You must have super powers if you can go through a twitter with that speed.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
There is a campaign dedicated to making Elon Musk Dump Trump
- Thread starter cartoon_soldier
- Start date
- Status
Abstruse Moose
Member
Everytime there is a thread involving Musk it seems there is always a brigade of posters either shitting on him for vague things that aren't even close to true, or accusing others of hero worship because they don't hate on him for no reason.
LegendofJoe
Member
I loathe Trump, but I agree with this. I want sane, fact driven people beside him; the more the better.
<< Trump was using Elon to legitimize himself, says Derwin. It says a lot to low information voters that Trump cant possibly be that bad because here is Elon Musk hanging on his every word. Thats why I canceled the order. A principled opposition is important here. >>
I don't really consider this an ad hominem argument.
Even while you would put me in one of these two groups, let us please not act that like for everything in technology there isnt always a big group of fanboys involved who act like he is jesus and the savior of humanity.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
Musk will be the one doing the influence, Trump isn't going to change Musk.
An ad hominem is using an attack against a person as a rebuttal to an argument. I called your reasoning atrocious and accused you of being disingenuous and arguing in bad faith. No ad hominems.
It's also not an ad hominem to tell you that you should learn what it is before throwing it around.
Abstruse Moose
Member
No doubt. Fanboys are in every industry. It's more when I see people labeling him a violent misogynist, or claiming that he is somehow pro Trump, with no proof to back up the claim. It's just intellectual dishonesty.
Dion Blaster
Member
This is some extremely poor reasoning. You have no way of knowing what this list would have looked like if Elon wasnt there, nor can we assess how long it realistically would take for liberal voices to make a difference with the information we currently possess. The argument you are making is incomplete at best, as you have no points of comparison, just a vague, unjustified feeling of "something should have happened by now".
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
From an emotional perspective, I wish the absolute worst harm on Trump, his supporters, even Republicans at large. I don't express that on the forum because I don't need to get banned or chided for my personal emotional reactions.
From a rational perspective, I think it's fair to ask the question I asked without presuming an obvious answer. I think it is obviously the case that it is POSSIBLE that a person could work with Trump to achieve something better than what would otherwise occur. I'm not even arguing that that is what IS happening in this case. Your position seems to be that association of any kind with Trump makes a person irredeemably evil, which isn't logically tenable nor practically feasible. Somebody has to try to push Trump in good directions because he's going to be here for a little while longer longer. What's the alternative?
OG Shaka Zulu
Member
So how many sane minorities does Trump have to surround himself with to do something substantively beneficial about America's race problem?
I see, so you attacked me personally instead of addressing my arguments, which is not an ad hominem attack. Take a second and look at the discussion you are trying to have with me. Is it about Musk and trump, or is it about me personally?
The point isn't necessarily that it would persuade them against trump, but rather that by participating Musk is raising trump's status.
It's not poor reasoning to say, "I see no evidence he's influencing policy" if there's no evidence he's actually influencing policy.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Unlike for example Steve Jobs, Musk has actually done multiple meaningful things to save humanity. No one on this forum will likely do anything resembling what Musk has done to advance our species in their lifetime.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
1) Attacking your reasoning is not ad hominem, it's a direct address to your argument. It's not detailed, and you can complain about that, but it's not ad hominem.
2) "I see no evidence he's influencing policy" may be a true statement, but it doesn't cover the issue. It's possible (and I'm only going as far as saying "possible") that a positive influence has prevented worse things from happening in the first place, which would be invisible to us on the outside of the administration.
Any claim that we have strong evidence that NO INFLUENCE is taking place is unsupportable because of unknown unknowns. Again, I'm only trying to articulate what is logically possible, not speak to the likelihood of any of this.
I'd also like to ask what are the criteria for establishing that he is influencing policy? What specific good things would need to appear on a list? Any good thing? Or things in the Science/Tech domain? Would we attribute good social policy to Musk's influence?
