4 ms·

> Because he built a massive electric car company, launched a new global satellite internet service with micro-satellites, and successfully launched reusable he

> Because he built a massive electric car company, launched a new global satellite internet service with micro-satellites, and successfully launched reusable heavy rockets? That's a non-sequitur. > Elon is clearly capable but I get it, people disagree with his politics so they pretend he not credible at all? Exactly wrong, and I'd turn that around and say that people tolerate his nonsense because they agree with his politics, and defend him beyond reason. All I'm saying is people should be judged on what they say and do and the relationship between the two. They shouldn't be excused from lying, abuse and dissembling just because they're successful in business.

refurb 2y ago
> That's a non-sequitur. It's not based on the comment I replied to. Musk is making a claim about DOGE - the savings. Comment is saying he's not credible. I'm saying Musk made claims about Tesla (creating a successful e-car company), Starlink (creating a constellation of satellites for internet globally), SpaceX (land a massive booster). And these were not small claims, they had a high probability of failure and I'd argue most people thought he would fail. Yet he delivered on all of them. Delivering on one would be amazing, yet alone three massive advances in technology. So Musk makes a claim about an agency he's helping run and the comment I replied to says "why isn't the default to assume Musk is not credible or constructive"? I think you can see the ridiculousness in that comment and how my argument is not a non-sequitur.
- dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
  It's the very definition of a non-sequitur. You're loading up my comment with things I did not say or reference. Just look at the plain meaning of the words I'm using. They refer to what comes out of his mouth, that's all.
  - refurb 2y ago
    I copy-pasted your comment? How can I be "loading up your comment with things I did not say or reference"? If what you are saying is - "my comment did not accurately reflect what I was trying to say" then ok, but I can only go by what you write. I can't read your mind.
- mint2 2y ago
  Pointing out Tesla and spacex is fine but kinda glossing over some important details about this companies - he routinely over promised on products and delivers years late if at all. Definitely worse with Tesla than spacex. And he destroyed twitter, his latest venture. He’s quite obviously not the same person he was a decade ago.
  - theGnuMe 2y ago
    Idk.. twitter/X is probably going exactly to plan (after the plan changed).
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > I'm saying Musk made claims about Tesla (creating a successful e-car company), Starlink (creating a constellation of satellites for internet globally), SpaceX (land a massive booster). Each of these are neat. Each of these has had complete bullshit claims attached. Mars mission by 2016; “full self driving” and robotaxis and summoning the car from LA to NYC. He’s a fabulist. Sometimes that’s good. Often it isn’t.

refurb 2y ago

> That's a non-sequitur. It's not based on the comment I replied to. Musk is making a claim about DOGE - the savings. Comment is saying he's not credible. I'm saying Musk made claims about Tesla (creating a successful e-car company), Starlink (creating a constellation of satellites for internet globally), SpaceX (land a massive booster). And these were not small claims, they had a high probability of failure and I'd argue most people thought he would fail. Yet he delivered on all of them. Delivering on one would be amazing, yet alone three massive advances in technology. So Musk makes a claim about an agency he's helping run and the comment I replied to says "why isn't the default to assume Musk is not credible or constructive"? I think you can see the ridiculousness in that comment and how my argument is not a non-sequitur.

dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
It's the very definition of a non-sequitur. You're loading up my comment with things I did not say or reference. Just look at the plain meaning of the words I'm using. They refer to what comes out of his mouth, that's all.
- refurb 2y ago
  I copy-pasted your comment? How can I be "loading up your comment with things I did not say or reference"? If what you are saying is - "my comment did not accurately reflect what I was trying to say" then ok, but I can only go by what you write. I can't read your mind.
mint2 2y ago
Pointing out Tesla and spacex is fine but kinda glossing over some important details about this companies - he routinely over promised on products and delivers years late if at all. Definitely worse with Tesla than spacex. And he destroyed twitter, his latest venture. He’s quite obviously not the same person he was a decade ago.
- theGnuMe 2y ago
  Idk.. twitter/X is probably going exactly to plan (after the plan changed).
ceejayoz 2y ago
> I'm saying Musk made claims about Tesla (creating a successful e-car company), Starlink (creating a constellation of satellites for internet globally), SpaceX (land a massive booster). Each of these are neat. Each of these has had complete bullshit claims attached. Mars mission by 2016; “full self driving” and robotaxis and summoning the car from LA to NYC. He’s a fabulist. Sometimes that’s good. Often it isn’t.