I was working on the theory that the story simply wasn’t true, as I had been told it simply wasn’t true. I am happy to revise that theory with more information. I’m far more interested in the reflexive defense of authority, and how that reflexive defense changes when it turns out the authority in question doesn’t defend that thing themselves.
At the same time, I’m interested that the thread before someone posted Musk’s response was remarkable devoid of that position. I watched Jimmy Kimmel do a bit where they go on the street, find people who support Trump, and ask them questions based on false presmies, like, “What do you think Trump meant when he asked Putin at the G20, ‘How much will a win in 2020 cost me?’” The response is, “Oh, I’m sure he was just talking about politics to someone who knows how hard elections can be,” not “What? Did he really say that?”
If I was under the impression that Musk was a saint (rather than being under the impression that he’s some guy because I don’t know much about him) and I heard this story, I would say, “That doesn’t sound like him.” Sure, it’s not an argument but it’s an opinion I’d actually form.
That’s because I start from a place of having an idea of what is right and what is wrong, I judge actions based on that sense, and I resolve conflicts between my understanding of people’s character and their actions rather than pretend those conflicts don’t exist, or being flexible about what’s right and wrong based on my affection for the person doing it.
Well, I’m not exactly surprised, and I probably should have been less sure sounding in my post. In general I start from a place of assuming people don’t make easily fact-checkable lies in public, but you’ve got to be ready to be wrong, don’t you?