Thats not what was on offer, dont be disingenuous. It was an argument for why Elon musk is even wrong to attempt it, or even worse, part of the problem. If you are trying to make that argument, then saying that "it doesnt SEEM like its making a difference" 3 months into trumps presidency, and through that concluding that Elon shouldnt even attempt it, or, is part of the problem, is extremely poor reasoning.
No, describing why reasoning is faulty is not ad hominem. This is: "So far all of you are disingenuous, argue in bad faith and demonstrate atrocious reasoning abilities."
Many things are possible but you have to actually demonstrate this in order to make a convincing argument. If I don't see the practical positive results from this and am skeptical that it's not just a facade to elevate and glad-hand a president I feel is uniquely awful, then I would like to see strong evidence that there actually is a positive flip-side.
What was an argument for why Musk is wrong to attempt to influence the president? I'm not following your point, which is frustrating when you're calling me disingenuous.
You do not understand the nuance of what I am saying.
So again, do you feel that the argument you're trying to have with me right now is about Elon Musk's participation with trump, or is it about my personal abilities?
I was originally responding to Slayven, who begun by saying that Musk only was "a rich white guy trying to get his", implying that Musk was part of the problem, and then trying to back that claim up by posting what trump has done during his first 3 months regarding enviromental policies. I responded to that post by poiting out the flaws in his reasoning in my original post, then you came in saying that "It's not poor reasoning to say, "I see no evidence he's influencing policy" if there's no evidence he's actually influencing policy." But since slayven wasnt merely saying that, he was saying something much stronger, your response became mostly irrelevant since you didnt properly represent the scope of the argument.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Does it matter that Elon Musk is in the top 20 or so people on the planet who are contributing significantly to actually saving humanity, or at the very least increasing the odds of its future survival?
Vigilant Walrus
Member
I always assumed Musk works with what he has. Pads Trump and kisses. Since Trump has no ideology or real policies, Musk might influence Trump- Not because Trump becomes better, but because Trump is open to influence from anybody.
Why not be in his circle and try and be one of the people who wisper into his ear? Trump loves victory laps and if he can can have a victory that he can take credit for, whats not to like?
It's not important what Trump believes himself, it's important the damage he does is reduced as much as possible. The best thing you can say about business and capitalism is that differences of ideology, opinion and values can be overcome by a financial goal. Through greed we can put aside our differences and have peace... for a time. These are the solutions we've had in place since WW2 essentially. They work on a macro and micro level.
It's hard for me to imagine that Musk is coming over to Trumps side. I think he just takes the politics out of the equation, and focuses on the goal. Space, climate change, sustainability. He has calculated in his head that fighting Trump publically is not going to be productive. So exercise influence from underneath. Undermine from within.
Why not be in his circle and try and be one of the people who wisper into his ear? Trump loves victory laps and if he can can have a victory that he can take credit for, whats not to like?
It's not important what Trump believes himself, it's important the damage he does is reduced as much as possible. The best thing you can say about business and capitalism is that differences of ideology, opinion and values can be overcome by a financial goal. Through greed we can put aside our differences and have peace... for a time. These are the solutions we've had in place since WW2 essentially. They work on a macro and micro level.
It's hard for me to imagine that Musk is coming over to Trumps side. I think he just takes the politics out of the equation, and focuses on the goal. Space, climate change, sustainability. He has calculated in his head that fighting Trump publically is not going to be productive. So exercise influence from underneath. Undermine from within.
Well no, the path of that conversation was this:
> What are the benefits we're seeing from it?
> He has an opportunity to influence on green tech
> "A Running List of How Trump Is Changing the Environment"
> That's poor reasoning because you don't know he isn't influencing him
> I don't think it's poor reasoning to say I don't see evidence of influence
> You're being disingenuous
"[So far everyone I disagree with] demonstrate atrocious reasoning abilities."
Unknown Soldier
Member
Not on NeoGAF.
