he said. “We’ll be gone, and it’ll be gone because of an advertiser boycott.”… eeer, no.

  • 5gruel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    Always a great sign if posts asking for evidence are getting downvoted.

      • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        In this case and the Wagner example, if the point isn’t obvious it’s reasonable to ask for some kind of proof to get a better understanding of the point. But I do agree that there’s no reason to ask for proof in this case, because the conspiracy theory is already so nonsensical that any proof would just compound the nonsense.

        People simply need to stop putting him on a pedestal and accept that he isn’t some genius businessman whose inner machinations are an enigma. He made a stupid deal and bought a company he doesn’t know how to run so he’s running it into the ground, that’s it. No grand conspiracy required. You need a grand conspiracy only if you can’t accept that Musk is just an ordinary man whose biggest contribution to his success is having wealthy parents.

    • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      The question doesn’t make sense in context because that’s not what my comment was implying. It’s down-voted for being silly, not pedantic.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        You clearly imply insider trading going on. The fact that it might not be (I’m not sure if the law) musk being guilty of insider trading, but just commiting fraud so others could do so, is being pedantic and silly.