[HN Gopher] SpaceX said to fire employees involved in letter reb...
___________________________________________________________________
SpaceX said to fire employees involved in letter rebuking Elon Musk
Author : danso
Score : 542 points
Date : 2022-06-17 06:51 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| tomohawk wrote:
| "distraction and embarrassment"
|
| That was the accusation by the former employees, but that seems
| more like projection. The small gang behind this is an
| embarrassment and causing distraction, and little else.
|
| These 5 or so clowns also:
|
| > made other staff feel "uncomfortable, intimidated and bullied,
| and/or angry because the letter pressured them to sign onto
| something that did not reflect their views.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/technology/spacex-fires-employees-in...
| nsxwolf wrote:
| I can't imagine trashing my CEO and expecting to keep my job.
| Maybe that's a Gen-X thing?
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| Maybe they actually believed his statements regarding unlimited
| free speech. It's not backed by evidence but SpaceX does
| attract dreamers.
| mft_ wrote:
| I don't think any definition of free speech guarantees total
| freedom from repercussions?
| Bud wrote:
| Actually, about half of the political spectrum of the US
| believes (or steadfastly pretends to believe) that this is
| precisely what "free speech" means.
|
| I guess they haven't processed the famous XKCD on this
| issue.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| I would bet real money the fired employees have shared
| that particular XKCD comic a lot.
| jcranmer wrote:
| Isn't that the definition of free speech that Musk wants
| for Twitter?
| psyc wrote:
| The purpose of Twitter is speech. People like Musk argue
| it is analogous to a public space. Twitter users don't
| work for Twitter and are not subordinates of Twitter. Do
| you also imagine that Musk believes service people ought
| to be allowed to mock their superior officers to their
| faces without repercussions?
| mywittyname wrote:
| Musk got someone fired from a job because they once
| worked for the SEC.
|
| So I _imagine_ Musk believes anyone who causes him
| displeasure, in any form, even by association, should be
| put in their place by measures including, and up to, loss
| of livelihood.
|
| I'm not so sure he gives a damn about anyone in the
| military, unless they run afoul of the ideas presented in
| previous statement.
| tannhauser23 wrote:
| That lawyer INVESTIGATED Musk. I don't think Musk behaved
| very well in that situation, but if you are a law firm
| and you rely on Musk's companies for business, maybe
| don't hire a government lawyer who went after him?
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| The government lawyer didn't go after him, the government
| did.
| efsavage wrote:
| The purpose of Twitter is money, not speech. Speech is
| their product, and as a private company, they're allowed
| to decide what products they sell.
| mft_ wrote:
| Maybe freedom from Twitter censoring you, but not freedom
| from repercussions from what you said (or tweeted).
| That's ultimately determined by e.g. the courts and (as
| in this case) employers.
| psyc wrote:
| The other thread is full of this nonsense. You give the
| impression that you believe that free speech absolutists
| think you ought to be allowed to walk up to your CEO and tell
| him to go fuck himself, without retaliation. What other
| things would you have us believe that free speech absolutists
| would allow? Catcalling coworkers, perhaps? Threatening to
| murder someone's children?
|
| No, you just want to snipe at Musk, and you see this is a way
| to do it.
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| His actions show that he considers calling someone a child
| molester to be acceptable speech so it isn't too much to
| think that much more polite speech he would not have an
| issue with.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| That person was not a boss or coworker, he was a stranger
| who had insulted him.
|
| It's completely wild how over the past twelve months the
| anti-Musk people have somehow eclipsed the pro-Musk
| people in their monomania and inability to step back and
| objectively consider any situation.
| magicalist wrote:
| > _It 's completely wild how over the past twelve months
| the anti-Musk people have somehow eclipsed the pro-Musk
| people in their monomania_
|
| He's a perpetually online guy, it was bound to happen. If
| he shut up every now and then it would help.
|
| If he realized he can't derive unified theories of social
| behavior through logic untainted by the real world and
| then proudly announce them to universal acclaim, he could
| probably go back to the widely enjoyed persona of a year
| or two ago where the only die hard haters were Boeing
| stock holders.
|
| > _objectively consider any situation_
|
| hHaha, ok, I look forward to the _objective_ discussion
| of the relative merits of calling someone a "pedo".
| Super objective!
| mindslight wrote:
| > _If he realized he can 't derive unified theories of
| social behavior through logic untainted by the real
| world_
|
| This isn't at the root of what we're discussing here.
| That would be like applying Postel's law to natural
| language, confirmed by your own experience of receiving
| maybe a few passing "death threats" per month while
| bantering, while brushing aside the predicament of
| someone who receives ongoing death threats from a
| persistent stalker.
|
| Rather, this topic just seems to be basic hypocrisy. If
| one cannot stomach a critique written in good faith to
| make one's company better, it's utterly disingenuous to
| invoke appeals to free speech elsewhere.
| rgbrenner wrote:
| Did you read the letter? No where does it tell musk to go
| fuck himself. That's your characterization.
|
| I read the letter, and thought it was reasonable. If it was
| my company, I would allow it. Been a founder several times,
| so that's not just wild speculation. The only way to get
| your reading of it is if you have super thin skin and can't
| take any criticism.
| psyc wrote:
| My comment has nothing to do with the letter. It's about
| people using a false idea of what Musk's position on
| speech is to score easy points.
| colpabar wrote:
| Hilariously, in both threads I have not seen a single
| comment claiming that "spacex is a private company and
| free speech doesn't apply and blah blah blah".
| lanstin wrote:
| As far as I can tell, having a billion dollars thins your
| skin pretty appreciably. Takes a few years for some
| people, but it seems to get them all in the end.
| root_axis wrote:
| I guess with that kind of money you become acclimated to
| the company of sycophants, so critics become particularly
| vexing.
| mindslight wrote:
| One can reasonably take positions such as "you can tell me
| to go fuck myself, and I'll appreciate if you articulate
| why" and "I don't mind being catcalled". I would expect
| someone describing themselves as a "free speech absolutist"
| to take such positions.
|
| (Leaving aside your tangent of trying to make those
| decisions for others)
| mywittyname wrote:
| Of course. People like to point out the man's hypocrisy. He
| claims to feel that people shouldn't be punished for the
| things they say, but has a long history of punishing people
| for the things they say.
|
| He makes it so easy, and everyone can tell by his
| personality that it grates on him.
| Qem wrote:
| He means soviet-style free speech. People were free to share
| opinions. The party was free to book them a ticket to the
| nearest gulag.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| I would expect the sorts of employees that would write a
| letter like that are more of the "free speech for me, not for
| thee" types.
| rhino369 wrote:
| I think its more of a later millennial and Gen-Z thing.
|
| Gen-X was more--call out "the man" and then taking being fired
| as a badge of pride
|
| Gen-Z wants to call people out without repercussions.
| trs8080 wrote:
| Gen-X is middle management at these companies. That
| generation has never been a martyr for ANY cause - isn't
| Gen-X's whole "thing" that they're all nihilists and nothing
| matters etc etc?
|
| People should be called out. Musk is always talking about
| upending established orders and questioning the status quo -
| guess he's more interested in loyalists.
| rhino369 wrote:
| Gen-X when they were young were sort of anti-conformist and
| anti-corporate. "Selling out" was the biggest insult. You
| see it reflected in the popular media of the time--like
| Office Space and Matrix. But in order to have financial
| success and raise families they "sold out" and went to work
| for the man.
|
| >People should be called out. Musk is always talking about
| upending established orders and questioning the status quo
| - guess he's more interested in loyalists.
|
| Depends what you mean by calling out because must of
| current call out culture is toxic garbage. I think
| successful organizations need to encourage questioning
| decisions. But questioning isn't the same thing as loudly
| criticizing in a public manner.
| lanstin wrote:
| Amazing how harmful trashing educational and economic
| opportunities was for democracy. We could always get jobs
| with benefits and almost enough money for a house and family.
| They can't.
| rhino369 wrote:
| The trouble makers amongst Gen-Z are mostly the privileged
| college educated ones. The working poor aren't too tired
| from being exploited to engage in this stuff.
| garg wrote:
| Would your CEO behave like Musk and expect zero consequences
| and zero push-back from the the board, the public, and the
| employees?
| nsxwolf wrote:
| If it bothered me that much I'd look for a different job.
| TheBigSalad wrote:
| And that's the problem here. They would have ended up
| looking for different jobs anyway. Others will leave too.
| The only people working there will be other assholes.
| oittaa wrote:
| > Maybe that's a Gen-X thing?
|
| I'd guess not. We (gen x) grew before social media wokeism and
| have an understanding that thrashing your company or boss
| publicly isn't the smartest move. I bet these are some entitled
| zoomers right out of a college.
| 3327 wrote:
| Blikkentrekker wrote:
| It's a "living in any developed and most non-developed nations
| that aren't the U.S.A."-thing.
|
| Courts in the E.U. would not look kindly upon being fired in
| retaliation for criticizing the public behavior of one's
| employer.
| swatcoder wrote:
| Maybe the current "thing" is to recognize what happens after
| getting fired and learn to exploit it: outrage PR, podcast and
| media spots, outreach by like minded people with other
| opportunities, etc
|
| It's a different time.
| beardyw wrote:
| Has the title changed? For me it says
|
| "SpaceX fires employees who wrote letter slamming Musk's
| "embarrassing" behavior"
| thepasswordis wrote:
| Good. According to Shotwells response they were basically
| harassing the rest of the staff and trying to get them to turn on
| the company.
|
| Fire them _immediately_. Name and shame them so that they have to
| explain this behavior to their next employer. This type of thing
| is _so_ toxic and _so_ abusive to everybody they try to suck into
| it.
| adolph wrote:
| > Shotwells response
|
| This is the significant part.
| [deleted]
| pardesi wrote:
| I am amazed by so many who are defending Musk for his actions. I
| hope they would consider working for him in one of his companies
| & enjoy a life of subordinateship. Afterall Musk needs such
| workers - smart, hard working & yet someone who doesnt question
| him. I think dictator is the nearest term for it in the
| dictionary?
| jackmott42 wrote:
| Elon's behavior has gotten so erratic and gross in the last year
| that I'm done defending him, I am now embarrassed to own a Tesla,
| and now no longer want to work at SpaceX one day.
| qaq wrote:
| So what car would you rather own ? Which car company has owners
| that align with your values?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| I can't even name another car company CEO. Musk brought this
| kind of reaction on Tesla by closely associating Tesla's
| brand with his own personal brand. This cuts both ways though
| and what was once a net positive is starting to turn
| negative.
| a-dub wrote:
| i uninstalled twitter off my phone to stop the elon musk
| notifications. i guess i'll miss out on his future crowdsource
| pump and dumps, but that's pretty sketch anyhow.
|
| i have a lot of respect for tesla and what they've done, i'll be
| able to maintain that respect with the tweets squelched.
| wnkrshm wrote:
| I understand that drama like that can't be easily tolerated in a
| company but if it's the owner causing drama all the time I also
| get the frustration of the people taking part.
|
| I wonder whether this could have worked in a publically traded
| company with a board - someone who could try to rein in Musk but
| the hierarchy doesn't work this way here.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Damn, SpaceX sounds like a company I would never want to work
| for. What a horrible atmosphere. Who wants to be bullied by
| people that do not understand the irony of calling the _sending_
| of that open letter as distracting.
| cafard wrote:
| If you publicly embarrass your employer, you will in many cases
| be fired: see James Damore, Juan Williams, etc. It may seem
| slightly unfair that Elon Musk is allowed to embarrass Elon Musk,
| mostly with impunity, but that's the way it goes.
| zenlf wrote:
| > "Blanketing thousands of people across the company with
| repeated unsolicited emails and asking them to sign letters and
| fill out unsponsored surveys during the work day is not
| acceptable," she said.
|
| If this were true, I don't see a problem here. This is harassment
| 93po wrote:
| kenneth wrote:
| I am personally thrilled to see a company stand up to cancel
| culture and political employee activism. The ridiculous non-work
| related distractions from employee on various political crusades
| we've been seeing at many companies like Google are one of the
| things ruining Silicon Valley. It's nice to see Elon not allowing
| it at his companies, and Coinbase in being another standout
| against this silliness.
| ganoushoreilly wrote:
| I think we're on the tail end of Extreme activism working
| within organizations. Everyone talks about the pendulum
| swinging and I think with economic downturns, people will find
| out really quickly how fast it can swing back.
| sergiomattei wrote:
| How is this cancel culture?
| lprd wrote:
| Good. The organizers are free to leave the company if they aren't
| comfortable with the leadership, or disagree with the company's
| direction. I'm not sure why this is getting so much coverage in
| the first place. Employees have been fired for less at places
| like Google.
|
| The amount of much coverage Musk is getting these days is crazy.
| His stance on free speech and the advent of his Twitter purchase
| seemed to amplify disdain from certain groups. I'm no Musk
| fanboy, but I find that really interesting.
| me_me_me wrote:
| > The organizers are free to leave the company if they aren't
| comfortable with the leadership
|
| This is weird stance.
|
| 'If you don't like it you can leave.'
|
| That's what parents say to discipline misbehaving kids.
|
| The organizers wrote the letter because they care about their
| work and workplace, and are concerned with Musk's behavior that
| jeopardize their effort (as in spaceX as company whole).
|
| The people that actually know whats going on in the company are
| its employees not CEOs.
|
| And that is especially true to musk who is doing 1000 things,
| and those seems to most be: keeping up appearances that he is
| doing work + creating new PR disaster via twitter.
| ctvo wrote:
| SpaceX now has an MO: Protect Elon at all costs.
|
| 250,000 USD paid to keep a corporate jet flight attendant quiet
| about alleged sexual harassment by Elon and now the immediate
| firing of employees asking the company to clarify Elon's views
| don't reflect SpaceX's views or its culture. There can't even be
| a hint of criticism of Elon.
| stmfreak wrote:
| I am so glad to see this rational response to the woke mind virus
| at work.
|
| Politicize and campaign on your own time. I've had to keep my
| mouth shut at work for decades. Time the fanatical left learn the
| same.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| This is entirely predictable, and they should have expected it.
| But it does not mean that Musk isn't an asshole for having them
| all fired.
| stn_za wrote:
| sashu123 wrote:
| Glad to finally see a CEO acting like a monarch and not a
| pathetic wimp. We need more such companies to restore order in
| the society
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Sounds like SpaceX employees should get a Union to protect all
| staff if they want to stand up to the boss.
| kumarvvr wrote:
| Yeah, unions are not about _standing up to the boss_.
|
| Unions are there to protect worker _rights_ and none of those
| rights involve questioning the _business_ decisions or
| _administrative_ decisions of the management.
|
| Frankly, worker unions have abused the serious power they hold
| and have diluted it by protecting slackers. And they have
| earned their reputations.
|
| The job of a worker is to be honest, sincere and be dedicated
| to work assigned to him. The job of a union is to ensure that
| the work assigned to a worker is reasonable, safe, legal and
| properly compensated (Over time, etc)
| aaomidi wrote:
| Unions have abused the power they have?
|
| Which union in particular? There is only one in the US that
| you could reasonably say that about and it's the police
| union.
|
| These companies are nothing without their workers. Remember
| that.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| >none of those rights involve questioning the business
| decisions or administrative decisions of the management.
|
| Tell me you've never seen a union without telling me you've
| never seen a union.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| That depends on what the union members decide is important.
| pcmoney wrote:
| You are paid to work and solve problems not create problems and
| harass colleagues.
|
| If you feel it is worth it to risk your career on a letter do not
| spend one second of company time on it and do not use a single
| bit of company technology.
|
| Honestly sick of these Prima Donna employees who think they can
| LARP as activists on company time and equipment.
|
| If it is that important to "speak truth to power" do it on your
| own time.
| bitwize wrote:
| My parents ran a small factory in the 1970s. One of their
| employees was a hippie who kept ranting about how they were a
| part of "the system". About him they said "We had to fire that
| guy" because his attitude toward his employers indicated he
| couldn't be relied on to do the job that was asked of him.
|
| Elon Musk can make a grade-A ass of himself, but within the
| bounds of the law to work for him is to serve at his pleasure.
| Complaining about him and NOT expecting the potential axe is
| madness.
| neonsunset wrote:
| Considering Elon's modus operandi "Does it help to set up a
| colony on Mars?" the course of action was predictable.
|
| I also welcome left-leaning people to research hardline right to
| have a reality check and realize he's taking pretty centrist
| stance.
| traveler01 wrote:
| How they didn't see that coming it's astonishing.
| [deleted]
| refurb wrote:
| I mean if I wrote a letter criticizing my CEO and made it public
| or just widespread in the company I'd expect to be fired?
|
| Typically there are channels to voice criticism internally within
| a company that don't involve public statements.
|
| And if the answer back is "we disagree with your criticism" I
| mean the options are: 1) drop it or 2) leave.
|
| As the economy falters we're going to see a lot less coddling of
| employee behavior that undermines the business itself.
|
| I mean Google put up with their own employees complaining
| publicly about their customers. That wouldn't fly in any other
| company.
| dtjb wrote:
| I'm sure every person that signed that letter knew they were
| putting their jobs on the line.
| taylodl wrote:
| I thought Elon Musk was being hailed as the champion of "free
| speech?" Hmmm. Maybe not.
|
| Regardless of what people say their actions _always_ betray them.
| I have no idea why people idolize Elon Musk when he has
| repeatedly shown us what he is. Then again the same is true for
| Donald Trump. I honestly don 't understand it.
| woojoo666 wrote:
| Sounds like these employees were really pushing it.
|
| > The letter upset many staffers, Ms. Shotwell [SpaceX's
| President] said, saying they felt pressure to "sign onto
| something that did not reflect their views."
|
| > "We have too much critical work to accomplish and no need for
| this kind of overreaching activism," she said in the email.
| iammjm wrote:
| The dude claiming to be a "free speech absolutist" fires people
| who said something about him he doesn't like... yikes. Musk is
| slowly turning into a Mad King
| mc32 wrote:
| I mean, this whole bruhaha was spearheaded by five (5!) people.
| Articles were presenting this as if it had been representative of
| a larger portion of the workforce there. I think companies are
| realizing "activist" workers are a disruption that suck
| productivity from a company and are taking steps to dial that
| down, including progressive stalwarts like Netflix.
| [deleted]
| anonporridge wrote:
| Serious question, why wouldn't that include a CEO who is
| increasingly making public political commentary?
|
| I agree that activist workers are a problem for productivity,
| but the same could be said for activist CEOs.
| potatototoo99 wrote:
| Musk's outspoken behavior is probably a big part of the
| reason his companies are so valuable.
| warning26 wrote:
| I'd argue that it _was_ , right up until his goal evidently
| shifted from things like "making humanity a multiplanetary
| species" to "owning the libs"
| anonporridge wrote:
| Honestly, I suspect he's just trying to appease
| conservatives to make them more likely to buy EVs.
|
| If that's the case, it's not a bad strategy. They're easy
| to manipulate into thinking you're on their side if you
| say the right soundbites. And they're the toughest group
| of consumers to get on the green tech train. Musk could
| be acting as a chameleon in an attempt to simply get some
| of them to accept the reality of climate change.
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| I think it's much more likely that the explanation is
| adjacent to Hanlon's razor.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _he 's just trying to appease conservatives to make
| them more likely to buy EVs_
|
| The GOP is on track to take Congress. There is a decent
| chance they hold that through 2024. American politics
| have swung against "wokeism," or rather, since I haven't
| seen a good definition for that term, leaders who
| identify with "woke" cultural figures.
|
| SpaceX sells to the government. Tesla relies on the
| government. He's aligning with the new political winds.
| mc32 wrote:
| I don't think it's that. The government doesn't have an
| emporium to buy things from. Sometimes they have a real
| choice like between Amazon and Azure, but most of the
| time it's one vendor and a few far second place hopefuls.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _most of the time it 's one vendor and a few far second
| place hopefuls_
|
| Sure. But having the appropriations committee pissed off
| at you can curtail the sorts of funds they give _e.g._
| NASA, or the caveats they add to it.
| Covzire wrote:
| All this talk about "inclusivity" that woke-inc preach is
| the mother of all red herrings.
|
| It's labor laws that keep things inclusive and accessible
| for all. What the left has been doing with great success
| is taking over HR departments and enacting new corporate
| rules that A) go well beyond the law B) are exclusively
| left-wing de jour and C) extremely authoritarian.
|
| I know, their claims are the exact opposite, which is why
| they've been so successful at sweeping into HR
| departments but the writing is on the wall: letting far
| left activists take control of HR will mean one thing
| with absolute certainty: Morale will plummet and
| profitability will go right after it.
| mc32 wrote:
| Must is liberal himself. He's just not far left.
| camdat wrote:
| Define "far-left"
| mc32 wrote:
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| People who ignore the parts of Europe between the Oder
| and the Urals when contrasting US and European politics.
|
| Disclaimer: Trying to use this definition prior to the
| year 2000 is unsupported and will result in some really
| weird shit.
| guerrilla wrote:
| This comment is psuedointellectual brain-death. The only
| country it includes that isn't literally at war with the
| rest of Europe is 80% of Poland... who have health
| insurance.
| mc32 wrote:
| There is a whole lot more to ex-iron curtain Europe than
| Poland, Ukraine and Russia. Baltics, Belarus, Hungary,
| Romania, Czechia, etc.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Nope. The Oder starts (barely) in the Czech Republic and
| the other 99.999% flows through Poland, ending in the
| Baltic Sea. The Baltic states are north of it (and also
| not the fascist paradises OP wishes they were) while the
| Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania are south of it.
| Geography fail.
| mc32 wrote:
| I think you're being geographically pedantic when the
| poster used metonymy. Figure of speech fail!
| guerrilla wrote:
| They mentioned a country with more welfare than the US
| and then you mentioned a handful of countries you must
| not know anything about in order to list them together
| with the others... _shrug_ As racist as Polish and
| Hungarian politicians are, they still do more from their
| people than any Americans do and would be called
| "socialists" by FOX news if they knew anything about
| them. And the Baltics, I mean, come on, what are you even
| talking about.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| There are two points I was getting at with my heuristic.
|
| I primarily wanted to highlight that the people quipping
| about "there's no far left in the US" or "the far left in
| the US is the mainstream left in Europe" are far left
| hence why they don't see much to the left of them in the
| US. Left-right, tall-short, skinny-fat, if you find
| yourself on a spectrum and one side of you is sparsely
| populated you are the extreme by definition.
|
| Second, these people are generally ignorant of how far
| right some of the "other half" of Europe leans on social
| issues. Sure, they have lots of government services and
| safety nets, healthcare included. But they don't lean as
| far left on many social subjects as the US does. Identity
| politics, sexual orientation and abortions are three good
| examples of topics on which the left half of the bell
| curve of opinions on these subjects has more of it's meat
| to the right than the US equivalent. (Arguably a lot of
| this is a function of the US's history of reactionary
| politics but that's outside of the scope of this
| discussion, the positions today are what they are.) So
| even in a context that includes "nations who literally
| tried communism and kept the stuff they liked when they
| were done" the opinions of the "far" left in the US is
| decently out there.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > I primarily wanted to highlight that the people
| quipping about "there's no far left in the US" or "the
| far left in the US is the mainstream left in Europe" are
| far left hence why they don't see much to the left of
| them in the US.
|
| I mean that's literally a fact, so... Even Orban is just
| a racist "far leftist"... Give me a break.
|
| > Sure, they have lots of government services and safety
| nets, healthcare included.
|
| Sure, they're 100000% far-left wing, but they're not far-
| left at all. Okay dude, gtfo.
|
| > Identity politics, sexual orientation and abortions are
| three good examples of topics on which the left half of
| the bell curve of opinions on these subjects has more of
| it's meat to the right than the US equivalent.
|
| Except most of the 3/4 of a billion people do. It's not a
| bell curve at all. Did you even bother to look into this
| or just go with your gut? Even in the east where it's the
| lowest, for example, gay marriage support is still 43%...
| higher than in the US in 2009 (Gallup)!
| [deleted]
| JackFr wrote:
| > Serious question, why wouldn't that include a CEO who is
| increasingly making public political commentary?
|
| It absolutely would, and the CEO is responsible to the board.
| In such a case the board of directors would be well within
| their rights to can the CEO.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| It does. There are plenty of investors who want to see Musk's
| publicly traded companies run by "an adult" but they're
| outnumbered by the people who think that his lack of fucks to
| give is a greater positive to the company than the ire of the
| people he irritates is a negative.
|
| This is fundamentally the same kind of calculation that
| brands make when deciding to public-ally sponsor things that
| people feel strongly about.
| mc32 wrote:
| It could. If the CEO is bringing undue attention to the
| company and being detrimental to its operations. But here it
| appears to have been 5 people at the center of this. I'm sure
| we could find 5 people at Google who would like to be vocal
| against the current CEO.
|
| But there are quite a few CxOs who are vocal and people don't
| complain much about them, including Dorsey, Zuckerberg,
| Hastings, Chapek, Gates (though retired), Bloomberg, Forbes,
| etc.
| magicalist wrote:
| > _this whole bruhaha was spearheaded by five (5!) people_
|
| No, five people were fired over this bruhaha.
|
| Also, particularly exceptional contributors may continue to
| sign open letters about Musk.
| whatevenisthat wrote:
| Hopefully the tech layoffs are from the activist types so the
| rest of us can just focus on the code and design in peace and
| quiet. So far everywhere I worked in SV the activists were
| vocal but unliked by the majority. And they were also the least
| productive employees by far.
| mc32 wrote:
| Activists are usually the least productive because they have
| more than one dish they're cooking.
|
| But they're also like a group dedicated to "saving the
| spotted skylark" once they save the skylark, their mission is
| complete. Do they disband? Of course not!!! Let's find a new
| cause, the threatened fire ant!
| sk8terboi wrote:
| They need critical race theory training at spacex. That would
| solve this.
| [deleted]
| aaron695 wrote:
| garg wrote:
| The employees specifically criticized Musk as being a
| 'distraction' due to his recent antics, and now they're being
| fired for not 'staying focused'
| throwoutway wrote:
| Do two distractions make it right?
| [deleted]
| atlgator wrote:
| I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often. Maybe it does and
| we just don't hear about it. Free speech does not exist within
| the confines of employment, and there's a big difference between
| speaking truth to power and inciting mutiny or rebellion. Musk
| has absolute control of SpaceX, and if employees do not agree
| with his policies, views, or anything else they need to vote with
| their feet and quit. Same for any other employer as most of the
| F100 are becoming increasingly political. Work for a company that
| aligns with your values if that is important to you.
| ahelwer wrote:
| I see this type of comment a lot - "if you don't like it then
| leave!" - and at best it seems to indicate a lack of vision.
| Change is possible! First, there are two possible motivations
| for saying the above:
|
| (1) The practical advice sense (an "is" statement): "workers
| currently have little power in large corporations and so trying
| to change the company will not succeed and is a waste of time,
| therefore you should leave"
|
| (2) The moral sense (an "ought" statement): "corporate
| leadership _should not_ respect the opinions or desires of
| workers; the hierarchy exists for a good reason and should be
| maintained, and trying to have influence beyond your position
| in this hierarchy is wrong; therefore you should leave "
|
| If you meant your comment in the second sense, fair enough,
| although you should be explicit so I know we have nothing more
| to talk about. If you mean it in the first sense then this
| ignores the option of collective worker organization, which
| among the oft-touted compensation improvements also gives
| workers an actual say in the running of their workplace - and
| certainly the ability to talk about what they want without fear
| of being fired.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| What's so funny about these types of stories is that they're
| always about the _response_ to some action, and not the action
| itself.
|
| What is Elon doing in public that's so bad, exactly? He's against
| authoritarian governments? The horror!
| JaceLightning wrote:
| Surprising, but good.
| Abroszka wrote:
| Of course they were fired. It's a dictatorship, you do what they
| tell you and work. There is no point getting this involved with
| the company, it never pays off. Work as little as possible to
| maximise your gains, and invest in other aspects of your life.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Here's hoping TSLA shares drop from 6-700 to 200 just because
| Musk is an ahole
| rossdavidh wrote:
| I'm picturing Apple employees writing an open letter criticizing
| Steve Jobs and saying they don't want him to be the face of the
| company, or Amazon employees saying they don't want Jeff Bezos to
| be the image of the company, or GE employees saying they don't
| want Jack Welch to be tarnishing the brand of the company,
| or...just about any other big corporation. The CEO's job
| involves, among other things, being the public face of the
| company. If you don't think the CEO is doing their job well, you
| leave the company, or hunker down and shut up about it.
|
| There are people who can fire the CEO if they think he's damaging
| the company's reputation. They called the "board of directors".
| If you're not on the board of directors, the way you register
| displeasure with your CEO is to leave the company.
| cmsonger wrote:
| This seems right to me, though I will observe that if you
| joined an Elon Musk company 5 years ago, then you were joining
| a company whose head presented a very different public persona
| than he does now. It's an understandable situation that some
| folks ended up loving a company but finding the CEO's 2022
| public persona objectionable and diminishing of the company.
|
| Given the choice between "just leave" or "state my concerns
| about the company I believed in", I might do the latter. What
| does one have to lose in that case?
| Zpalmtree wrote:
| a reference
| fakethenews2022 wrote:
| You are wrong about his public persona. He seems to have
| always been this way. The first time I heard about Elon Musk
| was when he responded publicly to his ex wife's tell-all
| essay about their marriage. This was in 2010!
| cassac wrote:
| Finally a post I can agree with.
| _vertigo wrote:
| Or you write a public open letter, accepting the risk it might
| cost you your job but deciding that it is your highest leverage
| option to enact the change you want to see. What's your point,
| exactly..?
| puglr wrote:
| > If you're not on the board of directors, the way you register
| displeasure with your CEO is to leave the company.
|
| We can easily do that. Most people can't. This disdainful
| attitude reeks of privilege.
| masswerk wrote:
| > If you're not on the board of directors, the way you register
| displeasure with your CEO is to leave the company.
|
| Or you write a letter to the board, those responsible for the
| situation.
| ptudan wrote:
| Yeah, the idea that employees can't criticize a CEO is
| patently ridiculous. There are plenty of companies with
| compelling products and talent, but poor leadership. Those
| companies would be lucky to have employees willing to speak
| up.
| masswerk wrote:
| Maybe interesting: Meanwhile, on the other side of the
| Atlantic (i.e. continental Europe), I haven't found a
| single comment on one of the bigger newspaper sites
| (usually filled by fans) that would defend SpaceX's
| position in this matter. The reputation is pretty much
| gone.
|
| Update: In the largest newspaper forum of my country, there
| are now 2 posts out of 96, agreeing with SpaceX (but more
| on the basis that the employees' action was ill-advised).
| [deleted]
| Aeolun wrote:
| > If you're not on the board of directors, the way you register
| displeasure with your CEO is to leave the company.
|
| What? No!? That is a sure way for your displeasure to never
| even reach the same hemisphere as the CEO. Even this letter is
| better, at least he's aware, and the end result is exactly the
| same (not at the company any more).
| aquova wrote:
| > There are people who can fire the CEO if they think he's
| damaging the company's reputation. They called the "board of
| directors".
|
| Sounds like getting enough employees to write a letter
| criticizing the CEO and damaging his reputation is a pretty
| good way to get the board's attention then?
| Qub3d wrote:
| Barring some sort of Carl Icahn "activist investor" forcing
| themselves on to the board, I don't see SpaceX changing
| anything. Bad PR doesn't affect a company which makes its
| money mostly through long-term government contracts, and
| common sentiment is that Tesla/SpaceX long had the boards
| purged of dissenters and populated with "loyal soliders" to
| Musk's cause.
| babypuncher wrote:
| The idea that you cannot criticize your CEO is ridiculous. How
| is the board supposed to know how employees feel if they keep
| quiet out of fear?
| bmitc wrote:
| > If you don't think the CEO is doing their job well, you leave
| the company, or hunker down and shut up about it.
|
| If nobody ever speaks up, then how does change happen? Say you
| dislike the CEO or other executives but like the company. Then
| you can vocalize this and change happens and you stay, or no
| change happens and you leave.
| awestroke wrote:
| There are proper channels for speaking up within a company.
| Posting an open letter publically after trying to bully
| people to sign it is not a proper channel.
| criddell wrote:
| Not a proper channel, but it can be effective. Sometimes
| getting publicly fired is the point.
| bmitc wrote:
| Proper channels are there in a healthy company but often do
| not work.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| dboreham wrote:
| We should probably read the letter then.
| j_walter wrote:
| Based on what management said it wasn't necessarily what was in
| the letter, but the behavior surrounding the formation of the
| letter and soliciting people to sign it. Basically they were
| fired for using company resources for personal use and
| intimidation of their peers.
| lupire wrote:
| > Basically they were fired for using company resources for
| personal use
|
| Concerted activity at work regarding working conditions is
| protected by US labor law.
|
| > and intimidation of their peers.
|
| Speculation.
| j_walter wrote:
| That activity is protected, but not during working hours and
| using company resources (ex. you can't use internal email to
| spam the entire company with pro-union information).
|
| That's not speculation, it's quoted by the SpaceX
| president...it may not be true, but it's not speculation.
| wmeredith wrote:
| > using company resources for personal use and intimidation of
| their peers
|
| That sounds like their CEO.
| vkou wrote:
| He doesn't intimidate his peers, he intimidates his lessers.
|
| It's conservatism in a nutshell. The end game is a class of
| people protected by the rules, but not bound by them, and
| another class that's bound by them, but not protected.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law."
| ctvo wrote:
| > Basically they were fired for using company resources for
| personal use and intimidation of their peers.
|
| Knowing that this would be leaked and make news, they could
| have framed the letter to all employees in the best possible
| way for the company (both PR and HR). Let's hold out and see
| what SpaceX insiders and the fired employees actually say.
| j_walter wrote:
| No doubt they could have done it better, but all we know
| right now is the contents of the letter. What we don't know
| is how they went about soliciting signatures and so called
| surveys of employees (likely management won't release this
| detailed information either). The fired employees won't tell
| you what really happened...more than likely they will play
| the victims in this. The details may only come out once a
| lawsuit is filed.
| rhino369 wrote:
| I'm not sure I totally believe that. But loud, public,
| insubordination is a fire-able offense in most companies.
| Create bad PR for your company = ticket to firing. Even in the
| companies that pretend that isn't true, they would still fire
| you if your "call out" wasn't socially sanctioned.
| bgentry wrote:
| https://archive.ph/2022.06.17-132537/https://www.wsj.com/amp...
| solardev wrote:
| The actual letter, published by The Verge:
| https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk...
|
| =====================
|
| An open letter to the Executives of SpaceX,
|
| In light of recent allegations against our CEO and his public
| disparagement of the situation, we would like to deliver feedback
| on how these events affect our company's reputation, and through
| it, our mission. Employees across the spectra of gender,
| ethnicity, seniority, and technical roles have collaborated on
| this letter. We feel it is imperative to maintain honest and open
| dialogue with each other to effectively reach our company's
| primary goals together: making SpaceX a great place to work for
| all, and making humans a multiplanetary species.
|
| As SpaceX employees we are expected to challenge established
| processes, rapidly innovate to solve complex problems as a team,
| and use failures as learning opportunities. Commitment to these
| ideals is fundamental to our identity and is core to how we have
| redefined our industry. But for all our technical achievements,
| SpaceX fails to apply these principles to the promotion of
| diversity, equity, and inclusion with equal priority across the
| company, resulting in a workplace culture that remains firmly
| rooted in the status quo.
|
| Individuals and groups of employees at SpaceX have spent
| significant effort beyond their technical scope to make the
| company a more inclusive space via conference recruiting, open
| forums, feedback to leadership, outreach, and more. However, we
| feel an unequal burden to carry this effort as the company has
| not applied appropriate urgency and resources to the problem in a
| manner consistent with our approach to critical path technical
| projects. To be clear: recent events are not isolated incidents;
| they are emblematic of a wider culture that underserves many of
| the people who enable SpaceX's extraordinary accomplishments. As
| industry leaders, we bear unique responsibility to address this.
|
| Elon's behavior in the public sphere is a frequent source of
| distraction and embarrassment for us, particularly in recent
| weeks. As our CEO and most prominent spokesperson, Elon is seen
| as the face of SpaceX--every Tweet that Elon sends is a de facto
| public statement by the company. It is critical to make clear to
| our teams and to our potential talent pool that his messaging
| does not reflect our work, our mission, or our values.
|
| SpaceX's current systems and culture do not live up to its stated
| values, as many employees continue to experience unequal
| enforcement of our oft-repeated "No Asshole" and "Zero Tolerance"
| policies. This must change. As a starting point, we are putting
| forth the following categories of action items, the specifics of
| which we would like to discuss in person with the executive team
| within a month:
|
| Publicly address and condemn Elon's harmful Twitter behavior.
| SpaceX must swiftly and explicitly separate itself from Elon's
| personal brand.
|
| Hold all leadership equally accountable to making SpaceX a great
| place to work for everyone. Apply a critical eye to issues that
| prevent employees from fully performing their jobs and meeting
| their potential, pursuing specific and enduring actions that are
| well resourced, transparent, and treated with the same rigor and
| urgency as establishing flight rationale after a hardware
| anomaly.