Also I would put Elon Musk somewhere in the Top 5 of people who are actually contributing significantly to save humanity at this point.
Still awaiting on that Musk influence anyday now...
Since you were responding to my post, i can tell you the exact details of what i in turn was responding to, which was was the entirety of Slayvens contributions in this thread, which begun by calling musk out and leveling an accusation against him which not only goes against Musk's track record, but also is completely unsubstantiated. The details of trump's policies doesnt help his initial stance one bit, as i pointed out. The argument was never simply " i see no evidence that his involvement has helped". I clarified this in my previous post, but even with that information now available to you, you still try to move the goal posts.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Some of you should really read this book.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/006230125X/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Might help you shed a bit of your ignorance about Elon Musk.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/006230125X/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Might help you shed a bit of your ignorance about Elon Musk.
I feel it is you who are being disingenuous now. While you might have had it in your head that you're responding to the entirety of everything he has posted in this thread, here's what he was responding to:
http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=234158131#post234158131
Here's his response, "A Running List of How Trump Is Changing the Environment"
http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=234158451#post234158451
Your response then addresses that post, saying "You have no way of knowing what this list would have looked like if Elon wasnt there [...] you have no points of comparison, just a vague, unjustified feeling of 'something should have happened by now'":
http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=234161361&postcount=110
My response then addresses your response, saying "It's not poor reasoning to say, 'I see no evidence he's influencing policy' if there's no evidence he's actually influencing policy."
No goal posts were shifted, I just followed the conversation and responded to the posts in that conversation.
I'm just glad that people on NeoGAF have enough brain power to specifically shit all over one of the only rich guys on Earth that is working for the betterment of the species and world when he could be launching a dozen small hedge fund companies and compiling wealth. Really clear and reasonable goals, these people. It isn't like there's a nigh infinite amount of worthless tech CEOs out there developing better ways to sell your info or get you to click on ads more often all in the name of money.
Have you been following the thread at all, or the accusations leveled against musk in the first and second page? Its the 3rd time im telling you exactly what has been said, and what Slayven has been saying, but you seem to think that just because i only qouted his last post, and not every post before it, I cant possibly be responding to the entirety of the argument. Its just such a strange formality to pin your entire position on.
BobbyRobby
Member
Would rather have more smart dudes like Musk around Trump to show the greedy dude there is money in clean energy.
The problem is that you claimed I was disingenuous for addressing what I was responding to, instead of... some other point? The conversation was A > B > C > D, and you're saying I'm "disingenuous" if I don't include Q? That's bullshit and you know it. GTF out of here for saying *I'm* the one moving the goalposts.
You were one of the early posters this thread, and Slayvens response on the first page which im refering to was a direct response to your post, so i made the assumption that you were following that, with the thread being so short and you being so active. So ok, fair is fair, i shouldnt used the word disingenuous, since, despite all the above, maybe you missed his post or didnt make that connection, I apologize for that.
I hope you notice however that the main point still stands. I think I made it clear in my first response to you exactly what was being refuted, and while i shouldnt have called you disingenuous, the substance of what ive been saying is still the same.
Agreed. Elections have consequences, we need some rationality and pushback internally.
All this effort is doing is pushing an agenda that indirectly de-legitimizes Musk's character and ability to effectively do some good in this sham of an administration. The way this thread is going, this is being proven and its sad.
He isn't the answer to Trump, but a voice of reason in his ear sounds louder and clearer than the white noise of a protester.
clarknova156
Member
And done.
He's just staying to try and achieve his goals and help minimize damage in his own way. He knows Trump isn't forever and wants to help foster and industry that is ready for that when Trump is gone.
Exactly. Trump has very few convictions and will play to those that flatter him, which of late has been the far right. Surrounded by globalists and idealists who convince him his approval ratings would go up if he would listen to them? The man would pivot on a nickel.
He wants to go to the correspondents dinner, he doesn't want to have to only speak in red states, he wants the NYC elite to like him. Problem is he can't achieve this while he is hated by all but cunts. Musk sees this and could do well to expoit it.
