5 ms·

I think the rubicon was crossed when the acquirer insinuated that an executive who went to bat for him was a pedophile. The executive has had to go into hiding.

I think the rubicon was crossed when the acquirer insinuated that an executive who went to bat for him was a pedophile. The executive has had to go into hiding. There are lines that we shouldn’t cross in a civil society. Supporting blood libel adjacent claims is at the top of the list. https://www.vice.com/en/article/dy79wm/elon-musk-yoel-roth-threats https://www.vice.com/en/article/dy79wm/elon-musk-yoel-roth-t... https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/12/musk-twitter-harass-yoel-roth/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/12/musk-tw...

threatofrain 4y ago
Elon Musk also accused an emergency rescue worker of pedophilia during a deadly rescue mission. He double-downed on the claim by elaborating on his reasons for thinking that the rescue worker was having sex with underaged Thai boys. Elon wanted to completely destroy the rescue worker as punishment for insulting his high tech submarine solution over social media.
- LastTrain 4y ago
  Because the rescue worker rightly said it was a waste of valuable time, of which there was little left, to try Musk's sub idea.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Nah, because the rescue worker said he could shove his sub where the sun don't shine. Note that the chief of the rescue operation did ask Musk to continue working on the sub.
    - LastTrain 4y ago
      Thanks for adding some more detail. You are saying the diver who was in the middle of risking his life to save children was an asshole that deserved to be called a pedophile by the richest may on earth. I haven't learned anything new about the diver or Musk, but I know something about you now.
      - concordDance 4y ago
        > You are saying the diver who was in the middle of risking his life to save children was an asshole that deserved to be called a pedophile by the richest may on earth. Um. Did you read a different comment to mine or do you simply bucket comments into "pro" and "anti" and assign meaning based on that rather than their actual content? I never said he was an asshole. I never said he deserved to be called a pedophile. He certainly didn't in fact. As a side note, the diver called a pedophile was not actually any of the ones going into the cave and thus was not risking his life (he knew the cave and gave advice to those who did go in). So I guess you DO get to learn something new.
        LastTrain 4y ago
        I'm not a robot so I understand what someone is saying without them having to spell it out for me. Be brave and own your words and if you can't then think about why that might be. We both know Musk was in the wrong in that episode, that'd you'd pop up and choose to defend him on THAT speaks volumes. Musk even apologized to the guy for fucks sake.
        concordDance 4y ago
        To help diffuse the tribal part of one's brain: yep, Musk should not have called him a pedophile or kept claiming it so. Now: > I'm not a robot so I understand what someone is saying without them having to spell it out for me Ah, I see. You're one of those people who tries to look at "what motivated this person to say this?" rather than looking at what they actually said, right? Someone more concerned with what "side" someone is on/pushing than on actually transmitting an accurate model of reality? So if I said something like "the Ghost of Kiev is just a fairy tale" you would assume I'm pro-Russian invasion of Ukraine and if I say "climate change is very unlikely to cause human extinction this century" you'd assume I'm a climate change denier? I think the thing you're missing is that people are different. While a lot of the people you interact with are, indeed, like this, some will be more like this: https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/ And if you don't understand that other types of people exist you're going to expose yourself to needless conflict. :/
- kevinmchugh 4y ago
  Musk's legal defense in that case was he had made a joke. This defense worked, but it's worth noting that the plaintiff's lawyer was Lin Wood.
- macspoofing 4y ago
  That was ugly. Musk should have lost that defamation lawsuit.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
concordDance 4y ago
"Looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis" That is definitely not insinuating he was a pedophile and claims to the contrary are outright lies. More insinuating he was advocating for Bad Things that let children be harmed. It's a low blow and a stupid one, but it's nor an allegation of pedophilia.
- chomp 4y ago
  He deliberately trivialized the thesis and posted an out of context excerpt in order to make it as inflammatory as possible and insinuate that Yoel wants to sexualize children. Musk’s fans took that to mean pedophile because that is the normal Musk playbook.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    How the heck do I respond to a post that contains such a mix of statements? Maybe: Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. No basis given. Agreed with caveat that its a small minority. Relies on particular world (well, Musk) view, too complex to discuss in limited space. Insufficient evidence.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  If Musk wasn’t insinuating that, then why did so many people interpret it that way and send death threats? Also, why hasn’t Musk corrected the record and apologized (he hasn’t right?) if that’s not what he meant? Or maybe that’s exactly what he meant, and the result of the person getting death threats was what he intended to happen? Maybe if this were the first time Musk weaponized accusations of pedophilia and had apologized for past and current behavior I could give him the benefit of the doubt. But he hasn’t, so I can’t.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Because people are idiots. Possibly because Musk has a thousand things people are trying to bring his attention to and no one has succeeded in bringing this to his attention and making it seem worth his time. Maybe. But the alternative explanation of attention deficit also explains the facts.
macspoofing 4y ago
>I think the rubicon was crossed when the acquirer insinuated that an executive who went to bat for him was a pedophile. The executive has had to go into hiding. Musk's antics notwithstanding (which will blow up in his face, in all kinds of ways), Yoel Roth is a public individual coming out of a high-profile role, who played a very consequential role in events surrounding 2020 election and January 6th. Musk's antics and trolling isn't great for anyone, but there is a slightly different standard at play here when it comes to attacking a public individual versus a nameless engineer. In this case, Musk dishonestly defamed Yoel Roth, but did not call for violence against him. >There are lines that we shouldn’t cross in a civil society. The current culture war is all about what those lines are. This isn't an easy answer. And this notion of ascribing danger to speech that doesn't call for violence is itself .. well .. dangerous. When Steve Scalise was shot by a Bernie Sanders supporter in 2017, that followed weeks of Democratic post-election messaging that Trump and Republicans will cause thousands to die if Obamacare was repealed (Trump was vocal about repealing Obamacare). Was that dangerous language? Was that a line that was crossed? If you truly believe that a political action will result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, do you not take matters into your own hands? Or maybe we should have a standard where speech that doesn't call for violence, isn't a call for violence. >Supporting blood libel adjacent This entire 'adjacent' business is lazy at best, and dishonest at worst. We're all just 6 degrees from Kevin Bacon, so everyone is adjacent to everyone else.