|
| Define and uniformly respond to all forms of unacceptable
| behavior. Clearly define what exactly is intended by SpaceX's
| "no-asshole" and "zero tolerance" policies and enforce them
| consistently. SpaceX must establish safe avenues for reporting
| and uphold clear repercussions for all unacceptable behavior,
| whether from the CEO or an employee starting their first day.
|
| We care deeply about SpaceX's mission to make humanity
| multiplanetary. But more importantly, we care about each other.
| The collaboration we need to make life multiplanetary is
| incompatible with a culture that treats employees as consumable
| resources. Our unique position requires us to consider how our
| actions today will shape the experiences of individuals beyond
| our planet. Is the culture we are fostering now the one which we
| aim to bring to Mars and beyond?
|
| We have made strides in that direction, but there is so much more
| to accomplish.
| bshoemaker wrote:
| Free speech for me but not for thee.
| qsdf38100 wrote:
| Freedom of speech isn't Freedom from consequences... Sure. Now
| musk isn't known for being accountable nor responsible.
|
| He doesn't seem to like being held accountable for his shady
| tweets too much, does he?
| rg111 wrote:
| Musk talked so much about "free speech" in recent times!
|
| This move is embarrassing.
|
| You can't just fire people for criticism.
| daenz wrote:
| >You can't just fire people for criticism.
|
| Why do you believe that?
| rg111 wrote:
| It looks bad. You can, legally.
|
| But after so many events of signalling support of free-
| speech, I think it is massively embarrassing.
|
| (I am neither a Musk fan nor a hater)
| lp0_on_fire wrote:
| I'm going to go out on a limb here but I think most most
| people acting in good faith understand the difference
| between the public sphere and their place of employment
| with regard to free speech.
|
| For example: if these employees had been other employees
| (or Musk himself) people racial slurs I think that's reason
| to fire them but I don't think it's reason to excise them
| from the public discourse.
| daenz wrote:
| I have never taken "free speech" to mean "in all places,
| all the time," so I don't see a conflict. The public sphere
| (irl and on the internet) is where people are advocating
| for free speech. A private company's internal email list
| does not qualify.
| loudmax wrote:
| Twitter is also a private company. They are under no
| legal or moral obligation to disseminate all views.
| daenz wrote:
| You're right, they aren't! Which is why Musk wants to buy
| them and hold them to the standard of a de facto public
| townhall.
| oittaa wrote:
| I don't understand why so many people have a hard time
| understanding this even though it has been repeated like
| a million times at this point. Are these people
| illiterate or using some kind of TSLAQ block list like in
| Twitter, because they're afraid of seeing any dissenting
| opinions?
| [deleted]
| pyronik19 wrote:
| You have freedom of speech just not freedom from consequences
| :)
| jeffbee wrote:
| Yeah but what Musk means by it is freedom from consequences.
| rg111 wrote:
| > freedom from consequences
|
| is such a meaningless, bloated phrase.
|
| Only consequence of speech should never be more severe than
| speech.
|
| "Freedom from consequences" is a weak argument used by
| supporters of autocrats, mobocracies, cancel-culturists,
| religious bigots wanting to punish _blasphemous_ comments,
| and so on.
| pyronik19 wrote:
| I am mocking the justification that leftist used censorship
| and deplatforming by using their own bloated phrase.
| les_diabolique wrote:
| What's the different between freedom of speech with
| consequences and not having freedom of speech?
| MPSimmons wrote:
| Great, so getting kicked off of twitter is a consequence that
| people have had. This checks out.
| modeless wrote:
| If you don't understand that getting fired from your job is not
| what the right to free speech protects you from, you may have
| lived in a free country your whole life.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.ph/BfDFr
|
| WSJ https://archive.ph/RSlmu
| more_corn wrote:
| Firing people for speaking out against the boss's childish public
| behavior. What message does that send? Don't speak out about
| things you disagree with?
|
| This is not the company we want taking us to Mars.
| not2b wrote:
| Just shows that Musk has no actual interest in free speech. But
| SpaceX is a private company and is free to fire employees for
| their speech, you say. That's true, they can legally do that,
| since there's no union contract, but Twitter is also a private
| company and free not to publish speech that advocates the
| overthrow of the government or vaccine denial. My prediction is
| that a Musk-owned Twitter will wind up banning posts or even
| accounts for criticizing Musk too aggressively, since the guy has
| thin skin and will have the power.
| curiousgal wrote:
| Well if their aim was to eventually not work for an asshole then
| I guess mission complete?
|
| I always find these collective actions strange. Like you if you
| want to change anything from the inside your only option is to
| (try to) unionize, anything else is pointless.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| That's the way to deal with crybullies.
|
| The intercept had amazing article lately about how this attitude
| tears organizations apart.
| mola wrote:
| Pretty sure musk should fall in the category of a crybully as
| well.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Feel free to fire him
| chasing wrote:
| This is why your CEO shouldn't be spending his days on Twitter
| bleating out college freshman-level hot takes on "freedom of
| speech." Right or wrong, this sort of thing will become like
| catnip and make everybody look ridiculous.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| I can't imagine working for a company where the CEO shows such a
| public display of ignorance. If it's in private, at least it's
| not as embarrassing.
| 0xmohit wrote:
| Musk believes in "free speech". So he decided to set them "free".
| jfengel wrote:
| I've owned TSLA stock for over a decade, and I believe in the
| company, but I find Musk increasingly distasteful. If I had sold
| the last time it was over $1,000... of course that's the silly
| wishful thinking we all do in a contraction/correction, but
| goddamn, I want him out of my life.
|
| I've already sold some of it, just to assuage my conscience a
| little (as well as lock in some of my profits). The next good
| opportunity to get out, I will, regardless of my belief that the
| company could well be worth $2,000 a share. It's just not worth
| being associated with such a terrible human being.
| new_stranger wrote:
| Maybe I've read to much history, or maybe I just need to pay
| more attention to Musk, but I'm pretty sure he isn't anywhere
| close to the category of "Terrible Human Being" I have in mind
| - even for the West.
| jfengel wrote:
| He's not guilty of genocide, or even murder, so there's
| certainly much higher bars that can be set.
|
| But I have a deep aversion to trolls. They cause pain
| deliberately. That pain is diffuse and hard to account, but
| so widespread that (a little bit) times (a lot) adds up to a
| large number. And I think it's pretty clear that Musk enjoys
| inflicting pain on people.
|
| Perhaps that's too low a bar to set for the title of
| "terrible human being". But that's my bar, and he sails right
| over it. I tried to ignore it for a very long time, and I'm
| not sure how much longer I can.
|
| He's also running a company that is making enormous strides
| in getting the world off of fossil fuels -- and pushing
| others to do the same. (I have quibbles with continuing the
| multiple-cars-per-household lifestyle, which I think will
| need to be reconsidered if we're going to stabilize our
| effect on the environment, but at least he's doing something
| -- and it includes reducing fossil fuels in areas besides
| transportation.)
|
| And he's running a company that is revolutionizing space
| transport. I don't believe in his goals there, but I think
| good will come of it. He's doing it for real, not just
| running his mouth off.
|
| And yet, on balance, he's contributing to an American social
| climate which keeps nudging closer to literal civil war. You
| probably think that's hyperbolic, and perhaps it is, but it's
| undeniable that its making a lot of people angry a lot of the
| time. He's in a position to know better, and it looks to me
| as if he enjoys it. To me, that merits the designation
| "terrible human being".
|
| You can legitimately disagree with that, but I think we can
| agree on the reasons I say it.
| zionic wrote:
| >But I have a deep aversion to trolls. They cause pain
| deliberately.
|
| So Elon is a troll because he posts things you disagree
| with? Because that's the only explanation I can think of
| here. You didn't provide any evidence to support this
| assertion.
| throw_nbvc1234 wrote:
| An alternative way of connecting the same dots (I'd argue
| the truth is somewhere in the middle):
|
| Musk's comments are moving us closer to a civil war because
| people are putting too much weight in them. If general
| society viewed musk as someone who wasn't a "terrible human
| being" but rather just someone they disagreed with, there
| would be no justification in their minds to consider a
| civil war as the response. Someone (even someone with less
| influence then musk) who says the "bad things" on twitter
| will likely get more media coverage and outrage then
| someone doing objectively evil things on a smaller scale.
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| I am beginning to find his erratic behaviour distasteful too.
|
| But I think in this case(if the news articles are accurate),
| SpaceX actions were not entirely unjustified. It is an internal
| matter of a private company.
|
| Free speech is a constitutional right that applies to every
| individual. Employment contracts and terms of it do not have to
| adhere to it.
| macinjosh wrote:
| I tend to like Elon or at least some of his professed ideas and
| goals but this is gross. Either there is a culture in his
| companies where people like this are fired without discussion or
| prodding or it was a direct instruction.
|
| I wonder if these employees tried any internal avenues to voice
| their concerns before going open with it? If not, it seems more
| like grand-standing and the firings are more acceptable. But if
| internal discussions were ignored this is out of line.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| > We have too much critical work to accomplish and no need for
| this kind of overreaching activism.
|
| This seems like a funny statement to make when your CEO is
| literally out buying Twitter.
| cloutchaser wrote:
| These activists employees are free to get funding to buy spacex
| if Elon can be persuaded to sell.
|
| Your point makes no sense. It's a free country, just because
| Elon is buying Twitter to make different rules on it makes no
| difference to this point. He has the resources based on
| building multiple billion dollar businesses.
|
| These activist employees can do the same over 30-40 years and
| buy companies and implement whatever they want.
|
| But don't expect to not get fired from a private company if you
| don't align with its values
| qayxc wrote:
| > This seems like a funny statement to make when your CEO is
| literally out buying Twitter.
|
| And apparently putting 90+ hours into Elden Ring, while still
| insisting to be working 14-20 hour days. [0]
|
| [0] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1528576711209766914
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| "I work 120 hour work weeks" is CEO speak for "Any time spent
| in the penthouse I built with company money and in which I
| occasionally remote work but mostly do lines of cocaine off a
| hooker's back is work time".
|
| Musk does maybe 50 hours of work a week, it's just that it's
| spread out over time and not 10 hour long shifts like he
| forces on his employees.
| jmyeet wrote:
| I'm really starting to wonder if 2022 won't be looked back as the
| year that Elon finally jumped the shark.
|
| A lot of people (myself included) really respect SpaceX and I
| think that's the last pillar on which Elon's reputation stands.
| Tesla honestly isn't that interesting and there's a real chance
| it gets eaten alive as other car manufacturers have caught up.
| The Cybertruck is still vaporware whereas the F150 Lightning is
| real and, from what I've seen at least, very highly regarded.
|
| What I think is finally giving people Elon fatigue is his
| politics. The Twitter acquisition is deeply tied to that. He's
| just another rich cringe conservative. That's it. Coming out and
| supporting DeSantis, for example, should surprise literally no
| one.
|
| He has a very thin skin (remember the whole "pedo guy"
| incident?), inflates his own accomplishments (eg claiming he
| founded Tesla) and honestly just comes off (now more than ever)
| as just an awful human being.
|
| Stories I've heard seem to reflect that SpaceX and Tesla aren't
| great places to work (at least compared to big tech companies).
|
| I really get the sense that people are increasingly getting sick
| of hearing from or about him. YMMV.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| > He's just another rich cringe conservative.
|
| "Lorde Edge" is outstanding cringe. He's focusing on and making
| his image intentionally out of cringe. It's utterly bizarre.
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| I don't think he jumped the shark, more like the curtain fell
| down and there was not much there but marketing and crowd-work
| savvy.
| dntrkv wrote:
| I think the fame and power has gotten to him. Plus, he spends
| way too much of his time engaging with people on Twitter. I
| think his experience on that site has warped his view of the
| world. It's also amazing to me that someone in his shoes
| takes time to respond to randos replying to him.
| jeffwask wrote:
| Surprise, CEO's don't actually do a hell of a lot to earn
| their 100x salary
| dralley wrote:
| And he clearly doesn't / didn't get enough sleep for a long
| time.
| simonh wrote:
| If only he'd achieved something practical, like
| revolutionising reusable rocket technology, dominating the
| commercial satelite launch industry, or selling 75% of the
| electric cars in the US last year. He may be an arse, but
| he's a very successful arse that gets stuff done. Doesn't
| excuse him being an arse though.
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| Did he though or did Gwynne Shotwell and the actual
| engineers? He deserves some credit, but I'm not sure it's
| quite as much as you think it is.
| tomp wrote:
| I always laugh out loud when people say that.
|
| Does Boeing and Lockheed Martin not have "actual
| engineers" and "actual factories"? Of course they do.
| Probably had more and better for most of SpaceX's life.
|
| They just can't utilise what w have, because they have no
| vision beyond "cost-plus contracts". That's on
| management. That's why Elon literally caused SpaceX and
| all/most their successes.
| simonh wrote:
| Gwynne looks after the business, not the Engineering.
| She's been clear that's Musk's department.
| jeffwask wrote:
| His shady practices around market manipulation are starting to
| catch up to him. He's facing lawsuits from shareholders for
| tanking his own stock prices. He slimes his way through every
| loophole.
| nerbert wrote:
| I hear that cofounder thing about Tesla every now and then.
| Doesn't matter when the company was founded, if someone joined
| before the company finds its market fit, that person is
| legitimate to be called cofounder imo.
| fullshark wrote:
| A lawsuit was filed over it wow:
|
| https://www.cnet.com/culture/tesla-motors-founders-now-
| there...
|
| "On Monday, a Tesla representative said that Eberhard and
| other principals in the dispute have come to an agreement.
| The company did not reveal any details of the resolution,
| except to say that there are now five, rather than two,
| agreed-upon "founders" of Tesla.
|
| In addition to Eberhard, other founders include current CEO
| and chief product architect Elon Musk, current chief
| technology JB Straubel, Marc Tarpenning, and Ian Wright."
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > A lot of people (myself included) really respect SpaceX and I
| think that's the last pillar on which Elon's reputation stands.
| Tesla honestly isn't that interesting and there's a real chance
| it gets eaten alive as other car manufacturers have caught up.
|
| Build quality wise? Definitely, Tesla has _a lot_ of issues
| there which the established industry has ironed out and
| perfected over the last hundred years.
|
| Other problems? No way in hell the others can catch up. The old
| guard of automotive manufacturers simply is too stuck in their
| old ways - they have to manage the expectations of dealerships
| (as the only service most electric cars need is brake pad
| changes and Teslas are sold online, their existence is
| threatened) and suppliers (your average ICE alone takes
| something around 1000-2000 distinct parts, whereas electric
| cars need far fewer for the drivetrain), and _no_ automotive
| manufacturer has anything resembling a history with developing
| modern software and it shows everywhere.
| CJefferson wrote:
| As I understand it, there are other computer-controlled cars
| which are notable further along than Tesla. For example,
| Mercedes is will to take legal responsiblity for their
| system, while Tesla isn't.
| ravenstine wrote:
| You bring up a good point, but I think old school car
| manufacturers don't believe that directly competing with
| Tesla is the winning move. If they're smart, I think they'll
| go for _affordability_ , which is an utterly failed promise
| of Tesla. Bring down the price of full-electrics and plug-in
| hybrids, and you've got an audience of buyers that Tesla
| never took seriously. I for one would love an electric
| vehicle but in the year 2022 it's still not economical for me
| to trade in my beater car for even a used plug-in hybrid.
|
| When there's a recession, no one's going to give a shit about
| a car with a bunch of bells and whistles. They want a car
| that they can _afford_ to buy and _afford_ to drive. In any
| case, that 's what I want.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| You need experience though to bring batteries down to
| affordable prices - both for yield improvements and for
| actually figuring out stuff like "how to construct a BMS
| that keeps batteries somewhat alive?"... Tesla has had well
| over a decade to fine-tune their entire stack, the only one
| who can match them in experience is Toyota with the Prius
| lineup. The second-next is BMW, but the i8 is a niche model
| for rich show-offs and the i3 is a toy - and BMW hasn't
| been associated with "affordability" in many decades.
|
| The car manufacturers that _are_ associated with attributes
| like "affordability" don't have much experience with
| electric vehicles, so they will have to buy that experience
| or do it the same way Tesla did, which means they will need
| a decade.
| ravenstine wrote:
| I don't think experience has that much to do with
| affordability. Tesla might assemble their batteries at
| their factory, but the actual lithium ion cells are
| manufactured by Panasonic, was well as supporting
| electronics. There's nothing magical or mysterious about
| the Tesla EV powertrain. Affordability is going to come
| down to necessity, demand (related to necessity), and how
| cheap a plentiful number of li-ion batteries can be made.
|
| How much experience do you think is required? Other
| companies like Chevy, Chrysler, Hyundai, and Ford already
| have semi-electric vehicles for sale today. They don't
| all need to be successes. It can take just one of them to
| come out with an affordable electric vehicle when the
| economics are right, and sticking to plug-in hybrids
| gives them plenty of time to get experience.
| jlmorton wrote:
| Yeah, I stopped reading at the assertion that other car
| companies have caught up to Tesla.
|
| Lots of people have not internalized what's going on at
| Tesla. They still seem to be stuck on the idea that when the
| large, experienced auto manufacturers start really ramping up
| EVs, Tesla will be swamped.
|
| What seems to have gone unnoticed is that Tesla has
| significantly higher margins per vehicle than all other major
| automakers, including Toyota. Tesla is years ahead on
| batteries. While the rest of the industry is fighting over a
| limited supply of third-party batteries, Tesla is buying
| nickel directly from Vale, for their own batteries, in their
| own form factor, with their own chemistry.
|
| Tesla is beating the established automakers on scale and
| profit margins.
|
| OTA Updates? Rapid iteration cycle? Supercharger network?
| Doubling factories every few years?
|
| Tesla has lots and lots of problems, from servicing, to
| pricing, to build quality, to various ethical issues. But
| they're years ahead on EVs.
| alphabettsy wrote:
| > Tesla has significantly higher margins per vehicle than
| all other major automakers, including Toyota.
|
| I feel like this is because they charge BMW prices for less
| than Honda quality, especially with the Model 3. Maybe they
| can keep this up, but we'll see. Tesla tech is certainly
| better than most if not all and is a huge selling point.
| memish wrote:
| d23 wrote:
| > Grow a spine and push back against the illiberal left.
|
| Utterly insane. Black is white, up is down. Multi-level,
| coordinated conspiracies orchestrated by the sitting
| President of the United States are the embodiment of liberal
| democracy.
| mountainriver wrote:
| Yes exactly, Elon isn't some cringe conservative he's very
| middle of the road left leaning but the democrats have gone
| so tribal that's now not okay.
|
| Most of America shares Elons values you probably just
| wouldn't know it with the way the polar ends skew the picture
| timecube wrote:
| A left-leaning person would not support Ron DeSantis for
| president.
| mountainriver wrote:
| yeah they would! I'm left leaning and I would consider it
| right now based on how the liberals are acting!
| swatcoder wrote:
| "Most of America shares my values but they're just too
| oppressed or exhausted to make their voice heard, I swear."
|
| -- everyone
| mountainriver wrote:
| Except that the actual data shows that the large majority
| of people agree on critical issues
| ravenstine wrote:
| > He's just another rich cringe conservative.
|
| Cringe, yes, he may be. Conservative? Maybe in the opportunist
| sense. At most, I think he's much closer to being libertarian
| and would otherwise be left leaning if the mainstream left
| hadn't drifted so far left. Elon really wants people to get out
| of the way of his view of progress. Yes, I'm sure ego is a part
| of that, but when is it not with anyone? I'm not even sure what
| Elon would be _conserving_ other than whatever ability he has
| to launch cars into space or dig pointless tunnels.
|
| A better example of a "cringe conservative" would be the My
| Pillow guy or even Lindsay Graham. And many would of course say
| _Trump_.
| manholio wrote:
| There is no "far left drift" of the mainstream. Outside the
| gender craze which is real, the "far left drift" is an
| entirely made up talking point in the conservative war
| against basic institutions and freedoms.
|
| For example, never in its history was the SCOTUS so
| conservative compared to the views of the general population.
| It used to be one of the most progressive actors in society,
| forcing race and gender equality judgments to a country where
| working wives and interracial couples were still a faux pass.
| abduhl wrote:
| The DEI drift IS the far left drift that moderates and
| conservatives are talking about.
| water554 wrote:
| I dunno. I've lived in Los Angeles and worked for a few
| companies in CA where social justice was more important
| than the product. Also, people seemed to really like
| socialism despite working at a corporation.
| [deleted]
| gfodor wrote:
| edmcnulty101 wrote:
| AMEN. Exactly what I wanted to say.
|
| The left has gone bonkers and anyone whose even a moderate is
| considered a conservative.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Meanwhile, the right has _also_ gone bonkers and anyone
| whose even a moderate is considered a RINO at best.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| I'm not sure about that. The right is returning to a more
| traditional conservatism. The right used to support
| tariffs, using the government to push their agenda, more
| of a small tent party, nationalist, etc. The small
| government conservative, neoconservative, globalist, and
| big tent ideologies are new (for conservatives) and being
| rejected. I don't think returning to your roots is
| "bonkers".
| loudmax wrote:
| > This doesn't make them conservative
|
| I'm not a conservative, but I respect conservative values
| such as the rule of law. I will grant you that the populist
| wing of the Republican party in no way reflects conservative
| values.
| simonh wrote:
| >seen the left in the US go off the deep end...
|
| Left intellectuals have gone off the deep end, sure, but the
| actual left politicians in power are solidly centrist.
|
| Meanwhile Trump.... The Republican party isn't just off the
| deep end, they're a genuine danger to democracy globally. As
| the US goes, many other countries follow and as a Brit, and
| conservative one that grew up in the Thatcher/Reagan heyday
| at that, I dread the thought of another Trump presidency.
| I'll never forgive the Republican party for putting us
| through that the first time. Thank all the gods and angels
| the Russian invasion of Ukraine happened under Biden, he may
| be a bumbler but at least he's not an out-and-out traitor to
| democracy and the national security of his country.
| markdown wrote:
| As far as the rest of the world is concerned, the clown you
| had as a last President made you "second tier", and he most
| certainly wasn't on the left.
| yokoprime wrote:
| Wow. Just wow. The "radical" US left equals the conservative
| right in many European countries. While you certainly may
| think Europe is full of "second tier countries", I think it's
| time to broaden your horizons. If anything the problem is
| they are ineffective and are poor at keeping file and rank
| compared to the GOP. The GOP on the other-hand tries to drive
| the US towards a ultra-conservative future, erasing the
| separation of church and state.
| quacked wrote:
| This may have been true sixty years ago, but certainly not
| today. The conservative right in European countries is
| turning hard-nationalist in response to massive net
| immigration. Simply look to the campaigns of Zemmour and Le
| Pen in France or Orban in Hungary.
| Avshalom wrote:
| and on that note https://www.cpachungary.com/en/speakers
| quacked wrote:
| Candace Owens?! That's hilarious.
| wiredearp wrote:
| I don't follow their platforms, but in Europe one can
| still expect conservative parties to believe that people
| should have public goods like healthcare and childcare
| and education and retirement as basic human rights, that
| dignity is something we deserve, that a job should mean
| something more than wage slavery and that the average
| citizen shouldn't die in debt. Who they define as persons
| or citizens is up for discussion on the right, but
| measured on this other corporate-capitalist scale of
| being "right", the Democrats are off the scale in
| European terms.
| quacked wrote:
| Yes, that's all true, but that does not support the claim
| that the "American radical left is the European
| conservative right". In some ways, some of the demands of
| the American radical left mimic some of the expectations
| of European right-wing platforms, but the American
| radical left would still be identifiably left-wing in
| Europe, mostly due to their positions on immigration,
| regulation, sociology, and taxation.
|
| The follow-up question to demonstrate this point would be
| "would an American who identifies as radically left-
| leaning join a European conservative right-wing party if
| they moved to Europe?"
| runarberg wrote:
| I think the claim here that: _"The "radical" US left
| equals the conservative right in many European
| countries"_ is a bit of an exaggeration. A more accurate
| statement (and probably what OP meant; albeit less
| inflammatory) would be something like: _"Moderate and
| conservative (i.e. mainstream) Democrats in America
| closely resemble the conservative right wing parties in
| Europe"_. And I think this is largely true. Biden is in
| many ways to the right of Macron even though Macron is in
| the center-right of the political spectrum. While Bernie
| Sanders (the most left wing the US could possibly hope
| for) really only approaches the center-left Olaf Scholz.
| jaywalk wrote:
| > The "radical" US left equals the conservative right in
| many European countries.
|
| Who cares? The US is not a European country, so the point
| is irrelevant. And although I see it repeated a lot, I
| don't think it's factual either.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| gfodor wrote:
| The left in the US is to the left of Europe now in many
| ways. By second tier I wasn't referring to politics, but
| referring to our collapse into a weak economic and cultural
| power.
| mountainriver wrote:
| This isn't that true today, the US far left is solidly left
| nowadays by European standards, and Europe had a far right
| that isn't too distant from the US
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| In what ways?
| tingol wrote:
| What US far left lol? Genuinely curious European here.
| mountainriver wrote:
| I mean Bernie Sanders was almost the nominee and he is
| pretty far left even by European standards
| gfodor wrote:
| The far left in the US is materially different than the
| classical understanding of the far left. The far left in
| the US is now primarily concerned with pushing the goals
| of Critial Theory (a _cultural_ neo-Marxist ideology, to
| oversimplify) as supposed to the goals of traditional big
| S Socialist or Marxist economics and workers party goals.
| This slow dialectical evolution of the left in the US has
| led to a lot of confusion regarding how it can be
| possible for people to be arguing the left in the US is
| not just extreme but increasingly _radicalized_ when it
| rejected democratic socialist Bernie Sanders. It 's
| because the revolutionary tilt of the left has moved away
| from overturning economic class and systems of capitalism
| through labor organization, at least as the primary lever
| to push on.
| jeffwask wrote:
| Yeah, the US far left has 3 congress people and one
| youtube news channel no cable news presence at all.
|
| The actually difference in beliefs between Joe Biden and
| Mitch McConnell is paper thin.
| foxyv wrote:
| To be honest, I kind of went the other way. I saw what
| republicans are really about and noped my way out. I used to
| believe them when they said they were USA first, bring the
| jobs back to America, stand up to foreign dictators, small
| government, etc... But the past 10 years have put a lie to
| their posturing on nearly every front. January 6th was a
| turning point for me, all of a sudden there was a chance that
| we were going to have a president sitting in office despite
| the end of his term. A man willing to start a civil war
| rather than concede a valid election.
|
| The Republican I really respect at this point is Mike Pence.
| I used to think he was a theocrat idiot with mush for brains.
| But now I realize he's all that AND a brave and honest man
| who actually gives two shits about democracy.
| dont__panic wrote:
| Precisely why the two-party system is such an abomination.
| It boils down ALL politics to a binary system -- are you
| red, or are you blue? Both you and the previous commenter
| have completely valid reasoning for switching parties,
| based on separate issues. But the only method of
| communication with our democracy requires that you pick one
| of two awful choices. Sure, you could vote independent --
| with the basket of issues that come with opting out of the
| two majority parties -- and primaries let you cut some of
| the least-aligned folks in your party from the ballot.
|
| It's kind of like going to a restaurant and being forced to
| pick raw vs. burned beef, and there's a ton of different
| sides that come with each option that are nonconfigurable.
| And then critics constantly debate "raw vs. burned" in
| polls, and try to gain insight from that on whether people
| really prefer corn or salad or biscuits. But in reality
| there's just too much noise to generate any signal.
| nightski wrote:
| There never really was a chance of that. There was nothing
| Trump could of done that day to make that happen. Even if
| the process would of been disrupted, it wouldn't of caused
| that.
| foxyv wrote:
| Say that Mike Pence was killed on Jan. 6th before he
| could certify the election. Now you have an election with
| no result which leads to the first succession crisis
| since the post-civil war era with Hayes. Trump appoints a
| new Vice President which says that he won and refuses to
| certify the election. When the senate almost certainly
| gets bogged down trying to elect a new president we are
| stuck. Now what? Does Trump remain president? It wasn't
| even a close election, so they can't manipulate the votes
| any further in his favor.
|
| At that point we have a ticking time bomb. At the end of
| his term is Trump still the president? Or are we a
| country without a president? When that happens, if Trump
| stays in the White House and acts like a president, what
| then? Would the republican filled Supreme Court back his
| play? Would the military follow him? Who would oppose
| him? Would the secret service still protect him? What
| happens if some states recognize him as president, but
| others do not?
| nightski wrote:
| That's a lot of what ifs. While technically possible,
| none seem plausible. Many of those things could of
| happened outside of the riots as well (Pence dies). It's
| kind of pointless speculation. I don't think Pence had a
| serious chance of being killed that day, even if they did
| get in close proximity. That's just my opinion.
| foxyv wrote:
| If they had gotten a hold of Mike Pence they intended to
| kill him.
|
| https://youtu.be/0vzeTgm2qWw?t=1437
| blindmute wrote:
| Ah yes, "reports" and "journalists" heard them say it
| UncleMeat wrote:
| They could have assigned new electors. They didn't have
| their shit together to make it happen, but the law is not
| settled on this.
|
| Or they could have delayed past the constitutionally
| mandated dates, after which it goes to the Congress where
| the GOP controlled more delegations.
| gpm wrote:
| I feel like Adam Kinzinger talks a similar talk to you, if
| you're looking for more republicans you can respect (I'm
| not affiliated in any way, just came across him via
| twitter)
|
| https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/
| gfodor wrote:
| I can empathize, but my point was in regards to the
| accusation of being a "conservative" by just coming down in
| the other direction on the lesser-of-two evils calculus.
| Sane Americans are struggling with the fact that there are
| good arguments to be made that both political parties in
| the US presently present meaningful existential risk. There
| are several methods one could argue in how to tie break,
| purely in the interest in minimizing the risk of collapse,
| tyrannical overtake, or the development of a police state.
| From example, you may vote against the ruling class
| broadly, which is left-aligned, if you feel that the
| broader ruling class has power superiority over the narrow
| set of elected leaders at a given time. Under that
| framework, no tyrant can successfully seize power unless
| they are aligned with the ruling class.
| kmos17 wrote:
| Where has the left gone off the deep end other than in
| Tucker's lunatic and manipulative ravings? Please give us
| concrete examples, yes woke politics might have gone
| overboard for many's tastes but where has that had any real
| impact on day to day life? In the mean time the right has
| gone full throttle on an anti-democracy cult following of a
| single person's unproven and clearly false claims of election
| fraud, and taken the country on a very dark path that is in
| direct opposition to our constitution, the rule of law and
| our way of life.
| t0mmyb0y wrote:
| yanderekko wrote:
| Look at any time series on polling regarding political
| hatred - the left has been largely ineffectual at enacting
| crazy policy, but the demonization and willingness to
| punish people for views that are well within the Overton
| window of public opinion has increased dramatically in
| recent years, eg. adopting and defending the views of
| Barack Obama on gay marriage in 2012 will lead to your
| swiftly being deplatformed from Twitter, Reddit, etc. This
| impacts my day to day life in the sense that I am no longer
| able to express many reasonable, non-hateful views in many
| parts of the internet being censored and putting my
| livelihood at risk. If you think that this isn't really an
| impediment that I should care about, then I don't see how
| you could lament these SpaceX employees being unable to
| publicly excoriate their bosses without consequence.
|
| For many of us, seeing what happened to people like James
| Damore was a turning point that something had deeply
| changed in the political culture.
| epistasis wrote:
| So one issue I see here is that you are against gay
| marriage?
|
| This isn't "the left" it's "the US" that had a change of
| view. The poll numbers are through the roof. And when
| it's such a personal thing with the very families that
| are our friends, it's not hard to see why gay marriage is
| so popular. That _you_ feel "hated" by others for
| rejecting their friends families is a weird way to put
| it.
|
| Obama was a centrist for his time, and often times after
| society opens up to more people it's hard to go back to
| closing it off to our new members.
|
| As for James Damore, somebody disparaging their
| colleagues, publicly, and not even their leader for
| specific actions, but an entire gender, based on bad
| reading of biology... do you have similar sympathy for
| the people fired here, or it only when somebody is
| expressing beliefs that are hurtful to those not at the
| top?
|
| Gay marriage was a major shift in culture, but bad sexism
| has been out of vogue for decades, even if overall sexism
| hasn't decreased a huge amount.
|
| I have all sorts of politically unacceptable views that I
| don't share. But I don't play the victim for being
| "hated" just because I don't get my way.
| yanderekko wrote:
| I'm not against gay marriage. I'm using it as an example.
|
| But you're really illustrating my point here, by arguing
| not that there hasn't been a shift but that the growing
| hatred and intolerance is in fact a good thing. I feel
| like this is a more honest position than pretending that
| prevailing attitudes haven't shifted.
|
| As a personal example, last week I had a comment deleted
| on Reddit for being "hatred" because I described drag as
| a form of kink. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but this kind of
| banal censorship has become a regular experience for
| anyone who offers any sort of resistance to woke
| narratives. If you think this is a good change, then I
| disagree but at least acknowledging that there's been a
| change puts us in the same reality.
| epistasis wrote:
| I've had comments incorrectly deleted in Reddit but I
| didn't think of it as political persecution.
|
| Same on Twitter. A lot.
|
| And if it were political persecution, which it very well
| could be, Reddit is moderated by absolute randoms from
| the internet. Starting new subreddits and moderating to
| one's one preferences is very literal free speech.
| yanderekko wrote:
| >I've had comments incorrectly deleted in Reddit but I
| didn't think of it as political persecution.
|
| Please. We know that this isn't considered as "incorrect"
| by the people doing the deleting, and that a well-
| reasoned appeal would be productive. This isn't happening
| due to simple randomness, as basically anyone who pushes
| back against woke narratives will attest - for example,
| openly endorsing JK Rowling's views on gender will get
| you banned from most of Reddit and quite possibly fired
| from your job if you do it under your real name on
| Twitter. This wouldn't have happened 10 years ago.
|
| Again, you're free to say that this is a good change, or
| just wave all this concerns away with pithy slogans like
| "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from
| consequences", but I'm just trying to establish that
| there's been a shift on the left and it seems like you
| don't disagree with this.
| gclefty wrote:
| This has been my experience too, and it's very
| frustrating for those of us who have long held left-wing
| beliefs but are skeptical of these recent social trends.
| The obsessive focus on identity issues almost seems like
| a deliberate distraction from the larger societal
| concerns regarding the cost of living, housing,
| employment rights, environmental catastrophe, and
| similar.
|
| I feel that social media companies are largely to blame
| here, with the impact of their efforts to increase
| engagement metrics at the expense of users' wellbeing. We
| all have a perpetually-available outrage machine in our
| pockets these days, encouraging us all to react with
| emotion rather than be considered and thoughtful.
|
| Regarding your example of gender views, the other reason
| why this wouldn't have happened 10 years ago is that
| hardly anyone believed that stuff. JK Rowling's opinions
| would have been met with a shrug. But there has since
| been a concerted effort to capture the minds of the
| younger generations at an age where they're unlikely to
| see the inherent contradictions in this ideology.
| goalieca wrote:
| I hate to dove into another country politics on the open
| internet. But I'll bite as simile things are happening in
| canada which ended up with Ontario conservatives dominating
| the provincial election.
|
| The left needs to pay attention to every day issues. It's
| not that the right has answers but they have acknowledged
| these issues as being the main issues. For instance, it
| should be absolutely not shocking to anyone that inflation
| has happened and is a direct result of our fiscal policies.
| Well, some did not seem to be concerned about printing
| money to buy bonds to fund record deficits which actually
| paid people and companies to reduce productivity and
| output. Surprise! School closures are another huge issue.
| Most of us with children saw the massive harms from keeping
| them home. It was absolutely devastating! I could go on.
| The left NDP party of Ontario admitted they focused too
| much on the chatter-class (Reddit, Twitter, journalists,
| etc) and not the working class
| jmyeet wrote:
| I see this kind of comment a lot and it's bizarre to me. It
| echoes Elon's own views [1]. It's bizarre because it shows
| just how normalized right-wing views are in the US. Some
| highlights:
|
| 1. There are like 4 progressive members of Congress. Compare
| this to how many Republicans openly support QAnon
| conspiracies and other right-wing positions;
|
| 2. Anywhere else in the world, the Democrats would be a
| center-right party;
|
| 3. The Democratic Party actually hates progressives and goes
| out of its way to rid the party of them. Look at the hit job
| on Bernie Sanders in 2016. Look at the recent primary in the
| Texas-28 where Nancy Pelosi and Clyburn went to campaign for
| Henry Cuellar, who is pro-gun and the _only_ anti-choice
| Democrat remaining in the House over Cisneros, an actual
| progressive;
|
| 4. Based on leaks there's a high likelihood the Supreme Court
| will overturn Roe v. Wade, pushing back 50 years of progress;
|
| 5. IN 2008 (in Heller) the Supreme Court for the first time
| recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right;
|
| 6. The Roberts Supreme Court also decided money is speech,
| which has openeed the floodgates for primarily conservative
| PACs;
|
| 7. The same court gutted the Civil Rights Act in terms of
| voter protection, which has led to a wave of anti-voter
| measures in red states;
|
| 8. Primarily red state has gerrymandered the hell out of
| states. For example, in Wisconsin, the GOP holds a super-
| majority despite getting 10% less of the vote;
|
| 9. Despite numerous incidents of easy access to firearms
| leading to the mass murder of school children _multiple
| times_ there is not (and will not be) any meaningful
| restriction on access to mass murder machines (aka assault
| rifles);
|
| 10. Obamacare, pretty much the only lasting achievement of
| the Obama era, has largely been gutted;
|
| 11. Trump's tax cuts despite a Democrat in the White House
| and Democratic control of the House and Senate remain largely
| in place; and
|
| 12. As soon as the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade,
| they'll probably next come for gay marriage.
|
| This is just off the top of my head. So how exactly has the
| left gone off the "deep end" exactly?
|
| There's really only been progress on two issues:
|
| 1. Gay marriage was legalized (but, as noted, that's at risk
| of being reversed); and
|
| 2. There have been advancements in trans rights.
|
| This I think is the crux of the matter when people talk about
| the "far left". They really mean they hate trans people and
| want them to go away.
|
| Conservatives are sore winners but great propagandists as
| evidenced by the fact that this myth that conservatives are
| "losing" perpetuates at all.
|
| [1]: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519735033950470144
| Jwarder wrote:
| I agree with your points, but I think you're painting with
| too broad of a brush with:
|
| > They really mean they hate trans people and want them to
| go away.
|
| It is certainly an issue; viz various bathroom panics over
| the last decade. But, at least in the tech sphere, most of
| the fear I've seen comes from Twitter BS and hate. There
| are vocal people who want to use "wokeness" as a tool to
| attack people. I can see how it would be easy to conflate
| those kinds of attacks with progressivism for people who
| are predisposed against progressivism from the start.
| doyouevensunbro wrote:
| They never have any examples to back their claim. But the
| message is always the same: the left has gone too far. Its
| clearly more important to get that out then it is to defend
| it with logic, probably because of the truthiness of the
| statement.
| philjohn wrote:
| I would wager good money that in many cases these "I was
| left wing, but the insane Left pushed me to the GOP!"
| posters were never, in fact, left wing and are instead
| trying to spread a particular message. See also the "walk
| away" hashtag that was pushed in the lead up to 2020.
| gfodor wrote:
| I knocked on doors for Obama. The far and now largely
| center left has gone insane.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > There are a lot of people who have seen the left in the US
| go off the deep end
|
| As crazy as the left in the U.S. might be, it's genuinely
| hard to beat the craziness of e.g. suggesting that injecting
| bleach is a legitimate COVID-19 treatment, or shameful
| pandering to anti-masks, anti-vaccination sentiment.
| gfodor wrote:
| Nobody suggested injecting bleach. Great example of what I
| mean though.
| drak0n1c wrote:
| That wasn't what was said. At the time of the
| mischaracterized comment there actually was ongoing
| research into therapies applying local disinfecting agents
| and UV.
| https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/11/joe-
| biden/...
