[clouddrover]

> He's certainly misguided, but the reasoning was to reduce human death, not because of authoritarianism.

Russia has invaded Ukraine. It's irrelevant what Musk's reasoning is. He is advocating submission to Russia's war aims.

Authoritarians always trot out platitudes to justify their authoritarianism. Trump, for example, claimed he was going to "make America great again" and save America from the "LameStream Media" which is, of course, the "enemy of the American people" and so on and so forth. Trump's latest idea is to terminate the constitution, so that's nice: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constituti...

Musk will apparently use Twitter to bring "power to the people": https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1588739131815112704

And it turns out that through Twitter he's involved in a "battle for the future of civilization". He's going to save us all: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1597405399040217088

You've bought into the pantomime.

> He did not say to submit to China.

Of course he did. What do you think a "special administrative zone" is? It's certainly not Taiwanese independence or Taiwanese sovereignty. How'd Hong Kong's "two systems, one country" work out for it? Not too good. China quickly became bored with the pretense.

> There's nothing authoritarian about this and this is certainly an argument that can be made.

Sure there is. He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority.

> The important missing context is at the time Tesla was shut down with lower covid rates in the area while other car manufacturers were operating.

Uh huh. So it's all a big conspiracy and Musk is a victim.

Authoritarians do like to portray themselves as victims. They always have to do what they do because they have been victimized and they must right the wrongs in the world. And, what's more, they're doing it for our own good.

> At the time yes. He hasn't said as much recently.

Oh, so he was only a hypocrite in the past? Well that's alright then. Hooray!

> Attacking your boss in public with expletives will get you fired from any job I can think of.

Weak and thin skinned for a self proclaimed free speech absolutist.

It's always fascinating to see people being unable to believe that Musk is what he is.

[mlindner]

> Russia has invaded Ukraine. It's irrelevant what Musk's reasoning is. He is advocating submission to Russia's war aims.

It's very important what Musk's reasoning is. Multiple lines of reasoning can lead to similar solutions. There is not a one-to-one mapping from ideas on how to handle something and conclusions.

> Authoritarians always trot out platitudes to justify their authoritarianism. Trump, for example, claimed he was going to "make America great again" and save America from the "LameStream Media" which is, of course, the "enemy of the American people" and so on and so forth. Trump's latest idea is to terminate the constitution, so that's nice: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constituti...

Except "make America great again" is not a "platitude", it's an explicit nationalist goal with authoritarian innuendo. Unless you can somehow make the argument that any type of pacifist or non-violent request is arguing for authoritarianism then I don't know where you can go with this.

> Of course he did. What do you think a "special administrative zone" is? It's certainly not Taiwanese independence or Taiwanese sovereignty. How'd Hong Kong's "two systems, one country" work out for it? Not too good. China quickly became bored with the pretense.

Except he explicitly called out Hong Kong as an example of what not to do in that same message.

> Sure there is. He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority.

So do most bosses at any company. They're not authoritarian. It's human nature to feel good in commanding positions. It takes a lot of effort to cultivate people who will actually challenge you as you need to go against your natural feelings.

> Uh huh. So it's all a big conspiracy and Musk is a victim.

I never said it was a conspiracy. Tesla (not Elon) _was_ a victim of the situation though.

> Authoritarians do like to portray themselves as victims. They always have to do what they do because they have been victimized and they must right the wrongs in the world. And, what's more, they're doing it for our own good.

Almost all of what Elon has historically done has not been for his own good. He has a proven track record of creating products that better the world, save government money, and push technology in the industry forward. In terms of actual good for the world he's one of the most ethical leaders out there. He specifically rails on shareholders that ruin other companies by only caring about money. He actively praises other companies in the same industry when they achieve similar things.

> Weak and thin skinned for a self proclaimed free speech absolutist.

Last I checked, that person was still on twitter and hasn't had their speech restricted. He could have banned them from Twitter too, he didn't. If you attack your boss you affect the working environment as it makes working uncomfortable. I wouldn't want to work with a co-worker who was attacking my boss in public.

> It's always fascinating to see people being unable to believe that Musk is what he is.

I find it fascinating and depressing to watch the extent that people will go to defame one of the most important people of our era because of what he and his companies have accomplished, either through jealousy or misinformation or fear.

[clouddrover]

Musk doesn't need any help from me to damage his reputation. No one is doing it to him, he does it to himself.

[ephextom]

I understand you have a passionately held opinion about these matters, and it's unlikely I or anyone is likely to change your mind about much of it. But, as it's often said, you don't understand your own position thoroughly until you understand the other position thoroughly, so for the sake of you or anyone else who wants to be on solid ground, I'll put some responses. To declare my hand somewhat, when I said I have no dog in the fight, that refers to Musk; I don't find him a particularly admirable person, or someone likely to lead bringing about the changes I want to see in the world. What I bring to this is at least a couple of decades deeply exploring the question of how every/any person can live with maximum liberty and agency, and achieve an objectively satisfying life, no matter the circumstances of their birth or other issues over which they had no control. Musk doesn't have a huge amount to offer on that topic, so I'm not here to support or adulate him, but I do care about words like "authoritarianism" being used with a reasonable level of accuracy, and I always hate seeing people being portrayed negatively on largely false grounds.

I'll note that your previous response contains a lot of just-so argumentation ("He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority"), and ad-hominem attacks/character insinuations ("It's always fascinating to see people being unable to believe that Musk is what he is"). You need to cut out these swipes if you want to be seen as an objective, good-faith debater.