threatofrain 4y ago

Elon Musk also accused an emergency rescue worker of pedophilia during a deadly rescue mission. He double-downed on the claim by elaborating on his reasons for thinking that the rescue worker was having sex with underaged Thai boys. Elon wanted to completely destroy the rescue worker as punishment for insulting his high tech submarine solution over social media.

LastTrain 4y ago
Because the rescue worker rightly said it was a waste of valuable time, of which there was little left, to try Musk's sub idea.
- concordDance 4y ago
  Nah, because the rescue worker said he could shove his sub where the sun don't shine. Note that the chief of the rescue operation did ask Musk to continue working on the sub.
  - LastTrain 4y ago
    Thanks for adding some more detail. You are saying the diver who was in the middle of risking his life to save children was an asshole that deserved to be called a pedophile by the richest may on earth. I haven't learned anything new about the diver or Musk, but I know something about you now.
    - concordDance 4y ago
      > You are saying the diver who was in the middle of risking his life to save children was an asshole that deserved to be called a pedophile by the richest may on earth. Um. Did you read a different comment to mine or do you simply bucket comments into "pro" and "anti" and assign meaning based on that rather than their actual content? I never said he was an asshole. I never said he deserved to be called a pedophile. He certainly didn't in fact. As a side note, the diver called a pedophile was not actually any of the ones going into the cave and thus was not risking his life (he knew the cave and gave advice to those who did go in). So I guess you DO get to learn something new.
      - LastTrain 4y ago
        I'm not a robot so I understand what someone is saying without them having to spell it out for me. Be brave and own your words and if you can't then think about why that might be. We both know Musk was in the wrong in that episode, that'd you'd pop up and choose to defend him on THAT speaks volumes. Musk even apologized to the guy for fucks sake.
        concordDance 4y ago
        To help diffuse the tribal part of one's brain: yep, Musk should not have called him a pedophile or kept claiming it so. Now: > I'm not a robot so I understand what someone is saying without them having to spell it out for me Ah, I see. You're one of those people who tries to look at "what motivated this person to say this?" rather than looking at what they actually said, right? Someone more concerned with what "side" someone is on/pushing than on actually transmitting an accurate model of reality? So if I said something like "the Ghost of Kiev is just a fairy tale" you would assume I'm pro-Russian invasion of Ukraine and if I say "climate change is very unlikely to cause human extinction this century" you'd assume I'm a climate change denier? I think the thing you're missing is that people are different. While a lot of the people you interact with are, indeed, like this, some will be more like this: https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/ And if you don't understand that other types of people exist you're going to expose yourself to needless conflict. :/
kevinmchugh 4y ago
Musk's legal defense in that case was he had made a joke. This defense worked, but it's worth noting that the plaintiff's lawyer was Lin Wood.
macspoofing 4y ago
That was ugly. Musk should have lost that defamation lawsuit.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

