100,000 supposes that there are... hmm... about eighty thousand non-evil people in the world, and (odds are) exactly none of them are Marshallese and about 2 are Samoan, to give a sense of how silly this is.
I think maybe 1 in 100k is actually anything special, but odds are you aren't special, you just noticed that 20% of the population is as gifted/motivated/constructive as you are (statistically speaking, assuming a bell curve).
And of those, yes, some small percentage will still feel "special" and affronted that other people have the same ideas/goals/desires as them.
It's a rat race and it's not your fault.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/xu-yao-death-sentence-poisoning...
(There are plenty of people bandwagonning on Musk hate, and definitely some for his political bent, but there are also plenty of totally valid and non-political reasons to have disdain for him)
I'm going to agree with Walter that it's just human nature to want to drag down the successful. Envy is one of the seven deadly sins, after all.
People literally just trawl the most-successful-people list and find folks to hate. Simple as.
Of course you can also get it for philanthropic acts, but Musk doesn't, again because he's an asshole.
You also appear to be assuming there are no mid range people who everyone ignores, that is going to be the majority of the population.
Society holds well if someone steals a candy from the shop.
Those people can become shitty and despicable for that one person they envy and can be great for their friends and family all the other time.
There are really evil people that might be shit all the time but society is rather good at spotting them.
2. Firing employees at a company he purchased (i.e. people who did literally nothing to him), in as vicious and demeaning way possible
3. Sexually harassing an employee on his airplane
4. Frontrunning a story about sexually harassing said employee by suggesting that it was some political issue, thus making his own sexual misconduct a red vs blue problem in an already deeply polarized society
5. Advancing falsehoods about election security in the US
6. Releasing a product to public roads called "Full Self Driving" which is, in fact, not fully self driving
7. Hiding data required for the public to evaluate the safety of this "Full Self Driving" which is already operating on public roads
8. Was such a hysterical crybaby about rebranding PayPal to X that the board had to fire him from the CEO role while he was on vacation
9. Requesting permission for Bladerunner imagery for his We, Robot event, having that request declined, then stealing said imagery anyway
10. Deliberately overplaying the viability of Hyperloop in order to kill high speed rail projects (https://time.com/6203815/elon-musk-flaws-billionaire-visions...)
Idk do I need to go on?
2. Firing people is not about them doing nothing to the owner. It is about getting rid of employees who were not core contributors in a company that was losing a lot of money fast. They were all well paid, there's no need to feel sorry for them. If they're competent, they'll have no trouble getting hired elsewhere. Besides, every person I personally knew who were fired thought they were treated unfairly. Even the ones who were embezzling, padding expense accounts, and showing up for work drunk (I'm not suggesting that the Twitter workers were that, just illustrating how everyone thinks they are unfairly treated).
3. He said / she said is not evidence. If it was, he would have been prosecuted. Wealthy people are usually counseled to avoid situations where they could be falsely accused. Did you know Tim Walz is also accused? No evidence there, either.
4. Maybe it was a political issue. A lot of people don't like his politics, and so may think it justified to go after him.
5. Nobody has proved that US elections are secure. In Washington State, the elections department as official policy does not verify that registered voters are citizens. A secure system would welcome audits, not prevent them.
6. Full self driving is a spectrum, not an obvious yes/no line. Human drivers have car accidents all the time. Everyone in my family has been involved in a car accident in one form or another. My grandmother was killed in one, I nearly was killed in another.
7. Don't know about that.
8. So the board fired him in as vicious and demeaning way possible?
9. Oh, the monster! Jeez. You're talking to the wrong guy, I give my IP away for free.
10. The Boring Company is profitable and now valued conservatively at $7 billion and optimistically at about $125 billion. TIME magazine hates him - I wouldn't take what they wrote seriously. Nor do I believe that Musk is responsible for the total failure of California's high speed rail.
On the other hand, the people who invested in his companies have done very well. Every Tesla owner I know loves their car. Starlink has been crucial in helping the Helena disaster victims. He's making science fiction real.
Think on it!
Because the complaints about him do not rise to the level of "monstrous". They smack of someone disliking Musk for other reasons, and going looking for something, anything, to justify their opinion.
Musk has not destroyed anyone, gone on any vendettas against anyone, robbed people of billions of dollars, swindled anyone, funded any terrorist groups, framed anyone, or done anything deserving of "monstrous".
It offends my sense of justice and fairness.
> I imagine he wouldn't be making lists about your good points if the shoe was on the other foot
I can't imagine him making lists of reasons why he hates me, either.