To respond to your main arguments in the last comment:

- On Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan: He just seems to be focused on ending these conflicts with minimal bloodshed and destruction. He didn't argue for Ukraine to just submit; he said there should be an externally supervised referendum so the people in the contested regions can self-determine which country they're in and that everyone can peacefully accept the outcome. That's as anti-authoritarian as you can get. In both cases of Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan, he sees that the worst case scenario is utterly catastrophic (all-out global nuclear exchanges), and wants to find ways to resolve these disputes before it gets anywhere near that. As divorce negotiators will tell you, when everyone is playing an all-or-nothing battle, everyone loses, whereas if you can find a way for everyone to get 75% of what they want, a peaceful result is much more likely. It doesn't follow that his desire for peace is authoritarian; generally it's authoritarians who like endless wars. He's advocating for the most effective way to end/prevent war. You can disagree with his position, but authoritarianism is not the issue here.

- "Sure there is. He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority": You've presented no evidence for this, it's a just-so story, though a familiar one; plenty of people will similarly assert that he just wants to fill his companies with sycophants. The thing is, sycophants and "good little workers" don't get reusable rockets working reliably, nor newly developed automotive technology. The evidence I can see is that he wants highly skilled people who know their field extremely well and will just get shit done, not waste their colleagues' time and energy with endless petty drama. When people spend a lot of time stirring up drama, it's generally a pretty good sign that they're not so good at their work. So again, it's not about authoritarianism, it's about getting good work done without drama.

- On COVID lockdowns; you can disagree with his position, accuse him of playing the victim, fine, whatever. It just doesn't have much to do with authoritarianism. Clearly, the governments/bodies mandating lockdowns and vaccinations were authoritarian. You can say it was justified authoritarianism, sure. I've been fairly comfortable with the lockdowns and measures imposed where I live in Australia, which many have described as being very authoritarian. But you can't say the people arguing against lockdowns were authoritarian. Any criticism for opposing lockdowns has to use words other than "authoritarian".

That's probably enough of a reply from me; the earlier reply from someone else covered the rest.

As I said I don't expect to persuade you but if you must respond, please try to do so without ad-hom and just-so story.

[clouddrover]

> Musk doesn't have a huge amount to offer on that topic, so I'm not here to support or adulate him, but I do care about words like "authoritarianism" being used with a reasonable level of accuracy, and I always hate seeing people being portrayed negatively on largely false grounds.

Then you must hate Musk. He is, after all, always willing to portray people negatively on largely false grounds. According to Musk, cave divers are pedophiles, Apple hates free speech, California is fascist, and so on and so forth.

Authoritarians have a loose association with the truth. The truth is just too inconvenient.

> He didn't argue for Ukraine to just submit; he said there should be an externally supervised referendum so the people in the contested regions can self-determine which country they're in.

Of course he did. There can't be an externally supervised referendum. They have been invaded. They are at war. Putin doesn't recognize Ukraine as a country or Ukrainians as a people. Russia doesn't do democracy. It hasn't for a long time.

> In both cases of Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan, he sees that the worst case scenario is utterly catastrophic (all-out global nuclear exchanges), and wants to find ways to resolve these disputes before it gets anywhere near that.

The solution in both cases is simple: Russia gets out of Ukraine and China stays out of Taiwan.

Russia and China are authoritarian regimes. They both share the attitude that big countries tell little countries what to do. Musk's advocacy of appeasement and submission to their belligerence is apology bordering on the quisling.

> You've presented no evidence for this,

Now you're just being naive. Space X is Elon and Elon is Space X. There is no in between: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/17/business/spacex-workers-e...

Musk offered up the idea of a moderation council at Twitter which sounds like a good idea: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586059953311137792

But the reality is Musk will make moderation decisions and the council has no real power: https://www.complex.com/life/elon-musk-final-decision-twitte...

He doesn't believe in free speech, except his own speech.

> Clearly, the governments/bodies mandating lockdowns and vaccinations were authoritarian.

No, public health measures are not authoritarian. That is farcical.

[ephextom]

Heh, this reply is pretty-well entirely ad-hom and just-so story. Never mind!

[clouddrover]

I never did mind. The facts of the matter are the facts of the matter. It's not an "ad hominem attack" or a "just-so story" just because you don't like what's true.

Musk is what he is.

[ephextom]

You've presented zero facts that demonstrate Musk's authoritarianism. You've given your opinions on what positions others should have on highly complex, consequential topics like nuclear armed countries in prolonged conflict over deeply-entrenched grievances with long and complex histories. Fine, you're welcome to have opinions about those and any other issues. There's still no evidence there for Musk's authoritarianism, and you don't win arguments by dogmatically redefining words and insisting your opinions are facts. That would be, dare I say, authoritarian?

[clouddrover]

> you don't win arguments by dogmatically redefining words and insisting your opinions are facts. That would be, dare I say, authoritarian?

Musk likes to redefine words. Elon falsely claims he is a founder of Tesla: https://www.tesla.com/elon-musk

But in fact Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning were the founders of Tesla: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/06/tesla-founders-martin-eberha...

In true authoritarian fashion, Musk doesn't let facts get in the way. Here is a sycophantic interview in which Musk pathetically attempts to redefine the word "founder": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHmSrK238vI&t=2358s

So, by your own standard, we've found yet another example of Musk's authoritarianism.