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Now that's interesting, it does look like we can fairly
| credit Biden for that whole bleach thing. The Trump Curse
| strikes again!
| ZetaZero wrote:
| tyronehed wrote:
| germinalphrase wrote:
| I've disconnected myself from the contemporary political back
| and forth, but my outsider take is that it rather seems like
| the US left has... mostly accomplished little? What sweeping
| changes or policy platforms have them 'off the deep end'?
|
| This is an honest inquiry.
| gfodor wrote:
| The far left has been entirely captured by the illiberal
| (really, anti-liberal) sociopolitical frameworks of
| Critical Theory, and this has now fully been integrated
| into most modern day institutions by the ruling class, such
| as universities, corporations, etc. This is backwards
| looking, it's already happened. Before I can vote for the
| left again (which I used to) I need to see them explicitly
| reject many of the principles behind Critical Theory.
| runarberg wrote:
| Can you elaborate? How is critical theory affecting the
| policy advocated by left wing political candidates? Which
| left wing ideology did they promote previously which you
| could vote for, but are unable to now because of which
| specific policy? Can you give me an example of critical
| theory expressed by the left wing candidates in your
| elective district? And why these examples in particular
| make it so that you can't vote for them?
| gfodor wrote:
| That's a lot of questions. I don't have time to write a
| blog post level response, but will try to write something
| useful a bit later.
| tsunamifury wrote:
| They don't have an answer because the modern democrats are
| the basically republicans of the 90s leaving the GOP with
| only a lot of complaining and projection as well as anti
| government theater.
|
| It's sort of a joke but it's more sad. I used to vote
| Republican and I would again if anyone there was even half
| willing to be more considerate and rational.
| vxNsr wrote:
| Just so we're clear, you replied to this person 10 min
| after their comment posted. You've already passed
| judgment before giving the OP a chance to respond.
| Discussions here happen over days not minutes. This isn't
| a telegram chat. Your comment is in incredibly poor
| taste.
| runarberg wrote:
| This is largely true. The US's political left gained a ton
| of traction behind Bernie Sanders. As we know his campaign
| went nowhere (twice). There are a handful of progressive
| candidates winning some primaries, but this is abysmal in
| the larger context. For every progressive that succeeds
| there is another progressive that fails (see e.g. Nina
| Turner in Ohio and Jessica Cisneros in Texas). And for
| every attempt there are 10 non-attempts. And we are even
| seeing equally many conservative democrats that honestly
| should belong in the Republican party in the national and
| state legislators.
|
| Outside of partisan politics the left is seeing some more
| successes, that is in the broader culture war. This
| includes broader acceptance of LGBTQ+ rights, calls for
| immigration reforms, calls for reprimands for centuries of
| slavery, etc. However these successes are not making their
| way to the legislator by a long shot, and quite often to
| the contrary (see e.g. reversal of Roe v. Wade).
|
| And I say this firmly from the left wing of the political
| spectrum.
| rajin444 wrote:
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-fhfa-
| hou...
|
| Stuff like this is rampant right now. The left has
| thoroughly won the culture war.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| runarberg wrote:
| Leaving aside the inherent bias of asking the general
| public whether they support a vague and/or nuanced issue,
| and also leaving aside these extremely narrow cherry
| picked issues. Where did you get the data showing that
| Americans do not support this?
| _-david-_ wrote:
| >The poll--which surveyed 1,503 people across the country
| between May 4 through 17--found 55% of Americans don't
| believe transgender women and girls should be allowed to
| compete in high school sports.
|
| >Almost 60% of those surveyed were opposed to transgender
| women and girls' participation in college and
| professional sports.
|
| >Americans were less likely to oppose transgender women
| and girls' participation in youth sports, with about a
| third of those surveyed saying transgender women and
| girls should be allowed to compete, while 17% said they
| did not have an opinion.
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/only-3-in-10-americans-
| sup...
|
| >According to the poll, roughly two-thirds of Republicans
| now believe "parents should be allowed to sue school
| districts if teachers discuss sexual orientation [70%] or
| gender identity [66%] when teaching children in
| kindergarten through grade three." Independents agree
| (46% and 47% percent, respectively) more often than not
| (34% and 36%). And a significant minority of Democrats
| concur as well (25%, 22%) or aren't sure (16%, 17%).
|
| And keep in mind that is not people who have read the
| bill, so they could be basing it on the name.
|
| https://news.yahoo.com/poll-only-52-of-democrats-oppose-
| flor...
|
| This is when people read the bill
|
| >When registered voters were shown the actual language of
| the bill, which prohibits age or developmentally
| inappropriate sexual education in pre-K through third
| grade, they supported it by more than a two-to-one
| margin.
|
| >Overall, 61 percent of voters supported the text of the
| bill. Just 26 percent were opposed.
|
| https://spectatorworld.com/topic/poll-americans-support-
| text...
| runarberg wrote:
| I did some vetting on these opinion polls. Your first two
| seem legitimate. Although I hope you keep in mind the
| wording of the questions here and the varying levels of
| nuance that people put into before they answer on a 5
| point likert scale. For example the "don't say gay" bill
| opinion poll by youGov is not asking about support for
| the bill, but rather if they should be allowed to sue
| school districts under certain conditions. You might be
| in full opposition to the bill in question but still feel
| like you should always have the right to sue. This is
| like three levels down from the main focus of the poll
| and the respondents will read differently into the
| question, with nuance which doesn't translate into a 5
| point likert scale.
|
| Now for your third poll, it was conducted by Public
| Opinion Strategies which is a republican pollster. The
| news source you gave me was written by Amber Athey, a
| senior fellow of the Steamboat Institute, which is a
| conservative think tanks that promotes American
| Exceptionalism and other nationalistic conservative
| values. I personally don't put much faith in polls such
| as these.
|
| Now this is all aside from the fact that these are cherry
| picked examples. This is hardly proof that _"The left is
| being decimated on the trans and sexual related issue"_.
| [deleted]
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Except that it's a flawed democracy in that you only seem to
| have two choices, with people often choosing the lesser evil,
| or deciding not to vote anyway because it doesn't matter.
|
| "the left" and "the right", or "the democrats" and "the
| republicans" in essence, is too wide a net. "The left go off
| the deep end" is also, when you look into it, a fairly small
| percentage of the wider population.
|
| But it feels like people are pushed to the fringes, because
| the Other Side is being pushed to the fringes. There's just,
| from the perspective of an outsider, a lot of antagonism
| between the two "sides".
|
| And that antagonism is being fueled by someone. There's
| people with a lot of money and / or special interests who
| benefit off of the infighting and polarisation.
| gitfan86 wrote:
| Politicians have no accountability. In 2024 Biden will take
| zero responsibility for inflation and the economy and spend
| all his time talking about how Republicans are racist.
|
| And Republicans will take zero responsibility for Trump and
| Jan 6th and spend all their time talking about how
| Democrats want to force your children to be trans.
|
| In the end no one has any responsibility to do anything to
| actually make the country better. If Musk could start a
| moderate party that took responsibility for results I would
| be on board.
| piva00 wrote:
| Musk and accountability? What dream world are you living
| in?
| gitfan86 wrote:
| The world where SpaceX and Tesla build real actual
| things.
| piva00 wrote:
| What does that have to do with accountability in any
| sense besides business?
| gsatic wrote:
| No party is going to solve the problems the US chooses to
| occupy itself with currently. They are too complex. The
| right move is to just pick simpler problems.
|
| There is an upper limit to what level of complexity any
| group can handle.
|
| But Americans have been told the upper limit doesn't
| exist so often and for so long that they are learning the
| hard way where the limit lies.
| hansvm wrote:
| For a broad range of voter preference classes, two-party
| systems are an expected result of majority voting. It's the
| best way to get the issues you care most about handled
| while hopefully not inflicting too much harm in all the
| other less important points that also get brought in. To
| fix that you need to change people's relative preferences
| or adopt an alternative voting scheme.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| While the left has its issues, your right wing is off the
| rails bonkers. So, this reactionism isn't really helping
| anyone.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| People who spend too much time on twitter _think_ they have
| seen the left go off the deep end. But what insane policy has
| actually occurred? Biden isn 't off the deep end. Meanwhile
| the right has _actually_ passed laws to tear apart families
| with trans kids, have actually passed laws to turn citizens
| into vigilantes to track down women having abortions, have
| actually tried to stage an insurrection, have actually put
| dishonest supreme court justices on the bench. But the left
| has gone off the deep end because there exist unhinged
| radical leftists on twitter saying crazy things.
| refurb wrote:
| I mean our government just nominated a Disinformation
| Bureau in a country known for its protection of free
| speech.
|
| They dropped it after being ridiculed, but I mean the
| President _was suggesting the government control speech_.
|
| That's a slide into tier two.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| They are actually bringing it back and this time it is
| going under the radar.
|
| https://nypost.com/2022/06/16/kamala-harris-leads-latest-
| bid...
| gfodor wrote:
| If you read legislation going through the house it's
| regularly full of Critical Theory terminology.
| dawnerd wrote:
| I don't want to get into politics here but you really should
| take a bigger step back if that's how you actually believe it
| to be.
| qwerpy wrote:
| Guy here who also got pushed into the arms of the right
| based on what the left has been doing. Interesting that you
| think going in this direction apparently merits some kind
| of emergency introspection while going in the other
| direction doesn't. People want different things out of
| life.
| OGWhales wrote:
| Since you seem to agree with the user above, can you give
| any concrete examples of how the left "went off the deep
| end" or just explain what you take issue with the left
| doing?
|
| I am particularly curious about politicians and their
| actions, rather than woke twitter users, since we are
| discussing who we vote for. Please do mention if wokeness
| is your main complaint with the left, as it seems to be
| the case for many conservatives I know, but I felt the
| need to mention I don't believe wokeness is actually
| relevant amongst politicians.
|
| As far as I can tell, left leaning politicians have not
| gone off the deep end in any objective sense. Their
| voting patterns seem to be mostly centrist/conservatives
| leaning and have remained that way for some time.
|
| Without concrete examples, it is really hard to accept
| "people want different things" as an explanation for
| statements that I would consider to be outright false. So
| I ask in hopes that I might understand the opposing
| perspective on this.
| Izkata wrote:
| Even just ignoring all the cultural topics (which is what
| most people refer to), here's one on actual attempt at
| policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeal_Act_(Virgini
| a)#Tran's_t...
|
| In 2019, Democrats in Virginia tried to pass a bill that
| would allow abortion at the point of birth. Long past
| viability, basically just unnecessarily killing the baby.
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| What has "the left" done that pushed you away to support
| a part that says LGBTQ people should be able to get
| married, that their version of the Christian god deserves
| special protections in law, etc? Those are explicate
| positions documented in the GOP platform that members of
| the GOP are required to support.
| ZetaZero wrote:
| sentirism wrote:
| I am a registered Democrat that absolutely can't stand Elon
| Musk and his cult of personality.
|
| The mob turn on him for trying to buy Twitter is so
| disturbing though. It is straight Jacobin.
|
| Liberty, Equality, Fraternity..if you disagree in any sense,
| then the guillotine.
| fooblaster wrote:
| A slide into a second tier country? I lament the difficulty I
| have in understanding how one to come to this belief after
| the last 10 years. It's like we don't even share the same
| facts anymore.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Are you saying the US is already a second-tier country, or
| that it's not sliding into that status?
| bakuninsbart wrote:
| I'm not American, and definetely not an expert on your
| politics, but like many other digital native Europeans hold
| pretty strong opinions on them anyway. I would honestly like
| to learn what in your opinion the actions of the Democrats
| are that lead to you sliding into second tier. From my
| perspective most of the blame would have to be put on
| Republicans.
| UnpossibleJim wrote:
| It's not quite that easy, to be honest. And here's where I
| lose my audience...
|
| We have two very pro corporate parties, that are pro
| military, one who is right and one who is center right, if
| you look at actual policy and spending. The main difference
| is on abortion legislation, gay rights, gun legislation
| (sort of... and that depends on the Democrat), and to an
| even lesser extent some tax policies, but with political
| funding how it is, no parties really bite the hand that
| feed them so 95% of tax policy is talk and "trickle down
| economic policy" is entrenched, much to the detriment of
| our country.
|
| Most of the substantial difference is talking points and
| bluster, it pains me to say. Even gay rights is pretty new
| to the table... that didn't come about until Hillary
| Clinton ran against Trump, when she finally changed her
| position on gay marriage (though I think she was one of the
| last major hold outs).
|
| The major problem with our American system of politics is
| the two party stranglehold that has been imposed upon and
| that those two parties have made nearly impossible to rid
| ourselves of. It's one of the things (other than war
| profiteering and insider trading) they vehemently agree on.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Given this is HN, I'm just mildly curious about how people who
| knew Musk 15-20 years ago view him now. I mean, I know this is
| tangential, but pg had an essay talking about what a bad idea
| it was that Musk demanded Windows over Linux when Musk ran
| PayPal - I just got the sense that pg was never a fan.
|
| Do folks view this as "this is an ambitious, hardworking genius
| whose lack of social constraints due to his success is making
| him run off the rails, mentally" or is it a case of "Musk has
| always been more asshole than genius, it's just his 'marketing
| veneer' that is starting to falter."
|
| I agree, I've always viewed Musk with a sense of awe and
| amazement ("How can someone have the time and energy to run
| THREE major companies??"), now I just want him to STFU because
| what comes out of his mouth/tweet feed is such incessant verbal
| diarrhea.
| vhiremath4 wrote:
| I found a tweet from Oliver Morton from yesterday that covers
| this. At least according to him Musk wasn't always this way.
|
| https://twitter.com/Eaterofsun/status/1537427167038013440
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > How can someone have the time and energy to run THREE major
| companies??
|
| Delegation.
| cwmoreiras wrote:
| Well I, for one, believe him when he claims to know every
| detail about every technology used at any of his companies.
|
| Did you know that he used to sleep in a bathroom stall at
| the Tesla plant because he couldn't afford a studio
| apartment? A true hero
| dlp211 wrote:
| Please tell me that this is sarcasm. The idolization of
| this man is unreal.
|
| Elon couldn't run a Python script sent to him.
| justin66 wrote:
| > he couldn't afford a studio apartment
|
| Is this sarcasm or a thing that you actually believe?
| kirubakaran wrote:
| "A true hero" == "/s"
| blitzar wrote:
| > Did you know that he used to sleep in a bathroom stall
| at the Tesla plant because he couldn't afford a studio
| apartment? A true hero
|
| I dont believe his current account balance went below 7
| figures at any point while Tesla has existed, so no I
| didnt know that.
| cwmoreiras wrote:
| Yep. He wanted to save money on housing so he could put
| every last penny into his businesses. So he slept on the
| crapper.
| blitzar wrote:
| Yeah sure... gave $20mil to ex wife... it was the $500 a
| month in rent he saved that pushed it over the edge.
| endymi0n wrote:
| I think the success really got to him. As a (cured) ex Elon
| fanboy who used to like him way before he was widely known to
| a non-nerd community, I distinctively remember this interview
| around the pre-Falcon 9 times with him which is like
|
| Interviewer: Neil Armstrong says he doesn't want a private
| company like SpaceX to launch humans to tue moon because it's
| unsafe. What do you think about that?
|
| Humble Elon, literally crying: I... I just wish he could come
| out here and see what we are doing.
|
| That's the picture I carried with me for a long time,
| together with some really smart remarks about climate change
| on panels that were way ahead of their time.
|
| These days, it's really all an ego shitshow, memes and YOLo.
| He definitely changed a LOT the past few years.
| ThinkingGuy wrote:
| The impression I got from this article by his first wife
| was that his growing wealth and power, as well as being
| surrounded by similarly wealthy powerful people, sort of
| formed a feedback loop that just intensified personality
| traits that he already possessed.
|
| https://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/a5380/millionaire-
| start...
| [deleted]
| jvanderbot wrote:
| My wife, ever the empathetic, reminds me constantly that Elon
| is not neurotypical. He has aspergers, and that can explain
| some of his bluntness, some of his work-life demands, etc.
|
| I don't want to generalize or stereotype ASD in general, but
| it does produce tangible differences in how people relate to
| the world.
| watwut wrote:
| Aspergers does not explains his behavior. It does not
| explain grandiosity, oversensitivity, lying, egoism and so
| on. Also, Musk is pretty good at negotiating, manipulating
| and can be very charming, people with asperger are usually
| opposite.
|
| So, that diagnosis is some minor influence somewhere, but
| does not explains the rest.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I think elon is such a Rorschach blot that people see the
| evils of capitalism, woes of mental health, drug use,
| virtuousness of free market ideals, entrepreneurial
| godhood, corruption of wealth and political power, blah
| blah, depending on their priors.
|
| Things people say about him reveal more about the speaker
| than the subject, I mean.
| caslon wrote:
| > There's a common idea that surrounds autistic people,
| especially those with above-average intellectual ability.
| This idea states that we have no empathy, that we're robots
| who will never understand relationships, that we're
| incapable of acting human. TV Tropes calls it Disability as
| an Excuse for Jerkassery, and notes that Asperger's is a
| favorite excuse. The Autistic Jerk has become such an
| ingrained idea, many people expect and assume that we are
| going to be assholes. But I'm here to tell you: the
| autistic jerk is just a jerk who happens to be autistic.
|
| https://autisticempath.com/the-autistic-jerk-is-just-a-
| jerk/
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I think you're reading into my comment a bit too much. I
| never intended to over-generalize or stereotype anyone
| with ASD, and didn't use any negative words re: Elon or
| aspergers.
| piva00 wrote:
| > How can someone have the time and energy to run THREE major
| companies??
|
| An easy way is with... Amphetamines.
| moralestapia wrote:
| > How can someone have the time and energy to run THREE
| major companies??
|
| Or maybe ... he doesn't?
|
| You know, if it's too good to be true, it probably is.
| ravel-bar-foo wrote:
| Musk has a security clearance, so he either has a
| prescription or he's not on illegal drugs.
| tekno45 wrote:
| you know he smoked weed live right?
| SSLy wrote:
| cannabis still isn't prescribe-able in USA?
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Some states allow from prescriptions, but it's still
| Federally illegal - and of course the Federal government
| doesn't care about state law when making decisions about
| security classifications.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > the Federal government doesn't care about state law
| when making decisions about security classifications.
|
| I suspect this is less true than you think; since federal
| prosecution is blocked by law for state-legal use, one of
| the major security clearance reasons for it to be an
| issue (the leverage that the criminal behavior might give
| others over you because of prosecution risk) is very much
| affected by state law.
| vel0city wrote:
| > since federal prosecution is blocked by law for state-
| legal use
|
| Source for that? One would think the supremacy clause
| overrides any idea of state law.
|
| > This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
| which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all
| Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
| Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law
| of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
| thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any
| State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
|
| Seems pretty cut and dry to me that if its federally
| illegal its still illegal within the states. The only
| question is if the federal government really cares to
| enforce the law in states where a large population of the
| state is openly breaking the federal laws.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Admittedly, I'm pretty far from that world, but I follow
| a bunch of NatSec folks on Twitter and Bradley Moss and
| Mark Zaid are specialist NatSec lawyers who represent
| many people denied clearances;
|
| https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/146822351072419020
| 8
|
| https://twitter.com/MarkSZaidEsq/status/13348799948966666
| 24
|
| It sounds like it differs greatly between departments and
| whether the usage was in the past or the present.
| effingwewt wrote:
| I never realized until the comments today that the reason
| you can't be on even state-legal prescribed drugs is
| because you become more open to blackmail and
| exploitation or prosecution risk.
|
| But wouldn't debt of any kind, or regular motivations
| such as greed, family (maybe a relative got into
| drugs/trouble) be the same or even worse?
|
| It just seems like a left-over relic from the 'reefer
| madness' days.
|
| A big part of my early distrust for police stems from the
| lies they told me in D.A.R.E. 'class'. Marijuana will
| turn you into a drug-fueled criminal, it eats your brain
| cells like this spray paint on a Styrofoam cup, and they
| _never come back_ , this is your brain (egg), this is
| your brain on 'drugs' (but it's an anti-weed commercial)
| and the egg starts frying in a pan. They spent years
| trying to convince the very young and very old that
| weed==narcotics.
|
| As I've gotten older I've realized almost everyone has
| some issue- addiction, drug use, over-indulgence of
| whatever, just seems some are hell bent on hiding it and
| pretending they don't.
| confidantlake wrote:
| I agree with you, but debts are one of the things
| investigated for clearances.
| ravel-bar-foo wrote:
| Right. People were calling for him to be tested for it
| over his clearance. He was also supposedly very careful
| to not inhale.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Right, clearances are highly individualized, and have
| very little to do with those lifestyle decisions. They
| can grant or revoke essentially at will.
| ghotli wrote:
| I had a knee jerk reaction to this but taking the high
| road. I sincerely don't believe that the venn diagram of
| people with security clearance doesn't overlap at all
| with "those that use illegal drugs"
|
| I would guess that there's a culture of delusion
| surrounding this wherein because "it's the rules" they
| are actually followed. You know because rules are rules.
| The world, especially those like the Elons of the world,
| don't care to follow them as diligently as perhaps a
| command and control military / public service style
| structure demands. I'd even be surprised if even in the
| federal government those with security clearance were
| completely sober and free of the drugs considered illegal
| under US law.
|
| You know Elon is gonna do what he wants to do. For better
| (electric cars, reusable rockets) or for worse (open his
| twitter feed any day of the week).
| confidantlake wrote:
| I suspect compliance for federal workers is very high,
| pardon the pun. Your average Joe fed is not going to be
| treated the same if they are caught using drugs vs elon
| being caught using drugs.
| perihelions wrote:
| He took federal schedule I substances on a live YouTube
| stream. A third option is that the DoD doesn't actually
| care that much.
|
| https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-elon-musk-
| security-cl...
|
| - _" Musk has refiled his SF-86 security form, which
| requires a federal employee or contractor seeking a
| clearance to acknowledge any illegal drug use over the
| previous seven years, according to the official, who
| asked not to be identified. SpaceX has contracts to
| launch satellites for the U.S. military."_
|
| - _" Musk's "adjudication" review by the Defense Security
| Service continues with no decision yet, the U.S. official
| said. Typically during an adjudication, a person keeps
| his or her security clearance but loses access to
| information classified as secret, according to the
| official. If the drug use involves minor issues or
| doesn't appear to contain any serious security concerns,
| the unit reviewing the case could just close it and
| update Musk's record."_
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| the argument about illegal drugs is, in part, that
| someone using them can be blackmailed, and may be a total
| junkie willing to sell out secrets for a 8 ball. He isn't
| hanging out on skidrow begging for change to get his next
| heroin fix.
|
| I don't think either of those apply with Musk, because he
| is a pot afficianado and openly pushing it, and pro-
| legalization. Some states have legalized because they
| want those juicy tax revenues, There is a significant
| part of the populace that realizes pot has been
| overcriminalized particularly for those with medical
| issues. While there are risks and dangers associated with
| all of these (see Alex Berenson), I don't see an
| adjudication authority seeing Musk as a security risk.
|
| Dollars talk, and saving the federal government hundreds
| of millions with cheaper launches probably influences
| this some. But, the feds prolly see the long view and
| recognize Musk is likely to push the Americans into the
| infinity cash supplies of space tourism, space freight,
| deep space exporation, space mining, and the national
| prestige of first humans to Mars. Why would they want to
| impair that over a bit of weed?
| dangerface wrote:
| I think people are just upset because he is rich I noticed
| the amount of hatred for him seems to be directly correlated
| with how much money he has. If he didn't have money people
| would just see him as a memey nerd.
| effingwewt wrote:
| Ah, yes- behold all of the comments in this thread that
| have no critiques of Musk other than $!
|
| And incidentally, yes- many poor people despise the rich,
| just as most rich people despise the poor.
|
| Mamy are the critiques of Musk here, nowhere did I read it
| was because he's hoarding money.
|
| Edit to add- rich people change laws and construction to
| benefit them, they can displace and ruin the lives of the
| poor with a thought. They have all the power and most of
| the money. They live in gated communities far out of sight
| of the working class. They _literally_ have an
| embarrassment of riches while people die around them. There
| is a very good reason the affluent only live amongst each
| other in fancy gated communities.
|
| People don't hate the rich because they are rich, it's
| because of the impact they have on the lives of those
| without means.
| dangerface wrote:
| The only criticism I have seen here of musk beside money
| is that hes right wing, not really a criticism.
|
| Can you actually give an example of the criticism you
| claim to see or do you only have the claim?
|
| Edit:
|
| > I think people are just upset because he is rich
|
| Thanks :)
| effingwewt wrote:
| Nice, I love when people put words in my mouth,
| especially when I've been good enough to state my
| argument in good faith.
|
| This very comment thread has people saying, among other
| things, that Musk oversteps on Twitter, bring up the SEC
| charges, bring up the twitter purchase, bring up his
| freedom of speech absolution, it goes on for days.
|
| So you are either blind incapable of reading, or are a
| troll. Since you shoved words in my mouth and are still
| parroting 'bcuz rich', I'm going with the latter.
| bena wrote:
| When it was Tesla and the beginning of SpaceX, I was like
| "Oh, that's cool". I didn't care much more than the surface
| level and didn't care to look deeper. Since then, he's
| exposed much more of himself and have caused others to look
| way deeper.
|
| And it's looking more and more like the doesn't so much run
| three major companies as owns three major companies.
| [deleted]
| reaperducer wrote:
| _What I think is finally giving people Elon fatigue is his
| politics._
|
| I don't care about Mr. Musk's politics. But I dumped all of my
| Tesla stock recently because of his increasingly erratic
| behavior.
|
| To me, it demonstrates an inability to make wise decisions. And
| I can't trust my money to people who can no longer reliably
| make wise decisions.
|
| He's impulsive, and entertaining to watch; but now I will do so
| from a distance. And so will my money.
| deltaonefour wrote:
| This is actually bad investment strategy. Warren Buffet once
| made a shit load of money because of this.
|
| During a more conservative time... waaay back. A company was
| doing very well but the CEO had an affair. The public caught
| wind of the affair and the stock tanked, because people had
| your exact same philosophy. Those people cared about the
| behavior of the CEO while ignoring the metrics of the
| company. Warren Buffet looked at the fundamental performance
| of the company and saw that it was doing quite well, so he
| bought it at super low prices.
|
| Eventually the stock price changed and began to reflect the
| fundamentals of the actual business as people forgot about
| the behavior of the CEO.
|
| You shouldn't care about his erratic behavior. You should
| care about the business sector and the overall performance of
| the company.
| zzless wrote:
| Doesn't your example support his/her position though? Dump
| the stock now, wait till the price drops, buy at a reduced
| price ... profit! I know, timing the market and all that,
| but this seems like a sensible move now.
| joyeuse6701 wrote:
| Interesting point, I suppose the affair didn't affect the
| bottom line of the company, but Musk trying to buy twitter
| and considering how strongly his company's brands are tied
| to his personal one are not something to be ignored. I
| believe they have a tangible effect on the value of the
| company. So in this case his behavior should be considered.
| deltaonezero wrote:
| It has a tangible effect on the short term value of the
| company. Just like the affair. People all tend to have
| short term thinking. The price of the stock drops because
| of behavior, this is real... but it is also opportunity.
| While you sell, I buy. You lose out.
|
| The underlying performance of the company does not change
| based off of random tweets. If Tesla is good enough to
| take over the entire automobile industry even the CEO
| pulling off his pants walking around in public is a
| separate issue to actual performance.
| soperj wrote:
| This might be true if Tesla was trading below normal
| valuations, but it isn't even close.
| tdub311 wrote:
| If you thought a stock was gonna go down in the short term
| and then back up, wouldn't it still be smart to sell and
| then buy back after it tanks?
| toast0 wrote:
| A CEO having an affair is probably different than a CEO
| with a sizable control of votimg shares, appearing to be
| pretty impulsive in general in public.
|
| The CEO with the affair could presumably be replaced if
| romantic fidelity is important to the company or if the
| relationship violated company policies, but if it doesn't
| affect their business choices, maybe it's not needed.
|
| A CEO with strong control is a lot harder to replace, and
| fighting over replacing such a CEO is likely to happen in
| public and be a negative for the company. General
| impulsiveness is, IMHO, more likely to show up in business
| choices than romantic impulsiveness (if that's what was the
| basis for the affair), and business choices made for
| impulsive reasons at the very least increases volitility
| and may likely reduce expected value. If I'm investing in
| an established company, I think I want stability and
| rational choices, not volatility and impulsive choices. But
| then, I don't invest in individual companies, apart from
| stock based compensation.
| snarf21 wrote:
| That isn't a great reason to dump Tesla. A _good_ reason to
| dump Tesla is that Ford and Toyota are poised to run them out
| of business. Between the fires and the "autopilot" crash
| issues and price and production delays, Tesla will end up
| going the way of the Delorian.
| brandonagr2 wrote:
| How is Toyota, who is widely known for being anti-EV and
| still trying to pitch hydrogen fuel cells, poised to run
| Tesla out of business?
|
| https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/toyota-pushes-back-
| ag...
| nebula8804 wrote:
| WHen the NY Auto Show rolled around this year I went
| straight to the Toyota booth to try out the BZX4 (What a
| stupid name now that I think about it)
|
| This car is the supposed Tesla killer. Take it from me, it
| is not. The interior is claustrophobic reminiscent of early
| Nissan Leaf. If you are 6'2 or taller, you are going to
| have a bad time. Its clear that center console was not
| tested by any tall person. There is nothing appealing about
| this car in my opinion other than the Toyota badge. It is
| ugly inside and out. It is neither a bog standard car(which
| a lot of people want) nor a stunning looking EV(which a lot
| of people want). It is the standard mismash OEMs have
| created int he past. They always make EVs "weird" when they
| don't have to be. Sure this car is going to sell out
| whatever limited production they can make because demand
| for EVs far outstrips supply but Tesla killer it will not
| be.
|
| For Ford I wonder about their cost structure. The teardown
| of their EVs indicate that they are still implementing old
| school thinking from the ICE world that adds unneeded cost
| to the sticker price. This is uncompetitive with Tesla long
| term. They need to really reform the organization and fast
| so their next gen EVs do better.
| dlp211 wrote:
| The F150 is the best selling vehicle in America.
| American's want an F150 the way it is today. They don't
| care about gross margins and doing it the most efficient
| way. And if they can get that F150 with a battery that
| saves them "oodles" in gas money, but delivers an
| otherwise same experience, you can bet your ass they will
| pay for it.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| The F150 has its supporters but others can take the steps
| to cut their costs and as a result, make the F150 a
| harder sell when you have everything else as equal. I
| strongly believe the current demand for Lightning is
| partially due to scarcity of choice.
| redler wrote:
| Delorean sold about 7,000 cars, total, in its existence.
| Tesla sold about a million last year. Regardless of how you
| feel about Tesla, it's safe to say it's now a major, fast-
| growing auto maker that's not going away.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Just to be fair here, I believe dumping the stock of a
| company whose leader is acting so inexplicably that one can
| no longer be certain of his/her rationality is the right
| thing to do. I always say, no matter how much you have,
| it's tactless to throw away money. (Probably the more money
| you have, the more tactless and tone deaf the act of
| throwing away money becomes.)
|
| All that said, in this case, as you point out, there are
| multiple reasons to be dumping stocks of companies owned or
| influenced by this guy. At least until we have a better
| handle on what's going on. If nothing's wrong, we can
| always buy it back. But right now, very few of the market's
| concerns have much to do with politics. He's acting in an
| unpredictable manner just when the market appears to be
| entering a period of uncertainty. It may be because of his
| politics, but the market doesn't care about the why.
| Rational people are looking for some level of safety,
| stability and security at the moment. Unpredictable leaders
| who appear bent on market manipulation fly in the face of
| that.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _That isn 't a great reason to dump Tesla._
|
| My money, my decision. Over the last 30 years, it's worked
| quite well for me.
|
| I also believe that taking advice from randos on the
| internet is not a sound investment strategy.
| Hayvok wrote:
| > giving people Elon fatigue is his politics. > I really get
| the sense that people are increasingly getting sick of hearing
| from or about him. YMMV.
|
| YMMV indeed, because every conservative I talk to is seeing him
| as a hero who is finally speaking truth to power, and calling
| B.S. on the establishment (political, corporate HR, academic)
| narratives that have been running through the culture.
|
| They aren't sick of him at all - they're cheering him on.
| omnicognate wrote:
| But are they buying Teslas?
| thepasswordis wrote:
| Does it matter? Go try and buy a Tesla and see how long the
| line is.
|
| People are buying teslas and the _immediately_ flipping
| them for $10k of profit to people who don 't want to wait.
| The demand for teslas right now is insane.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| And Teslas are pretty crappy cars from a quality of
| workmanship perspective.
|
| After testing several different cars in a lab, I got the
| sense that the people at Tesla know a lot about how to
| integrate technologies, but only possess the bare minimum
| viable knowledge base about how to build a car. Whereas
| the people at Toyota know an insanely ridiculously huge
| amount about how to build a car, but are risk averse with
| integrating technologies.
|
| I will say that was a purely technical analysis however.
| It didn't include things like how marketing might effect
| perception for instance.
| oittaa wrote:
| > I know nothing about cars
|
| Meanwhile in the real world "Tesla tops the list of most
| satisfied customers in the entire auto industry"
| thepasswordis wrote:
| Okay what's your point? People love Tesla. They want the
| cars so much that they'll pay huge amounts of money to
| get them and even more to get them quickly.
|
| Sounds like Toyota is good at making cars people don't
| want. What does that say about Toyota?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| It says that being trendy can be very profitable in the
| short term, but being boring and reliable works out well
| in the long term.
|
| Consider that well over half of all Teslas have to go in
| for service within the first month of ownership. For such
| an expensive car, that is not a good look. Look at how
| many ex-owners now say they'd never buy another and
| refuse to recommend them to friends. Go ask GM and Ford
| how hard it is to regain a reputation that you have
| squandered.
|
| I enjoyed my P3D. Mostly. It went like stink, which is
| why I bought it. Lots of misfeatures, though, and still
| missing obvious features every other car has. I'm in the
| camp of "won't buy one again, unless something big
| changes, the competition is better." and we are growing
| quickly in number.
| TrickardRixx wrote:
| Last year Tesla sold about one million vehicles while
| Toyota sold about ten million. Are you sure people don't
| want Toyotas?
