>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. 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weeks of Democratic post-election messaging that Trump and Republicans will cause thousands to die if Obamacare was repealed (Trump was vocal about repealing Obamacare).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.