Hacker News Reader

Comment by papertowels | Hacker News Reader

43 pointspapertowels8 comments

The good-faith interpretation of Musk's actions goes something like: "All of these cuts are consistent with the overall goal and eventually planned. So, Musk is just cutting things as he thinks of them." Unfortunately, it means that the best way to avoid getting cut, for now, is just to avoid drawing Musk's attention, for any reason. The ISS thing from yesterday [1] is a clear example - something that was already planned and has just been bumped up.

To be clear, I don't really buy this interpretation, especially since over the years Musk has shown himself to be quite vindictive.

[1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/20/elon-musk-iss-deorb...

there is no good-faith interpretation of unconstitutional action.

I don't want this to be a defense of elon musk. Everything he is currently doing is unequivocally wrong and he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

That said, there have been multiple cases where 'unconstitutional' actions had good faith interpretations. The obvious one being the Underground Railroad. Less obvious was Lincoln suspending habius corpus in 1861 (I don't know if the term executive order existed back then, but this sure felt like one). It would be another two years before Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863 was passed.

Overused? Sure, beyond belief. But dropping a "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" feels particularly appropriate right about now.

When you vote for a con artist, you should expect to be conned.

obvious headline is obvious

It's still important that it's said and repeated as many ways and places as possible though, to maintain that this is the straightforward analysis of reality lest it get postmodernly relativized and swamped out by the propaganda being coordinated by xitter.

What we really need to do is move past thinking descriptive-outrage will change anything on its own (the neofascists don't care about being shamed, in fact they've basically built their movement around considering being shamed a good thing), and move on towards discussing avenues of constructive resistance.

I completely agree with you. However, the headline is obvious.

By that standard, so is your comment...

It's great that you and I have a level of understanding where this is obvious. That acceptance is part of being able to move past the shock. I really don't know what sway USA Today might have in 2025, but surely it reaches some people who aren't as deep into social media and still running on fumes of what republican/conservative used to mean.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com