You're not going to convince me, and I'm not going to convince you. All I can say is: good luck.
No? It is possible for people to disagree on a question which has no objective answer. I disagree with your position regarding this question, but I don't think you're "obviously, insanely wrong", because there is simply no way to objectively measure the correct answer. And on the same note, I also don't assume that I must be obviously right.
I can accept your position without throwing around accusations that you're "mak[ing] extreme things up to align with a particular political ideology". Just because I disagree doesn't mean your take is delusional, even though you have not supported it with coherent arguments - which I have unquestionably done for my position, yet you call it "delusional".
A well-reasoned position can survive without pretending anyone who does not agree must be making stuff up.
Unfalsifiable and hypocritical, considering you're trying to do the same thing. You're inferring his intent from what you saw.
>>> "If Musk had apologized and clarified that it was not meant to be a Nazi salute"
He did clarify it was not meant to be a Nazi salute (https://people.com/elon-musk-says-he-didnt-do-nazi-salute-at...), but did not apologize. You have to realize that at that moment in time, a large part of the online culture decided that you should never apologize for controversies because people will attack you for the apology as well (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25NYjVgpJ50), which is the policy that Musk supported and took. Additionally, he didn't feel he even did anything wrong, and he considered the claims to be a dirty attack on his character.
>>> "Instead he publicly responded with Nazi- and Holocaust-related puns."
How does that make him guilty, as opposed to mocking the people who made the claim?
>>> "This is already enough to reasonably conclude that it was no accident"
In what way? His reaction to the online attacks prove that his gesture was premeditated? I see nothing anywhere that suggests he wanted this reaction and was ready for it, nor any explanation of what he'd even gain from that. Evidence please.
>>> "it's really a total coincidence that the guy with nationalist views"
Nationalism isn't fascism (see: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism)
>>> "who is also pumping millions upon millions into propping up extremist-right movements across the globe"
You're probably talking about the Afd in Germany, Reform/Restore in the UK, and the Fdl in Italy - among others. There's no evidence Elon Musk poured any money into these European parties. He has voiced support for these parties online, on his own platform. He supports the European parties with the rationalization that the neoliberals in Europe are losing their minds and populism is better than the status quo. That would make him a populist, and he likes some bad political parties.
>>> "and whose AI just happened to start spewing white supremacy propaganda"
Interesting, that happened in 2025 - over a year later. And the white supremacy propaganda was: "white genocide" (talking about the ongoing murders of the Boer in South Africa at the time - by driveby posting links to this video in X threads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMD_7DwuQDY), and... Grok calling itself "MechaHitler" (not gonna bother with this one, lol)
This is a pointless argument and I feel stupid for even engaging with it, and I blame you for pretending that you don't know - or seemingly failing to know. Like I said, we've both had plenty of time (2 years) to figure out this specific issue. But I'm hoping the meta-argument here actually gets across to literally anyone else.
> Unfalsifiable and hypocritical, considering you're trying to do the same thing. You're inferring his intent from what you saw.
Come on.
No, I don't claim that I'm objectively correct and you're objectively wrong. That's the entire point of my initial critique AND of my follow-up, which you just replied to!
In my reply, I really tried my best to point this out to you. In return I get baseless accusations and insulting generalizations hurled at me - all because your anger blinds you to all words opposing your view. Once you've determined that I'm part of the group you dislike, you assume my critique must be exactly that one opinion you dislike so much.
Please, try to reflect on this comment chain. Just now you were unable to process enough of my argument to notice that I'm not arguing what you think I'm arguing, even after I explicitly tried pointing it out again. Looking back, at what point did your anger stop you from critically engaging with arguments actually relating to the opinion you dislike?