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Maybe this is a long term play to try to get the people
| he's catering his message to to start buying electric
| vehicles?
| stilist wrote:
| Or maybe he's just a jerk.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Yeah, that's probably the correct answer.
| mwint wrote:
| More than you would think.
| https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/03/cars/tesla-buyer-
| politics...
| mattwest wrote:
| Gosh that phenomenon is just so familiar, but I can't quite
| put my finger on it. There's definitely something in my
| memory regarding a no BS, celebrity businessman who rose to
| fame as a conservative demagogue. Ah, I'll think of it later
| I'm sure.
| bena wrote:
| Well, absent a constitutional amendment, the highest level
| of office Musk can reach (I think) is Governor of a state
| or Representative (either House or Senate).
| pjc50 wrote:
| Yes, he's chosen his politics to pitch to that crowd. That's
| why we're so sick of it, it's the same grift you can get from
| youtubers and talk radio stations.
| Hayvok wrote:
| "That crowd" being people who think that the leftist
| intelligentsia in the U.S. is off their rocker?
|
| It's a big crowd, and getting bigger.
| rajin444 wrote:
| Is your post implying being conservative is inherently bad? It
| seems like that's the unspoken crux of your argument - ie you
| actually have an issue with a "conservative" (I hesitate to
| label musk as one) winning the culture war. Conservatives make
| the same argument about "don't be political" when liberals are
| winning.
|
| I'm mostly in agreement with what you said, but I don't think
| your reasons are coming from a principled place.
| dwringer wrote:
| For me the weak point in that post is using the phrase
| "coming out and supporting Desantis" to refer to Elon Musk
| responding to the questions of if he'd be voting republican
| ("tbd"), and who he's "leaning towards" ("DeSantis").
|
| That said I think it's a horrible look and DeSantis's
| response to the matter is one of the most tasteless and tone-
| deaf things I've heard from him all week.
|
| I like this take in The New Yorker[0]
|
| [0]https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/elon-musk-
| an...
| zthrowaway wrote:
| Why is supporting a republican a horrible look?
| [deleted]
| dwringer wrote:
| I'm neither suggesting that supporting a republican is a
| horrible look nor that being conservative is bad. Please
| be careful not to derail this into partisanship.
| deltaonefour wrote:
| Eh he comes off as a normal human being to me. Definitely quite
| awful, but that's also very normal.
|
| The difference between Elon and others is that Elon doesn't put
| on as big of a facade.
|
| There are CEO's who are psychopaths and are much worse then
| Elon but are much better at keeping their actual persona
| hidden.
|
| Elon is just as awful as the next human being. We tend to have
| a higher set of expectations for people in Elons position. Very
| rarely does anyone actually meet these expectations. Most
| people just pretend to meet this expectation. Elon fails at
| both meeting the expectations and pretending to meet it.
| CBarkleyU wrote:
| This is a fallacy that really irks me. You can't even argue
| against a statement like that. If Person A acts like a decent
| human being it's because they're putting on a facade, if
| Person A acts like a dumpster fire it's because they're not
| putting on a facade.
|
| Would you describe your inner circle of friends as "quite
| awful"? I really hope you wouldn't. I certainly don't. And I
| presume most people don't. So there must be sizable amount of
| human being that another sizable amount of human beings
| consider good humans. The CEO of the multi-billion dollar
| company I work for seems and acts like a normal (meaning
| decent, as opposed to your definition "quite awful") human
| being. Never goes on rants like Elon, quite worker-friendly,
| always there to chat, doesn't fire people on the spot because
| they can't answer a question that he only started verbalizing
| halfway though his stream of consciousness rants. And we
| compete in the same industry as Elon. Isn't trying to
| influence politics with his position on several dozens of
| matters that have nothing to do with out company. Also
| doesn't cultivate a cult following with himself as the head
| of the cult.
|
| That's all that matters to me, if there no evidence of him
| being an awful human being, it would be downright unethical
| for me to assume that he is an awful human being hiding
| behind a facade.
|
| Also: Before anyone hits me with the "Well your CEO isnt a
| visionary trying to get us to Mars". Well, yeah. I'd rather
| be stuck on Earth with him than live under whatever fantasy a
| sociopath is _promising_ to unfold on Mars.
| MPSimmons wrote:
| > The difference between Elon and others is that Elon doesn't
| put on as big of a facade.
|
| It is fascinating to me that you see Elon as not putting on a
| facade, rather than his public face constantly being a
| changing facade.
|
| As far as I can tell, Elon has two modes: "engineering",
| which is where he's super awkward and, as far as I can tell,
| totally and completely honest, if optimistic on capabilities
| and timeframes, and "public", which is where he's totally
| erratic and populist.
|
| His twitter persona is almost totally public. Nothing is
| serious, everything is flippant, and his opinions sway with
| the breeze, or on the basis of who he feels slighted him most
| recently.
| deltaonezero wrote:
| I guess a better way to put it, is he fails at putting on a
| facade. He is certainly trying, but he's so bad at it, that
| he fails.
|
| A good analogy is a small child pretending to be an adult.
| tartoran wrote:
| Right on. Watch his SNL skit that was supposed to pump
| dogecoin. His acting is clueless but his nerdiness makes
| him acceptable to his followers
| justrando wrote:
| _> I really get the sense that people are increasingly getting
| sick of hearing from or about him. YMMV._
|
| I'm just a rando on the internet so maybe not representative,
| but this uBlock snippet makes anything related to Twitter or
| Elon invisible on the Guardian front page. Definitely improved
| my QoL ##.fc-item__container:has-
| text(/\bElon\b/) ##.fc-item__container:has-
| text(/\bTwitter\b/)
| doyouevensunbro wrote:
| Thank you for this, internet stranger!
| phkahler wrote:
| >> I'm really starting to wonder if 2022 won't be looked back
| as the year that Elon finally jumped the shark.
|
| I will be extremely sad if Starship ends up being his Spruce
| Goose. Yes that's a reference to a former employee talking
| about him on JRE.
| martythemaniak wrote:
| Yeah, it's pretty sad. I think what happened is he "crossed the
| chasm" so to speak and became mainstream. He was famous for his
| work, which is super interesting and so he was appreciated by a
| subset of nerds. In the last year or two he bacame famous for
| his personality, which turned out to be "generic right-wing
| edge lord". Thing is, there's very few people who can talk in
| depth about rocket design or actually bring their wild schemes
| to life and he's one of them. On the other hand, there's a
| whole spectrum of thousands of celebrity right wing edge lords
| to choose from if that's your thing and there's absolutely
| nothing interesting or unique about his take on this.
| lathiat wrote:
| You nailed that on the head.
| [deleted]
| iamleppert wrote:
| schmeckleberg wrote:
| fzeroracer wrote:
| I get you're trying to do a parody thing, but your comment is
| already almost identical with some of the flagged/dead comments
| here.
| quasarj wrote:
| hah, I thought he was serious
| tpict wrote:
| It's almost identical to some of the top comments!
| bestcoder69 wrote:
| IANAL, but you may want to edit or amend this comment if you're
| in a leadership position because it might technically be
| illegal (assuming U.S.), even though it's satire.
|
| See Ben Shapiro's and Ben Domenech's recent NLRB ULP charges.
| Shapiro had his thrown out because he RT'd an Employees Rights
| poster (which is more or less the remedy anyway), and Domenech
| got lucky and had a judge reach a "no-coercion conclusion" in
| his case.[0]
|
| [0]: https://mattbruenig.com/2022/05/21/federalist-ulp-ends-in-
| bi...
| iamleppert wrote:
| You're right about one thing...you are not a lawyer, you are
| a worker.
| 0goel0 wrote:
| metadat wrote:
| At first I thought this was a joke but looking at parent
| posting history, there is nothing to indicate one way or the
| other. Gross.
| dubswithus wrote:
| Why would it be a joke? Firing employees plotting against the
| company and other coworkers seems prudent.
| corrral wrote:
| I'm going to bookmark this post to point people to when someone
| asks me what Poe's Law is.
| [deleted]
| guerrilla wrote:
| I flagged it...There's no indication its ironic.
| dubswithus wrote:
| Not flag worthy. Just reality most people hate the woke
| drama llamas.
| [deleted]
| quasarj wrote:
| Dang, sounds like your workers need to unionize haha.
| tacoooooooo wrote:
| cm42 wrote:
| bobobob420 wrote:
| "The letter called the billionaire's public behavior and tweeting
| "a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment" and asked
| the company to rein him in"
|
| Lmao thats pretty funny tbh. Employees should be allowed to say
| what they want but the firing was to be expected and maybe some
| of the employees learned unfortunately they do not have the power
| they thought they had.
| taco_philips wrote:
| [deleted]
| floatinglotus wrote:
| Today is Friday, therefore Musk has changed his mind yet again.
|
| We are no longer fans of free speech.
|
| Stay tuned for daily updates.
| avl999 wrote:
| Musk is a total snowflake who cosplays as some sort of defender
| of free speech.
| dqpb wrote:
| Ah, the ever present amusement of action and consequence.
|
| If you criticize your employer, expect to get fired. Just got
| fired? What do you care, you don't like your employer anyway.
| Just fired everyone smart enough to criticize you? Enjoy your
| dwindling years with the team of incompetent cronies.
|
| This is a perfect snapshot of the human condition.
| nocoolnametom wrote:
| Musk may end up being the most influential person to:
|
| 1. Electrify our vehicular infrastructure
|
| 2. Get humans to the Moon, if not to Mars
|
| 3. Accelerate the unionization of Silicon Valley tech workers
|
| His approach to remote-vs-in-office work is less that of a data-
| informed futurist and more that of an autocrat. Just as he's
| loudly supporting public free speech as long as it's his speech,
| I predict within a few months of taking over Twitter (assuming he
| doesn't just eat the penalties for dropping out of the agreement)
| he'll be loudly proclaiming his support of democracy as long as
| it's not within his companies.
| Thaxll wrote:
| 2. Get humans to the Moon, if not to Mars
|
| I think there is a misconception here, SpaceX does not send
| anyone to space, NASA, ESA etc .. does.
|
| SpaceX builds rockets that's it, they don't train astronaut or
| have a program for space exploration or missions.
| voxic11 wrote:
| Can you explain how NASA, ESA, ect.. were involved in the
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspiration4 mission?
| mulcahey wrote:
| This is incorrect. Inspiration4 sent astronauts they trained.
| This was largely true for the Axiom mission as well, and will
| be for the Polaris missions.
| Thaxll wrote:
| Well if you call 4month training "astronauts", those kind
| of training won't get anyone on the moon or on mars.
|
| I think that's why they call them
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_astronaut
|
| To me it's more space tourism that anything else, there is
| a reason why it takes years to train astronauts.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| That's like saying "guns don't kill people" while technically
| true, having a rocket certainly helps get people into
| space...
| colinmhayes wrote:
| As far as I can tell NASA had no plans to return to the moon
| until spaceX came around with starship. Hard for me to say
| spaceX isn't the direct reason for the planned mission
| Octoth0rpe wrote:
| That's not correct. The Constellation program (which would
| eventually morph into the SLS via Ares) have been in
| development with the goal of returning to the moon since
| before the F9 launched even.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| ah thank you.
| MPSimmons wrote:
| Which, in itself, is a damning statement.
| oittaa wrote:
| > I read only TSLAQ propaganda
|
| Inspiration 4, Axiom 1, Polaris Dawn, ...
| andsoitis wrote:
| > democracy as long as it's not within his companies.
|
| Can you name a single company that operates as a democracy?
| germinalphrase wrote:
| What features of democracy are you concerned with? It's not
| hard to find employee-owned and/or cooperatives.
|
| CHS, Inc up here in St. Paul does almost 40 billion in
| revenue as a cooperative.
| Aunche wrote:
| CHS Inc is about as democratic as McDonalds. The farmers
| can vote, just as McDonald's shareholders can, but I'd bet
| that the Hispanic laborers they rely on have less of a say
| over their working conditions than McDonald's workers.
| huhwat wrote:
| There are many worker coops that operate as a democracy, some
| of them quite large. From manufacturing to food service to
| coding to agriculture, they are in nearly every sector.
|
| Maybe this is news to you, but the arrangement isn't that
| uncommon.
| lp0_on_fire wrote:
| Not the person to whom you were responding but lets refine
| the question: can you name one at the size and scale of
| Telsa or SpaceX?
| huhwat wrote:
| Mondragon has tens of billions in revenue and nearly a
| hundred thousand workers.
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
|
| Is that Tesla or SpaceX scale? Seems like it's in the
| ballpark.
| djaychela wrote:
| John Lewis [1] springs to mind, although I don't know how
| deep that runs.
|
| [1] - https://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/about.html
| jacquesm wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
| dlkf wrote:
| > His approach to remote-vs-in-office work is less that of a
| data-informed futurist and more that of an autocrat.
|
| We don't have the data to determine the long term viability of
| work from home. Maybe we never will - causation is not
| correlation, and I don't see any RCTs happening.
|
| Like most decisions, we can't simply consult "science" or "the
| experts" - we have to use our instincts and our priors.
| option wrote:
| You added (3) because of your personal agenda. It may or may
| not be true, but it is a minuscule detail compared to first
| two.
| shswkna wrote:
| > as long as it's not within his companies
|
| Where does the idea originate that there has to be a democracy
| in a private company?
|
| If I were to take my money and start a company, and risk it
| all, I would go to great lengths (within the law) to make
| decisions that make my venture successful.
|
| That does involve exercising my rights to choose employees that
| further this goal, and firing those that don't.
|
| Democracy in politics where we have an inalienable right to
| vote, happens in a different domain.
|
| I fail to understand why everyone gets so worked up.
| joyeuse6701 wrote:
| Because he markets himself one way but acts another. As you
| point out, one can be both a champion of democracy and
| someone who runs a company with a standard hierarchy, but he
| doesn't market himself that way. It's fugazzi.
| logicalmonster wrote:
| > His approach to remote-vs-in-office work is less that of a
| data-informed futurist and more that of an autocrat.
|
| Nobody can read minds of course, but I think it is smart to not
| always take people at face value and consider all of their
| motives in saying anything. Personally I think Elon Musk is
| probably strongly supporting working in the office for 2
| reasons. (Obviously pure speculation)
|
| 1) Forcing an ultimatum is a means of achieving a stealth
| layoff. Tesla probably wants a few percent of people to quit
| and trim expenses without losing investor confidence, as their
| stock price is of course inflated. (My prediction is that many
| businesses are probably going to be needlessly promoting
| working from the office to try and effectively achieve a round
| of layoffs by having a percentage of people quit)
|
| 2) The people who are the loudest about working from home
| probably are the biggest workplace trouble-makers about
| relative non-issues. To give an example: I know that this is
| genuinely a sensitive issue for some, but we all know that
| there are at least some people who are loudly trying to milk
| Covid-19 for eternity so they can stay home from work and
| meanwhile are going out to eat at restaurants and living life
| care-free.
| scarab92 wrote:
| Not sure about the stealth layoff take. It's too unfocused,
| you'll lose people you want to keep and keep people you want
| to lose. Severance isn't that expensive and gives a lot more
| control.
|
| Agree with your second point though. There's even people
| absuing remote work to work multiple jobs simultaneously.
| logicalmonster wrote:
| > Not sure about the stealth layoff take. It's too
| unfocused, you'll lose people you want to keep and keep
| people you want to lose.
|
| Given how political worldview seems to be pretty correlated
| with concern about stuff like Covid-19 and the new labor
| movement that has emerged, I'd suspect that it's reasonably
| focused.
| ravel-bar-foo wrote:
| Another relevent consideration here is that SpaceX and Tesla
| are both fundamentally manufacturing businesses, which
| developed their processes via rapid iteration. I assume that
| means the managers and engineers are expected to be closer to
| the factory floor than in other businesses. So WFH for Musk's
| businesses might actually be very impractical.
| joyeuse6701 wrote:
| What's wrong with living life care free and restaurants? If
| they get their work done I see nothing wrong with a positive
| outlook on life and supporting the economy with restaurant
| dining.
|
| If someone's productivity slips from wfh then address the
| issue sure.
| logicalmonster wrote:
| > What's wrong with living life care free and restaurants?
|
| There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. That's what
| I've been strongly advocating for during the last 2 years.
| Go out there and live your life normally as you see fit.
|
| One problem is that at least some people out there are
| trying to milk Covid-19. Publicly, they tell their employer
| they're too scared of Covid-19 to come to the office so
| they get to stay home. Privately, they go out every weekend
| and interact with people normally and live their life.
| k1ko wrote:
| or 3) Being a manufacturing business, it's bad for company
| culture. It further divides your executives and 'pencil
| pushers' as their own privileged above that of the grunts
| actually creating the products.
| leesec wrote:
| Why would companies be democratic? That would be an extreme
| historical rarity
| djbebs wrote:
| Companies are pretty democratic. It's constituents are the
| shareholders, not the workers.
| foobarian wrote:
| Yeah I find that big Western cos are actually micro-
| communisms or dictatorships. Tickles me pink to think about
| it.
| arethuza wrote:
| Central planning is definitely a big thing in large
| companies.
| nocoolnametom wrote:
| Unions are democratic, employee-run institutions which
| promote higher involvement of employees in the operations and
| logistical planning of companies. I'm not referring to
| Twitter becoming a Co-op, that would indeed be nearly
| unprecedented.
| leesec wrote:
| Well then Elon is openly anti-UAW and for good reasons, go
| listen to the reasons yourself from his own mouth.
| user_named wrote:
| His reason is that they threaten his power. That is all.
| woojoo666 wrote:
| UAW seems corrupt enough that anybody would be against it
| jeffwask wrote:
| Maybe take a more critical look at the sources for all
| the anti-union propaganda.
| jeffwask wrote:
| You mean so he can't segregate his factories and have a
| section known as the "Plantation".
| speedgoose wrote:
| Why would governments be democratic? That would be an extreme
| historical rarity
| mrep wrote:
| Eh, we vote in the top people but government's are mostly
| run hierarchal just as companies are and shareholders vote
| in board members who appoint the ceo who then runs the
| company hierarchal so I honestly don't see that much
| difference.
| zja wrote:
| Well one difference is that the people who work in the
| government bureaucracies are still citizens, and are able
| to vote for or against the leaders that manage them.
| Workers don't have a say in who manages the company or
| how they do it.
| cagey wrote:
| > Well one difference is that the people who work in the
| government bureaucracies are still citizens, and are able
| to vote for or against the leaders that manage them.
|
| While technically true, this seems laughably inaccurate
| in practice. Government bureaucracies are almost entirely
| composed of unelected employees.
|
| "There are 542 federal offices: President, Vice
| President, 100 U.S. Senators (two from each state), 435
| U.S. Representatives, four delegates to the House of
| Representatives from U.S. territories and the District of
| Columbia, and one Resident Commissioner from the
| Commonwealth of Puerto Rico."[0]
|
| "Federal Civilian Employment ... Total, All Areas*
| 1,869,986"[1]
|
| Yes, the latter number includes Dept of Defence civilian
| employees.
|
| Examination of the situation in a state of your choosing
| is left as an exercise for the reader, however I suspect
| the ratios for state employees vs elected officeholders
| will be similar.
|
| [0] https://www.fvap.gov/info/about-absentee-
| voting/elections#:~.... [1] https://www.opm.gov/policy-
| data-oversight/data-analysis-docu...
| Geee wrote:
| Governments are monopolies. Corporations have to compete,
| which naturally limits their power. Democracy is a way to
| limit government power.
|
| Autocracy would be better for governments too, if countries
| were smaller and people could freely move between them.
| zja wrote:
| Governments compete with each other as well, and they
| still have a monopoly on force in the territory they
| govern. The owners of corporations do not have to compete
| for power over the corporations they own.
|
| > Autocracy would be better for governments too, if
| countries were smaller and people could freely move
| between them.
|
| Not if you value democracy in and of itself.
| Geee wrote:
| Yes, they do compete, but changing a country isn't as
| easy as switching a car brand.
|
| I don't value democracy. I value freedom and prosperity.
| I think democracy has become too holy to criticize.
|
| I think the perfect world would consist of small
| autocratic city-states. There would be a single monarch
| in each city-state who chooses which laws are
| implemented. Laws would be on Github, everyone could
| suggest patches or fork them, and the monarch would just
| have to choose which set of laws they want to implement.
| Lots of people would collaborate on the laws in an open-
| source manner. Citizens could easily check which laws are
| implemented in each city-state, and choose where they
| want to live. I think something like this would be better
| than huge countries with democracy.
| api wrote:
| Government is a necessary evil with a monopoly on the
| initiation of force, and as such a primary concern with
| government is _restraining_ it. Democracy is all about
| restraining and also providing a (usually) non-violent
| pressure valve to avoid revolutions and insurrections that
| destabilize the entire system or threaten to cause
| government 's restraints on the use of force to be removed.
|
| Unrestrained government was a really significant cause of
| death in the early 20th century.
|
| Private businesses have an entirely different purpose.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| It should go without saying, but governments and companies
| are not the same things.
|
| Companies are synthetic people; there are a lot them in one
| place and they can die.
|
| Governments are not synthetic people; there is only one per
| place and the idea is that it lasts forever.
|
| One can generally avoid working for a particular company if
| one wants. One cannot avoid the government.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| What's certain is that Musk is going to mobilize increasing
| amounts of resistance as he gets more aggressive.
| Tepix wrote:
| Are the people working at SpaceX and Tesla "Silicon Valley tech
| workers"? I think most of them aren't.
|
| > he'll be loudly proclaiming his support of democracy
|
| Unlikely, given his dependence on China - he'll stay quiet,
| just like Tim Cook does at Apple.
| mcguire wrote:
| I rather suspect that Musk's definition of democracy aligns
| well with the Chinese government.
| smotched wrote:
| Why does it feel like I'm on reddit? what kind of
| nonsensical statement is this?
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _Are the people working at SpaceX and Tesla "Silicon Valley
| tech workers"? I think most of them aren't._
|
| I think they are.
|
| "Silicon Valley" is an idea or abstraction now, rather than a
| geographic location.
| honkdaddy wrote:
| Is it though? I'm a FAANG engineer in NYC and explicitly
| don't consider myself an SV engineer.
| [deleted]
| nocoolnametom wrote:
| I should have just left out the "Silicon Valley" part of
| that, true. Unionization of developers and technology workers
| is starting, but remains slow because unions are usually
| formed when the cost of speaking out becomes worth more than
| enduring the negatives and unreasonably low pay is usually
| one of the biggest issues for workers and we don't really
| have pay issues. Musk's approach to treating his employees as
| cogs in his machines, to the point of becoming belligerent
| when they assert their human individuality, could be an
| accelerant in forming unions even in this high-pay sector.
| taf2 wrote:
| I think anyone in the tech sector that wants to be apart of
| a union should go work for the government for a few
| years... then decide if that is what they really want...
| pineaux wrote:
| Because Union and Government are, of course, as everyone
| knows, unmistakeably, just another name for the same
| thing...
| _jal wrote:
| Right, right, as everyone knows all unions and all
| government jobs are pretty much the same, and your
| phrasing clearly demonstrates your deep experience with
| both.
| smotched wrote:
| Do you guys really just think of unions as just being a
| good thing? you see no issues with this massive unions at
| all?
| _jal wrote:
| First, have you ever asked (even if just yourself) if
| anyone sees an issue with massive corporations?
|
| The second thing is that it isn't the right question.
| Anything make by humans is imperfect. The question is,
| does union representation lead to better outcomes for a
| larger number of people? And the answer is pretty clearly
| yes.
| smotched wrote:
| The answer to "massive corporations" isn't another
| massive corporation. These unions operate in the same
| manner as corporations but produce nothing. The ones at
| the top get massive bonuses and get filthy rich from your
| paycheck.
|
| Also the amount of corruption within these organization
| is insane. They also lobby like corporations (just ask
| biden) They ARE "corporations" masquerading as a good
| cause, does that remind you of any tech giants?
| jeffwask wrote:
| I think they both have a significant number of software
| engineers but I think astrophysicists, aeronautical
| engineers, and etc likely fall in a similar bucket as
| software engineers as far as supply and demand / leverage go.
|
| I'm sure recruiters at Boeing, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic
| are lighting up phones today.
| causality0 wrote:
| As someone who believes in free speech even for people I
| despise and opinions I find nauseating, I hate that people like
| Musk have become the public face of the free speech movement.
| epistasis wrote:
| Remember when DeVore got fired from Google, and there was a
| massive "free speech" outcry?
|
| Very odd that it's not happening now. People feel that it's
| OK to disparage lots of fellow colleagues with bad
| interpretations of science, but not OK to critique the CEO
| for specific actions are not a group of people I want to be
| associated with either, even though I have always been a
| "free speech" proponent. I just use different terminology.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Do you feel that Elon will exclude some forms of protected
| speech? I haven't been following that closely
| shagmin wrote:
| I would be surprised if he didn't. He has a history of being
| vindictive towards critics and has a lot of grudges and is
| more hands-on than typical CEOs.
| blocked_again wrote:
| slater wrote:
| "cry babies who think they deserve everything without doing
| any work"
|
| yes, that's exactly what's happening, and precisely the
| reason why unionization happens. very perceptive of you.
| charles_kaw wrote:
| Unions are when employees get together to demand better
| working conditions. The only people who should be afraid of
| unions are those who hold capital.
| blocked_again wrote:
| It's a free market. Find another company who values your
| skill.
| danielheath wrote:
| Since it's a free market - why shouldn't a group of
| people work together to improve their lot in it?
| charles_kaw wrote:
| A free market is, by definition, free of collusion.
|
| People with large capital don't need to collude - they
| already have tons of power as individuals :)
|
| It's like the term "free market" is a thought terminating
| cliche or something.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| aaomidi wrote:
| A free market implies a freedom to unionize and strike.
| charles_kaw wrote:
| danieldevries wrote:
| Unionizing is not lame. It's about a balance of power between
| owners and workers.
| blocked_again wrote:
| If you want balance of power improve your skills and get
| job in a company that values you more. There would never be
| perfect balance of power. It's not real life.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Alternatively we unionize and see that balance of power
| happen.
|
| It's funny all this anti union speak and then when
| companies are faced with it suddenly their purses start
| opening up.
| danieldevries wrote:
| It's not about perfection, quite a misnomer of an
| argument imo. You would be the kind of person that 100
| years ago would probably be against woman getting the
| vote - "It's not about equality, that's not real life"
| blocked_again wrote:
| No. I would be saying them if they want to vote, move to
| a country which values them and give them the right to
| vote.
|
| Just like millions of people ditched communist countries
| and moved to USA.
| danieldevries wrote:
| You are changing the goal posts. On an individual level
| that might all be fine 'in a perfect world', but moving
| somewhere else, improving ones skills, not a given at
| all. You sound bitter and lack empathy.
| blocked_again wrote:
| If the problem is big enough for you, you are perfectly
| capable of changing company or country. If not, it's not
| important for you or you don't care enough to put in the
| work.
| danieldevries wrote:
| Now that comes across as some perfect utopia. Maybe
| certain people don't want to stick their neck out in fear
| of losing job, which is not possible since they have to
| support a family. Etc. You live in a hypothetical dream
| world.
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| I used to have a dim opinion of unions because of some
| media and some political views. Now I would describe it as
| much more nuanced.
|
| In working with some public sector unions though, arguing
| for management, I've actually seen very different focuses
| in play: namely efficiency. The unions with whom I work are
| definitely about fair labor practices, and pre-decisional
| input, and that is just common sense though. In working
| with them I was very impressed with what I saw. They never
| talked politics, only members, and issues confronting them
| regarding efficiency which was in their agreement with
| management.
|
| Now, on the other hand, had a neighbor that was high up in
| leadership of a national union. He never talked with me
| about efficiency, or his members, just continual rants
| around a specific political party, and how he was attending
| political events from his political party.
| helmholtz wrote:
| Username checks out I guess. This is an extremely low-effort
| comment. It seems that you would _prefer_ to live in a
| society where job security is so fragile that a well-meaning
| letter can get you fired?
| blocked_again wrote:
| What makes you think all companies are like that? Get a job
| in a company where you won't get fired in a well meaning
| letter.
| plushpuffin wrote:
| You mean, a company where the workers have more power? A
| unionized company?
| notafraudster wrote:
| I don't understand why "4. Stay at your company and try to
| change culture within by organizing collectively, either
| through the guise of a union or informally" isn't also
| something you are free to do, besides that you think doing so
| is not "do[ing] something positive to the society", but is
| instead "becoming a bunch of cry babies."
|
| Also why is 3 binary? If I am a minority investor in a
| company, I am not free to criticize the management? I have to
| buy the majority of the company and fire the management?
|
| It kind of seems like you don't actually understand that soft
| power exists. The canonical book on this within
| organizational politics is "Exit, Voice and Loyalty". Have
| you ever had a social interaction in your entire life? Not
| everything is an ultimatum, some things are conversations.
| orangepurple wrote:
| To accomplish (4) you have to become a sociopath and
| sociopaths won't attempt to substantially improve culture
| for its own sake because they lack empathy.
| sbate1987 wrote:
| heyflyguy wrote:
| I will ride the down arrow roller coaster with you. People
| can make a choice about where they work. Companies are not
| democracies. Organizing unions is a fast-track to a closed
| location, relocated factory, or loss of a job.
|
| Companies exist to make profit. Unions extract profit at a
| disproportionate rate to the value they provide. Every
| business owner knows this. People who think unions add value
| are drinking the kool-aid. High performers are not rewarded
| because the ocean is now higher.
|
| If you are an average performer, you definitely want a union.
| If you're a high-performer, unions are a form of arbitrage
| for your salary.
| rfrey wrote:
| Unionizing is pure free market. Workers are holders and
| sellers of labour (which free market advocates typically
| class as a commodity). They bargain for the best contract in
| exchange for that labour. Why is a worker's optimization of
| their commodity lame and negative, whereas a company's
| optimization for profit is not?
| rluhar wrote:
| You might want to do some reading on why unions came about in
| the first place.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union
| axg11 wrote:
| Most employees never consider starting their own company, so
| we can strike off (2). Buying SpaceX is vanishingly
| unrealistic, so discount (3). My impression of working at
| SpaceX is that the options for employees are:
|
| 1. Keep working at SpaceX - work on truly innovative
| technology with a lofty mission. The work environment sucks,
| you work 100 hour weeks but the _work_ itself is great. Your
| work might land on Mars this decade.
|
| 2. Join another startup (Relativity, Firefly, Rocket Lab,
| etc) - no proven track record of success or work on smaller
| scale (but successful) projects. Work hours and culture are
| variable, but there is a general sense of urgency. Your work
| is not landing on Mars this decade but could still change the
| aerospace industry in smaller ways.
|
| 3. Coast and enjoy life with your family (Lockheed Martin,
| Boeing, Blue Origin, etc). Work 38 hour weeks. You will get
| the chance to work on large prestigious projects. Your
| project is regularly in the news for being over budget and
| late. There is no sense of urgency. You have complete job
| security.
| user_named wrote:
| Wait six month, when the Tesla stock has crashed and he gets
| margin called. He's going to go nuts and have an epic fall from
| grace.
| bitexploder wrote:
| If I might be so bold, I don't think anyone around here
| really appreciates Musk's antics very much. However Tesla and
| SpaceX are fundamentally sound, if overvalued, businesses.
| Since the start of Tesla he has had loud and obnoxious
| detractors who have had any number of reasons Tesla is about
| to implode. Instead they keep churning out solid EVs and
| SpaceX keeps putting stuff in space. As much as I dislike
| him, I would not bet against his businesses.
| michaelt wrote:
| Tesla is certainly a solid business in the sense that they
| make cars people are happy to buy. I certainly wouldn't
| expect the value of the business to drop to zero.
|
| But Tesla has a Price/Earnings ratio of 100 while other car
| companies like Toyota only have a P/E of 10. So Tesla's
| stock price could drop a long way while still being
| reasonable.
|
| And if Musk had got a loan against his Tesla stock to buy
| Twitter, a substantial drop in Tesla's price could have
| disproportionate results.
| dont__panic wrote:
| It's an interesting strategy, really -- build a sorta-neat
| stable business, and affiliate it with a buffoon who
| constantly overpromises to his cult following to inflate
| the stock price to outrageous values.
|
| Then, your "sorta-neat stable business" has MASSIVE amounts
| of value from stock grants, capital it can use to hire
| more, pay more, finance debt for large purchases, etc. Kind
| of a superpower for an otherwise unremarkable company.
|
| Of course, there's other externalities from the buffoon and
| his cultists. They can drive away good workers, or pivot
| the company in unpleasant directions, or just leave some
| day, tank the company stock, and then the company loses the
| superpower and all of the things that come with it. But if
| your main mission is growth, well, it makes a lot of
| sense...
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Fundamentally sound doesn't always matter if they are
| overvalued enough. Companies that take a 99% drop in stock
| price are likely to end up losing the last percent in a
| bear market based on lack of confidence from investors.
| diogofranco wrote:
| There is no last percent, it can drop another 99% and
| then another...
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| There is a "last percent" when you are thinking about
| drops from peak value, which is how many people think
| about stock prices.
| BbzzbB wrote:
| If TSLA gets valued down to $7B then we're all fucked,
| the floor will have fallen from under the stock market as
| a whole.
| api wrote:
| His businesses are not just him. He's the public face. They
| all have shareholders and many employees.
|
| I give Gwynne Shotwell a ton of credit for actually running
| SpaceX on a day to day basis.
|
| I think a lot of the issues with Tesla exist because as far
| as I can tell Tesla does not have a Gwynne Shotwell.
| glitchc wrote:
| It's Gwynne who fired these people.
| shswkna wrote:
| I think that was the point.
| kofejnik wrote:
| if you absolutely certain it will crash, go deep OTM short
| with literally everything you have, you'll make a shitton of
| $$$
| kofejnik wrote:
| tbh I'd kill for a chance to work at SpaceX, no matter what Elon
| does or twits (unless he hurts puppies obv)
|
| Elon is free to do whatever, he's a grown man, and as another
| grown man, I am not bothered. If you're embarrassed to work for
| him, just quit.
| pvaldes wrote:
| To put things in context, the astonishing amount of five
| employees were fired. And more than 9400 employees weren't fired.
|
| It sounds like most Space X employees are doing fine. And we are
| talking about an example of "soviet management" here?
| srveale wrote:
| We have no idea how many other employees agreed with the five,
| and the point is that we'll never know, because the precedent
| of "speak up and you're fired" has now been set.
|
| Being an autocrat doesn't mean getting rid of everyone who
| disagrees with you, just the ones who dare to do something
| about it (or potentially might).
| badwolf wrote:
| over 400 other employees signed the letter before it was
| taken down.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/17/23172913/spacex-
| complaint...
| Qem wrote:
| Surely they feel a bit intimidated now. The Stasi also left a
| lot of people alive in East Germany as well, doing just fine.
| foepys wrote:
| You are forgetting that the Stasi needed quite a lot of
| concrete and border guards to keep people from leaving and
| that the whole thing collapsed in the end in a peaceful
| revolution because the people didn't want to take it anymore.
| pvaldes wrote:
| This case reminds me more the classic boycott handbooks. A
| tiny group of people sparking the flames of revolution for no
| reason, maybe desperately trying to get the attention of
| Musk, maybe for profit.
|
| This people can sink a startup really fast. The kind of
| people drawing caricatures of the CEO where they should be
| doing calculus on critical parts of the system. Letting they
| go is the correct move. They are 100% free to fund a better,
| more moral and more ethic Space-Z with their own money and
| promote a CEO that they like more.
| trident5000 wrote:
| And the sky is blue
| eric4smith wrote:
| Good. Why do people keep being activists in the workplace for
| this kind of issue.
|
| I could understand if it's bad working conditions or
| discrimination.
|
| But bruh.
|
| People need to grow up and do work at work then be activists
| outside of work.
|
| Good step by SpaceX
| freewizard wrote:
| Travis Kalanick visited a bar with escort services with female
| employee presence, and he resigned in 2017. Elon Musk exposed
| himself and propositioned a female employee for sex, he keeps his
| job in 2022.[1]
|
| I feel sorry for the progress of gender equality in Silicon
| Valley.
|
| [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-paid-250000-to-a-
| flig...
| boeingUH60 wrote:
| Kalanick resigned because of a culmination of controversies,
| not necessarily visiting a bar with escort services.
|
| Firing a CEO for purchasing escort services would be quite a
| low bar to set. Note that I'm not saying I support the act.
| karaterobot wrote:
| The contents of the letter quoted in that article are all moral
| allegations, but not new ones, and not presenting novel evidence
| of any wrongdoing. Whatever Musk has done, or whatever kind of
| person he is, it's all well understood and settled from a
| business perspective. Despite his antics, Musk hasn't gotten
| fired -- far from it -- and won't get fired for old news. So,
| their letter (at least what's quoted in that article) amounts to:
| "yes, but the CEO's behavior is not to our liking, somebody
| should do something about it." What would possess someone to
| believe that would work? It feels like the kind of thing that,
| ironically, might work on Twitter, but not in the real world.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Ouch given that there were some valid proposals
|
| But also valid if people felt pressures to join in on employee
| activism they don't care about, I've seen that trend and I'm
| totally find curb stomping that whole mentality. I can empathize
| with the lack of employee power in the US that could lead one to
| these outcomes, there are other ways (that may not be available
| to those employees or in the US at all)
|
| For Shotwell, I still think it is disingenuous to suggest there
| aren't _other_ daily distractions people don 't get fired for
| golemotron wrote:
| This is a critical time for the company. As Shotwell pointed
| out:
|
| > We have 3 launches within 37 hours for critical satellites
| this weekend, we have to support the astronauts we delivered to
| the ISS and get cargo Dragon back to the flight-ready, and
| after receiving environmental approval early this week, we are
| on the cusp of the first orbital launch attempt of Starship. We
| have too much critical work to accomplish
|
| There are times for open discussion and there are times to just
| shut up and get with the program.
| fnimick wrote:
| "I'm totally fine curb stomping [employee activism]"
|
| I knew HN skewed toward tech-bro libertarianism, but this is a
| bit much even for that.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I said what I said
|
| People tried to get corporations to "use their platform",
| some started doing that at the annoyance and exclusion of
| employees that werent interested in having those unrelated
| causes and discussions in the workday while being told
| "silence means you're against us and for whatever we're
| against today"
|
| The corporation does not exist for that and is a conduit for
| revenue exclusively
|
| Some other type of organization is more suited for that, they
| exist. It may be incompatible with someone's ability to
| exchange time for food and shelter but thats exclusively
| their problem
|
| So its nice to see more examples of complete and immediate
| excision, a reversion to the mean
| mikkergp wrote:
| > The corporation does not exist for that and is a conduit
| for revenue exclusively
|
| As god decreed. Was that on the 5th day? I lost count.
| Corporations are human creations and as such are malleable.
| golemotron wrote:
| The corporate form has been and is now, legally, an
| enterprise to return financial value to shareholders.
| Corporations are routinely sued when they stray from
| that. People with a different vision should change the
| law rather than be continually surprised.
| generj wrote:
| Fiduciary responsibility is a myth. Company officers
| basically have to yell into a megaphone "I am making this
| decision to harm the company, there are no possible
| upsides to the company for this action" to be liable.
| [deleted]
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| > people felt pressures to join in on employee activism they
| don't care about
|
| Is this a thing? Like feeling pressure to leave a tip or
| something?
| SylvieLorxu wrote:
| Was this the "free speech" dude?
|
| Same dude as this?
