4 ms·

> More than seven months into the war, it’s hard to overstate the impact Starlink has had in Ukraine. The government in Kyiv, Ukrainian troops as well and NGOs

by danso 4y ago

> More than seven months into the war, it’s hard to overstate the impact Starlink has had in Ukraine. The government in Kyiv, Ukrainian troops as well and NGOs and civilians have relied on the nimble, compact and easy-to-use units created by SpaceX. It’s not only used for voice and electronic communication but to help fly drones and send back video to correct artillery fire. Putting aside the costs, I'm curious how Musk reconciles giving critical support to the Ukrainian military with his apparent conviction that Russian victory is inevitable. If he truly believes that the threat of nuclear war increases the longer that Ukraine successfully defends itself, then it seems Musk would be keen a way to withdraw Starlink services from Ukraine.

fyfid47uddj 4y ago
Is this actually hard to understand? Because this sort of visible opining just seems like an extension of the "It's unethical to support people fighting for their freedom" propaganda that's popular with the anti-war crowd. It's not particularly hard to understand wanting to give an underdog better odds even if you can't gurantee a win for them.
jstarfish 4y ago
I'm assuming he's playing both sides here. Why alienate a massive potential consumer market?
Maursault 4y ago
A common narcissistic tactic to manipulate a victim is to provide what is needed, allow that support to become relied upon if not essential, and then all support is discontinued without warning. Maybe Musk is applying variation on a theme, maybe he's just honest to goodness unreliable and irresponsible for getting involved. Maybe Musk isn't a narcissist. Maybe he's also a sociopath, though sociopaths have no conscience and are prone to yelling a lot, they are also irresponsible and unreliable, mostly due to incompetence. Could Musk be incompetent? Though difficult to believe, it would explain some things.
- jstarfish 4y ago
  It's only Narcissistic when the victim gives up something up in the process of becoming your dependent-- like a spouse forgoing a career to raise your children, and then you threaten them with a divorce that will leave them destitute and unable to provide for themselves. So they stay trapped in an exploitative arrangement. What you're describing is the opposite-- a very entitled (and I daresay Narcissistic) interpretation of charity. If you give a desperate man a dollar, you don't owe him the rest of your wallet.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > It's only Narcissistic when the victim gives up something up in the process of becoming your dependent Narcissism has many facets and takes many forms. It is not only narcissistic under those circumstances because it is also narcissistic when the victim is berated and scrutinized in order to make them more pliant to manipulation. This is counter-example strictly proving your rigid definition incorrect. > a very entitled (and I daresay Narcissistic) interpretation of charity. This is ad hominem fallacy. What I described is not charity, it is intentionally creating reliance in order to cause instability when support is removed, and it is common enough to have its own idiom: pulling the rug out from under them, meaning to suddenly take away important support. > If you give a desperate man a dollar, you don't owe him the rest of your wallet. This is the fallacy of weak analogy. Yet similarly if one gives someone $200/month for years, then a common law arrangement develops, and one then becomes responsible for continuing to provide that monthly support. If without justification that support is intentionally and permanently ended, one is guilty of willful desertion and/or criminal abandonment. The victim is not entitled to the rest of one's capital, only continued support upon which they have become reliant due to one's free actions.
    - jstarfish 4y ago
      > It is not only narcissistic under those circumstances because it is also narcissistic when the victim is berated and scrutinized in order to make them more pliant to manipulation. Shaming Musk for not doing something he never agreed to do, to the detriment of his company, is itself manipulative and parasitic logic. All the same, fuck Amazon for offering a limited-use free tier. After a few months of free EC2, we apparently have a common-law obligation under which they have to keep giving me free service forever? That is not how charity works. You're redefining the terms of an informal arrangement in a way that most benefits you at someone else's expense-- literally Narcissistic behavior.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
Believe it or not life is complicated and some people realize that life is about probabilities and not about black and white the vast majority of time. I'm sure he's shoring up his bets both ways as it is a fairly low cost of entry for him and SpaceX on all fronts.

by danso 4y ago

fyfid47uddj 4y ago

Is this actually hard to understand? Because this sort of visible opining just seems like an extension of the "It's unethical to support people fighting for their freedom" propaganda that's popular with the anti-war crowd. It's not particularly hard to understand wanting to give an underdog better odds even if you can't gurantee a win for them.

jstarfish 4y ago

I'm assuming he's playing both sides here. Why alienate a massive potential consumer market?

Maursault 4y ago

A common narcissistic tactic to manipulate a victim is to provide what is needed, allow that support to become relied upon if not essential, and then all support is discontinued without warning. Maybe Musk is applying variation on a theme, maybe he's just honest to goodness unreliable and irresponsible for getting involved. Maybe Musk isn't a narcissist. Maybe he's also a sociopath, though sociopaths have no conscience and are prone to yelling a lot, they are also irresponsible and unreliable, mostly due to incompetence. Could Musk be incompetent? Though difficult to believe, it would explain some things.

jstarfish 4y ago
It's only Narcissistic when the victim gives up something up in the process of becoming your dependent-- like a spouse forgoing a career to raise your children, and then you threaten them with a divorce that will leave them destitute and unable to provide for themselves. So they stay trapped in an exploitative arrangement. What you're describing is the opposite-- a very entitled (and I daresay Narcissistic) interpretation of charity. If you give a desperate man a dollar, you don't owe him the rest of your wallet.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > It's only Narcissistic when the victim gives up something up in the process of becoming your dependent Narcissism has many facets and takes many forms. It is not only narcissistic under those circumstances because it is also narcissistic when the victim is berated and scrutinized in order to make them more pliant to manipulation. This is counter-example strictly proving your rigid definition incorrect. > a very entitled (and I daresay Narcissistic) interpretation of charity. This is ad hominem fallacy. What I described is not charity, it is intentionally creating reliance in order to cause instability when support is removed, and it is common enough to have its own idiom: pulling the rug out from under them, meaning to suddenly take away important support. > If you give a desperate man a dollar, you don't owe him the rest of your wallet. This is the fallacy of weak analogy. Yet similarly if one gives someone $200/month for years, then a common law arrangement develops, and one then becomes responsible for continuing to provide that monthly support. If without justification that support is intentionally and permanently ended, one is guilty of willful desertion and/or criminal abandonment. The victim is not entitled to the rest of one's capital, only continued support upon which they have become reliant due to one's free actions.
  - jstarfish 4y ago
    > It is not only narcissistic under those circumstances because it is also narcissistic when the victim is berated and scrutinized in order to make them more pliant to manipulation. Shaming Musk for not doing something he never agreed to do, to the detriment of his company, is itself manipulative and parasitic logic. All the same, fuck Amazon for offering a limited-use free tier. After a few months of free EC2, we apparently have a common-law obligation under which they have to keep giving me free service forever? That is not how charity works. You're redefining the terms of an informal arrangement in a way that most benefits you at someone else's expense-- literally Narcissistic behavior.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

Believe it or not life is complicated and some people realize that life is about probabilities and not about black and white the vast majority of time. I'm sure he's shoring up his bets both ways as it is a fairly low cost of entry for him and SpaceX on all fronts.