concordDance 4y ago

"Looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis" That is definitely not insinuating he was a pedophile and claims to the contrary are outright lies. More insinuating he was advocating for Bad Things that let children be harmed. It's a low blow and a stupid one, but it's nor an allegation of pedophilia.

chomp 4y ago
He deliberately trivialized the thesis and posted an out of context excerpt in order to make it as inflammatory as possible and insinuate that Yoel wants to sexualize children. Musk’s fans took that to mean pedophile because that is the normal Musk playbook.
- concordDance 4y ago
  How the heck do I respond to a post that contains such a mix of statements? Maybe: Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. No basis given. Agreed with caveat that its a small minority. Relies on particular world (well, Musk) view, too complex to discuss in limited space. Insufficient evidence.
ModernMech 4y ago
If Musk wasn’t insinuating that, then why did so many people interpret it that way and send death threats? Also, why hasn’t Musk corrected the record and apologized (he hasn’t right?) if that’s not what he meant? Or maybe that’s exactly what he meant, and the result of the person getting death threats was what he intended to happen? Maybe if this were the first time Musk weaponized accusations of pedophilia and had apologized for past and current behavior I could give him the benefit of the doubt. But he hasn’t, so I can’t.
- concordDance 4y ago
  Because people are idiots. Possibly because Musk has a thousand things people are trying to bring his attention to and no one has succeeded in bringing this to his attention and making it seem worth his time. Maybe. But the alternative explanation of attention deficit also explains the facts.

macspoofing 4y ago

>I think the rubicon was crossed when the acquirer insinuated that an executive who went to bat for him was a pedophile. The executive has had to go into hiding. Musk's antics notwithstanding (which will blow up in his face, in all kinds of ways), Yoel Roth is a public individual coming out of a high-profile role, who played a very consequential role in events surrounding 2020 election and January 6th. Musk's antics and trolling isn't great for anyone, but there is a slightly different standard at play here when it comes to attacking a public individual versus a nameless engineer. In this case, Musk dishonestly defamed Yoel Roth, but did not call for violence against him. >There are lines that we shouldn’t cross in a civil society. The current culture war is all about what those lines are. This isn't an easy answer. And this notion of ascribing danger to speech that doesn't call for violence is itself .. well .. dangerous. When Steve Scalise was shot by a Bernie Sanders supporter in 2017, that followed weeks of Democratic post-election messaging that Trump and Republicans will cause thousands to die if Obamacare was repealed (Trump was vocal about repealing Obamacare). Was that dangerous language? Was that a line that was crossed? If you truly believe that a political action will result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, do you not take matters into your own hands? Or maybe we should have a standard where speech that doesn't call for violence, isn't a call for violence. >Supporting blood libel adjacent This entire 'adjacent' business is lazy at best, and dishonest at worst. We're all just 6 degrees from Kevin Bacon, so everyone is adjacent to everyone else.