If he wants all that why didn't he just pivot to the center after the election? It would have been easy to dump Bannon and replace him with a non-fascist advisor.
Perhaps he was still under the impression he was an emperor, job is less fun without absolute power. He is defo racist and sexist but not a true believer.
Just to be clear, "try to stop" means sent an email to employees addressing claims made by someone trying to unionize and explaining why he thought it was a bad idea.
Ok, so leaving aside the "one of Trumps most prominent supporters" bit, which I'm pretty sure is not actually true... what is the problem, in practical terms, that this guy is trying to resolve?
So I understand that during the election, people argued against normalizing or legitimizing Trump as a candidate--he was uniquely bad, uniquely unqualified, uniquely self-centered and spiteful and narcissistic and small-minded and in no way suited to be president, and we shouldn't let anyone get away with pretending that he was. That seemed like a reasonable approach to me at the time as well, faced with probably the worst major-party candidate of all time. I thought if people couldn't lean on the idea that Trump was just another Republican candidate, they'd have a harder time voting for him.
Unfortunately it didn't work, or didn't work enough to overcome everything else. The guy's now POTUS. This is the new normal.
So what's the idea behind not legitimizing Trump now? It's too late for that. He's there. It's legit. It'll last four years, or until something boils over into impeachment, or until he gets bored and tired of losing, and quits while declaring victory. Musk seems to think the marginal benefit from trying to influence Trump is worth it. Given that Trump appears to be weak and easily led, this is an understandable angle to take.
Whereas the marginal cost of working with Trump is giving him a sliver of additional legitimacy. But I'm not sure what harm that's doing right now. The guy in the article says this will make low-information voters think he's legitimate, but they aren't voting for another two (four, let's be real) years, so I'm not sure how much that matters right now. Maybe this will give a tiny boost to public opinion of Trump in polls, which might boost his willingness to stay in office a little longer before quitting? I dunno, it's all feeling fairly tenuous.
Granted, it's going to be pretty hard to tell if the benefits are actually happening barring some kind of wildly unlikely full turn-around on environmental stuff, but at least that's a single degree of separation.
So I understand that during the election, people argued against normalizing or legitimizing Trump as a candidate--he was uniquely bad, uniquely unqualified, uniquely self-centered and spiteful and narcissistic and small-minded and in no way suited to be president, and we shouldn't let anyone get away with pretending that he was. That seemed like a reasonable approach to me at the time as well, faced with probably the worst major-party candidate of all time. I thought if people couldn't lean on the idea that Trump was just another Republican candidate, they'd have a harder time voting for him.
Unfortunately it didn't work, or didn't work enough to overcome everything else. The guy's now POTUS. This is the new normal.
So what's the idea behind not legitimizing Trump now? It's too late for that. He's there. It's legit. It'll last four years, or until something boils over into impeachment, or until he gets bored and tired of losing, and quits while declaring victory. Musk seems to think the marginal benefit from trying to influence Trump is worth it. Given that Trump appears to be weak and easily led, this is an understandable angle to take.
Whereas the marginal cost of working with Trump is giving him a sliver of additional legitimacy. But I'm not sure what harm that's doing right now. The guy in the article says this will make low-information voters think he's legitimate, but they aren't voting for another two (four, let's be real) years, so I'm not sure how much that matters right now. Maybe this will give a tiny boost to public opinion of Trump in polls, which might boost his willingness to stay in office a little longer before quitting? I dunno, it's all feeling fairly tenuous.
Granted, it's going to be pretty hard to tell if the benefits are actually happening barring some kind of wildly unlikely full turn-around on environmental stuff, but at least that's a single degree of separation.
Prototype Viktor
Member
he's only with em b/c of he can push some NASA shit, and by proxy getting rid of the MPG requirements means some car companies will go back to making crappy MPG and Model 3 will look even better by default
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll