was penned in his own hand?
And who the said he was mentally ill? We’ve had way too many shooters — including far right terrorists — that were not mentally ill committing mass murder.
I'm sorry you don't understand my point so let me expand:
- He is definitely a white supremacist, in the sense he adheres to hateful texts and probably calls/called himself that along with some other friends.
- Simply, white supremacism (or black supremacim, chinese, muslim or jewish supremacim) are in most case not real political movements but minorities of angry people with (similar) mental illness who act on their mental illness with the random tribe they feel they belong. (cf this testimony https://www.mmaindia.com/sean-strickland-opens-up-about-his-...)
- If you however are a functional member of the society, insisting on calling random shooters by their random political affiliation instead or their mental illness which is the primary factor is, if technically right, missing the point of the fact that weapons should not be given to mad people in general, and has also a tendency to stew political tensions.
- This is not a defense of white supremacism or shooters. Im french said the same when there was "islamic attacks" and people were weaponizing the fact they were mulslim for political purpose when in reality is was a bunch of angry 19 y.o. fanatazised by angry 60 y.o. imams with similar kinds mental illnesses.
'Fighting in court' in this case would mean 'wait until the election are done, Erdoğan will then give us permission to unban them so we can claim victory'.
Shutting Twitter down in Turkey until the elections are done would have been an acceptable alternative.
Censoring opposition is distinctly not free speech. It would be better to shut down the platform for the period than remove certain voices. When only one side is allowed to speak, it gives the impression that they are a larger proportion of the population than they really are.
There's a difference between removing voices calling for violence and removing voices whose opinions go against the ruling party.
You and the article author sound similar actually, just at different poles. Author doesn't bring up much other than saying that Musk isn't hardcore leftist and is kind of mean, therefore he's a nazi. You are along the same lines, that "with us or against us" attitude characteristic of extremely online types.
He angered me by his tweeter posts. It's clear that he is under right wing influence. Things like attack on Belling cat, anti ukraine position, his constant endorsing of right wing people on twitter by replying them with one ward messages. It's clear that he is trying to push right wing views, and it's richest man on the Earth. You have you average right wing idiot as a most powerful buiseness man, It's fucked up situation.
you claim he's anti-ukraine yet he sent starlink to Ukraine.
Elon responds to all kinds of people right wing and left wing with one word messages on Twitter,he's not ideologically driven ...that's the definition of free speech.
you and many others like the author of this article seem to be leaving out facts in order to demonize Elon.
I find Elon is a very good canary in the coal mine for how susceptible someone is to media propaganda.
He literally sent Ukraine starlink, a critical form of military aid, for a long time for free if I understand correctly. He still provides it. It probably cost him millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars to do this. But then he dared to have an opinion different from mass media establishment opinion ("maybe Ukraine should negotiate even if it's a possibly unfavorable peace treaty") and suddenly he's a right wing lunatic that you are allowed to hate. This is not an Elon Musk issue.
> But then he dared to have an opinion different from mass media establishment opinion ("maybe Ukraine should negotiate even if it's a possibly unfavorable peace treaty") and suddenly he's a right wing lunatic that you are allowed to hate. This is not an Elon Musk issue.
Yeah telling people to negotiate with the modern day nazis is not the way to go my dude.
> Operating under the motto of "Mexico for Mexicans", the organization called for the expulsion of Jews and Chinese from Mexico.
> […] The organization received financial support from the Nazi Party of Nazi Germany, from the National Fascist Party of Italy, and from Mexican industrialists such as Eugenio Garza Sada.
Probably some of the flaggers are tired of ideological flamebait and celebrity flamewar, which are both off topic here—especially when a theme has been done to death as much as this one has. Curiosity withers under repetition and fries under indignation.
