3 ms·
This isn't good. I mean, there may well be saboteurs in Tesla. That's not my issue. What worries me is that Musk sent out a general email and announced this to
by timoth3y 8y ago
This isn't good.
I mean, there may well be saboteurs in Tesla. That's not my issue. What worries me is that Musk sent out a general email and announced this to the world.
Why is that worrying?
Whether it is Trump's "Deep State", Stalin's "wreckers", shadow governments, or Freemasons. Any time a leader starts publically pointing to invisible actors and demanding they be investigated and stopped, something is about to go very wrong.
What inevitably follows is leaders asserting that their failures are not due to incompetence or poor planning on their part, but are caused unseen and irrational forces who must be opposed.
- whalesalad 8y agoYou’re really extrapolating a lot here. This was an internal memo to his staff about the incident.
- not_kurt_godel 8y agoHow is this an unseen and irrational force? It is a seen force - assuming we trust Musk in his assertion that a specific saboteur was identified and confessed to their actions, which I personally do given his overall track record - and it is a rational force given both immediate motivations (revenge for lack of promotion) and general motivations (massive extensively-documented well-funded multi-decade effort by the fossil fuel industry to thwart adoption of alternative energy). On top of that, none of this was public by virtue of it being a leaked internal email. > I mean, there may well be saboteurs in Tesla. That's not my issue. Yes, but your issue is apparently issuing proclamations about responses to saboteurs. Your stance on said issue holds little ground when you either seemingly can't be bothered to look at the basic facts or mischaracterize them to fit an agenda. So, which is it? Did you not read the article or are you being deliberately misleading?