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/03/elon-musk...
| jerbearito wrote:
| LOL. Yeah, that's the "free speech" advocate you're thinking
| of.
| jfdbcv wrote:
| These aren't inconsistent.
|
| Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences, if
| said consequences do not restrict future freedom of speech.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| For this to be consistent you have to define access to a
| Twitter account as more important to ones future freedom of
| speech than being able to put a roof over your head.
| jfdbcv wrote:
| False hidden equivance where you asssert that getting fired
| from SpaceX is the same as being banned from ever taking
| employment again.
| jyriand wrote:
| Can somebody explain me "free speech"? What does it even
| mean? Does it mean that you are "free" to speak out whatever
| you want, but after you have done that, we can decide to
| punish you? Or does it mean, you can speak out freely without
| the fear of punishment(consequences)? If I know I will be
| fired for speaking out, is it still free speech?
| oittaa wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
| ajaimk wrote:
| Is this retaliation?
| alkonaut wrote:
| Does Elon Musk always ask himself "ok what's the most
| petty/childish/immature response I can produce for this
| situation?"
|
| I'm not sure what's actually wrong with him or if it's at all
| clinical or just the billionaire disease of being surrounded by
| people who agree with you for too long. But I get a feeling there
| is _something_ a bit off with his behavior and /or mental health,
| and that it's been getting worse lately. I also don't know if
| this shift is subjective and merely because I see more of him now
| than before. But I can't help thinking that now he seems like a
| massive asshat in nearly _every single human interaction_ whereas
| before he had some kind of likability.
| stackedinserter wrote:
| I'm totally ok with that if that "petty/childish/immature"
| person lands rockets on barges and revolutionizes space travel.
| charles_kaw wrote:
| But, you shouldn't have to be. And more importantly, what
| happens when he brings this attitude to long term space
| missions or other endeavors where human lives are at risk?
| Just because he's doing something you like doesn't mean it's
| okay, or good, or right.
| stackedinserter wrote:
| Frankly, I'm more concerned about never-happy SJW mob
| infiltration into long term space missions. Like, Twitter
| employees are not the ones who I would like to share risks
| with.
| mcguire wrote:
| For some reason I am suddenly reminded of SS-Sturmbannfuhrer
| von Braun.
|
| https://youtu.be/QEJ9HrZq7Ro
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| The point is, he doesn't, The people working for him do. He
| managed to create an environment where these people working
| for him can do it. But he does not land those rockets.
|
| There are two sides of this coin: 1) a company without its
| employees cannot function, 2) somehow everyone became
| entitled to everything during covid.
|
| It's sad, I get the point of view of both sides. Hopefully
| they can reach a compromise.
| acover wrote:
| Do you think SpaceX would have landed rockets if Elon
| wasn't there?
|
| I feel like the safe bet in 2010 was compete on government
| contracts and print money. Without Elon, SpaceX is just
| another Boeing. The best teams won't get to Mars if
| investors want them to crank the money printer or congress
| wants a jobs program.
| lp0_on_fire wrote:
| In my opinion Musk is to SpaceX like Jobs was to Apple.
| Apple today wouldn't exist or would be in a much
| different place if not for Jobs and his vision. I believe
| the same for Musk and SpaceX.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| But that's exactly what I said: he created an environment
| where there people can create those awesome things but he
| doesn't build rockets. He employs people who build
| rockets for him. All of them complement each other.
| burlesona wrote:
| He has Asperger's and has talked openly about his difficulty
| understanding social cues.
|
| https://www.axios.com/2022/04/15/elon-musk-aspergers-syndrom...
|
| I don't think that fully excuses or justified everything he
| does, but it has some explanatory power.
|
| It's obvious by his work output that he is not a very typical
| person, and it seems like society as a whole is gaining
| tremendous benefit from his eccentricity. I don't think we have
| to like him, but speaking for myself, I still respect him and
| on the whole am grateful for his life's work. I wish he'd stay
| away from Twitter... but, oh well.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| Asperger's isn't an excuse for poor behavior.
| adolph wrote:
| > Asperger's isn't an excuse for being a dick.
|
| Labelling non-neurotypical behavior as "being a dick" or
| "poor behavior" is very neurotypical.
|
| [Addendum]
|
| I for one am happy to see the larger world and its expected
| rules of behavior get a taste of what it constantly dishes
| out.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| I'm talking stuff like calling people you don't like
| pedophiles in a public forum. Not social missteps.
| Attacking people using your twitter account as a
| megaphone and doubling down when people call you on it is
| absolutely unacceptable behavior.
|
| Aspegers does not excuse intentionally hurting people you
| don't like.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _He has Asperger's and has talked openly about his
| difficulty understanding social cues._
|
| In the history of items written on Musk in the past 20 years,
| was it ever mentioned prior to 2022?
|
| Yeah, sure, like 90% of SV claims to be "on the spectrum",
| often as a behavioural excuse. Don't believe me? Look at any
| comment section of an article discussing the subject on these
| forums.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| I hadn't heard it was Asperger's specifically until
| recently, but if you've ever heard Musk speak it's always
| been readily apparent that he had _some_ kind of mental
| abnormality. He seems to have more trouble forming ideas
| into sentences than your average person.
| maximus-decimus wrote:
| Do you have any data that proves it wrong?
|
| A quick google says 1 man out of 42 is autistic and 1 out
| of 200 workers in the U.S. is a software engineer. Let's
| assume every SE is a man and half the working population is
| men, that would mean 1 out of 100 men is in software.
|
| Based on those numbers, it would be possible for every
| software engineer to be on the spectrum.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Some people get _really_ mean when they get senile,
| particularly if they suffered from anxiety disorders or abused
| alcohol.
|
| It's why home care workers never wear necklaces because they
| could try to strangle you with one.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Given that Elon is Gen X I don't think this something we need
| to worry about for him just yet. Some other problem, sure,
| but I doubt it's senility.
| ntp85 wrote:
| Early dementia or Alzheimers?
| PaulHoule wrote:
| He's 51 and some unlucky people start to slip around that
| age. For a person on that path the meanness and even
| psychosis might be the first sign.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I think we'd need to prove this is a change for him.
| pyronik19 wrote:
| So I guess next stop is President
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| So Howard Hughes?
|
| I don't know that I ever found Musk likable though.
|
| EDIT: I was thinking about my answer to "When did you stop
| liking Elon Musk?" and I suppose it was when he seemed to go on
| a tangent calling a rescuer a pedophile. That was a WTF moment
| for me.
| antoniuschan99 wrote:
| I always thought he was more like William C. Durant. Both
| Hughes and Durant have sad endings though.
| Symmetry wrote:
| "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
| unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to
| himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable
| man."
|
| Sadly, the people who do the most to change the world are often
| unreasonable in their personal lives. And if a person sincerely
| believes they are working to prevent climate change or give
| humanity a backup planet they'll tend to view opposition based
| on quality of life issues or whatever as unreasonable.
| bluedino wrote:
| Was he like this back in the X.com/Paypal days?
| gigel82 wrote:
| Clent wrote:
| This company survives on public funding via NASA. This may be the
| biggest gift they could have given to their competitors.
|
| No one will care if their competitors have similar issues, SpaceX
| was sold as different and the illusion of that is fading.
| benreesman wrote:
| Well, no matter how it came about, the US can build rockets
| again. The best ones in the world. You can pretty much get away
| with anything if you have a relationship like that with the
| DoD.
| golemotron wrote:
| > This company survives on public funding via NASA.
|
| They are doing something NASA can't do so I think NASA is
| getting good value for the money.
| jhgb wrote:
| > SpaceX was sold as different and the illusion of that is
| fading.
|
| The "illusion" of what, building actually working and
| affordable space hardware? The only way that could "fade" would
| be if someone else like Boeing replicated their successes. As
| long as SpaceX is technically successful and others aren't,
| SpaceX being different will be not an illusion but reality even
| just on that basis alone.
| modeless wrote:
| The gift of a bunch of employees who care more about activism
| than the work? This is not a gift I would ever want to receive.
|
| I doubt this affects their ability to win contracts in the
| slightest. Their biggest competitors are all defense
| contractors, not exactly more sympathetic to causes like
| this...
| fundad wrote:
| Agreed and anyone standing up for worker power knows the
| employer will retaliate because the fee is insignificant.
| danpalmer wrote:
| > SpaceX was sold as different and the illusion of that is
| fading
|
| Is it really? They're moving faster than anyone else right now,
| and hitting some good milestones on Starship. They're building
| a portfolio of business lines from Starlink, through smallsat
| ridesharing, to super heavy lift and human space flight for
| commercial and governmental customers. I don't see other space
| companies catching up soon.
|
| The illusion of Musk being some sort of business guru is
| certainly fading, but I don't feel that SpaceX are losing their
| edge.
| theklr wrote:
| I wonder if these now fired employees can get some talks with one
| of SpaceX's employers, NASA.
| aaronsimpson wrote:
| The amount of Elon charity in this comment section is kind of
| insane:
|
| > In an email, Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX's president, said the
| letter had made other employees "feel uncomfortable, intimidated
| and bullied."
|
| It's literally the same thing wokescolds do when somebody says
| anything they disagree with, only this time it's SpaceX and Elon
| Musk. There's not really any good argument for somebody who
| claims to care about free speech.
|
| "It's a private company. They can fire whoever they want so long
| as it's not a protected class." And Twitter is a private company
| that can ban anybody they want. Don't like it? Go to Mastodon.
| Usually this argument doesn't fly for the people that defend his
| Twitter free speech position.
| jgfidosgfds wrote:
| stillbourne wrote:
| For being such a huge proponent of free speech he sure seems to
| hate it when people talk.
| Geee wrote:
| That's not how free speech works. Right to speech freely
| doesn't give you magical protection from consequences of your
| speech.
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| "Right to speech freely doesn't give you magical protection
| from consequences of your speech."
|
| You are correct. Money and power does it, though. Your boss
| won't get fired for talking badly about you, in general, but
| you can get fired for talking badly about your boss.
| dionidium wrote:
| Yes, it's _literally_ and _explicitly_ a hierarchy.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Which is pretty illiberal.
| huhwat wrote:
| No, but some speech is protected from consequences.
| Discussing working conditions is protected speech.
| stillbourne wrote:
| Oh I absolutely agree, you can view my comment history if you
| don't believe me. But that is not how Musk has framed his
| support for free speech in the past. Musk has made it clear
| that he is "anti-moderation", the case of things like banning
| Trump from social media with the reasoning that moderation is
| not free speech. But this kind of behavior _is_ de facto
| retaliatory employee censorship. You can 't have your cake
| and eat it too, you are either pro free speech or not.
| formerkrogemp wrote:
| When Musk started to spread his bullshit on Twitter, I
| immediately thought about how the high-profile engineers working
| for Tesla, SpaceX, etc, would feel about that. My friend works in
| a tech company composed of 90% engineers, although not that high-
| profile, still if a CEO would publicly voice all that crap, I'm
| sure many would seriously consider resigning. In the end, it's
| not that difficult to find another job.
|
| If I were a tech company recruiter now, I would 100% go shopping
| for musk companies' employees right now...
|
| As a recruiter, you could seriously poach some amazing talent
| just because Elon can't keep his fucking mouth shut. They aren't
| idiots over there, and Elon should realize that most of the
| people working for him are likely much, much, much smarter than
| he is.
| outside1234 wrote:
| gm3dmo wrote:
| Champion of free speech only goes so far eh?
| draw_down wrote:
| etchalon wrote:
| It seems like every "diversity of thought!" and "freedom of
| speech!" proponent keeps having a moment where it's revealed that
| isn't what they actually believe.
| arooni wrote:
| If you come for the king, you had better not miss.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| "Stay focused" is a little funny from the guy behind the SpaceX
| flamethrower, Neuralink, OpenAI, the Boring Company, and a $40B
| attempt to buy Twitter.
| breitling wrote:
| Plus a little thing called Tesla
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Well, that (and SpaceX) are where Musk is _supposed_ to be
| keeping his focus.
| polartx wrote:
| > _supposed_ to?
|
| According to whom? If that admonishment had the desired
| effect and had occurred in his PayPal days, we wouldn't
| _have_ SpaceX, Tesla, etc etc etc
| lanstin wrote:
| He was fired from PayPal so not really an equal
| comparison.
| magicalist wrote:
| His time at PayPal was not concurrent with SpaceX and
| Tesla.
| corrral wrote:
| > According to whom?
|
| This letter. Unless mere mortal workers staying focused
| is more important than the God-CEO staying focused. In
| which case, maybe compensation needs a serious re-think.
| Vladimof wrote:
| You forgot DOGE
| j_walter wrote:
| That wasn't from Elon....it was from Shotwell (SpaceX
| president).
| ceejayoz wrote:
| In that case, "FW: Yes, you too"
| anonporridge wrote:
| Rules for thee, not for me.
| dubswithus wrote:
| He raised a lot of zero dilution cash with the flamethrower.
| How many people can do that?
| mc32 wrote:
| It's not necessarily a contradiction. He has his role to carry
| out and they have theirs. You may disagree with the description
| of his role or that of others, but that's how it works.
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| SpaceX leadership is clearly within their legal rights to fire
| these people, but the classic "CAN vs SHOULD" principle is
| important. The letter, which is pretty benign, is available at
| the bottom of https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-
| elon-musk...
|
| The letter is insubordination, it is fireable, and the employees
| that wrote it are also correct. Elon Musk would likely get fired
| for his behavior if he were a different executive - certainly
| disciplined - and that's a problem for SpaceX (and Tesla, and
| Twitter). It makes it seem like he's not accountable to anyone.
| Steve Jobs would not have done behaved this way publicly, nor
| would any other singular founder/execs I can think of at his
| level.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Seems pretty consistent. He's big into pretending to be for
| freedom of speech and never being for it if it ever actually
| matters. I see a lot of people here saying any billionaire boss
| would do the same, well, yes, that's the point, but the thing is
| that he very consistently and incessantly lies about not being
| like those "other" people and being for principles that he has
| never once stood for in reality. I don't recall Steve Jobs
| blathering about "free speech" on podcats and Twitter.
|
| [edit] p.s. Did anyone read the comments here before posting?
| It's just the same comments over and over and over and over
| again, wtf is this shit. Can't we do better?
| schmeckleberg wrote:
| The Facts that you have presented to the Elon defense force
| gave the Elon defense force uncomfortable Feelings. Not
| Respecting the very important and precious Feelings of the Elon
| defense force and their meme coin twitter daddy is just about
| the very worst thing you can do! I hope that you will moderate
| your wrongthink in the future, comrade!
| 99_00 wrote:
| >Elon's behavior in the public sphere is a frequent source of
| distraction and embarrassment for us, particularly in recent
| weeks.
|
| What happened in recent weeks?
|
| The letter is condemnation by innuendo. They don't say exactly
| why they want Musk removed and only hint at it and make general
| statements.
|
| An advantage of that approach is that it is difficult for the
| accused to defend themselves. The disadvantage is that if the
| accused has power they can squash this and the accusers are
| exposed because vague accusations are difficult to justify as
| they are to defend against.
|
| I suspect they don't say why they want Musk removed because their
| reasons stated clearly and directly would be unpalatable. I think
| the reason they want him removed is because he expressed support
| for the Republican party. In the USA, in many circles, it is
| still unacceptable to condemn people based on political
| affiliation.
|
| It is however, more acceptable to use innuendo about racial and
| sexual rights as a weapon for indirect political persecution.
| 3327 wrote:
| bell-cot wrote:
| Ignore all the employment rules lawyering, and "Elon is for free
| speech..." / "SpaceX's mission says...", etc. arguments. This is
| not a computer program, nor a debating society.
|
| Humans, especially most top corporate executives, are definitely
| primates. Some lower-down members of the SpaceX troop issued (de
| facto) a very clear and public challenge to the dominance of the
| troop's alpha macho male 900# gorilla. They failed to get a
| chorus of overwhelming support from other members of the troop.
| They don't appear to have any serious 900# backers from outside
| the troop.
|
| Can anyone give an example of such a situation ending well for
| the challengers?
| vhiremath4 wrote:
| FYI - arstechnica thread also here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31774890
| axg11 wrote:
| This is a very predictable consequence of criticizing your
| employer via a public letter. Criticize internally all you want,
| and influence the changes that you want to see happen. Employment
| is a two-way relationship. If you don't like your employer, you
| are free to leave. If they don't like you, they are free to fire
| you (within legal bounds). Publishing an openly critical letter
| and signing it is a quick way to get your employer to not like
| you.
| [deleted]
| justinph wrote:
| Wasn't it an internal letter that was leaked? I mean sure,
| being leaked is a predictable consequence, but it may be a
| distinction with a difference if the criticizers didn't
| themselves leak it.
|
| Regardless, will be interesting to see how this plays out. If I
| were one of those employees, I'd be talking to a lawyer. If I
| was one of the employees still working at SpaceX, I'd be
| talking about a union. We recently unionized at my employer, it
| is great to know we have each other's back.
| aeternum wrote:
| It's better to have each employee write a separate e-mail to
| HR or his/her manager. Letters like this are generally
| designed to be seen by a public audience.
| cratermoon wrote:
| That will just subject each employee to individual and
| separate retaliation. Collective action is the backbone of
| worker power. HR isn't there to help employees, that
| division exists to protect the company's interests.
| Justin_K wrote:
| Getting fired for insubordination isn't a protected class.
| The former employees don't have a case.
| daenz wrote:
| >insubordination isn't a protected class
|
| If some of the comments in this thread is any indicator,
| people seem to believe it should be a protected class,
| which is extremely disturbing.
| Justin_K wrote:
| My point is whether or not they have a legal case, not if
| their letter is true or false.
| stefan_ wrote:
| That's funny, because you may very well be wrong on your
| main point then! I guess the problem starts when you use
| terms like "protected class" that don't remotely apply;
| it gives off an ignorant vibe. Meanwhile, employees
| acting in concert to complain about working conditions
| are of course protected by the law; Shotwell, Musks
| little minion, doesn't help the case when she calls it
| _activism_.
| throw457 wrote:
| daenz wrote:
| Can you be more specific about what you mean?
| djenendik wrote:
| 20th century history my friend.
| daenz wrote:
| I'm aware of the origins of the phrase. "Who is it being
| applied to here and why" is what I'd like to know.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| They're comparing SpaceX employees to Nazis.
| throw457 wrote:
| I am comparing the statement from op to be subordinate no
| matter what to nazis not spacex employees.
| daenz wrote:
| >the statement from op to be subordinate no matter
|
| "being insubordinate is not a protected class" does not
| mean "be subordinate no matter what"
| pc86 wrote:
| What exactly are you arguing? Under what conditions can
| you be told to do something, you refuse, and you get
| fired?
| throw457 wrote:
| I don't understand what did they refuse to do?
| Aeolun wrote:
| Maybe it's more that they hold leadership to a higher
| standard than the playground bullies in elementary
| school?
| FireBeyond wrote:
| (Perhaps not) ironically, Musk was one of those
| playground bullies in school.
|
| There's an anecdote about he was sent to hospital after
| being pushed down stairs at school that is commonly
| latched on to, but, while not condoning this in any way
| shape or form, the part less commonly mentioned is that
| this happened after several months of him verbally
| teasing and bullying several students in his school,
| including the disadvantaged and disabled.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| There should probably be a citation here. Even if it's
| true, I don't know how this is relevant--I was bullied by
| a lot of people when we were children, but I don't
| imagine that they are still bullies today because people
| often mature in adolescence and early adulthood.
| natch wrote:
| Where did you hear about this?
| meatsauce wrote:
| He made it up.
| meatsauce wrote:
| Why not when the woke-cancer employees are acting like
| elementary school children?
| natch wrote:
| Or maybe they unthinkingly and blindly accept anything
| negative they hear, regurgitating it with confidence that
| they could not possibly be mistaken because it confirms
| their biases and validates their life choices.
| nvr219 wrote:
| HN comments are not indicators of anything close to
| representing "people" in general.
| puglr wrote:
| To your point, comments in _any_ internet community are
| not such indicators.
| nvr219 wrote:
| Indeed.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Insubordination? What order did they violate when voicing
| criticism of the CEO?
|
| I do think Musk was within his legal rights to fire these
| people, but that does not mean it was the right thing to do
| or that he should be immune from criticism. Especially
| after he's made such a big fuss about free speech being so
| important.
| Nuzzerino wrote:
| Did any of you even read the statement from the company's
| COO?
| Justin_K wrote:
| The employees demanded that SpaceX condemn the CEOs
| statements on twitter. You don't think that's going to
| piss anybody off?
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Insubordination is refusal to obey a direct order, and is
| grounds for instant dismissal (at least where I live -
| the UK). What direct order did these guys disobey?
|
| I think in the USA insubordination is neither here nor
| there, because US employers can dismiss people just
| because they don't like them.
| kortilla wrote:
| They were likely told to stop participating in
| discussions around the letter and then they didn't. The
| verge article mentioned there were huge internal
| discussion threads.
| oezi wrote:
| I am surprised that rejection of an order could be
| grounds for instant dismissal in the UK. In Germany that
| would involve a lengthy process of legal letters to an
| employee. Something like 3 strikes. Also you can't just
| order anything from an employee. It's not the military,
| right?
| ss108 wrote:
| And all the people getting cancelled said and did x bad
| thing, but Musk's sycophants and defenders, who tend to
| be free speech absolutists, act like people should be
| immune from the consequences of their actions.
| ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote:
| There is no equivalency between getting fired because you
| insulted your boss and getting fired because 20000
| hyperonline strangers didn't like your opinion about
| politics stated outside of work.
| temp_6_17_2022 wrote:
| > There is no equivalency between
|
| Sure there is, and trivially so- your employer decided to
| fire you in both cases, in neither did 20000 hyperonline
| strangers fire you.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I don't think this is a good comparison. First of all,
| many (most?) of the people who got canceled didn't do
| anything offensive or objectionable. Off the top of my
| head.:
|
| * The guy who got fired for cracking his knuckles in a
| way that looked vaguely like an "OK sign" which is
| offensive to some extreme left-wing people
|
| * The data scientist who got fired for citing research on
| the efficacy of nonviolent protest
|
| * The journalist who was pressured to leave his workplace
| for interviewing a black man whose views didn't match a
| certain narrative about what black people believe
|
| * The professor who was suspended for saying a Chinese
| word that sounds vaguely like an English slur
|
| Moreover, cancellation is "pressuring someone's employer
| to fire them". This is different than an employer taking
| offense to an employee's speech and firing them as a
| consequence.
|
| If Musk has said something like "employers shouldn't fire
| employees on the basis of their speech" (and he may have
| done, I really don't know), then he's probably being
| hypocritical, but not on the basis of cancel culture.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| > Moreover, cancellation is "pressuring someone's
| employer to fire them". This is different than an
| employer taking offense to an employee's speech and
| firing them as a consequence.
|
| Wait. So the horrible "cancelation" is a bunch of
| terminally online people whining that someone should be
| fired, but being actually fired is not "cancelation", and
| the former is more troublesome than the later?
|
| Weird.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I never understood the point of transparently
| misrepresenting an argument and then defeating it in a
| public arena, but you do you.
| teawrecks wrote:
| The employees are all likely shareholders. It is the
| shareholder's duty to themselves to demand that the CEO
| be held accountable.
| ameister14 wrote:
| No it isn't. Shareholders have power over the board, not
| directly over the officers. It's a shareholder's duty to
| oversee the board's actions and it's the board's duty to
| oversee the CEO.
|
| Since this is a closely held company there are different
| rules as well.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Pissing someone off and disobeying a direct order are two
| different things
| thal3s wrote:
| We're not slaves anymore. You as a human being are allowed
| to express your thoughts and opinions. Would we know how
| awful it was at Activision/Blizzard if those employees had
| not said something? Elon and C-Suite execs own and control
| everything, no need to bootlick.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > We're not slaves anymore.
|
| True. And you're not entitled to the job, either. The
| employer/employee relationship is a voluntary one, for
| both parties.
| LambdaComplex wrote:
| For most people, their job is their primary (or only)
| source of income. Being fired decreases (or entirely
| removes) their ability to afford food and shelter--things
| which are both necessities.
|
| A company of any significant size, on the other hand,
| will be able to handle the loss of a single employee just
| fine.
|
| There is a power imbalance between the two parties here
| and I don't think you can construct a solid argument
| while ignoring it.
| tiahura wrote:
| Should hot girls be forced to date ugly guys?
| ghusbands wrote:
| It's all different people upthread - it's a conversation
| rather than an argument. Also, most jurisdictions have a
| safety net for those who lose their jobs, so people often
| get to maintain similar income until they find their next
| job.
|
| (Most welfare systems have plenty of woeful traps,
| though, and I fall on the side of 'People should not lose
| their jobs over a disrespectful letter', but I haven't
| read it.)
| Tostino wrote:
| Keep in mind just how limited those protections are in a
| ton of states. FL might as well not have an unemployment
| program for how much that has been gutted and made almost
| impossible to access.
| WalterBright wrote:
| There's a reason that SpaceX and other companies pay far
| more than minimum wage. It's because otherwise the
| employees won't take the job.
|
| I.e. the idea that employees is powerless is not true by
| inspection.
|
| People also can always start their own companies, being
| an employee is hardly the only option. (People who start
| their own companies also quickly realize that their
| imagined power over other people is entirely
| nonexistent.)
| meatsauce wrote:
| Get another job.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| You are free to express your thoughts and opinions, and
| your employer is free to stop employing you.
| [deleted]
| tankenmate wrote:
| Within the bounds of legality while also taking into
| account of "we'd rather just pay the fine" and get the
| unwanted employee out.
|
| In the UK recently the CEO of a ferry firm sacked all its
| workers in contravention of the law (they were required
| to give a 90 day consultation before any job losses,
| required to offer them other roles in the organisation).
| The CEO was summoned to parliament to explain what happen
| and said that "we didn't think the employees would go
| along with it, so we just fired them".
|
| The government and employment tribunals are looking into
| collecting evidence in order to convict the CEO (criminal
| vs the usual civil penalty).
| meatsauce wrote:
| You can be certain that when someone implies that you are
| a "bootlicker" for holding an opposing viewpoint, that
| the accuser has reached the last line of their
| intellectual sub-routines and can no longer store any
| further instructions.
| saagarjha wrote:
| This you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31783510?
|
| Seriously, Hacker News is not the site for you to engage
| in this kind of low-quality culture war. Stop doing it.
| techie1980 wrote:
| If you want to bite the hand that feeds you, then you
| need to be cognizant of the potential consequences.
|
| Some leaders, and following that some cultures are
| receptive of open criticism and disagreement. Others are
| absolutely not. It's up to each person to read the room.
| trs8080 wrote:
| > If you want to bite the hand that feeds you, then you
| need to be cognizant of the potential consequences.
|
| SpaceX employees are the hand that's feeding Musk. Unless
| you think he can get to Mars by himself.
| [deleted]
| dchichkov wrote:
| I'm not sure about the obsession to go to Mars. What is
| the rational behind it?
|
| The next right step in technology (that would allow real
| progress in space exploration while having good
| environmental impact) is fusion energy. Developing
| chemical rockets to send a human to Mars seems like a
| misguided endeavor.
|
| Without focuswe may run out of runway to develop and
| deploy clean energy technology - https://xkcd.com/1732/
| WalterBright wrote:
| There's no reason we cannot work on these in parallel.
| mavhc wrote:
| Going to Mars is easy compared to Fusion, just requires,
| say, $100 billion. It's been possible but too expensive
| for decades, the idea of Starship is to make it cheaper.
|
| Then it's just a logistics problem.
|
| Plus whoever founds the successful human civilisation on
| Mars gets into the history books, fusion is a massive
| team effort that won't have one specific person
| remembered.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Going to Mars is easy. We've even done it twice in the
| last 5 years.
|
| Making a self-sustaining city on Mars is impossible. And
| even if not impossible, certainly costs many tens of
| trillions of dollars, which is as good as.
| meatsauce wrote:
| What is the rational behind it? Sagan said it best:
|
| "For all its material advantages, the sedentary life has
| left us edgy, unfulfilled. Even after 400 generations in
| villages and cities, we haven't forgotten. The open road
| still softly calls, like a nearly forgotten song of
| childhood. We invest far-off places with a certain
| romance. This appeal, I suspect, has been meticulously
| crafted by natural selection as an essential element in
| our survival. Long summers, mild winters, rich harvests,
| plentiful game--none of them lasts forever. It is beyond
| our powers to predict the future. Catastrophic events
| have a way of sneaking up on us, of catching us unaware.
| Your own life, or your band's, or even your species'
| might be owed to a restless few--drawn, by a craving they
| can hardly articulate or understand, to undiscovered
| lands and new worlds.
|
| Herman Melville, in Moby Dick, spoke for wanderers in all
| epochs and meridians: "I am tormented with an everlasting
| itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..."
|
| Maybe it's a little early. Maybe the time is not quite
| yet. But those other worlds-- promising untold
| opportunities--beckon.
| samhyde69 wrote:
| megaman821 wrote:
| We will see. It is not uncommon to see ex-employees of a
| company go on to create a competing company. Maybe the
| ex-employees will have a competitive advantage since Musk
| isn't an good leader of SpaceX according to them.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Well, at the very least they might join a competitor and
| take with them the knowledge they had at SpaceX.
| mwint wrote:
| If this worked, Boeing would have dangled millions in
| front of SpaceX employees and taken the lead.
|
| SpaceX's success is at least in part due to a culture of
| actually doing stuff. It's difficult to create that
| culture, and the work to maintain it is done at the top.
|
| Perhaps wokeness is incompatible with a culture of
| solving hard technical problems to the exclusion of all
| other concerns?
| WalterBright wrote:
| If the employees feel they can get to Mars without Musk,
| they're free to do so.
| User23 wrote:
| I seriously doubt any of the people let go are remotely
| near the critical path for the Mars mission.
|
| In fact, certain kinds of persons are prone to stir up
| these kinds of issues to distract from their own poor
| performance in their actual job. Which evidently isn't
| internal "activism."
|
| The level of entitlement it takes to expect to be paid to
| undermine the organization that's paying one ought to be
| shocking, but it evidently isn't.
| [deleted]
| trs8080 wrote:
| This is a lot of baseless conjecture tied up with a nice
| insult at the end.
|
| > The level of entitlement it takes to expect to be paid
| to undermine the organization that's paying one ought to
| be shocking, but it evidently isn't.
|
| The employees literally wrote a letter saying an
| individual's actions were undermining the organization.
| The letter is an exhortation to protect SpaceX (in terms
| of finance and reputation) from Musk's behavior.
| samhyde69 wrote:
| henriquez wrote:
| quartesixte wrote:
| To add to the "protecc SpaceX" line of thought, I think
| there is some level of disconnect as well -- Elon, while
| a champion for SpaceX's cause and its public figurehead,
| and still involved in the decisions the company makes,
| isn't the main showrunner. Gywnne Shotwell is. So as much
| as Elon is publicly the King of SpaceX, Gywnne runs the
| kingdom and some subjects wanted some reform.
|
| Also, SpaceX definitely has spun itself up as a "this is
| for the good of all humanity" type company and attracts
| employees who really are bought-in on the whole Grand
| Vision. To the writers of this letters, that Grand Vision
| > Elon the Person.
| meatsauce wrote:
| For every engineer who got fired, there are 100 waiting
| to take their place.
|
| Nice try, but no. Employees don't feed employers.
| trs8080 wrote:
| Yeah that's not the point. The point is that your billion
| dollar idea is worthless without someone to implement it.
| Without 9,400 people working for SpaceX, SpaceX doesn't
| exist. It relies on labor, same as any company.
| arghnoname wrote:
| Going back to Marx at the latest, it's long been
| understood that wage-laborers _as a class_ are
| revolutionary, in the sense that they have collectively
| enough power to overturn the existing world order, let
| alone an individual capitalist enterprise.
|
| As a class. Individually they're absolutely powerless and
| class solidarity is very difficult to achieve, perhaps
| impossible. There's a reason labor movements tend to
| involve elements that physically coerce other members of
| the class (i.e., 'scabs') from crossing picket lines.
| Capitalists don't need very many specific members of the
| proletariat, they just need enough. Musk can fire his
| critics at will for a very long time without any real
| threat to his business unless his employees and any
| potential employees were to coalesce and oppose him en
| masse.
|
| I doubt that they will do this. If I were in Musk's
| position I'd fire these people and I'd fire similar
| critics at twitter. Capitalist led enterprises are
| essentially monarchical. I don't like this but it is
| reality and it's best if everyone understands it. I
| prefer mask off to the alternative.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > monarchical
|
| It's a free country. Workers are free to quit, form their
| own collective and run it as they see fit. It's perfectly
| legal.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Maybe if Marxists stopped obsessing over their
| personality cult and congratulating themselves on the
| scientific nature of dialectical materialism they'd have
| time to catch up on 150 years worth of knowledge on
| organizational and collective action problems. An awful
| lot of leftists prefer historical LARPing in intellectual
| costumes to operating under existing conditions.
| arghnoname wrote:
| Yeah, the 'left' is an ideological mess. I don't see a
| lot there of more modern voices that hold sway and seem
| ideologically coherent to me. The irony is in their time
| at least up to 1917 the marxists examined and tried to
| update their theory to match their current conditions.
| It's like amongst some, everything has been frozen in
| amber from a certain point and among others, marxism has
| come to mean redefining class struggle as identitarian
| struggle. I imagine the historical adherents are really
| just objecting to the more modern more 'woke' invariants
| in a clumsy way.
|
| There's never been much agreement on what marxism means.
| I believe Marx himself disliked the term and claimed to
| not be a marxist.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| Genuinely asking - any reading on the (scientific)
| understanding of organisations / collective action?
| (actually writing a book on software literacy and this is
| cropping up)
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Here's a paper and a thesis, both fairly recent, that I
| found useful and relevant. There's a whole rich field of
| network and statistical theory as applied to human social
| behavior if you want to explore quantitative methods, but
| that tends to have a very top-down perspective and
| involve a lot of abstraction. Hope this is helpful.
|
| Collaborative organizational forms: on communities,
| crowds, and new hybrids https://link.springer.com/article
| /10.1186/s41469-018-0036-3
|
| Self-organization in Communicating Groups: the emergence
| of coordination, shared references and collective
| intelligence http://pcp.vub.ac.be/Papers/Barcelona-
| LanguageSO.pdf
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| Oh man - catnip! Thank you
| CodeSgt wrote:
| This take is so common and so bizarre. SpaceX employees
| are there because Musk pays them to be there. If they
| weren't there, Musk would pay someone else. The employees
| aren't irreplaceable or in a position of power over Musk
| and trying to spin it like they are is absurd.
