Elon Musk Explains Why He's Never Letting Alex Jones Back on Twitter | Hacker News Reader

Elon Musk Explains Why He's Never Letting Alex Jones Back on Twitter

gizmodo.com

12 pointsnickthegreek19 comments

What we're seeing now is that Musk's idea of "free speech" is: "My word is law".

Yeah, it makes me wonder, if his trans child had committed suicide, would he be against bullying trans folk? I'm firmly in support of his decision to ban Alex Jones, but this is why things should be rules based instead of the emotional whims of the owner, because there are so many other examples of trauma that should probably be mitigated that Musk hasn't personally experienced. But instead we get a set of rules based on Musk's own personal life experience.

Considering that they are estranged.. I doubt he ever cared that much about them.

Musk has been saying "I am the law" to multiple people. Like, saying that specifically. This dude is on a really out-of-control power trip.

https://davetroy.medium.com/no-elon-and-jack-are-not-competi...

---

Q: So Putin, Musk, and Dorsey share the same vision?

A: It’s complicated. All seem to think a “multipolar world” is a good thing, because after all, shouldn’t Russia get to do its thing and not be bothered by anyone else? That’s “free speech” and opposes “cancel culture,” right? So yeah, that’s aligned with Putin. But Putin himself doesn’t support free speech; his government censors wildly, but it does support speech that breaks the hegemony of the Western elites. As do Musk and friends. This is internally inconsistent.

---

All this talk of being oppressed by the powers that be, the "unipolar world", etc.

These are the people who want to be horrible and loved at the same time, and when that doesn't happen, they lash out. It's a type of ultra entitlement on cocaine. They talk of freedom of speech or freedom of anything, really, it's just shockingly cynical and dishonest. They only believe in the opinion of the masses if the masses ADORE them.

Also, Elon Musk would make a terrible king (which is what he wants to be).

https://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/

10 years ago. This is blowing my mind. Truly amazing insight that early on.

Why? "My firstborn child died in my arms. I felt his last heartbeat. I have no mercy for anyone who would use the deaths of children for gain, politics or fame"

The author cites "right-wing author Sam Harris". Is he talking about a different person? Sam Harris the author and podcast host is about as far from a right-wing author as you can get. He's a neuroscientist who advocates rational thinking, is highly critical of organized religion, promotes meditation, supports same-sex marriage, and is a registered Democrat.

Sam has many unique viewpoints that don't map exactly to the woke left (he's critical of Democrats occasionally, supports gun ownership, is not afraid to voice unpopular opinions) - but calling him right-wing is just plain wrong. Is that what politics has come to? You don't get in line with every idea on the left, you get labelled a right-winger?

He thinks black people are dumber due to genetics. (a 15 point lower iq)

Harris does not think that and never said any such thing. You're literally making false statements and putting them in his mouth. Yes, he has discussed the social stratification of IQ scores. And for this, he's a racist? You just proved my point.

https://theoutline.com/post/4024/andrew-sullivan-sam-harris-...

It's important to note that this idea about IQ is in fact a repackaging of race realism. In another decade Harris would've been talking about phrenology. It is an intellectual fig leaf for racism.

I'm not sure there's much daylight between "social stratification of IQ scores" as posited by Harris and "scientific racism". There seems to be a widespread belief that "scientific reasoning" is an inoculation against white supremacy (or any other kind of bigotry), but a bigoted statement rooted in a scientific claim is usually still just as bigoted.

I’m sure the right-wing label is due to his repeated efforts to legitimize race and IQ science. He probably has lots of opinions that match up with the Democrats, but that one’s really stuck with him.

Actually it's the other way around: since 1980, conservative/Republican litmus tests have multiplied and gotten stricter. You can see this in the "RINO" epithet. There's no analogous liberal/Democrat phrase.

I agree 90% of the way, but there is a term; "blue dog Democrat." However, RINO is universally pejorative, whereas blue dog is not.

Thank you! I wracked my brains to recall a RINO equivalent, and I didn't remember that.

I think there's a confusion of terms here. You're defining left and right "wingness" based on political party affiliation. In which case, I'm not aware of Harris advocating for Republican candidates, though I don't follow him.

But the author is likely considering Harris' broader world view, which as sibling commenters have noted, is full of race realism, clash of civilizations narratives, and other distinctly right-wing ideas.

It might be instructive to consider Jordan Peterson. Peterson and Harris are similar in a lot of ways; they travel in similar circles, they both use academic credentials to give authority to their political views, they have similar views on trans people. They both buy into debunked myths about IQ. They both talk a lot about "waking up," Harris through meditation and Peterson through cleaning your room.

For years he and his supporters insisted that he wasn't a right-winger. Now Peterson is on The Daily Wire. I doubt we'll see Harris pursuing a similar path, Harris seems much less erratic. But I think it's an interesting parallel.

If traffic falls, he'll allow him back. It's the same reason he wanted Trump, or Ye back - outrage drives engagement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com