Not exactly a prominent headline & I don’t see a transcript. The 16-page sources documents links to online references including of a large number of tweets, several articles not regarding Musk, and some news articles on Musk. This is quite a bit to wade through. It’d be better to name clear, prominent headlines as I suggested before. Nonetheless, I’ll glance through.
The articles I’ve glanced through cover his descent into right-wing extremism on X, suspensions of journalists’ accounts, overtures to Putin & Trump. They cover criticism by advertisers & special interests of Musk’s tolerance for the spread of hate speech on X. There was that episode when Musk agreed with a post making a veiled reference to the antisemitic Great Replacement conspiracy theory, which led to denunciations by the ADL, advertisers pulling out, and Musk responding by posting objections to antisemitism & to organizations that push “racism of any kind” and by paying visits to Israel & Auschwitz.
Most of these could be construed as forgettable online MAGA mayhem. While that last episode drew headlines, rather than pin Musk down as a Nazi, a casual observer could easily discount it as online outrage over a MAGA idiot who falls for conspiracy bullshit & rolls that back. They could do that right before they easily forget it.
I don’t deny the conduct is troubling. However, these online distractions don’t exactly make memorable, prominent headlines that conclusively pin Musk down as a Nazi to the casual public. They don’t capture the public’s attention as clearly as Musk’s double Nazi salute.
If you could point out such a headline that the people in the collision would have known before they purchased the vehicle, then I’d concede your point, but at the moment I don’t see it.
Yes, that piece refers to the same event.
Were you trying to imply moral culpability for people “buying their own coffin from a Nazi” or not? Moral culpability only works if they reasonably would have known, so that “buying it” is a choice eligible for moral consideration.
If you’re merely observing the situation without moral consideration to point out gee, that’s ironic, then I’m forced to agree: that is ironic. However, you seem to be claiming more than that with the word excuse.
Thus, for your claim to work they had to be aware, and since we know nothing about them, we can only reasonably expect they knew if the general public knew. So, I don’t think I misunderstood you.
Excused? No, they do the same and have for years. Feeding into Nazi conspiracy theories & agreeing with Nazis is typical MAGA behavior.
Remember Pizza Gate & the adrenochrome conspiracy? Both have roots in old antisemitic conspiracies of Jews consuming the blood of sacrificed children, though I doubt MAGA conspiracists know that.
Musk had a firm reason to know he was agreeing with a Nazi: the tweet he agreed with was answering a challenge for “cowards” posting “Hitler was right” to explain themselves. Even so, agreeing with Nazi conspiracies doesn’t amount to essentials that define Nazi: white supremacy, advocating for genocide & an ethnostate, etc. It doesn’t surprise me that people often see it as more MAGA idiocy similar to Trump saying both sides include “some very fine people”.
I agree it was public. I also submit that the general public probably saw it as MAGA instead of Nazi if they paid attention at all.
When people shop for a car, the company’s CEO may not be their top consideration if any. In the case of a Cyberflop, they may be looking at the environment, self-driving features, or fall for marketing gimmicks & believe they’re buying the greatest innovation.
Totally. For that alone, they deserve all the blame for getting that deathtrap.
Let’s just forget this minor disagreement. That car’s a piece of shit. Fuck that car.