BTW, you tried to insult me with "simp", which means "someone who gives excessive attention or affection to another person, typically in pursuit of a sexual relationship or affection". Is that "monstrous"?
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/elon-musk-unswo...
It seems from the article that he hired the investigator because of the "imminent lawsuit". So yeah, he went looking for dirt to defend himself against a guy who was suing him over a childish insult.
Both parties behaved poorly here. But stepping back a bit from it, the whole thing was a nothingburger.
For future readers, WalterBright here thinks that one of the world's richest (adult) men publicly calling a rescue worker a pedophile is pretty much the same as a child calling another one "gay" on the playground.
Here, he's explaining that a rescue worker calling Musk's useless PR stunt a PR stunt is "behaving badly" the same way as Musk calling a rescue worker a pedophile when that rescue worker risked his own life to actually succeed in rescuing a bunch of kids.
And yes, as far as I can tell, he's serious.
What do you feel about Musk providing Starlink to the Helene victims?
> What do you feel about Musk providing Starlink to the Helene victims?
To the extent that he did: great! People believe it was philanthropic to a far greater extent than it was. He didn't give away or even loan any Starlink terminals, he gave people essentially 2-3 free months of service after they purchased the ~$400 terminal. The free service is cool! Generosity is good and I'm thankful he gave away what he did.
And obviously it's great that Starlink exists at all to be able to help out in such a situation, even if victims and/or the federal government are footing the majority of the bill.
And FWIW, I think Musk's heart was in the right place trying to help those kids. I was very excited by his work while it was happening. But yeah, the pedoguy thing was a turning point and, unfortunately, quite indicative of an overall slide into a very, very weird mindset that afflicts him to this day. It's a real bummer, because he's obviously capable of incredible things.
"He can stick his submarine where it hurts" said Unsworth first on CNN.
> 22.5 million followers
What's CNN's audience?
It's two grown men childishly insulting each other. A big "so what". It's hardly monstrous.
Have a good week!
Whether or not you like the guy, which you clearly do, whether or not we “go to nuclear war” was not his call to make. He’s not an elected official, it’s really bizarre that he’s trying to get involved in geopolitics.
Based on our past interactions, you tend to be pretty dishonest in how you respond to these things, so before you say “oh! So you’re in favor of nuclear war??????” and pretend that that’s a win, I will go on record and say “no, I do not want nuclear war”. It doesn’t change anything about what I said.
Oh my, I really didn’t think that you of all people would start peddling election conspiracy crap.
The claim of “prove there was no election fraud” is trying to prove a negative, which is generally an impossible task. Every lawsuit by the Trump campaign to try and challenge election results was lost, indicating that the courts didn’t see sufficient evidence of voter fraud that Trump and Musk are alleging.
You know, years ago you purposefully pretended to misread some of my comments to make me seem like a nut and kept asserting that I believed in aliens visiting earth (which I don’t, and didn’t at the time either), and I thought that surely it was just a mistake in his end, and that Walter Bright is not lying.
Now I am not so sure, because frankly I really cannot believe that you don’t see how bizarre the claim of “no one has proved that the US elections are secure” actually is.
I agree, you cannot prove a negative. You also cannot prove elections are secure. But you can make an effort to have the elections auditable.
> election conspiracy crap
"An official list of citizens to check citizenship status against does not exist. If the required information for voter registration is included – name; address; date of birth; a signature attesting to the truth of the information provided on the application; and an indication in the box confirming the individual is a U.S. citizen – the person must be added to the voter registration file. Modifying state law would require an act of the state legislature, and federal law, an act of Congress. Neither the Secretary of State nor the county auditor has lawmaking authority."
https://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/departments/auditor/electio...
> you purposefully pretended
I don't recall that, and apologize for having come off that way.
Would he be a horrible person if he didn't allow his starlink to be used to kill people?
Was there time to go through channels?
I hope to never be forced to make such a decision.
I don't think it's so simple.
"Stupid PR stunt" - Unsworth to reporters
"He can stick his submarine where it hurts" - Unsworth to scores of millions on CNN
"Pedo guy" - Musk replies on twitter to 20.5 million
Sorry, I don't find your case persuasive at all. The court didn't find Unsworth's defamation suit to have any merit, either.
This is, of course, taking Musk at his word, which I am skeptical of his truthfulness on this, but even taking him at his word makes him look bad.
I also have a hard time seeing him as a "bad guy" for not letting the country we're fighting a proxy war with use his equipment.
you're literally doing it right now. i'm just curious why?
edit: You said offends your sense of fairness and justice, but this can't be the most unjust thing you saw today so i'm just disregarding it. Can't be the real reason