5 ms·

I can’t tell if you’re being cute and trying to carve out some exemption here when it’s clear what I’m talking about I think but let’s operate on good faith. T

by mhoad 4y ago

I can’t tell if you’re being cute and trying to carve out some exemption here when it’s clear what I’m talking about I think but let’s operate on good faith. The owner with an 80% voting control of the company has had some very serious issues in judgement lately not limited to the Twitter fiasco but has also made a number of public moves that were very friendly towards what the US has called their biggest national security threat repeatedly for the past half decade or longer. In a national security context that would be generally thought of as a completely unacceptable amount of leverage for your main enemy to have over your national security infrastructure. This isn’t some mindless Elon bashing post, I’m presenting this as an actual honest to god problem for natsec.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
TMWNN 4y ago
>I can’t tell if you’re being cute and trying to carve out some exemption here when it’s clear what I’m talking about I think but let’s operate on good faith. Translation: "I think you're committing wrongthink to be asking such a question, but I'll magnanimously say 'let's operate on good faith'". >The owner with an 80% voting control of the company has had some very serious issues in judgement lately not limited to the Twitter fiasco Ah yes, the world's wealthiest man has invested 20% of his net wealth in something that may or may not work out. Proof that he is a danger to national security!!!1!!11!!!!! PS - Two questions to ponder: Q: Wasn't Twitter supposed to have collapsed and died like a month ago? A: Yes. Q: Isn't Twitter functioning apparently quite well during the current mega world event known as the FIFA World Cup? A: Yes. >but has also made a number of public moves that were very friendly towards what the US has called their biggest national security threat repeatedly for the past half decade or longer. Oh, good grief. Musk said that Ukraine might have to give up land to end the war with Russia. A) A negotiated settlement is how 90% of wars in world history have ended, and B) such a settlement has always been the most likely scenario for ending the current war. Maybe it'll be a formal recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, maybe it'll also include parts of eastern Ukraine. Now, maybe Ukraine's recent successes on the ground will let it regain control over all of its territory, maybe even Crimea. I hope that happens, but (again, even with the recent pushback of Russian lines) that still remains a relatively unlikely outcome. >This isn’t some mindless Elon bashing post, I’m presenting this as an actual honest to god problem for natsec. There is nothing wrong, from a legal or moral perspective, in Musk publicly stating what he said. He is an American and the US is not actually a combatant in the war. Musk is free to say anything he wants, and those who immediately claim that anything short of demanding "Ukrainian forces roll into Moscow and Zelensky personally swings the axe that cuts off Putin's head" = Russian sympathizer/"problem with natsec" just make themselves look stupid.
- mhoad 4y ago
  - TMWNN 4y ago
    Sorry for committing wrongthink in your presence
    - mhoad 4y ago
      - TMWNN 4y ago
        >You’re the one who has constructed an entire backstory here not me. It is true that you are not the one who constructed the backstory of "Buying Twitter + publicly stating that the Ukraine War might not end with Ukraine winning 200% of its goals = 'problem with natsec'", but it does you no favor for merely being the mindless echoer. >You even managed to get the country wrong which was impressive. If you're referring to my stating that Musk is an American, he is a naturalized US citizen; he'd have to be, to comply with ITAR regulations regarding SpaceX.
        _kbh_ 4y ago
        > It is true that you are not the one who constructed the backstory of "Buying Twitter + publicly stating that the Ukraine War might not end with Ukraine winning 200% of its goals = 'problem with natsec'", but it does you no favor for merely being the mindless echoer. Elon Musk didn't say that Ukraine might not win, he actively pushed for Ukraine to cede territory to Russia, which is pretty much exactly what Russia wants. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000
        TMWNN 4y ago
        As I said, some sort of negotiated settlement is the way 90% of wars end. Proposing such is not "pretty much exactly what Russia wants", especially when Russia already occupied about 20% of Ukraine before February. I've said since the start of the war <https://np.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/t2nbtx/lets_say_ukraine_wins_a_decisive_victory_whats/hzon8a5/?context=3 https://np.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/t2nbtx/lets...> that some such deal between Russia and rump Ukraine is a plausible, and perhaps the most likely, end to the war. Such a view, as I understand it, was and remains the consensus view among geopolitical experts. "pretty much exactly what Russia wanted" as of February was to conquer Kiev rapidly, kill Zelensky and decapitate the Ukrainian government, and quickly end the war with it either absorbing all of Ukraine or much of it with a puppet regime in power ruling the remainder. That failed. Now the best it can likely hope for is some sort of negotiated deal as per above. That does not mean that the complete opposite of Russia's February goal—Russia forced out of all of eastern Ukraine, and even Crimea—is the likely outcome for Ukraine, either. I repeat: Musk is a citizen of a country which is not actually a combatant in the war. The US has not declared war on Russia, there are no American troops fighting within Ukraine's borders, and the US embassy in Moscow remains open (and vice versa). Insta-denouncing any remark that isn't "Anything short of 100% victory for Ukraine = Putler wins!!!111!!1!!!" as wrongthink is just fatuous.
Cyberdog 4y ago
What does the Twitter purchase or Musk’s opinions on the war in Ukraine have to do with Space-X’s capabilities to successfully put satellites into orbit?