| trs8080 wrote:
| And if nobody else wanted to work for Musk, he would have
| no company. There is no SpaceX without labor. It exists
| and has succeeded because of the hard work of ordinary
| people, not because of Musk.
|
| If SpaceX weren't there, they'd be working for someone
| else or themselves - he needs them more than they need
| him.
| assttoasstmgr wrote:
| It goes beyond that. It's fair to say most SpaceX
| employees worship the guy as well as being super-
| motivated. They work there because they _want_ to be
| there. The arrogance displayed in this thread is
| astounding. It would be like threatening 2007-era Steve
| Jobs with "f--k you, I'll just go to BlackBerry
| instead". Half a page down and already references to Karl
| Marx and slavery. I suspect lots of self-employed web
| developers here waxing poetic when they have never worked
| in a place led by a cult of personality. They have no
| frame of reference.
| trs8080 wrote:
| You're mixing up SpaceX the company with Elon Musk the
| CEO. They are not the same thing, and just because
| someone wants to work on space travel doesn't mean they
| worship a billionaire. TFA is about the very employees
| who you claim "worship" Musk who are claiming that his
| behavior is harming the company.
|
| It's not arrogance to want to work on something you're
| passionate about without a petulant billionaire
| figurehead actively devaluing your work.
| assttoasstmgr wrote:
| > _just because someone wants to work on space travel
| doesn 't mean they worship a billionaire_
|
| Then they are free to seek gainful employment at any
| number of other spaceship companies.
|
| You seem to assume that if you just show up at SpaceX's
| door with a briefcase and say "I want to work on space
| travel" that you are somehow entitled to a job there. No.
|
| > _without a petulant billionaire_
|
| Just admit you hate the guy for personal reasons. That's
| OK; you're allowed to have an opinion. Most people
| wouldn't purposely go work at a place that's run by a guy
| they despise then try to undermine said business. A
| better grasp of the employer-employee relationship would
| be helpful.
| trs8080 wrote:
| > You seem to assume that if you just show up at SpaceX's
| door with a briefcase and say "I want to work on space
| travel" that you are somehow entitled to a job there.
|
| I never said anything like this. I said it's not arrogant
| to want to work on something you're passionate without
| worrying about that work being devalued.
|
| Yes, I dislike Elon Musk. Because I take personal issue
| with him does not preclude my ability to discuss SpaceX -
| in the same way that I discuss politicians whose views I
| don't agree with.
|
| The letter in question is an exhortation from employees
| who are concerned that his behavior is undermining the
| business. Somehow, you've managed to twist this
| completely around into employees wanting to harm the
| business.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| ericd wrote:
| I think it's important to note the top demand of the
| letter (in italics):
|
| "As a starting point, we are putting forth the following
| categories of action items, the specifics of which we
| would like to discuss in person with the executive team
| within a month:
|
| _Publicly address and condemn Elon's harmful Twitter
| behavior. SpaceX must swiftly and explicitly separate
| itself from Elon's personal brand._ "
|
| I don't know why anyone would think that that would go
| over well.
| pfortuny wrote:
| Please: slaves could not even think of leaving their
| jobs.
|
| We are not slaves, but our bosses are not our parents
| either.
| Justin_K wrote:
| Any employee can change jobs at anytime... why are you
| comparing at will employment to slavery? Elon controls
| everything because he own's a majority of the shares of
| the company. His money, his decisions, his voice.
| canadaduane wrote:
| Both employment and slavery are by degrees. I think they
| can be compared, but "employment = slavery" is obviously
| wrong.
| meatsauce wrote:
| That's like comparing rocket motors to lettuce.
| tablespoon wrote:
| >> Both employment and slavery are by degrees. I think
| they can be compared, but "employment = slavery" is
| obviously wrong.
|
| > That's like comparing rocket motors to lettuce.
|
| No, they're clearly not that different. Both involve
| laboring for others (usually members of the ownership
| class), under some degree of compulsion. Though the
| nature of that compulsion can be different (e.g. using
| the threat of the whip vs. using the threat of
| starvation).
|
| The benefit of "being able to change jobs" is often
| significantly overstated and highly contextual. It's not
| like anyone can just pick any job they like: they have to
| pick what they're offered. For some people, that can be
| highly restricted, to the point of being serf-like.
| thetinguy wrote:
| And yet even if he had all the money in the world he
| won't get anywhere without his employees.
| samhyde69 wrote:
| He doesn't need, or want, the woke ones. No one does.
| lostlogin wrote:
| I think he would be ok.
| tomohawk wrote:
| If you want a guaranteed job where you can do whatever
| you want, including running down your boss, then get a
| job with the government.
|
| Businesses that are trying to stay in business don't have
| time for you.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| You are absolutely _not_ allowed to express your thoughts
| and opinions free of consequence.
|
| I think Elon's a tool, and this is a bad move, but to
| think someone should be protected from consequence of
| what they express is absurd.
|
| It's his company, he makes the decisions. The market
| should respond if that's a big enough deal, and I'm 100%
| sure that's starting to happen (though it's exceedingly
| slow in the space domain).
| dlp211 wrote:
| teawrecks wrote:
| I think you're arguing tangentially to the point being
| made, which is that: no insubordination happened. They
| were simply critical of how Musk represented them.
|
| I have to assume they knew when they penned the letter
| that they would find out whether their leader could take
| criticism and help them make a better company and product
| together, or react immaturely and let them know that
| their time would be better spent elsewhere. Seems they
| got their answer.
|
| In any case, yeah, Musk owns the company and has the
| right to fire people for criticizing his business
| decisions. Bold strategy, we'll see how it turns out for
| him.
| arghnoname wrote:
| I think you can reasonably argue that the company Musk
| leads are largely supported (at least historically) by
| his showmanship and personality cult. That may be
| shifting, but it's absolutely fair that diminishing the
| reputation of companies whose stock valuations are
| largely based on seemingly irrational faith in dear-
| leader is in fact weakening the company.
|
| I think there's also this game that gets played now where
| internal dissent tries to whip up external dissenters to
| get their way within companies. Leaders need to decide if
| this is happening or not and act accordingly.
| meatsauce wrote:
| Bold strategy, we'll see how it turns out for him
|
| This is common and has been common for hundreds of years.
|
| Burn the boss, lose your job.
|
| It isn't rocket science.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| And as a non slave, you can easily get employed somewhere
| else.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Saying a bad thing about your employer isn't
| insubordination.
|
| That said, most places in the US are at-will employment, so
| you can fire your employees for no reason.
| celticninja wrote:
| Caveat: IN THE USA
|
| some countries have decent labour laws that won't crucify
| you for disagreeing with your employer
| ryan_j_naughton wrote:
| Even then, you can't use company time, company resources,
| and company emails to support that disagreement: > In her
| email to staff, Ms. Shotwell wrote, "Blanketing thousands
| of people across the company with repeated unsolicited
| emails and asking them to sign letters and fill out
| unsponsored surveys during the work day is not
| acceptable."
|
| These employees clearly messed up in that regard.
| meatsauce wrote:
| Your general issue work-cancer employee is not a rational
| actor. The forethought ceases at "I'm offended"
| temp_6_17_2022 wrote:
| What (legal) orders did they defy?
| TrinaryWorksToo wrote:
| To an extent it can be a protected class (and this may even
| be protected) https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-
| protect/your-right...
| Justin_K wrote:
| Everything I read about the letter was addressing Musk's
| behavior and was not related to the formation of a union.
| Again, my point is merely whether or not law was violated
| in their firings.
| tamcap wrote:
| quoting: "A few examples of protected concerted
| activities are:
|
| Two or more employees addressing their employer about
| improving their pay. Two or more employees discussing
| work-related issues beyond pay, such as safety concerns,
| with each other. An employee speaking to an employer on
| behalf of one or more co-workers about improving
| workplace conditions."
|
| Would that letter fall under that? I think there is at
| least a somewhat credible claim it could (and also a
| credible opposing counterclaim that the form of speech
| was meant to be defamatory/disparaging, and not a
| protected activity), but I am not a lawyer.
| dmatech wrote:
| What he says on his personal Twitter account (unless it's
| on behalf of the employer) is not a "workplace" concern.
| There's no right for workers to not have an off-the-job
| embarrassment as a CEO. Perhaps there is for investors,
| but that's another concern with different remediations.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| Your boss's conduct is absolutely part of your workplace
| conditions. Public figures do not have the luxury of
| maintaining a strict separation between their working and
| private lives.
| TrinaryWorksToo wrote:
| The document I linked describes protections specifically
| beyond unions, such as two or more employees talking
| about working conditions.
| btilly wrote:
| The letter itself is at the end of
| https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-
| musk....
|
| The bit about Musk's behavior gets quoted because it fits
| with various agendas. But the letter itself is mostly a
| plea for making SpaceX a more inclusive workplace for
| people of different races, genders, and so on. To
| establish clear HR policies rather than current vague
| rules like "no assholes".
|
| That's pretty far into the protected category of talking
| about improving workplace conditions.
| dmix wrote:
| Activists calling for more inclusion are not the
| protected class here regardless, even if the people they
| want to be hired or promoted may be (under certain
| circumstances).
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| Talking about workplace issues in the workplace is a
| protected class
| [deleted]
| neltnerb wrote:
| I have the feeling that people like musk or that crypto
| CEO yesterday are just chomping at the bit for the
| opportunity to appeal to the supreme court.
|
| Someone will get to have their name attached to the
| decision declaring any government interference in how a
| business is run unconstitutional.
|
| Unions, 40 hour work week, desegregation, certainly
| employment discrimination, OSHA, the ADA? I worry people
| like Musk know they have the money to take it that far
| and that the supreme court would love to completely
| deregulate businesses.
| achenet wrote:
| > Someone will get to have their name attached to the
| decision declaring any government interference in how a
| business is run unconstitutional.
|
| Congress has the power to regulate commerce.
|
| [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause
|
| "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes,
| duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide
| for the common defense and general welfare of the United
| States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be
| uniform throughout the United States;
|
| To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
|
| To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
| several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
|
| [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#sec
| tion8
| btilly wrote:
| The actual grant to regulate commerce goes as follows.
|
| _To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among
| the several states, and with the Indian tribes;_
|
| There is a long road of interpretation from there to
| telling a manager of a restaurant that he has to hire
| black waiters. And the important bits of it all came in
| the last century. It is certain that the Founders never
| INTENDED for Congress to have its current authority.
|
| It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court wants to create
| the chaos of overturning all of that to go back to the
| original definition. But it is within their official
| authority to do so.
| neltnerb wrote:
| I'm definitely not saying that the supreme court will be
| correct or reasonable, but I also look at the decisions
| they've been making lately and am not so sure they care.
| We need to abandon the idea that they are neutral at this
| point, pretending they are will result in wasted time and
| focus on courts for resolving disputes that could be
| going to directly supporting the individuals impacted.
|
| We need to be wary because I, for one, totally believe
| they would make any regulations illegal given a case that
| gave them the chance.
|
| Preventing chaos is clearly not something they feel
| responsibility for, they're making extremely high impact
| decisions against hard fought civil rights in favor of
| just about any other interested party.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > That's pretty far into the protected category of
| talking about improving workplace conditions.
|
| You can't use "talking about improving workplace
| conditions" as an excuse for creating a hostile work
| environment by harassing your coworkers (BTW, sending
| unsolicited emails can very much be harassment). The NLRB
| has specifically ruled about this as part of the Google-
| James Damore case.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| The NLRB's ruling in that case was, and I'm quoting the
| NLBR general counsel (as quoted in the reporting by The
| Verge),
|
| > while some parts of Damore's memo were legally
| protected by workplace regulations, "the statements
| regarding biological differences between the sexes were
| so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be
| unprotected."
|
| They didn't rule he was creating a hostile work
| environment by "sending unsolicited emails"; they ruled
| that the memo contained statements that were
| "discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment." This
| just doesn't apply here -- Damore's strongest argument
| was that he was discussing working conditions, but the
| arguments in his actual memo about "women's heightened
| neuroticism and men's prevalence at the top of the IQ
| distribution" were the problem.
|
| In this SpaceX case, they were very clearly discussing
| working conditions in a substantial part of the memo, and
| it's quite possible _that_ is in fact protected speech.
| What muddies it up is adding the parts about also needing
| to tell Elon to stop being an ass on Twitter; that 's
| probably _not_ protected.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| You're of course right that James Damore never sent mass
| unsolicited emails. However, this doesn't change the fact
| that unsolicited email is commonly acknowledged as a
| possible form of harassment and/or cyberbullying. It
| should go without saying that this might also create a
| hostile work environment.
| stefan_ wrote:
| This is bizarre; are you just reciting random terms you
| picked up somewhere? Of course none of this reaches any
| level of "harassment" or "cyberbullying".
| zozbot234 wrote:
| A New York Times article on the matter
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/17/technology/spacex-
| employe... seems to imply otherwise: "The letter,
| solicitations and general process made employees feel
| uncomfortable, intimidated and bullied, and/or angry
| because the letter pressured them to sign onto something
| that did not reflect their views".
| stefan_ wrote:
| You are citing Shotwell, not the Times!
| btilly wrote:
| This is a good point. And it is verified by:
|
| https://www.wired.com/story/labor-board-rules-google-
| firing-...
|
| You can't be fired for wanting to make your workplace
| better. You can be fired for making it worse for others.
| Often the same behavior can be seen as either or both.
| And courts exist to adjudicate these disagreements.
|
| That said, I hate the example. However discussing that
| would be a derail, so I won't.
| meatsauce wrote:
| Good thing he shed the woke-cancer. Those clowns ruin
| entire companies and destroy morale for the whole team.
| Justin_K wrote:
| While they open the letter with statements about
| inclusion and diversity, their first demand / action item
| is as follows:
|
| Publicly address and condemn Elon's harmful Twitter
| behavior. SpaceX must swiftly and explicitly separate
| itself from Elon's personal brand.
|
| This is the spirit of their demands and they made it
| personal.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| Elon is toxic and is hurting the business and their
| personal incomes, they have every right to criticize the
| merging of Elons political ambition with the space
| mission. Elon is the main thing holding back Tesla and
| Space-X.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| They have every right to criticize Musk from the parking
| lot.
| buck4roo wrote:
| > insubordination isn't a protected class
|
| Any bets on whether (CEO == assclown) is a protected class?
| mlindner wrote:
| An internal letter sent to thousands of employees.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| Which makes this protected concerted action between
| employees trying to improve their working conditions[1].
| They would get smacked down for these firings if the NLRB
| wasn't so toothless.
|
| [1] https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/our-
| enforc...
| elihu wrote:
| It might be. It's hard to say, probably even by legal
| experts (and I'm definitely not one).
|
| I think a sticking point might be that the letter talked
| about bad behavior by Elon Musk in public, and a problem
| with the "no assholes" policy being vague and
| inconsistently applied -- but there weren't any concrete
| examples.
|
| Possibly some things Musk has tweeted might reasonably be
| interpreted as creating a hostile work environment or
| something like that. But maybe he just shared an opinion
| the authors of the letter don't agree with. Or they're
| annoyed at him for smoking weed in his Joe Rogan
| interview. It's hard to know for sure. (Maybe SpaceX
| employees already know what all the elephants in the room
| are and it wasn't necessary to enumerate them, but as an
| outside observer it's hard to know the full context.)
| vxNsr wrote:
| The original verge article I saw on this implied that the
| author (of the article) was in direct contact with at least a
| few of the letter's authors.
| waffleiron wrote:
| The Verge article I found says:
|
| > It's not known which SpaceX employees wrote the letter;
| the employees who posted the letter in the internal chat
| system have not responded to requests for comment.
|
| It says it was in contact with people who saw the letter,
| but nowhere implies it's the authors.
|
| > The letter generated more than a hundred comments in the
| Teams channel, with many employees agreeing to the spirit
| of the missive, according to screenshots of the chat shared
| by two sources who spoke with The Verge and asked to remain
| anonymous.
| uncomputation wrote:
| It is pretty hypocritical though for Mr. Free Speech to fire
| people who have concerns rather than address those concerns in
| a civil dialogue. Musk likes to whinge about "censorship"
| amounting to banning a Twitter account but seems perfectly okay
| firing someone and removing their livelihood for speaking
| critically of him.
|
| Also retaliation is very much still illegal, not that it
| matters.
| meatsauce wrote:
| This is pure nonsense. Neither Musk or his company owes you a
| job, and you certainly shouldn't work at his company if you
| disagree with his vison or politics. Shedding the woke weight
| has to feel good, for both Musk and for other employees, who
| no doubt had to endure constant whining.
| mulmen wrote:
| > you certainly shouldn't work at his company if you
| disagree with his vison or politics.
|
| Vision maybe. Politics are irrelevant to work. It is
| impossible to achieve 100% alignment in an organization of
| more than one person. And even then I'm not sure it is
| possible.
| EthanHeilman wrote:
| My question is if this is the best approach. The dissenters
| may care deeply about the company and they be saying
| publicly what many others are feeling privately at SpaceX.
| Would engagement in this setting reap better rewards?
| meatsauce wrote:
| Interesting question.
|
| If you look at other companies that give the woke cry
| bullies and their subjective feelings precedent over the
| mission, you can see that it creates a toxic workplace,
| hostile environments, further segmentation of workers
| into cliques, and other unpleasantries that hurt the
| mission, and ultimately the bottom line for that company.
|
| If you look at the nuances; they were fired for
| participating in actions that can not only be considered
| insubordination, but also abuse of company resources and
| harassment of employees who just want to do their job and
| not cater to the worthless feelings of people who have
| crippling self-esteem issues.
|
| Dumping the woke cry babies is the right decision here.
| Engagement only serves to embolden work cry bullies who
| are used to getting their way.
| vlunkr wrote:
| What about this open letter makes these people "woke cry
| babies?" The thesis of it is that his behavior online is
| embarrassing and bringing down the reputation of the
| company. That seems like pretty valid criticism to me.
| This guy is supposed to bring our species to another
| planet, but he spends his free time fighting a losing
| twitter battle with a satirical video game website? It's
| not a great look.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Blizzard came to mind from your description, and to my
| eyes their current workplace is toxic, and getting rid of
| their CEO is the first step to let them focus on their
| mission and improve the bottom line of the company.
|
| At its core we are discussing are situations that are
| dire enough that a decent fraction of the company feels
| their leadership is fucking around and hurting the
| company. Whatever angle we look at it, the company will
| already be segmented and toxic: it couldn't stop its
| leadership from fucking up for whatever length of time,
| leadership doesn't give a shit about employees reaction,
| and managers can't properly gauge nor progressively
| address the internal repercussions.
|
| "Focusing on the mission" is already compromised at that
| point, and you'll need to chose between the leader that
| doesn't give enough shit, or the employees that stepped
| up too prominently.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| The company doesn't owe Musk a job either.
| treme wrote:
| he kinda built it with his blood sweat and tears.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Him or others? What about the people he is firing?
|
| Regardless, businesses don't care what you did in the
| past - for that, your reward is your compensation - you
| are hired for what you do tomorrow.
| [deleted]
| wesleywt wrote:
| cptaj wrote:
| This is the crux of the matter right here.
|
| I hate that people are doing all these weird gymnastics to
| reconcile being a champion of free speech and firing people
| that criticize you.
|
| Yeah, guys, it might be legal (maybe not) but it IS
| hypocritical. If you want to champion free speech you can't
| do this shit. Stop with the debate team bullshit and exercise
| some common sense.
| justbored123 wrote:
| mlindner wrote:
| You can be a champion of free speech in public in the sense
| that you do not have your freedom of speech taken away from
| you. However SpaceX is not a public forum for your speech.
| You can't abuse internal email lists to have your speech
| reach more people than it would normally.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| I can't believe I have to say this, but the hypocrisy
| comes from the fact that Elon, and many others, believe
| (or in Elon's case, purports to believe) that private
| entities should not moderate their own products, and
| instead guarantee an audience for people[0]. They don't.
| That's not what censorship is.
|
| [0] Now Elon has recently said in that video call to
| Twitter employees that free speech doesn't mean a right
| to an audience, but it's hard to square that statement
| with his previous statements.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > I can't believe I have to say this, but the hypocrisy
| comes from the fact that Elon, and many others, believe
| (or in Elon's case, purports to believe) that private
| entities should not moderate their own products, and
| instead guarantee an audience for people[0]. They don't.
| That's not what censorship is.
|
| This is incoherent. Musk can express that he wants
| Twitter to moderate according to free speech principles--
| that's not the same thing as asserting that Twitter has a
| legal responsibility to moderate according to free speech
| principles.
|
| Moreover, censorship doesn't require the censor to be the
| State--a private platform can censor content, and they
| often do.
|
| Per the ACLU:
|
| > Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas
| that are "offensive," happens whenever some people
| succeed in imposing their personal political or moral
| values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the
| government as well as private pressure groups.
|
| Per Wikipedia:
|
| > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public
| communication, or other information. This may be done on
| the basis that such material is considered objectionable,
| harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4]
| Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private
| institutions and other controlling bodies.
| donatj wrote:
| Hard Disagree. Just freedom in all directions. You're free
| to say what you want, they're free to fire you for it.
| That's completely consistent.
| wesleywt wrote:
| But Elon in particular should not be firing anyone if HE
| believes in free-speech. It is hypocritical.
| svachalek wrote:
| That's not what freedom of speech is about. You're free
| to say what you want in any country in the world, once.
| The first amendment is about protecting you from some of
| the consequences of that. Not specifically firing, but
| that's not his issue with Twitter either.
| rvz wrote:
| If this was a government censoring, banning journalists,
| stories and the media or even blocking the whole internet
| and punishing companies that criticize them or to stop
| the letter being published, that totally violates free
| speech.
|
| Generally, It doesn't apply to 'privately owned
| companies' Just like how these employees are free to
| criticize their employer it does not mean there are
| freedom of consequences and employers are just as free to
| fire their employees.
|
| That is why they stay anonymous and criticize their
| employer just like what happened with Coinbase.
| monktastic1 wrote:
| That's not a disagreement. Parent comment is asking for
| consistency. "If you believe... _then_... "
| Tehchops wrote:
| > I hate that people are doing all these weird gymnastics
| to reconcile being a champion of free speech and firing
| people that criticize you.
|
| You're just seeing the psychic ripples of all the Elon
| fanboys and pseudo-libertarian technofascists wrestling
| with the cognitive dissonance of their savior turning out
| to be a pretty vanilla corporate capitalist.
|
| After all the chest-thumping and general toxicity I find
| their discomfort endlessly amusing.
| moron123 wrote:
| As an Elon fanboy, nothing he did surprised me in the
| least. He may be one of the most consistent public
| figures out there.
| cactus2093 wrote:
| Some call it "debate team bullshit", others would call it
| "applying basic logic".
|
| Why let a pesky little thing like intellectual honesty
| stand in the way of jumping on a good hate bandwagon?
| mavhc wrote:
| If your ability to stay alive depending on you keeping your
| job you wouldn't go around signing public letters.
|
| Did he attempt to supress the letter?
|
| Freedom of speech != freedom from action
| etchalon wrote:
| I don't understand the logic that people without power
| shouldn't speak up to those with it.
| meatsauce wrote:
| Employees have plenty of power.
|
| They have the power to work someplace else.
| justbored123 wrote:
| etchalon wrote:
| "If you don't like it, move."
| meatsauce wrote:
| In the context of employment; yes. Bye. Turn in your
| badge, too.
| notyourwork wrote:
| foobarian wrote:
| I don't know, what they did according to the article is a
| little bit more than speech. If someone did that at my
| workplace the silent majority would be thankful that someone
| removed that kind of nuisance.
| eloff wrote:
| This kind of dialogue could be had internally. Making it a
| public matter is just looking for a pink slip. Maybe that's
| what they wanted. Maybe they're just ignorant. Either way the
| consequences are predictable, regardless of the company.
| rory wrote:
| "Blanketing thousands of people across the company with
| repeated unsolicited emails and asking them to sign letters
| and fill out unsponsored surveys during the work day" is
| markedly different from posting something on your personal
| Twitter.
| kareemsabri wrote:
| I read Musk's "free speech absolutism" to mean that on
| platforms dedicated to speech (Twitter etc.) one shouldn't be
| censored / banned.
|
| I'm unclear how that means I should be able to say whatever I
| want at my job and still keep the job. For example, if I work
| at Tesla and say I think electric cars are stupid and the ICE
| are superior, I would imagine I would be fired. I don't think
| that's a free speech violation, but rather that my opinion is
| in conflict with the goals of the company.
| bostonsre wrote:
| Isn't the civil dialogue part immediately thrown out the
| window when the person posts and signs a public letter?
| Etheryte wrote:
| Freedom of speech does not mean being free of consequences.
| Much like you're free to offend, the other side is free to be
| offended and employment goes both ways. Firing someone
| because they fundamentally disagree on how the company should
| be run is not censorship, it's keeping only people who align
| with the direction you're headed.
| qsdf38100 wrote:
| Being banned from twitter is just a consequence of free
| speech then. Twitter is not public space.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Twitter is a public space, because being a public forum
| for speech is the essence of what Twitter does. It's
| privately owned, but like a privately owned mall, it is
| "open to the public" and therefore at least some free
| speech protections apply.
|
| "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his
| property for use by the public in general, the more do
| his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and
| constitutional rights of those who use it." (Marsh v.
| Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 506 (1946).
|
| The Supreme Court has since backtracked on the _Marsh_
| opinion somewhat, but some states such as California have
| ruled that reasonable exercise of speech and of petition
| rights on privately owned shopping malls are protected
| activities.
| picture_view wrote:
| I think that's the point.
|
| Elon takes the "freedom from consequences" interpretation
| of free speech when it comes to his complaints about
| twitter and "cancel culture", then turns around and
| effectively cancels these employees for speaking their
| mind.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| > _Freedom of speech does not mean being free of
| consequences._
|
| Wasn't that an old Soviet or similar joke? "In
| {country_name}, we have freedom of speech. What we don't
| have is freedom after speech".
| mlindner wrote:
| They still have freedom after speech. They can continue
| to say what they were saying about Musk anywhere they
| like (including on Twitter).
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| Too many people think that the cultural wars of today are
| necessarily about freedom of speech. That's not really
| the case. Freedom to say whatever you want without
| consequence has never existed in America and never will
| exist. There has always been a tolerance window of things
| you can safely say. Freedom of speech protections are
| mostly, if not entirely, about restricting what
| consequences the _government_ can impose for your speech,
| not of society itself.
|
| The culture war is really around the fruits of the labor
| of leftists who have fought extremely hard to shift our
| tolerance window as far left as possible. If you say
| something they don't like, they will work to impose every
| consequence they can to both silence you and scare others
| into compliance.
|
| What I am saying (edit: what I said _above_ ) is neither
| partisan nor conspiratorial. The Marxists of early 1930s,
| namely, Herbert Marceuse, explicitly redefined tolerance
| to exclude conservatives, and these people heavily
| influenced "the new left" of the 1960s and the left that
| followed thereafter. Meanwhile, Max Horkheimer, the
| father of critical theories, influenced academics to
| prioritize political activism over truth and objectivity.
|
| Today you have a left that actively seeks to suppress and
| silence opposing views while openly lying and distorting
| truth to obtain their political objectives. The culture
| war will be fought and won once these evil influences are
| eradicated and people are free to express a non-leftist
| political opinion without fear of being fired or
| ostracized from society, and when the left starts
| prioritizing truth and objectivity over winning.
|
| For reference, I would suggest watching this video by
| Ryan Chapman on the intellectual roots of wokeness:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JX4bsrj178&t=850s.
|
| I would also recommend reading Michael Knowles' book
| "Speechless, controlling words, controlling minds", which
| gives a longer take on these subjects.
| widjit wrote:
| Other than your first paragraph, which is reasonable,
| your name dropping is doing a poor job of hiding your
| very weak understanding of history, philosophy, and
| political theory.
|
| Get off the internet and talk to an actual human who
| knows what they're talking about.
| robocat wrote:
| > What I am saying is neither partisan
|
| Your comment is partisan. The implication you are making
| is the right does not participate in the activities you
| are pointing out. Regardless of how correct you are, you
| are making a political comment against the left on a site
| that _tries_ to avoid political arguments. You are also
| using partisan trigger words.
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| I wish we could go back to the time when truth,
| objectivity, and tolerance for opposing viewpoints
| weren't considered "partisan". Because the left of today
| is against all those things, and they themselves have
| made that very explicit.
| robocat wrote:
| > truth, objectivity, and tolerance for opposing
| viewpoints
|
| I think you are in the right place.
|
| Here's my opinion: make your own points without
| regurgitating obvious partisan "positions"; avoid
| flamebait partisan language such as "woke"; before
| writing perhaps consider if HN is the right forum for
| your content and choose the appropriate forum for your
| points; consider steel-manning your argument rather than
| right-handed punches to low hanging straw pinatas.
|
| Reading your reply, you are repeating the same mistakes
| that I was responding to. An inappropriate comment about
| the "left". Your response comes across to me as a hidden
| political dismissal that doesn't acknowledge or respond
| to the simple point I made - I think your response is an
| irrelevant shift of the goalposts.
|
| Meanwhile this thread is off-topic and a tree of
| responses is not appropriate. Your original comment has
| triggered divisive and controversial (flaming) responses
| from others - a strong indication your comment is
| objective and intolerant. If your comment is worthwhile,
| other people will defend your comment for you. At least
| you are checking your _threads_ link.
|
| The HN guidelines are always worth reading again, and
| again, and again:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| Edit: meta: I am engaging with you for two reasons: 1) if
| your near future comments are too divisive then I would
| expect this thread to be looked at, and 2) I truly wish
| to read your future high quality, strong, thoughtful and
| substantive contributions. I try to analyse how good/bad
| my own comments are: https://danluu.com/hn-comments/
| monkey_monkey wrote:
| > Because the left of today is against all those things,
| and they themselves have made that very explicit.
|
| Actually it's the rightists that are against those
| things. And this is also not a partisan comment, it's
| just an objective viewpoint.
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| Neat, but juvenile. Now Show me the seminal research
| paper, or influential book, speech, or editorial from the
| right denouncing tolerance, objectivity or truth. Because
| I've already done that for the left, and I've provided
| references, one of which is from someone who is not
| overtly conservative (Ryan Chapman).
|
| Edit: here's a fun college course:
| https://www.hws.edu/catalogue/pdf/catalogue_16-18.pdf
|
| White Mythologies: Objectivity, Meritocracy, and Other
| Social Constructions ... Students will explore how
| systematic logics that position "the West" and
| "whiteness" as the ideal manifest through such social
| constructions as objectivity, meritocracy, and race.
| monkey_monkey wrote:
| It's not a trick. Fascists hate tolerance. The Klu Klux
| Klan - a very conservative group did not, in any way,
| want to tolerate black people. Rightists marched a few
| years ago chanting "Jews will not replace us". In the
| 1940s there was an effort by right-wing fascists to
| exterminate an entire race.
|
| Don't need a seminal research paper to know that.
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| The KKK were entirely democrats: https://www.somdnews.com
| /independent/opinion/letters_to_the_....
|
| And they were not "conservative" in any sense except
| trying to "conserve" slavery. The elite intellectual
| "progressive" democrats of the time were also the most
| racist. They were the ones, for instance, that pushed
| eugenics for blacks (Planned Parenthood), and racial
| superiority based on scientific data:
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-liberals-who-
| lov...
|
| On the other hand, more Republicans voted for the civil
| rights act as a percentage than Democrats:
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1041302509432817073
|
| You're not doing so hot with your example.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The elite intellectual democrats of the time were also
| the most racist.
|
| Then as now, both parties were big tents and this isn't
| true, but it is true that the elite intellectual racists
| were more likely to be Democrats; that weakened in the
| overlapping pair of political realignments starting with
| the New Deal, especially the second one triggered by
| LBJ's support of the Civil Rights Act.
|
| The first schism between the national Democrats and the
| racists that went to form the "Dixiecrats" (itself
| triggered by integration policies supported by national
| Democrats) fell apart because the Dixiecrats weren't
| viable as a major party on their own, but the the second
| schism triggered by LBJ became permanent when the
| Republicans made attracting the disaffected racists a
| durable political strategy. That group of proud and open
| racists migrated from the Democratic Party to the
| Republican Party between the 1960s and the 1990s, which
| is why the Confederate-flag waving, openly anti-black,
| slavery-justifying-and-minimizing, etc., crowd is now
| consistently behind (or in front leading) the GOP.
| the_only_law wrote:
| > Then as now, both parties were big tents and this isn't
| true, but it is true that the elite intellectual racists
| were more likely to be Democrats
|
| Forget it, you're arguing against a bad faith argument.
|
| OP said something along the lines of the "KKK was a
| conservative groups". GP's response was "ackchully the
| KKK was Democrats, as if "Democrat" was the opposite of
| "Conservative".
| Thorrez wrote:
| >The culture war will be fought and won once these evil
| influences are eradicated and people are free to express
| a non-leftist political opinion without fear of being
| fired or ostracized from society
|
| This leftist vs non-leftist idea doesn't seem to align
| with the article. You seem to be saying that if the
| letter had been more leftist, they wouldn't have been
| fired from SpaceX. I don't think that's the case.
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| That's because the left have so far failed to exert their
| influence on SpaceX like they have other companies. I can
| cite plenty of other cases where a tiny minority of
| leftists pulled a similar stunt on or at a different
| company and succeeded in their objectives.
|
| Here's a fun one:
| https://winteryknight.com/2020/11/16/target-bans-book-
| critic...
|
| "An official Target company Twitter account announced
| Thursday they had removed author Abigail Shrier's book,
| "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our
| Daughters" from the retailer's "assortment" after an
| unverified Twitter user complained the book questions
| transgender ideology, especially the concept of
| irreversible hormonal and surgical experimentation on
| minors."
| cmurf wrote:
| >actively seeks to suppress and silence opposing views
|
| What's your best example of either of these?
|
| >while openly lying and distorting truth
|
| Same, best example of either lying or distorting truth.
|
| >The culture war will be fought and won once these evil
| influences are eradicated
|
| How is a culture war fought? What is the metric for
| winning? And how are the opponent's influences
| eradicated, exactly?
|
| >non-leftist political opinion without fear of being
| fired or ostracized
|
| What is an example of a non-leftist political opinion
| that is suppressed due to fear of being fired or
| ostracized?
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| An example of suppression and silencing is: twitter!
| https://lidblog.com/twitter-censors-conservatives/. There
| are, of course, many other examples. Twitter silenced the
| hunter biden scandal at election time. The story turned
| out to be true and could have swung the election. Youtube
| has been restricting, shadowbanning and explicit banning
| conservatives for a long time as well:
|
| https://www.prageru.com/petition/youtube
|
| https://summit.news/2022/01/27/youtube-bans-another-
| prominen...
|
| Open lying is harder to prove. Who admits they openly
| lied? But we can at least show many, many, examples of
| leftist media being factually incorrect. Here's one:
| https://www.city-journal.org/exposing-the-washington-
| post-on....
|
| Here's another fun one:
| https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/01/media/washington-post-new-
| yor....
|
| It's always great when all the falsehoods are attributed
| to "anonymous sources".
|
| A culture war is fought by winning hearts and minds, one
| by one, and also taking back influence, institutions, and
| power.
|
| A non-leftist political opinion would be that the 2020
| riots were worse for our country than January 6. an NFL
| coach recently got fined $100,000 and faced severe
| backlash for expressing this opinion:
| https://www.dailywire.com/news/nfl-coach-jack-del-rio-
| apolog....
|
| At least he didn't lose his job, yet? Others aren't as
| lucky when they "slip up":
| https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/22/media/rick-santorum-cnn-
| depar...
| andrekandre wrote:
| > The culture war is really around the fruits of the
| labor of leftists who have fought extremely hard to shift
| our tolerance window as far left as possible. If you say
| something they don't like, they will work to impose every
| consequence they can to both silence you and scare others
| into compliance.
|
| are you talking about people being fired from their jobs
| for saying/doing things the company didn't like?
| > The culture war will be fought and won once these evil
| influences are eradicated and people are free to express
| a non-leftist political opinion without fear of being
| fired or ostracized from society, and when the left
| starts prioritizing truth and objectivity over winning.
|
| is that why fox news is the #1 most-watched new channel?
| how about on youtube? how many views do ben shapiro and
| tucker carlson get vs insert-any-leftist-here?
|
| im not seeing this vast left-wing conspiracy, but maybe
| you can enlighten me....
| greiskul wrote:
| 1930s consertatives in many places in the world were
| literally the original fascists. The ones in the US might
| not have been, but they were probably too busy forming
| the second Ku Klux Klan and trying to whitewash the
| Confederacy.
| MandieD wrote:
| 1930's German fascists took a lot of ideas from the US
| South's Jim Crow laws. I didn't realize this until I saw
| a display about it at the Dokumentationszentrum in
| Nuremberg.
|
| The Nuremberg racial laws were particularly influenced by
| the laws implementing American anti-Black racism once the
| descendants of Africans abducted into enslavement were
| nominally free.
|
| If you never want to sleep easy again, tour the section
| exploring how Germany went from fragile democracy into
| the state that was, within less than a decade, willing
| and able to systematically murder millions. Germans
| aren't special.
