He is not a victim. He chose to “capitalise” on rightwing audience appeal like a capitalist businessman. But there is nuance and its best understood instead of ending up having another circlejerk on how Musk bad, as we know sky is blue and water is wet. I was one of the first to find what a piece of shit he is, before the world considered it cool. I used to think of him back then and tell it as US government creating a “science poster boy” of USA, replacing Bill Gates in the media.
Ok. As far as nuance, I still assert he is a cause, not an effect. His choice to capitalize on rightwing audience doesn’t mean he didn’t already hold those beliefs. I got the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that you were asserting that he adopted those beliefs because there’s a market for them; I would argue he adopted that audience because they share beliefs he already had.
This would align him with many others who came from similar privilege. In fact, I’m more skeptical of those born in privilege who publicly denounce right wing ideology (although I absolutely do my best to judge by their actions when possible), given that concerning the status quo is obviously in their self interest.
Our apparent disagreement may be, at least partially, due to semantics. Yet, the words we choose do matter. I appreciate the thoughtful debate in either case!
I like to have these kind of debates. Its only when thoughtful thinkers (not armchair bros and sisters) can discuss with good faith and nuance that a lot of problems can be resolved.
He is not a victim. He chose to “capitalise” on rightwing audience appeal like a capitalist businessman. But there is nuance and its best understood instead of ending up having another circlejerk on how Musk bad, as we know sky is blue and water is wet. I was one of the first to find what a piece of shit he is, before the world considered it cool. I used to think of him back then and tell it as US government creating a “science poster boy” of USA, replacing Bill Gates in the media.
Ok. As far as nuance, I still assert he is a cause, not an effect. His choice to capitalize on rightwing audience doesn’t mean he didn’t already hold those beliefs. I got the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that you were asserting that he adopted those beliefs because there’s a market for them; I would argue he adopted that audience because they share beliefs he already had.
This would align him with many others who came from similar privilege. In fact, I’m more skeptical of those born in privilege who publicly denounce right wing ideology (although I absolutely do my best to judge by their actions when possible), given that concerning the status quo is obviously in their self interest.
Our apparent disagreement may be, at least partially, due to semantics. Yet, the words we choose do matter. I appreciate the thoughtful debate in either case!
I like to have these kind of debates. Its only when thoughtful thinkers (not armchair bros and sisters) can discuss with good faith and nuance that a lot of problems can be resolved.