[barfbagginus]

I think appealing to the sensibility of musk supporters is a false pretense. They support musk for internal reasons and have no real stake in his success or their own credibility.

They really don't care how incredulous their audience is, so long as there's someone more foolish than them. And if musk really failed, they could fixate on someone else. Thus they can't be influenced by the ethic of credibility. They're still going to put forth their 42-Dimensional Chess theories.

But all this ends up being entertaining, and less likely to trick the gullible. Therefore I propose it's better to encourage them to give the most outlandish take possible, rather than a more credible one, for the reason that the absurdist takes are funnier and less likely to convert non-supporters.

[paulddraper]

Sidestepping the ironies in the above comment.....

One does not have to be "Musk supporter" or even agree with this action in general to offer reasons for it.

Intellectually honest people can ask and answer these questions.

[barfbagginus]

There are zero intended ironies or satire in the previous comment. Any ironies you read are inferred, and I'd love to hear what you feel makes things ironic!

I don't think that it's intellectually honest to look for good reasons for musk's gaffes. That's what I'm criticizing - the boot licking rationalizations.

Looking for reasons, fine. There are reasons for every bad decision. But they might not be justifiable. When a decision of his is widely panned and hurts a bunch of folks, then giving him the benefit of the doubt and justifying/rationalizing for him is the same as being a credulous tool, and probably serves as part of the general infrastructure of enablement that helps Elon - and other powerful people - do social harm. We have to take a stand sometimes, and likewise those who justify harms should be considered less than honest.

I don't mind if I lose some social capital for saying so, since I don't value the credibility of anyone who would ding me over this or consider the statement at all controversial. I'm arguing against rationalizers and justifiers, not honest analyzers.

[paulddraper]

> When a decision of his is widely panned

It's widely panned by people who know very little other than "ELECTRIC CAR GO VROOM, NEED CHARGE." Charging stations are neither a major limitations on Tesla's sales, not economically viable. They only happen with federal subsidies and Tesla recently got (from their perspective) very little.

> hurts a bunch of folks

Musk announced based on the company metrics, he was laying off 10% (14,000).

Supercharger team is 500, sounds like they will be making up a chunk of that.