Aaahhhhhhhhggggyhgderggdukjgffddswrtf
This is going to be a completely pointless comment, but I have to exorcize this demon:
- "oppressed" is already a value judgement, so none of this can be "foundational" in the way he is claiming
- oppression is a bad thing by definition, otherwise we'd call it something else
- so the oppressed are always right in not wanting to be oppressed, by definition
dtgdrthgedseewqwefvvujnhfyjgfesaaaaaaaaaaghhhhh
He's literally saying "have you considered that bad things might actually be good"
Exactly. When the weak group is in the right, we call them oppressed. Otherwise we call them terrorists, insurgents, criminals or something like that.
"Should be that right is right" is such an idiotic sentence as well.
I'm so sick and tired of this nerd speak dude just admit you're a fascist who wants fascism it's not hard and you're not going to lose subscribers.
Dude's smart enough to understand a dog whistle. He knows what he's saying. It's pretty explicit
people don't like being oppressed and a society founded on oppression contains inherent contradictions arising from conflict between the oppressor and oppressed classes
aha! you have committed the logical error of assuming that the oppressed are always right!There's an asteroid named for him, so even higher apparently.
Dude is trying to sound so smart and yet keeps on failing at it spectacularly.
I've heard too much ketamine over too long can turn you into a dumbass, and he started on third base.
right makes right
the first rule of tautology club has been revised. previously, the first rule of tautology club was the first rule of tautology club. now, the first rule of tautology club is 'anytime you see elon musk on the street, smack him in the back of the head as hard as you can'
How long is it going to take for chuds to stop pretending they're not fascists? Just admit it!
That's true, I wonder how that makes the openly identifying fascists feel.
Fascists only care about power, and they have no issue lying either. They know mainstream politics has to optically denounce fascism, but they also know a when a particular political figure advances their cause
- Show: "The fascists were wrong because they weren't
. Heil mein Führer!"
Even with minimal cynicism it should take all of 10 seconds to realize this is just Might makes Right obscured by tautology:
Right makes right
law makes right
politicians make law
voters make politicians
advertising/propaganda makes voters
money makes advertising/propagandaQED
"There is nothing wrong with singing 'kill the Boer, kill the farmer'." -- Julius Malema
I've spent a lot of time to write a funny comment to no avail so I'll say this instead:
- He used "axiomatic" correctly. That should have used at least half his brain power.
- "Right makes right" is pure tautology.
But the left does not argue that "weak makes right". I don't see anyone on the left saying that the Argentinian government's policies are right, despite then being in a very weak position. On foreign policy, I don't see the global left supporting Taiwan or even Ukraine, despite both states being in weak positions compared to their much larger neighbour, and one of them even being at war after the much larger neighbour invaded. Most are neutral and just want peace, and a few states even support Russia and China explicitly. The appeal to weakness and admiration of failed projects is something that is usually seen amongst egalitarian/radical liberals and the kind of person that argues "communism is a good idea in theory, but real communism has never been tried" types.
And that's the most charitable interpretation of what Musk has said, as other users have said judging who plays what part of the "oppressor/oppressed" dynamic is always a value judgement, and the oppressed are always right in not wanting to be oppressed by their oppressors within that specific dynamic.
To the right, the oppressed are necessarily weaker than the oppressors. Therefore, considering the oppressed to always be the correct side of a conflict is equivalent to considering the weaker party to always be the correct side of a conflict. In other words, weak makes right.
Others in this comment section have pointed out errors in this argument, so I won't bother reiterating them here.
Just that thing where they can't fathom how we think, so they just invert how they think and decide that must be it. They have a reflexive worship of power that compels them to always see the oppressor as correct? We must simply think the exact opposite, nothing more complicated than that.
He calls that thinking? All I hear is “I, the richest man in the world, LOVE cowards!”
Hey everybody, I just wanted to remind everybody that I care about doing the right thing even if it's some untermensch's idea and my haters don't and you are being irrational if you don't agree.
He is longing for the "good old days" when the AmeriKKKan Constitution was new. When women, non-whites and the poor were property and the indigenous were vermin to be removed from their land executed.
Constitutionalism is fine if you have an actually decent constitution. The U.S. constitution is not that.
To this day, a provision still exists in the Burgerland constitution permitting slavery:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Yeah, I'm not surprised you know since you're on Hexbear, this was more in case it benefited anyone else to read it
He is longing for the "good old days" when the AmeriKKKan Constitution was new.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Not sure if what he posted makes no sense or if that's because English is not my first language, but I cannot make sense of what he tried to say.
Could someone please explain it to me in simpler terms?
This was pretty much my take. Idk why he seems to think he needs to periodically post some quasi-intelligent drivel once a month though. His fans already think he's Space Jesus and the Left hate him for being a fascist dork and aren't at any risk of suddenly thinking he's some wise sage.
Otherwise he'd lose relevance. As a mere CEO, he's not doing the actual work at his companies after all
He is saying it should be "correct makes strong and as either side can be correct it is being correct that makes you strong" .... I think. Or he's saying "strong makes correct" as in "sometimes weak is correct but strong is always correct." Either way its some murky 'too-clever-for-my-own-britches' bullshit.