by mhoad 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

TMWNN 4y ago

>I can’t tell if you’re being cute and trying to carve out some exemption here when it’s clear what I’m talking about I think but let’s operate on good faith. Translation: "I think you're committing wrongthink to be asking such a question, but I'll magnanimously say 'let's operate on good faith'". >The owner with an 80% voting control of the company has had some very serious issues in judgement lately not limited to the Twitter fiasco Ah yes, the world's wealthiest man has invested 20% of his net wealth in something that may or may not work out. Proof that he is a danger to national security!!!1!!11!!!!! PS - Two questions to ponder: Q: Wasn't Twitter supposed to have collapsed and died like a month ago? A: Yes. Q: Isn't Twitter functioning apparently quite well during the current mega world event known as the FIFA World Cup? A: Yes. >but has also made a number of public moves that were very friendly towards what the US has called their biggest national security threat repeatedly for the past half decade or longer. Oh, good grief. Musk said that Ukraine might have to give up land to end the war with Russia. A) A negotiated settlement is how 90% of wars in world history have ended, and B) such a settlement has always been the most likely scenario for ending the current war. Maybe it'll be a formal recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, maybe it'll also include parts of eastern Ukraine. Now, maybe Ukraine's recent successes on the ground will let it regain control over all of its territory, maybe even Crimea. I hope that happens, but (again, even with the recent pushback of Russian lines) that still remains a relatively unlikely outcome. >This isn’t some mindless Elon bashing post, I’m presenting this as an actual honest to god problem for natsec. There is nothing wrong, from a legal or moral perspective, in Musk publicly stating what he said. He is an American and the US is not actually a combatant in the war. Musk is free to say anything he wants, and those who immediately claim that anything short of demanding "Ukrainian forces roll into Moscow and Zelensky personally swings the axe that cuts off Putin's head" = Russian sympathizer/"problem with natsec" just make themselves look stupid.

mhoad 4y ago
- TMWNN 4y ago
  Sorry for committing wrongthink in your presence
  - mhoad 4y ago
    - TMWNN 4y ago
      >You’re the one who has constructed an entire backstory here not me. It is true that you are not the one who constructed the backstory of "Buying Twitter + publicly stating that the Ukraine War might not end with Ukraine winning 200% of its goals = 'problem with natsec'", but it does you no favor for merely being the mindless echoer. >You even managed to get the country wrong which was impressive. If you're referring to my stating that Musk is an American, he is a naturalized US citizen; he'd have to be, to comply with ITAR regulations regarding SpaceX.
      - _kbh_ 4y ago
        > It is true that you are not the one who constructed the backstory of "Buying Twitter + publicly stating that the Ukraine War might not end with Ukraine winning 200% of its goals = 'problem with natsec'", but it does you no favor for merely being the mindless echoer. Elon Musk didn't say that Ukraine might not win, he actively pushed for Ukraine to cede territory to Russia, which is pretty much exactly what Russia wants. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000
        TMWNN 4y ago
        As I said, some sort of negotiated settlement is the way 90% of wars end. Proposing such is not "pretty much exactly what Russia wants", especially when Russia already occupied about 20% of Ukraine before February. I've said since the start of the war <https://np.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/t2nbtx/lets_say_ukraine_wins_a_decisive_victory_whats/hzon8a5/?context=3 https://np.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/t2nbtx/lets...> that some such deal between Russia and rump Ukraine is a plausible, and perhaps the most likely, end to the war. Such a view, as I understand it, was and remains the consensus view among geopolitical experts. "pretty much exactly what Russia wanted" as of February was to conquer Kiev rapidly, kill Zelensky and decapitate the Ukrainian government, and quickly end the war with it either absorbing all of Ukraine or much of it with a puppet regime in power ruling the remainder. That failed. Now the best it can likely hope for is some sort of negotiated deal as per above. That does not mean that the complete opposite of Russia's February goal—Russia forced out of all of eastern Ukraine, and even Crimea—is the likely outcome for Ukraine, either. I repeat: Musk is a citizen of a country which is not actually a combatant in the war. The US has not declared war on Russia, there are no American troops fighting within Ukraine's borders, and the US embassy in Moscow remains open (and vice versa). Insta-denouncing any remark that isn't "Anything short of 100% victory for Ukraine = Putler wins!!!111!!1!!!" as wrongthink is just fatuous.

Cyberdog 4y ago

What does the Twitter purchase or Musk’s opinions on the war in Ukraine have to do with Space-X’s capabilities to successfully put satellites into orbit?