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| the KKK was entirely aligned with democrat party, by the
| way, as were Jim crow laws created entirely by democrat
| party politicians: https://www.socialjusticesurvivalguide
| .com/2018/01/08/the-de...
| andrekandre wrote:
| right... in 1872...
| serf wrote:
| nit, the Italian Fasci movement started around 1915ish.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| I don't disagree with some of the principle.
|
| I think what you are saying _can_ be perceived (and maybe
| it inherently is) partisan, in the sense that it focuses
| on one aspect entirely to prove a larger point - I think
| we are missing out on many of the things that the right
| restricted - good ol ' Fifties' McArthyism of course
| comes quickly to mind, but I think through much of the
| history (but not all!), and certainly throughout the
| global geography, it was the conservative / establishment
| voices that had the power to restrict progressive speech.
| If instead, in your post you made a point that going
| against the cultural zeitgest of the times is always
| inherently risky and with consequences, you'd have been
| far more engaging and accepted rather than focusing on
| one side and attaching a ranty YouTube about "wokeness".
| It especially doesn't sound non-conspiratorial and non-
| partisan once you talk about "evil influences" and "this
| war will be won" - that means we're not having a
| discussion, you're preaching a specific point of view.
|
| (FWIW, I don't like either side overzealously restricting
| what's permissible to discuss - I'm in my own world of no
| mental or verbal taboos and a marketplace of ideas, which
| is the rarest side of all it turns out -- neutral simply
| means all sides can gang up on you :D )
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| I actually appreciate your reply being relatively
| measured. You're right in that my post would be more
| accurate if I said "what I said _above_ is neither
| partisan nor conspiratorial ", because later on I do take
| a very partisan stance.
|
| I also didn't mention things like McCarthyism because:
|
| A) I'm not very familiar with it.
|
| B) From what little I've heard, McCarthyism seems to me
| like an failure in that it didn't go far enough where it
| should and went too far where it shouldn't.
|
| C) I don't see it as relevant to today's culture war,
| which is a consequence of the left having successfully
| gained cultural ascendancy and become an incredible
| threat to our country.
|
| Edit 2: I remembered faintly reading about McCarthyism
| once, and it turns out I'm right: I read chapter six of
| "Debunking Zinn", titled, "Writing the Red Menace out of
| history." To quote from the chapter:
|
| "Senator Joesph McCarthy -- always an easy mark for the
| left -- is presented as representative of all anti-
| Communists. But it's a fact that Soviet expansion was
| enabled by Americans' _lack_ of due diligence when it
| came to weeding out Communist spies. "
|
| And, to McCarthy's inffectiveness, the book says:
|
| "Christopher Anddrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, among other
| anti-communists, claim that 'McCarthy ultimately did more
| for the Soviet cause than any agent of influence the KBG
| ever had'."
|
| And later: "[McCarthy] was also not careful in making his
| charges, and he became more reckless as his drinking,
| some say, got worse."
|
| Edit: "Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds"
| makes brief mention to this 1954 book defending Joe
| McCarthy: https://www.amazon.com/McCarthy-His-Enemies-
| William-Buckley/.... I have not read it, but if I were to
| learn more about McCarthyism I would probably personally
| start there.
|
| From one book review:
|
| "However, what I love most about this book is the authors
| challenge the reader to do his or her own thinking about
| communism in the 50's and what needed to be done during
| that time. They ask questions and then provide
| hypothetical answers which returns over and over again
| the same verdict. That rooting out communism and
| subversives in government was an extremely tough job, and
| it required a tough man to do the job, and he would have
| to play "hardball" to get the facts. To make the job even
| more difficult is that McCarthy was up against powerful
| establishments in all aspects of society."
| doctor_eval wrote:
| So you have read a chapter of a book debunking Zinn. But
| have you read any of Zinn's books?
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| Here's the deciding coin toss: can we both imagine there
| equally exist books defending current left restrictions
| on discussions, as there exist books defending
| mcarthyism? :)
| bdowling wrote:
| Found online:
|
| Is it true that there is freedom of speech in the Soviet
| Union, just like in the USA?.
|
| Yes. In the USA you can stand in front of the White House
| and shout "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be
| punished. Equally, you can stand in Red Square in Moscow
| and yell "Down with Reagan!", and you will still not be
| punished.
| countvonbalzac wrote:
| Then Trump is free to incite an insurrection on Twitter,
| and Twitter is free to ban him. Which is the opposite of
| what Elon thinks.
| [deleted]
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Musk wants attention and money to do whatever he wants.
| Everything else is negotiable.
| vosper wrote:
| Twitter is free to ban Trump or others, regardless of
| whether Elon Musk owns Twitter. Whether to implement a
| ban is a decision their management can take, or not take.
| gricardo99 wrote:
| I don't believe Elon ever stated Twitter has no
| right/freedom to ban (he does say a lot of bizarre
| things, and I don't follow too closely), but correct me
| if I'm wrong. Disagreeing with the Twitter policies is
| not the same as believing Twitter is not free to
| establish such policies.
| theptip wrote:
| He has stated that he thinks they should only ban if the
| law requires them to do so. For example he thinks the
| Trump ban was clearly problematic.
| mlindner wrote:
| People keep misconstruing his opinion on free speech. His
| opinion on free speech isn't "freedom to say anything
| anywhere to anyone and have no repercussions". He
| specifically believes Twitter should be treated as a virtual
| town square, i.e. you can say what you like without fear from
| being removed from the town square, but it has zero bearing
| on what people say about you on that town square.
|
| SpaceX is not a town square and never will be, nor is any
| private company. I doubt even Twitter employees will be able
| to say what they like on Twitter without fear of being fired
| from Twitter. It's only about removing you from the platform.
|
| There's no hypocrisy, it lines up exactly with his past
| actions and his past words.
| qsdf38100 wrote:
| On the other hand he tries to silence any unfavorable
| sayings about him or his companies. For a free speech
| absolutist, he loves himself a good NDA.
| depereo wrote:
| This is exactly correct. It absolutely lines up with his
| stance that everything he does or wants to do is fine and
| probably good, and that people that are not him should
| suffer consequences.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| But Twitter isn't a town square either. It's a private
| company. No one is guaranteed an audience.
| filoleg wrote:
| Twitter the company isn't supposed to be a town square,
| you are correct. Twitter the product is, though. Whether
| that's how you see it or not, is a separate question, but
| those two positions on Twitter aren't mutually exclusive.
| [deleted]
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Arguing that Twitter ought to moderate itself according
| to free speech principles isn't denying Twitter's right
| to free speech. I'm not going to stan Musk specifically,
| but this is a common misunderstanding (the general
| formulation being something like: "criticizing someone's
| free speech violates their free speech!", which is
| patently untrue).
| bhauer wrote:
| Precisely. Which is why he wants to acquire it and move
| it in the direction he has in mind.
| cactus2093 wrote:
| Yes that's the entire point of contention here. Twitter
| is a company, its management can choose to treat it more
| like a town square or more like a closed network with
| stricter content mediation rules. Elon wants it to be
| more like a town square.
| wesleywt wrote:
| [deleted]
| dylan604 wrote:
| Should they all have made Twitter posts rather than signing a
| piece of paper, or would Musk just claim they were bots and
| not real?
| 4bpp wrote:
| Not that I'm sympathetic to the decision to fire here based
| on what I know (which is really just this article and what
| I've read in this thread), but the two issues seem to be
| somewhat orthogonal, in that I could imagine a consistent
| moral framework falling either way with different opinions on
| them. Someone might believe in the importance of minimising
| consequences for speech on a public forum such as Twitter
| (whose end purpose is supposedly such speech, and which is
| one of the main venues in which public political discourse in
| fact happens), while simultaneously not believing that
| employees of a company have the right to speak up against the
| interests of that company (whose purpose is making widgets
| and money) and be protected from the company terminating the
| working relationship in return. Conversely, someone might
| think of unfettered political debate as harmful, and believe
| in the importance of suppressing certain opinions they find
| dangerous and harmful from the public sphere, while also
| believing that letting employees criticise and organise
| against their employer is important to guarantee the welfare
| of employees and keep the power of employers in check. In
| fact, the two combinations seem respectively pretty close to
| the proclaimed ethos of the US and the Soviet Union
| respectively a century ago.
|
| Criticism of Musk's action here may come both from those who
| in fact are in the "free speech absolutist" camp and want
| both the Twitter deplorables and the corporate gadflies to be
| protected from retaliation, and from those who are just in
| the latter position and want the opposite pattern, but I
| think only the first group can bring a charge of hypocrisy
| (still incorrect, as it ignores the orthogonality) without it
| making themselves guilty of higher-order hypocrisy.
| jakupovic wrote:
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| user_named wrote:
| They critized Musk, factually. Musk is not their employer,
| SpaceX is, but you just proved their point since you believe
| Musk and SpaceX are one and the same.
| andreilys wrote:
| Elon owns 54% of the outstanding stock of SpaceX and has
| voting control of 78% of the outstanding stock of SpaceX [1]
|
| So yes, for all intent purposes he is their employer.
|
| [1] https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-SpaceX-does-
| Elon-Mu...
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| sounds like running towards the dictator trap with open
| arms. If I wanted to get to Mars then I would suggest its
| poor company behaviour to suppress criticism like this as I
| doubt that doing so to protect personal twitter behaviour
| is helpful to the org's mission statement.
|
| Arguably it depends somewhat of the skill of those hired
| but if that's arbitrary (i.e. their skill isn't related to
| the firing) one can easily argue that SpaceX's management
| practices are extremely questionable right now. So from an
| 3rd party employee's perspective today you have to tell the
| boss he's fucking shit up if you _really_ want to get to
| Mars.
| throwntoday wrote:
| SpaceX are quite literally the only company on the planet
| capable of what they're doing. Elon is the sole reason
| Mars is even a possibility, as the rest of the world had
| given up on it. Same goes for EV's.
| splitstud wrote:
| sieabahlpark wrote:
| pcmoney wrote:
| They were fired for harassing their colleagues and wasting
| work time and resources.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| If only Musk was fired for exposing himself to company
| flight attendants.
| fourseventy wrote:
| unsubstantiated bullshit
| pcmoney wrote:
| Pretty sure that was settled? Also I have an NFT of a
| bridge I am trying to sell, interested?
| jhgb wrote:
| Wasn't the alleged event and the settlement actually both
| a hearsay to begin with?
| meatsauce wrote:
| If only you were held accountable for intellectual
| property theft.
|
| Oh, you were just "credibly accused" of IP theft.
|
| It doesn't matter if we can't prove it.
|
| You should be pre-emptively fired!
|
| Welcome to the woke cancer socialist hell hole.
| nowherebeen wrote:
| Musk is the CEO, he has the right to fire any employees that
| damage the company's reputation. You could argue that Musk is
| doing it himself and that the employee was simply stating
| facts, but it doesn't change the fact that the board decide
| to place him in-charge. Any other CEO would have done the
| same.
|
| It is the board that should be holding him accountable, but
| they aren't. Most boards today are lame ducks to collect a
| paycheck. No one is challenging him because he is delivering
| results (although I would argue it's actually Gwynne Shotwell
| keeping the shipping sailing). So there's that.
| djbebs wrote:
| He owns a controlling position in the company. The board is
| supposed to do what he wants them to.
| nowherebeen wrote:
| In theory, the board can still hold him accountable.
| There are laws that protect minority shareholders. But
| those board members will unlikely be around the next
| year.
| huhwat wrote:
| He does not have the universal right to fire people who
| talk about working conditions. Workers enjoy protections
| that allow them to speak about their work, even if that
| would be embarrassing for their employer.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> He does not have the universal right to fire people
| who talk about working conditions.
|
| Apparently the letter was not about working conditions.
| It was about Elon tweeting.
| huhwat wrote:
| The letter was about how rooms Elon's tweets impacted
| working conditions.
|
| Eg Individuals and groups of employees at SpaceX have
| spent significant effort beyond their technical scope to
| make the company a more inclusive space via conference
| recruiting, open forums, feedback to leadership,
| outreach, and more.
| meatsauce wrote:
| There is so much nonsense in this thread. The letter has
| nothing to do with working conditions.
|
| I take that back:
|
| The letter was spammed to all employees using company
| resources, which means its authors and supporters were
| creating a hostile work environment. Firing the dead-
| weight woke cry bullies was the proper move.
| pc86 wrote:
| To say this is a stretch is an understatement. Working
| conditions are hours, the physical space, WFH v. hybrid
| v. remote, async or not, etc.
| huhwat wrote:
| The letter specifically called out, eg, unequal
| enforcement of workplace policies.
| lp0_on_fire wrote:
| He has the universal right to fire people for whatever he
| wants as long as it's not for a reason protected by US
| labor law. There are very few instances of "protected
| speech" with regard to employment.
| huhwat wrote:
| Turns out discussing working conditions is one. And a
| very reasonable argument could be made that this letter
| is explicitly discussing working conditions.
| nightski wrote:
| Working conditions is a legal term and you can't redefine
| it to mean whatever you think affects you.
| huhwat wrote:
| Protected concerted activity is the legal term, and
| broadly encompasses protections for workers who
| collectively discuss and attempt to improve, among other
| things, the conditions in their workplace.
|
| I'm not redefining anything, the courts have broadly held
| that workers, when acting as a group and not just airing
| individual grievances, have protections for their speech.
| Things like corporate values, retention, recruiting,
| public sentiment, workplace diversity, etc are all
| potentially workplace conditions.
|
| Workplace Conditions has a legal definition, but it is
| interpreted by the courts and those courts have the
| ability to adjust those definitions or interpret them as
| appropriate.
| aksss wrote:
| Do you have any example of where a state labor dept. or
| court applied your logic to a closely matching situation
| in a sustainable/unambiguous way (meaning it wasn't
| overturned on appeal or settled)?
|
| I ask because in your many comments all you're doing is
| stating a hypothetical complaint that sounds plausible
| but I, as well as many others evidently, think would not
| have legs, ultimately. I can think of several examples in
| my career where employees have been fired for disruptive
| behavior or being a negative influence on morale - well
| within an employer's rights. Those examples seem to line
| up more closely with this example at SpaceX than actual
| workplace conditions complaints I've seen.
|
| I mean, props to you for going to the mat on this, but
| it's past time you provide some evidence of your logic
| carrying the day in a real world example. Otherwise
| you're just proposing wishful thinking as reasoning.
| meatsauce wrote:
| Working conditions is a legal term and you can't redefine
| it.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| I'm not saying Musk _should_ have fired them, but I'm
| pretty skeptical that the CEO's abrasive behavior in
| public statements unrelated to SpaceX is properly
| considered an aspect of working conditions. (It seems
| clear to me that their vague discussion of other issues
| is a pretext to support their eventual lawsuit, but
| YMMV.)
| huhwat wrote:
| If the CEO makes it harder to land contracts or recruit
| talent, that's a direct impact to working conditions. I
| loved SpaceX and would consider working there if not for
| Musk, for instance.
| thematrixturtle wrote:
| No, that's a very indirect impact to any one individual's
| working conditions.
|
| FWIW, I think firing the organizers is an overreaction
| and that it would be in SpaceX's best interest to muzzle
| Elon, but it's hard to conjure up a legal argument that
| they can't do it. And you'll notice that the company's
| statement said nothing about the content of the letter,
| only that it's inappropriate to organize it with company
| resources and on company time.
| huhwat wrote:
| Of course the company says organizing shouldn't happen on
| company time/resources. Can't be having the workers
| thinking they could collectively act!
| meatsauce wrote:
| Considering how simple-minded and toxic work-cancer
| employees are, and how harmful and corrupt a union can
| be; it is no surprise that Musk is 3 steps ahead of them.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| What _wouldn't_ count as working conditions under such a
| broad standard? Could I circulate an open letter
| demanding that I get a tech lead position instead of my
| rival because I don't think people will enjoy working on
| their team? Could a salesperson circulate an open letter
| demanding that you should be punished because your bad
| engineering cost the company a big contract?
| huhwat wrote:
| The courts have covered this. Generally, individual
| grievances are not protected. Whistleblowing may not be
| protected. Egregious or offensive language or coerced
| speech is not protected. Language that is disparaging
| without being an attempt to improve conditions is not
| protected.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Unconvincing examples, because those are simply _personal
| grievances_ and unrelated to broader company culture.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| What I'm saying is that I think the open letter's attack
| on Musk was also a simple personal grievance. The
| signatories don't like Musk, they're distracted and
| embarrassed by his Tweets, so they demand that the
| company denounce him. (The letter said more than that,
| but if broader systemic reforms were their primary goal,
| why include an inflammatory attack on one specific
| executive?)
| transcoderx wrote:
| adampk wrote:
| Wouldn't a counter point be that the CEO's behavior
| filtering out employees that care about Tweets deeply be
| positive?
|
| Knowing that people like you with your reasons for not
| working there are not present and harassing people
| towards your view point could be a recruitment draw no?
| [deleted]
| shswkna wrote:
| How was Musks public image affecting their working
| conditions?
| vkou wrote:
| Inconsistent enforcement of the company's rules, which is
| the core of the letter is very much working conditions,
| and his behavior very clearly shows that he is not bound
| by those rules.
| huhwat wrote:
| The letter makes that fairly clear. It's more challenging
| to focus on their mission, reducing opportunities for
| SpaceX, etc.
| scarab92 wrote:
| That's not even close to being considered protected
| activity.
|
| Given you've spammed this misinformation all over this
| thread, despite being corrected on this point repeatedly,
| I'm not sure you're acting in good faith.
| huhwat wrote:
| I've been corrected by folks going, "nuh uh". A
| discussion about retention, recruitment, enforcement of
| workplace policies, and airing of collective grievances
| is within bounds for protected. Provided it isn't
| deliberately offensive, an individual grievance, or
| knowingly false.
| meatsauce wrote:
| Several takedowns of your nonsense were made in good
| faith. You're being foolish at this point.
| flambergey wrote:
| It would seem that some lawyers agree with that poster:
| https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/17/23172915/elon-musk-
| spacex...
| evolve2k wrote:
| daenz wrote:
| Free speech is about opposing restrictions in the public
| sphere though. If the employees had made a public letter to
| the internet (not an internal mailing list), using their
| own resources (not company's resources), it would be a
| different situation.
|
| If a guest in your house started screaming at you, it
| wouldn't be a paradox of free speech to tell them to get
| out.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| Free speech is about opposing _government_ restrictions
| in the public sphere though.
| lkjdsklf wrote:
| No. That's the first amendment.
|
| Free speech and the first amendment are not the same
| thing.
| alphabettsy wrote:
| Not as Musk often describes it.
| [deleted]
| evolve2k wrote:
| It was a public letter aka "Open Letter".
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-
| musk...
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter
| MPSimmons wrote:
| Okay cool, now explain why Twitter shouldn't ban people.
| daenz wrote:
| The (controversial) argument is that Twitter has produced
| a public sphere. It's not legally a public sphere, but a
| de facto one, which is why people like Musk want to treat
| it as such.
| nerdix wrote:
| How can a public square be privately owned?
|
| And why doesn't Twitter have the same rights that you
| outlined in another comment: the right to not have to
| tolerate a private citizen, the right to prevent someone
| from saying whatever they want on your private property.
|
| Basically, why doesn't Twitter have the same association
| and private property rights as Musk?
| daenz wrote:
| >And why doesn't Twitter have the same rights that you
| outlined
|
| They do have those rights, which is why they can ban
| people. The argument is that they've produced a de facto
| public square, not a legal one, because it's where a
| massive amount of "public" discourse takes place. Musk is
| trying to buy them to make their product more consistent
| with a legal public square.
|
| Personally I think it can't be done without the
| government getting involved at some point.
| jfdbcv wrote:
| Due to the way the internet evolved, it is now the case
| that the majority of discourse flows through a handful of
| private companies.
|
| If you are a private company absolutist, I guess you
| could argue that these companies have the same rights to
| prevent people from saying whatever they want on private
| property.
|
| Others believe that these platforms are large and
| powerful enough to warrant a different set of views and
| regulatory scrutiny.
| dtjb wrote:
| Musk has publicly claimed that he is a free speech
| absolutist.
| daenz wrote:
| This[0] appears to be a good explanation of what a "free
| speech absolutist" is, and it isn't "you have to allow
| free speech in all settings by everyone"
|
| 0. https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-
| absolutist/4...
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| What's it called when "free speech in all settings [is
| enjoyed] by everyone"?
| daenz wrote:
| I don't think there is a phrase for it, but I can see why
| it would be a common misunderstanding to think that that
| is "free speech absolutism." As far as I know, there is
| no concept that requires a private citizen (A) tolerate
| another private citizen (B) saying whatever they want on
| A's property. Maybe some form of anarchy.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Thanks for bouncing the idea around. Sounds like naming
| such an idea would be a powerful shortcut to reach the
| root of many free speech discussions. Since I'm not above
| coining neologisms, "speech anarchy" will be the term I
| will use going forward.
| notahacker wrote:
| In fairness, that explanation also agrees that Musk's
| extension of "free speech absolutist" extends to
| apolitical speech and an rights to be heard on social
| media no matter what corporations might think is
| inconsistent with his longstanding policy of punishing
| and trying to silence internal and sometimes external
| critics of his company...
| phkahler wrote:
| Let's change the attribution of your (not actual) quotes to
| be more correct:
|
| Elon: "Something something I'm doing it for more free
| speech..."
|
| Employees: "You can't say that!"
|
| Employees in letter: "Make Elon stop tweeting"
|
| Elon: "You're all fired"
|
| He's not a hypocrite under my interpretation.
| nerdix wrote:
| Why isn't telling someone to shut up protected free
| speech? There is no requirement to comply. He could have
| just as easily responded: "No" and continued to tweet as
| he wanted.
| aksss wrote:
| The employee/employer relationship is what's different,
| along with the context (workplace activity) of where the
| communication is taking place. Unclear on why this is
| being disregarded. When did we start presuming that
| freedom of speech included the ability to, without
| consequence to your performance evaluation, talk shit
| about your employer or boss? The employer/employee
| relationship is all about your performance in relation to
| your compensation. Talking shit in a consequential way
| (in view of employer) reflects poorly on your performance
| for many and various reasons. When threshold of nuisance
| is exceeded, gtfo. Your contribution is eclipsed by your
| distraction.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> Why isn't telling someone to shut up protected free
| speech?
|
| You know the first amendment doesn't apply to people
| right? It's a restriction on what the _government_ can or
| can not do. The government can 't restrict your free
| speech. Your employer can. Twitter can too, and that's
| what Elon is against.
|
| I agree that he could have just ignored them, but he
| chose to ignore them completely by getting them out of
| his company. That's his choice.
| phailhaus wrote:
| Everybody knows that he's within his rights to fire them. It
| just throws cold water on all his grandstanding about being a
| "free speech absolutist".
|
| EDIT: Everyone telling me that company employees are different
| from Twitter are missing the point. We know that. But he
| clearly doesn't care about free speech "absolutely" when he
| throws a fit that his employees are criticizing him.
| memish wrote:
| Only if you don't understand context and what free speech is.
| meatsauce wrote:
| Why are you comparing apples to hydrazine?
|
| You simply cannot compare the employment relationship and
| open debate within the letter of the law.
| drak0n1c wrote:
| The goal of the employees was to silence his free speech.
| Disrupting those censorious efforts by firing them is his
| dealing with Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. He realized that
| to preserve a tolerant workplace, intolerance of their rising
| tide of intolerance was necessary.
| krapp wrote:
| >Disrupting those censorious efforts by firing them is
| Popper's Paradox in action.
|
| No, it isn't. Popper's paradox only applies to the speech
| of parties which use force, _rather than_ speech, to
| suppress the free speech of others. It was written in the
| context of Nazi Germany, and warning about the consequences
| of what is now called "free speech absolutism," when that
| freedom is co-opted by authoritarians who don't respect it
| (in other words, people like Elon Musk.)
|
| Trying to suppress speech with more speech is simply how
| free speech is supposed to work.
| pcmoney wrote:
| There is a difference between a social media platform user
| experience and an employee you pay to work.
|
| In the first case you are hoping they will use their free
| time on your platform.
|
| In the second place you are exchanging money to get them to
| do what you want them to do instead of what they would
| otherwise be doing.
|
| If I pay a plumber to fix the toilet and he starts bothering
| me about ANYTHING BUT FIXING THE TOILET... he's gone.
| disintegore wrote:
| You don't employ your plumber full time, perennially. Your
| episodes of petty tyranny probably do not threaten your
| plumber's livelihood and/or career. Furthermore if your
| plumber gives you indications on how to avoid damaging your
| plumbing, it may not be directly related to "fixing the
| toilet", but he is nonetheless doing his job.
| pcmoney wrote:
| No but if I am paying him $300/hr and what he is doing is
| not related to fixing the toilet and is in fact causing
| me more problems or distracting the electrician who is
| also costing me $300/hr. Getting rid of him is not petty
| tyranny.
|
| Also I am not threatening his career, he is, he is
| choosing to take a principled stand and should understand
| the likely consequences and be willing to accept them.
| achenet wrote:
| > No but if I am paying him $300/hr and what he is doing
| is not related to fixing the toilet and is in fact
| causing me more problems or distracting the electrician
| who is also costing me $300/hr. Getting rid of him is not
| petty tyranny.
|
| Perhaps this isn't a good analogy, but if you yelling
| insults at the the neighbors makes it harder for him to
| fix the toilet, and he asks you to stop, would you still
| fire him for it?
|
| Because you _could_ argue, although with difficulty, that
| Musk tweeting stupid things makes it more difficult for
| SpaceX employees to do their work.
|
| In practice, I've found it generally easier and wiser to
| leave a company with a stupid boss rather than ask the
| stupid boss to change, but I see why someone could try
| the latter.
| arghnoname wrote:
| It's a funny point. If I were having some argument with
| the neighbor and the plumber gave me shit about it...to
| be honest, I'd be super-annoyed and while I wouldn't fire
| the plumber (it's difficult to get plumbers on site!), I
| probably wouldn't have him back.
|
| Your point is a good one though, to continue the analogy,
| the plumber shouldn't want to come back. Erratic and
| volatile bosses are best avoided. I prefer it when they
| do this stuff loudly and in public so I can know to avoid
| them.
| disintegore wrote:
| It was a mistake to participate in this absurd analogy to
| begin with. You can just stretch it until it becomes
| convenient again. There is simply no comparing the power
| dynamic between you and an independent contractor to that
| of an aerospace company and its highly specialized
| workforce.
|
| It's a simple fact that SpaceX chose its CEO's public
| image over its mission statement and reputation. I hope
| future prospects realize that there is no stability or
| long-term personal growth to be found there unless they
| can keep their heads down and kiss ass.
| JackFr wrote:
| > there is no stability or long-term personal growth to
| be found there unless they [do their jobs].
| disintegore wrote:
| Way to tell on yourself there
| d0mine wrote:
| CEO who surrenders themselves with yes-men is bad at his
| job.
| pcmoney wrote:
| No they chose to remove unproductive, toxic people who
| were distracting away from the people actually doing the
| work.
| mempko wrote:
| Keep going, you are almost there.... so close. Read the
| letter, what is it about?
| davidcbc wrote:
| No, they kept Elon
| achenet wrote:
| _In theory_ , if politics starts making SpaceX
| ineffective, the free market will provide an opening for
| a competitor with a more effective culture to eat their
| lunch.
| arghnoname wrote:
| I think the workforce being highly specialized is where
| this gets tricky. In principle I think firing someone for
| causing internal strife in someone's judgement as a
| manager is in accordance to how our economy is structured
| and is to be expected. We may disagree with the
| judgement, but it isn't a free speech issue if that
| person can just go get another job. The 'consequences' to
| their speech are inconsequential enough that their
| ability to express themselves is not prohibited even if
| inconvenient.
|
| But if they can't work anymore because they got fired
| from the one employer of their skill the consequences are
| quite severe. They have to learn a new field! Ideally I'd
| say people with this specialized skill set form a guild
| or union. The same thing that makes them vulnerable makes
| their employer vulnerable--the workers of that industry
| are highly concentrated, with high investment in skill
| development. Absent that, it's a tricky issue and I think
| it would be fair to say that at least a warning would
| have been in order before dismissal.
|
| I don't know if the people Musk fired are in this
| category or not. If it were an office manager, for
| example, seems fine. if it is an engineer on some space
| ship esoterica, ouch.
| edgyquant wrote:
| Firing an incomplete and/or lazy person is not tyranny.
| disintegore wrote:
| There is no indication that the persons who drafted the
| letter were "incomplete and/or lazy", nor was that the
| pretext given by SpaceX management.
| larkost wrote:
| There are no indications at all of incompetence (I assume
| that is what you meant) or laziness in this at all. All
| indications are that this is an group of employees who
| came together to complain internally, the complaint was
| leaked (no indication that it was them), and they were
| fired.
| meatsauce wrote:
| Let's be honest here. Only the woke cry babies whine
| about this kind of stuff. Normal people don't care. I
| guarantee you that most of the team are happy the woke
| cancer was cut out and discarded.
| disintegore wrote:
| I'm sure you're the guy everyone likes at work.
| meatsauce wrote:
| 100% of my company likes me but that's besides the point.
| Work isn't a popularity contest and you don't need to be
| liked all the time by everyone. The only people who care
| about such things are those with devastatingly low self-
| esteem.
| disintegore wrote:
| Well, if work isn't a popularity contest, then who gives
| a damn what you imagine people at SpaceX think of "woke
| pests"? All it does it make you sound angry.
| pardesi wrote:
| He doesnt pay from his pocket. He may be founder & CEO. But
| he is an employee as much as those five.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > He doesnt pay from his pocket.
|
| About 1/6 of the pay comes from his pocket, since he owns
| about that much of the company.
|
| > He may be founder & CEO. But he is an employee as much
| as those five.
|
| His main relationship to Tesla is as it's controlling
| owner, not an employee, though, yes, he's also an
| employee. That's pretty different from every other
| employee.
| pcmoney wrote:
| He didn't fire them, the president of the company did for
| harassing their coworkers and wasting time.
| VikingCoder wrote:
| I feel like there's a part of the word "absolutist" that
| you don't get.
| randyrand wrote:
| Its also pretty ambiguous what that means.
| pcmoney wrote:
| So free speech absolutist means you tolerate incoherent
| yelling in all places at all times? While you're trying
| to focus and get work done? While you're trying to sleep?
| At your wedding? At a funeral?
| widjit wrote:
| if you don't mean that, then why use the word "absolute"?
|
| if there are exceptions then it isn't absolute
| Kina wrote:
| This is observably what Musk seems to think free speech
| means when _he_ has the floor, but nobody else.
|
| - Publicly attacking a man as a pedophile because he
| dismissed his submarine as an unworkable solution during
| the Thai cave rescue efforts.
|
| - Cutting off analysts during a Tesla call, calling them
| boring and then soliciting fluff questions from the
| Internet.
|
| Musk, like most free speech absolutists, is a hack. It's
| an argument used to allow _them_ to say words without
| repercussions.
| meatsauce wrote:
| He's such a hack! So terrible is Musk at leadership, he
| is only the richest man on the planet. Worst successful
| guy ever!
| Kina wrote:
| Being the richest man on earth does not absolve you of
| being called out for being a hypocritical douche?
|
| I never understand this defense.
|
| There are lessons one can take from successful people,
| but they not demigods. They're just people and people are
| often good and bad at the same time. Why do people defend
| them? If I make a controversial statement in a public
| forum, I should expect some uncomfortable criticism and
| they aren't entitled to any better treatment just because
| they can throw a wad of cash around.
| qsdf38100 wrote:
| If being the richest man on the planet proves anything,
| it's probably not honesty and integrity.
|
| If anything, being ruthless and deceptive are better
| traits to achieve this. Of course there are some
| exceptions. But I don't think Musk is one.
| [deleted]
| VikingCoder wrote:
| I'd love to hear Mr. Musk define what he means by the
| term. I'm not the one claiming to be a free speech
| absolutist, he is.
|
| I for instance am not a free speech absolutist. I think
| it's okay to deplatform people who are spreading
| misinformation about a global pandemic, or an election.
| But Mr. Musk apparently thinks that's bad.
|
| So, we get to find out where he draws the line that he
| claims he doesn't have.
| arghnoname wrote:
| In the context of the current debate, I think a good
| faith reading of someone claiming to be a 'free speech
| absolutist' would be to interpret the internet as a
| public forum that is protected by speech guarantees
| enshrined by the first amendment despite the fact that
| they're hosted by private corporations. It probably
| doesn't mean child porn is okay. It probably doesn't mean
| direct exhortations of violence against specific
| individuals is okay. It's fair to say he can be more
| explicit in his definition, but it's easier for us to
| have a conversation if we try to interpret one another
| charitably.
|
| The real test for whether or not Musk is being a
| hypocrite is whether or not he censors critics of him on
| Twitter. That is an apples to apples comparison. I think
| it's fair to say that continuing to pay people who
| criticize you is a different matter.
| VikingCoder wrote:
| I think it's also fair to say that "absolutist" is not a
| correct term for him to use to describe himself.
| kevingadd wrote:
| ab*so*lute adjective: absolute
|
| 1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
|
| free adjective: free; comparative adjective: freer;
| superlative adjective: freest
|
| 1. not under the control or in the power of another; able
| to act or be done as one wishes.
|
| hmm I wonder what 'free speech absolutist' means. maybe
| that one's freedom to speak is not qualified or
| diminished in any way? their freedom to speak is total?
| googlryas wrote:
| Isn't this just "Freedom of speech is not freedom from
| consequences"? No one is restricting their ability to
| speak, they are just restricting their ability to work at
| SpaceX.
|
| What's the alternative? Does a free speech absolutist
| need to never make judgements on what he hears from
| someone's free speech? If I hear a person say he wants to
| murder me and my family, do I still need to invite him
| over for Thanksgiving dinner? Aren't I exerting some form
| of control of over him if I say you can't come into my
| home?
|
| I think your view of the term "free speech absolutist"
| may make sense when analyzing the individual word
| meanings, but doesn't make sense as a phrase, and doesn't
| align with how self described free speech absolutists
| view themselves.
| arghnoname wrote:
| Not disagreeing with you, but elaborating on this 'you
| can say what you want, but you have to live with the
| consequences' idea.
|
| It's a situation of monopoly. If consequences to speech
| prohibit one from an entire category of human need (one's
| life, ability to earn a living, ability to find housing,
| etc), then those consequences are in fact limiting
| speech. A 'cancellation' that makes someone unemployable
| is much more a prohibition on speech than being fired
| from a single job without affecting one's general ability
| to get hired. If Musk were to now work to get the
| signatories of the letter blacklisted from broader
| employment this becomes an issue.
|
| The problem is that platforms on the internet benefit
| from network effects and become quasi-monopolistic. If
| there were platforms with similar reach as Twitter that
| allowed the speech that Twitter does not allow, whether
| or not Twitter censors would be kind of a moot point.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| The point is that there's no fundamental difference
| between "you are free to say what you want, but you might
| get fired from SpaceX" and "you are free to say what you
| want, but you might get banned from Twitter". But people
| -- including Elon! -- act as if the former is normal and
| rational, while the latter is some sort of affront to a
| free society.
| googlryas wrote:
| Most people would disagree that there's no fundamental
| difference between an employee-employer relationship and
| a user-service provider relationship.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Abstractly, in the sense that "freedom from speech is not
| freedom from consequences", I don't think they're
| fundamentally different. If you're a free speech
| absolutist, then the nature of the relationship shouldn't
| matter. They're both just private organizations making
| choices about how they voluntarily associate with others.
|
| Most people aren't free speech absolutists, though, and I
| agree that they'd think there's a fundamental difference
| between employer-employee relationships and user-provider
| relationships as a whole. But it should be significantly
| harder for an employer to fire an employee than for a
| service provider to ban a user.
| samhyde69 wrote:
| joenathanone wrote:
| Everyone already has what you are describing by default,
| anyone anywhere can say anything at all, the issue is
| whatever consequences come from that, be it jail time
| like in Russia for speaking about the war, or losing your
| job at SpaceX.
|
| Being a free speech absolutist is meaningless if you are
| going to fire people the moment they say something you
| don't like.
| meatsauce wrote:
| There is no comparison between public debate within the
| letter of the law and what a private company does with
| insubordinate employees that are disrupting the business.
| samhyde69 wrote:
| googlryas wrote:
| I don't think anyone would claim that a place where you
| have free speech, but you might just get murdered by your
| government for your free speech, is a place where free
| speech exists
| joenathanone wrote:
| Free speech implies a certain amount of freedom from
| consequences of that speech.
|
| If you are a free speech absolutist, it would mean
| believing in no consequences.
| googlryas wrote:
| > Free speech implies a certain amount of freedom from
| consequences of that speech.
|
| Yes. Like not getting banned from the public square for
| giving your speech, or not getting arrested by the
| government for your free speech. No one has ever argued
| that truly free speech means no one can judge you on what
| you are saying.
|
| > If you are a free speech absolutist, it would mean
| believing in no consequences.
|
| It would mean either that, or that you are using the
| phrase in a different manner than other people who use
| the phrase.
|
| I find this whole exercise silly. I view it as
|
| 1) I don't like someone
|
| 2) Someone says he is X
|
| 3) To me, X means Y
|
| 4) Someone is not a Y
|
| 5) Therefore, someone is a hypocrite and (1) is
| justified.
| joenathanone wrote:
| >It would mean either that, or that you are using the
| phrase in a different manner than other people who use
| the phrase.
|
| Words have meaning, if they didn't then there would be no
| such thing as hypocrisy because everyone could just have
| their own little definition for a term or title they want
| to adopt but not be burdened to live by.
|
| To Elon rules apply to thee and not me, these firings are
| text book hypocrisy.
| googlryas wrote:
| Words have meaning, but that doesn't mean that:
|
| 1) The meaning of a phrase is the same as the meaning of
| stringing together the individual word definitions of the
| phrase.
|
| 2) There is a universally accepted, obvious definition of
| a phrase
|
| I think you could reasonably call yourself a free speech
| absolutist, because you will never kick someone out of
| the public square for saying their peace, but you are
| still be allowed to not invite that person to your house
| for dinner.
| joenathanone wrote:
| >I think you could reasonably call yourself a free speech
| absolutist, because you will never kick someone out of
| the public square for saying their peace, but you are
| still be allowed to not invite that person to your house
| for dinner.
|
| What you describe is just regular ole free speech.
| googlryas wrote:
| Then whatever Twitter is/was does not align with "regular
| ole free speech", based on the people they've banned from
| their public square (and yes, public squares can be on
| private property).
| root_axis wrote:
| It's telling that Musk's defenders have to stand up a
| hyperbolic caricature of the employee letter ("incoherent
| yelling at a wedding" in this case), rather than engage
| with what actually happened. This shows me that it's
| clear, even to his defenders, that firing employees for a
| letter criticizing Elon is an obvious contradiction to
| the spirit of his free speech moralizing, despite him
| being within his rights to fire them.
| Ombudsman wrote:
| Nice straw man you've got there. These employees weren't
| "incoherently yelling in all places at all times". They
| distributed a memo which criticized Elon. This should be
| very acceptable behaviour to a free speech absolutist
| like Musk.
| oittaa wrote:
| > Shotwell's email to staff also said, "Blanketing
| thousands of people across the company with repeated
| unsolicited emails and asking them to sign letters and
| fill out unsponsored surveys during the work day is not
| acceptable."
| meatsauce wrote:
| Unsolicited blasting of the email, letter, and surveys to
| thousands of employees is the digital equivalent to
| "incoherently yelling in all places at all times."
|
| I would expect nothing less from the woke-cancer
| employees. The productive members of the team must be
| relieved that the woke weight was shed.
| widjit wrote:
| using the word "woke" carries exactly zero weight with
| anyone other than people with the most basic primate-
| level understanding of social behavior
|
| or more simply: by using that word you sound dumb
|
| then again, maybe that's how you want to identify. who am
| I to say
| zenron wrote:
| Being a free speech absolutist has nothing to do with
| consequences from invoking your free speech. Everyone wanting
| free speech despite what type of speech that they legally
| allow is the price we pay to have it. Invoking it and using
| ignorant, racist or hatefull language doesn't mean you won't
| pay a social price for it. It just means we won't throw you
| in jail using the state for it. But you may just lose your
| jobs. Thems' the breaks.
| ss108 wrote:
| "It just means we won't throw you in jail using the state
| for it. But you may just lose your jobs. Thems' the
| breaks."
|
| This is a misrepresentation of the current "debate" taking
| place regarding free speech, a debate we have frequently on
| Hacker News. Nobody is threatened with jail for saying
| anything in the US, so if that was the primary bone of
| contention, the debate wouldn't exist. It's more about
| cancel culture, etc.
| felipesoc wrote:
| Exactly, it means we won't throw you in jail using the
| state. But Musk argues otherwise, that Twitter must let
| people use their platform to say whatever they want. And at
| the same time, people working for him cannot say whatever
| they want about his company.
| mlindner wrote:
| You're twisting things a bit. He views Twitter as a
| virtual extension of the real life town square. Namely
| that the government/Twitter can't remove you from that
| real/virtual town square for what you say.
|
| SpaceX isn't, nor will it ever be, a town square so the
| rules don't extend there. (Nor do they extend to Twitter
| the corporation itself.)
| meatsauce wrote:
| This is highly deceptive. Musk is on record saying that
| for a town square, you should be able to say whatever you
| want so long as it is within the letter of the law. Which
| means, gone will be the days of getting perma-banned for
| offending some woke crybaby.
|
| Musk's companies are not town squares. They are private
| entities and employees can be fired for insubordination,
| harassment, or abuse of company resources.
| jensensbutton wrote:
| Are you unaware that Twitter is a private entity?
| soheil wrote:
| He never claimed SpaceX is a town square. You're conflating
| this with his description of Twitter as a de-facto town
| square where speech shouldn't be policed as harshly and
| silently as it is now.
| klyrs wrote:
| > Everybody knows that he's within his rights to fire them.
|
| No, I don't know that. This is explicit retaliation for what
| appears to be organizing around working conditions. That's
| protected.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/17/23172915/elon-musk-
| spacex...
| omega3 wrote:
| You can believe in free speech and paying for the
| consequences of what is being said. These two aren't mutually
| exclusive.
| watwut wrote:
| Given the context, it is not much convincing argument.
| onion2k wrote:
| Being fired was a consequence of their free speech.
|
| Musk has only ever said he believes people should have
| absolute freedom of speech; he hasn't said people shouldn't
| face consequences for what they say.
| Volundr wrote:
| By that logic being banned from Twitter was a consequence
| of Trump's free speech and the whole Twitter buying
| shenanigans are pointless.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| So he's in _favor_ of "cancel culture"? It's hard to keep
| up.
|
| Edit: Isn't getting kicked off twitter simply a
| _consequence_ of saying something that 's against twitter's
| TOS? What definition of free speech is Musk using?
| _-david-_ wrote:
| Cancel culture is not strictly being cancel for your
| actions. It is unjustly cancelling somebody. If you hired
| a baby sitter who said they wanted to kill your child
| (even if it was a joke) it wouldn't be unjust to fire
| that person. Nobody would argue that was cancel culture.
|
| Obviously, I am not saying what these employees are
| saying is equivalent, but cancelling somebody for what
| they say is not always cancel culture.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Musk is using the definition of free speech where people
| you agree with face no consequences for speech, and
| people you disagree with suffer arbitrarily. That is
| _always_ the definition powerful people use when they say
| "free speech."
| specialist wrote:
| aka Freemium Speeches(tm)
| meatsauce wrote:
| Getting fired for being a whiny woke jerk at work is not
| cancel culture.
|
| Trying to destroy someone's life for a wholly-subjective
| slight is cancel culture (social cancer)
| mlindner wrote:
| I would say that he is indeed in favor of cancel culture,
| as long as it doesn't get you removed from the town
| square (virtual or real).
| onion2k wrote:
| _Edit: Isn 't getting kicked off twitter simply a
| consequence of saying something that's against twitter's
| TOS? What definition of free speech is Musk using?_
|
| Being banned from Twitter is a consequence of your
| speech, but it's _also_ restricting your freedom to
| speak. I imagine Musk feels that not restricting people
| 's freedom of speech is more important than the
| consequence of banning them.
|
| That doesn't mean he thinks there should be _no_
| consequences for speaking. Just that the consequences
| shouldn 't limit your freedom to speak.
|
| In this case, people fired from SpaceX are still free to
| speak out about Musk's brand and its influence on SpaceX.
| Their speech has not been restricted.
| notahacker wrote:
| This makes no sense. People who are banned from Twitter
| are still able to speak, just not on Twitter. (Or at
| least, not on Twitter using _that particular account_ )
|
| People who are fired from SpaceX have absolutely no
| access to the SpaceX communication channels they were
| fired for exercising the wrong kind of speech on.
| mojzu wrote:
| Their speech is less likely to be publicised/reported on
| though, so they have arguably lost some potential
| audience. In the same way that being banned from Twitter
| does not restrict your freedom to speak (e.g. you can go
| to another website, setup your own or stand on a street
| corner irl), but it does reduce your potential audience
| mlindner wrote:
| > Their speech is less likely to be publicised/reported
| on though
|
| I'd expect them to go on a interview campaign after this
| actually. I think they'll be quite publicized and
| amplified.
| Volundr wrote:
| > In this case, people fired from SpaceX are still free
| to speak out about Musk's brand and its influence on
| SpaceX. Their speech has not been restricted.
|
| The people banned from Twitter are still free to speak
| about whatever as well. Frankly I think SpaceX's actions
| limit speech more than a Twitter ban. Ex-Twitter users
| just have to find a new platform, at their convenience.
| Fired employees have just had there livelihood taken away
| and have to drop everything and find something new before
| their savings run out.
|
| To be clear I think SpaceX was well within it's rights to
| fire these people, but as consequences go I see firing as
| far more consequential than a Twitter ban.
| [deleted]
| lm28469 wrote:
| That's non sense, or then everyone has absolute freedom of
| speech, you just have to open your mouth or type a text.
|
| What limits freedom of speech _are_ the "consequences". It
| either is "absolute" in which case there are no
| consequences, or limited, in which case there are
| consequences (but then by definition it isn't absolute
| anymore)
|
| If you fire someone for their opinion about their employer,
| or jail them for their opinion about the president, you
| can't be for "absolute" freedom of speech.
|
| It's like saying "you're free to murder people, but if you
| do you'll go to jail".
| achenet wrote:
| I think you can make a difference between types of
| consequences.
|
| In a strictly legal sense, you can be allowed to call
| your neighbor ugly. There will be no _legal_
| consequences, because of a law /constitutional amendment
| protecting free speech.
|
| On a personal level, however, your neighbor might not
| like being called ugly, and retaliate by avoiding you or
| insulting you back. This is a consequence, but not a
| legal one.
|
| I think, Musk view is that expression on Twitter should
| play a "legal guardian" type role in moderating content
| on the site, as opposed to say blocking negative content
| (and you could argue that as a site that makes money
| selling ads, blocking negative content could be the smart
| play, similar to the NYT not hiring idiots to write for
| them), but that the SpaceX employees, when fired by their
| employer, are facing consequences not on a legal but a
| personal level.
|
| Of course, there's a very good chance this is just
| backwards rationalizing the erratic, irrational behavior
| of a emotionally unstable person.
| nightski wrote:
| Deciding not to pay you to say whatever you want has nothing
| to do with your ability to say it.
| disintegore wrote:
| Deciding not to associate with you or provide you with a
| platform for saying what you want has nothing to do with
| your ability to say it. Enjoy Substack.
| toolz wrote:
| I think you say that with some amount of snark, but both
| sides of the argument agree with this. It isn't
| controversial to say twitter isn't legally or socially
| obligated to give you a platform to practice free speech.
|
| The fact Musk wants to turn it into a platform for free
| speech doesn't imply that he believes twitter has that
| burden of responsibility, only that he thinks it would be
| a good thing if they took on that responsibility.
|
| It's also not hypocritical for Musk to say twitter would
| be a good platform to take on the responsibility of free
| speech while also saying workplace communication is not a
| good platform to take on the responsibility of free
| speech.
|
| Now whether you or I agree with his stance on either of
| these points is another subject entirely, but it is not
| hypocrisy as other comments seem to be suggesting.
| seoaeu wrote:
| If the employees had posted on twitter instead, he
| totally still would have fired them. Musk just wants to
| be able to speak without consequences, while he's
| perfectly happy to impose consequences on speech by his
| employees
| arghnoname wrote:
| Yes, he would have fired them. Would he have banned them
| from twitter? That's the question when judging hypocrisy
| here.
| toolz wrote:
| and it still wouldn't be hyprocritical - free speech has
| nothing to do with being able to say anything somewhere
| and avoid consequences. It only has to do with protecting
| your ability to say those things.
|
| If you call your friend mean things on twitter and your
| friend decides to stop talking to you, freedom of speech
| has not been violated.
| seoaeu wrote:
| "Consequences for thee, not for me" feels pretty
| hypocritical. In this case Musk wants the consequences
| for speech be limited to things (like being fired) that
| he doesn't have to worry about because he is rich.
| toolz wrote:
| If you're an employee at spacex and Musk uses internal
| communications to say something you don't like, you can
| leave spacex, which would be a consequence for musk's
| actions. So your point doesn't hold. He is not immune
| from the consequences of his speech in the exact same
| scenario.
|
| A job is little more than a business relationship where a
| person agrees to do labor in exchange for money. Either
| side of that relationship has the ability to terminate
| that relationship as a consequence of speech they might
| not like.
| disintegore wrote:
| The better approach is to form a union, in order to
| address the colossal power imbalance between SpaceX's
| executive committee and the people who do the actual
| work. It's likely you'll get fired for that as well, but
| it's better than leaving in "protest". Elon Musk probably
| spends 50x more time thinking about his hair plugs than
| he does about engineers departing his companies.
|
| Either way, to act like this "business relationship" is
| perfectly reciprocal is either naive or malintentioned.
| toolz wrote:
| I agree, unionization at face value seems to be a great
| tool to empower workers. As for reciprocity I don't think
| anyone is suggesting it's perfectly balanced. If you're
| using that phrasing as a device to suggest it's extremely
| unbalanced then I would wonder what data you're using to
| come to that conclusion. It is, after all an entirely
| voluntary relationship being formed in a country with no
| shortage of jobs.
| native_samples wrote:
| Nobody has argued that Twitter _cannot_ ban people from
| their platform at will because of what they say. The
| argument has always been that it 's a _bad idea for them
| to do so_ for a whole variety of reasons:
|
| 1. The inevitable inconsistency in application creates
| hypocrisy, which makes people upset.
|
| 2. It attracts political attention if/when the
| enforcement is politically biased.
|
| 3. It costs large sums of money that could be spent on
| other things.
|
| 4. It isn't actually necessary.
|
| 5. Public forums in which ideas can duke it out are
| essential for a healthy democratic society. _Someone_
| needs to run them, so if you decide to create an
| explicitly public forum open to everyone then you have a
| moral duty to protect and implement free speech policies
|
| etc etc. Not an exhaustive list by any means, just a
| subset of the arguments that can be mounted.
|
| But note that none of these apply to the case of
| employees criticizing their employer.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| All of these things (modulo number 5, which is
| categorically excluded) definitely apply to employee
| speech.
| jlawson wrote:
| It actually does, if you own the single dominant platform
| in the space where the conversations are happening.
|
| Speech isn't just about the act of saying, but also being
| able to be heard. Anyone can whisper to themselves in
| bed, but that is not speech in the political sense. Being
| able to speak where nobody hears is doesn't mean you have
| free speech.
| disintegore wrote:
| Lots of people can hear you on Substack, Gab, etc. Accept
| that other people will practice their right not to
| associate with you. If so many of you aren't going to
| admit someone else's right not to be fired for
| trivialities then I do not want to hear about this right
| to be heard crap either.
| res0nat0r wrote:
| To be fair though, Elon is in no way a "free speech
| absolutist", he just plays one on Twitter because he wants to
| freely manipulate the market to line his pockets, but still
| won't tolerate people critical of him.
| meatsauce wrote:
| This is nonsense.
|
| You cannot compare at-will employment with public speech
| within the letter of the law.
|
| Simplified:
|
| Woke Cancer Culture != Protected Class
| res0nat0r wrote:
| Referring to people or anything you don't like as "woke
| cancer culture" pretty much causes everyone to ignore
| anything you have to say.
| mlindner wrote:
| "Free speech absolutist" doesn't mean "freedom from
| consequences outside the town square (either literal or
| virtual)". It just means you won't be forcibly removed from
| the town square. Just like you can go walk in your Nazi
| parades in the US, it doesn't mean you won't get fired from
| your job if people see you in that parade, but you can still
| keep doing your parades.
| sacrosancty wrote:
| What are your actual principles there? Does it also apply
| to freedom to be openly gay? Walk in your pride parades but
| get fired from your job as a consequence? I don't think
| you're using any general principles, just picking argument
| salad to fit your belief.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Was going to say the same thing, goodbye "town square".
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > Criticize internally all you want
|
| Tell that to James Damore.
| DrewRWx wrote:
| The charlatan biologist?
| giantrobot wrote:
| Unless you're a woman, then he'll deem you intellectually
| inferior _a priori_.
| Melting_Harps wrote:
| > Unless you're a woman, then he'll deem you intellectually
| inferior a priori.
|
| Do people still really believe that is what he said? I'm
| all for calling out hypocrisy, but what he said was
| empirically true; their are professions that are male
| dominated, just are there are some that are female
| denominated--and the latter tends to have less scrutiny.
|
| Male nurses are the exception and it is one of the most
| highly paid professions in the professional World, and yet
| NO ONE and I mean NO ONE has been calling for
| discriminatory hiring practices in the Medical Industry
| over that. And especially right now when they are having to
| under go horrible shift requirements due to a lack of staff
| and applicants.
|
| This is one of the many ugly truths of about these
| narratives: they actually DO want preferential prejudices,
| but only in a way that favors those who tend to make the
| loudest (and often misguided and misinformed) noise with
| their narratives.
|
| I did most of my undergrad with nurses and dated several, I
| don't envy their profession and the money while on the
| surface seems appealing is hardly going to make up for the
| seemingly hell they go through every week, especially
| during COVID. I respect them for what they do, and just
| accept that that level of triage and care-taking tends to
| be a female dominated domain.
|
| Tech is a cushy, albeit tedious and often brain numbing
| monotonous career choice by contrast and I have no doubt
| that anyone who could work doubles during COVID in an ER
| could master writing basic scripts and using SO like
| everyone else does if they wanted. But they don't and
| they'd rather strike in order to reform their profession
| instead.
| ceeg wrote:
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| I assume that everyone who signed on to this letter understood
| the likely consequences and accepted them -- because they
| understood their firing would massively amplify any workplace
| concerns by turning it into national news and making SpaceX
| employees mistrustful of management. This is the problem with
| being predictably retributive: once everyone understands how
| you work, your behavior can be exploited.
| ma_advertising wrote:
| this is valid only on the wrong side of the Atlantic
| CodeMage wrote:
| > This is a very predictable consequence of criticizing your
| employer via a public letter.
|
| The first thing that comes to mind when reading this is "So
| what?"
|
| Yes, it's predictable. I don't believe people who wrote the
| letter haven't thought of this potential consequence and
| haven't felt any trepidation whatsoever.
|
| So what if it's "predictable"? So what if it's legal? The point
| is not whether it's currently legal and whether it's
| predictable. The point is whether it's right.
|
| How does stating that "it's predictable" address the very real
| and ugly problems in this whole situation?
| kcplate wrote:
| But is it _right_?
|
| It might be perceived as _right and acceptable_ to some folks
| because of their definition of morality and behavior, and it
| might be a common enough understanding of those morals in
| 2022. It's PC. However, its not a good precedent for a
| company to tolerate because moral attitudes change.
|
| If a bunch of hyper fundamentalist evangelical Christian
| SpaceX employees wrote a letter saying that their CEOs
| behavior and values did not line up with their Christian
| values and behavior expectations, and for the company's
| success, the leadership needed to condemn publicly the CEO's
| actions? Would that be ok? What if they started actively
| proselytizing their morality to the other employees?
| Attempting to stir up dissent to the point where it was
| detrimental to company productivity?
|
| This latest type of activism is PC, so that is the only
| reason its even discussed. Other activism like the above
| example is perhaps not as PC and most folks would not even
| care...or would be on the other side of the issue.
| meatsauce wrote:
| The right thing to do is fire the cry baby employees who hurt
| team morale, don't believe in the vision, and have nothing
| better to do than spam thousands of employees with woke-
| bullshit.
| CodeSgt wrote:
| It's absolutely right for a man who built a company to be
| able to fire whoever he wishes, especially for cause like in
| this case.
| deltaonefour wrote:
| Yeah this is true. But also the employer publicly firing those
| who sent the letter without some form of discussion also looks
| really really bad. People have an expectation of a CEO to have
| a really "mature" and controlled temperament.
| smaryjerry wrote:
| This reminds me of those tiktok videos that have a spouse
| complaining about their significant other. They complain in
| public about whatever behavior, typically insignificant
| things, I think you can search like cleaning strike and see
| some of them. Even if it was 100% true, the people come of as
| petty, rude and disrespectful for publicly a private matter
| that makes then the bigger asshole. That is between spouses
| and has caused divorces and between coworkers or a boss
| employee relationship I would expect nothing less than the
| employee to be fired.
| variant wrote:
| Yep. We would do well to more often remind ourselves that
| employment is an exercise in voluntary association.
|
| These folks were unhappy with their working conditions. They're
| now free to find employ somewhere else that suits them better
| while others who want to be at SpaceX will replace them.
|
| Markets are great!
| huhwat wrote:
| Turns out speech about working conditions is protected. You
| can't be fired for sharing your wages, for instance.
|
| I would not be shocked to hear that this results in a lawsuit
| over protected concerted activity.
| pc86 wrote:
| Speech about working conditions is indeed protected. Nothing
| in the letter is about working conditions.
| huhwat wrote:
| > many employees continue to experience unequal enforcement
| of our oft-repeated "No Asshole" and "Zero Tolerance"
| policies.
|
| Sure sounds like a discussion about workplace policies and
| enforcement to me.
| Darkphibre wrote:
| It's fascinating to me how many comments seem to be
| defending the workplace culture at SpaceX, and outright
| dismissing the letter in a hostile manner.
| throwntoday wrote:
| I think many here are getting sick of workplace activism
| and the self-involved crowd pushing it. I didn't become
| an engineer to deal with their bullshit. I just wanna
| work on interesting problems. If I'm unhappy I'll switch
| teams or get another job.
|
| There is an increasingly troublesome number of people
| entering the industry who simply don't enjoy working
| hard. I think every company would do better to fire them.
| meatsauce wrote:
| Because the letter is a whiny work of woke-cancer fiction
| that is an analog to the cry-bully(s) that everyone knows
| at their respective places of employment.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| I don't think anyone is defending the culture, just
| saying that this letter is not about workplace conditions
| and is not protected, no matter how much you wish it was.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Hmm, I think that's at the very least debatable. If we
| had a liberal court I can see how they'd go for that.
| Right now? Not so sure.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| No. Elon Musks tweets are not workplace conditions
| anymore than your choice of owning a cat or dog is
| workplace conditions.
|
| You can dislike something and also not think it's
| illegal.
| omniglottal wrote:
| His tweets are official company communications. They are
| every bit as relevant to workplace conditions as would be
| owning a cat or dog _inside your office_.
| jsight wrote:
| They have said that official company communications can
| come from his Twitter account. They have not made the
| claim that all communications from his Twitter account
| constitute official company communications.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| You, a stranger and not an employee of SpaceX or Tesla,
| come across Elon Musk on the street while walking to get
| a chili dog. He looks at you and goes "That is the most
| hideous shirt I have ever seen" and walks off.
|
| Is that workplace conditions?
|
| Also, oddly enough, "official company communications" is
| not workplace conditions. You do not have a legal right
| to discuss company communications!
| dahfizz wrote:
| It is quite a stretch to say that the letter was about
| working conditions.
|
| Working conditions is things like working hours, your
| physical environment, your responsibilities [1]. The SpaceX
| letter was basically "Musk is uncouth, and we don't like
| that". A fair criticism, but nothing about working
| conditions.
|
| The text of the letter can be found at [2], if anyone wants
| to judge for themselves.
|
| [1] https://definitions.uslegal.com/w/working-condition/
|
| [2] https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-
| musk...
| huhwat wrote:
| If retention and recruitment are impacted, then working
| hours become longer. If company values are enforced
| internally but publicly the CEO is acting against those
| values, then it becomes harder to understand what someone
| might be disciplined for. The connections are, imo, there.
| throw_nbvc1234 wrote:
| > If retention and recruitment are impacted, then working
| hours become longer
|
| or deadlines just get moved out
| achenet wrote:
| > If retention and recruitment are impacted, then working
| hours become longer.
|
| This statement is false in the general case. If the
| contract says 40 hours, I'm leaving after 40 hours, and
| if you want me to stay longer I better have a _large_
| share of the company. Your inefficiencies as a manager
| are not my problem as an employee, unless I 'm also a
| shareholder.
| drstewart wrote:
| You can 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon anything to make
| "connections" like that
| huhwat wrote:
| Then more directly, the letter specifically called out
| unequal enforcement of company policy. That's direct.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| Company policy does not apply to the owner of the
| company.
| mwint wrote:
| Commerce Clause vibes
| btilly wrote:
| Did we read the same letter?
|
| The following passage is one of many about workplace
| behavior, which therefore is part of working conditions:
|
| _Define and uniformly respond to all forms of unacceptable
| behavior. Clearly define what exactly is intended by
| SpaceX's "no-asshole" and "zero tolerance" policies and
| enforce them consistently. SpaceX must establish safe
| avenues for reporting and uphold clear repercussions for
| all unacceptable behavior, whether from the CEO or an
| employee starting their first day._
| dahfizz wrote:
| This really does not fall into working conditions, in the
| legal sense of the word. "Musk is an asshole because of
| how he tweets" says nothing about the working conditions
| of SpaceX.
|
| If the letter alleges that Musk directly harassed
| employees, that would be entirely different. But it
| doesn't; it merely says that Musks behavior in the public
| sphere is unpleasant (again, that's fair).
| huhwat wrote:
| Unequal enforcement of company policies is not working
| conditions?
| dahfizz wrote:
| No.
|
| Forcing a trucker to drive 20 hours straight is working
| conditions. Refusing to install proper lighting in a
| warehouse is working conditions.
|
| Having a policy saying "don't be an asshole", and then
| enforcing it in a way that is perceived as unfair, is not
| working conditions.
|
| If the letter had directly alleged that Musk or other
| leadership was abusive _towards the employees_ , they
| would have a case. But just saying "we thing Musk is an
| asshole, and we have a no-asshole policy" is not
| protected speech.
| huhwat wrote:
| I don't know what to tell you, every legal training I've
| ever had has said that capricious application of
| workplace policies and playing favorites is a good way to
| land oneself into an NLRB discussion. And that the NLRB,
| juries, and courts tend to bias towards workers.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| The NLRB only has jurisdiction when the matter concerns
| labor organizing. This has a specific definition and does
| not automatically cover any collective action by
| employees like open letters or petitions.
|
| Many employment laws just create causes of action for
| civil litigation. I.e. they define types of harm for
| which the employee can seek compensation in the courts.
| btilly wrote:
| That isn't what they think according to
| https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-
| right....
|
| Very specifically for this case, they protect the right
| of employees to talk to an employer about improving
| workplace conditions. With or without a union, and with
| or without any interest in unionization.
| flambergey wrote:
| btilly wrote:
| Let's clarify definitions, shall we? Quoting from
| https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/working-conditions
| I find:
|
| _Working Conditions means the conditions under which the
| work of an employee is performed, including physical or
| psychological factors._
|
| The things that that letter discusses affects the
| psychological factors of the work. Committing to making
| people feel included, defining what toxic behavior will
| not be accepted, and so on.
|
| Your linked definition includes in working conditions,
| _"...all existing circumstances affecting labor in the
| workplace. "_ This fits with the definition that I gave -
| the behaviors that you have to put up with from coworkers
| affects labor in the workplace.
| native_samples wrote:
| The argument you're advancing here, though it may be
| popular with some kinds of lawyers, is tantamount to
| arguing that any discussion at all could be considered
| about working conditions. Once you start trying to
| classify the personal tweets of the CEO as "working
| conditions" you're starting a fast track to eventually
| having working conditions be stripped of its legal
| weight, as it'll turn into just another rule being
| exploited by woke culture warriors in ways it was never
| meant to be used.
| shakes_mcjunkie wrote:
| Is there anyone asking for anything in a workplace that
| you wouldn't call a "woke culture warrior"? Using that
| kind of language marks you as pretty disingenuous to the
| argument.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > Once you start trying to classify the personal tweets
| of the CEO as "working conditions"
|
| Maybe those companies shouldn't include statements like
| this in their corporate filings then:
|
| "The Twitter account @elonmusk is considered an official
| corporate communication channel."
|
| Especially when Musk is tweeting from it things like
| changes to remote work policies.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Haven't we already seen that the SEC thinks Musks
| personal tweets hold legal weight?
| FireBeyond wrote:
| The SEC does, because at least Tesla states that they are
| an "official corporate communication channel". Though
| Tesla was pressured (by who?) to do so because
| shareholders were complaining about how they should
| interpret his tweets.
| fakethenews2022 wrote:
| Only those that relate to disclosures involving Tesla.
| mbesto wrote:
| > Once you start trying to classify the personal tweets
| of the CEO as "working conditions"
|
| This is way too reductionist. These aren't just "Musks
| tweets", they are directives about employee policies that
| are publicly stated, but not private enforced (because,
| to the author's criticism, they have no strict
| definitions). Furthermore they have clear (or at least
| implied clearly) repercussions: "don't behave they way we
| want to or you're fired".
|
| > all could be considered about working conditions.
|
| Actually, I think what the author is asking for is
| _clarity_ about working conditions, not necessarily the
| working conditions are good /bad - they're just
| ambiguous.
| btilly wrote:
| You are attempting a reductio ad absurdum by saying that
| since the potential consequences of the rule you outline
| leads to a result that you don't like, said rule cannot
| actually exist.
|
| This is backwards. There are lots of rules out there
| which I'm sure you dislike. Therefore your dislike of
| this one is irrelevant.
|
| And I say that despite agreeing with you about how it
| might be abused. And despite wondering whether the people
| calling for more diversity and exclusion in this letter
| may be the kind of people to abuse it that way. Rules are
| rules, and we should try to apply them fairly, especially
| when applied to people we dislike.
| meatsauce wrote:
| When you hear the term "safe" used in the woke-cancer
| whines, you can be sure that employee was a real cry baby
| and anchor on the rest of the team.
| jsight wrote:
| Honestly, I think you have a point. It would go back to what
| the reason was for termination. SpaceX has indicated that the
| terminated employee's actions went beyond simply writing the
| letter.
|
| I do not take company statements like that at face value, as
| they have their own interests to protect. However, it does
| leave the possibility that termination was not related to
| statements about working conditions.
|
| The former employees may have a case here.
| [deleted]
| wesleywt wrote:
| outworlder wrote:
| > Criticize internally all you want, and influence the changes
| that you want to see happen
|
| Which is what they did.
|
| All indications point to Tesla and SpaceX not being very open
| to 'change' initiatives that are employee-initiated.
|
| Good job firing the employees that actually try to give a damn.
| The yes people are quiet and will stay. That's how you kill a
| company, slowly.
| dshpala wrote:
| The open letter wanted to "publicly address and condemn Elon's
| harmful Twitter behavior".
|
| It's only a small step until these activists start demanding
| similar things regarding random public people they don't like.
| Like DeSantis. Surely any sane leadership would condemn DeSantis'
| harmful behavior?
|
| I hope firings will continue until this kind of activism
| subsides.
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| >The letter asked SpaceX management to publicly separate the
| company from Mr. Musk's personal brand.
|
| This is not realistic. It will not happen. Elon Musk is the
| founder, chairman, CEO and CTO. He owns 47% of the company and
| 78% of voting control.
|
| A company you work for is not a democracy. You are not an owner.
| You don't get to call out, to make governance decisions, to
| create pressure campaigns, etc. This is doubly true for privately
| held companies. It would be truly bizarre if these employees
| _weren 't_ fired for this wannabe activism routine.
|
| In short, go launch your own damn satellites.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > This is not realistic. It will not happen. Elon Musk is the
| founder, chairman, CEO and CTO. He owns 47% of the company and
| 78% of voting control.
|
| You do realize this was true of most blue chips at some point
| in history right? Know who those people and their cults are
| now? No? Right, nobody does.
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| >Know who those people and their cults are now? No? Right,
| nobody does.
|
| I also don't know who the unhappy underling people in those
| companies were. Nobody does, and nobody did at the time
| either (that's the difference).
| mr90210 wrote:
| Elon is becoming a joke. For a person who had such a big vision,
| he surely appears to spend too much time voicing himself on
| Twitter, thus exposing his less good thoughts (which we all
| have).
| kerblang wrote:
| One of the demands from the letter: > Define
| and uniformly respond to all forms of unacceptable behavior.
| Clearly define what exactly is intended by SpaceX's "no-asshole"
| and "zero tolerance" policies and enforce them consistently.
|
| That's exactly the problem with companies that like to brag about
| their "we-don't-allow-jerks-here" culture: It's arbitrary. If you
| focus on creating a culture of objectivity, facts and honesty,
| you'll solve most of your jerk problems without having to figure
| out what "jerk" means.
|
| Given as much, if this is really about Mr Musk's political
| endorsements, folks need to get over it. But inasmuch as he
| embraces dishonesty (one example: the "pedo" incident from way
| back) then I'd agree that the company should discipline him.
| nr2x wrote:
| Pulling out one's dick uninvited is fairly easy to classify as
| "jerk behavior", or you know, "sexual harassment", or you know,
| "criminal".
| concordDance wrote:
| > But inasmuch as he embraces dishonesty (one example: the
| "pedo" incident from way back)
|
| That wasn't dishonesty, he genuinely thought the guy was a pedo
| (the con artist he hired to investigate also (falsely)
| reafirmed this).
| kerblang wrote:
| But he utterly & completely failed at objectivity.
| jdlshore wrote:
| > If you focus on creating a culture of objectivity, facts and
| honesty, you'll solve most of your jerk problems without having
| to figure out what "jerk" means.
|
| Are you speaking from experience? As a consultant, I
| occasionally run into companies that have an asshole problem
| (it's pretty rare, fortunately), and your comment seems like
| wishful thinking to the point of naivety. In fact, overly blunt
| and "honest" communication is one of the ways assholes express
| themselves.
|
| The other thing about assholes in companies is that they've
| made themselves indispensable--often raising themselves up by
| pushing the people around them down--because the ones who
| don't, don't survive.
|
| For every company I've been in that had an asshole problem,
| management was aware that they had an asshole problem, but felt
| they couldn't resolve it because the asshole was a "star
| performer." (They weren't really. Overall performance typically
| increases when they leave, because previously-suppressed people
| are now able to step up and grow.)
|
| Objectivity, honesty, and facts do nothing to fix this problem,
| except in a fantasy world where everything is measured and the
| impact of people's actions is perfectly visible. That world
| doesn't exist.
| kerblang wrote:
| Yes, from 30 years of professional experience in fact; in
| federal govt, state govt, startups, megacorps and then some.
|
| If you must insist that objectivity & facts are a fantasy
| world, and that people should be attacked for being honest,
| then there is nothing anyone can do to help you.
| jdlshore wrote:
| > If you must insist that objectivity & facts are a fantasy
| world, and that people should be attacked for being honest,
| then there is nothing anyone can do to help you.
|
| That's not what I said.
|
| I'd ask for you to elaborate on how you've seen assholes
| successfully dealt with, in your 30 years of experience,
| but you're coming across as being more interested in
| "winning" than having a conversation in good faith.
| (Ironically, I don't trust your response to be objective
| and honest.)
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Isn't a "no asshole" policy better than a "define all forms of
| unacceptable behavior" policy, so long as you have confidence
| in leadership? And if you don't have confidence, you should
| leave regardless.
|
| How can you even define all forms of unacceptable behavior? If
| someone doesn't put "pooping on coworkers desk" in the
| document, does that mean I won't be punished for it now?
| rajin444 wrote:
| > If you focus on creating a culture of objectivity, facts and
| honesty, you'll solve most of your jerk problems without having
| to figure out what "jerk" means.
|
| I dunno, jerk is arbitrarily defined by society. There's no
| objective way to define it - which is why most companies that
| do end up on "whatever behavior makes us the most money", ie
| acquiescing to power.
| therealdrag0 wrote:
| I'd go further, a lot of people obsessed with "facts" and
| "honest" is a recipe for jerks. "I'm just being honest" is a
| common justification for being a jerk. A no-jerks culture is
| one where you know how to pick your battles and where you can
| let other people be wrong when it keeps the peace and doesn't
| actually matter.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| >If you focus on creating a culture of objectivity, facts and
| honesty, you'll solve most of your jerk problems without having
| to figure out what "jerk" means.
|
| And this is how you get the modern Google, where there is lots
| of nepotism, politics, and a shift from being a company that
| makes cool innovative shit to one that hires AI "ethics"
| "engineers" that lose their marbles.
|
| When people say "culture of objectivity, facts and honesty",
| what they really mean is "ability to inject my moral code into
| any conversation and have it be heard and accepted". In a
| company as high strung as Space X, there is absolutely no place
| for that.
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| It doesn't help that the CEO on Twitter has multiple times
| presented the exact behavior mentioned.
| kerblang wrote:
| Well I'd like to see examples of the dishonest tweets you're
| talking about... But that leads into a more important issue:
| These employees insisted that Musk's _personal_ Twitter
| account is his de facto _business_ Twitter account. Confusing
| this business /personal boundary is part of the problem. I
| don't think it's fair for them to say, "You're a public
| figure, so you're not allowed to have a personal life," but
| perhaps Mr Musk does need to clarify his boundaries.
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| My comment is a response to this quote:
|
| > Define and uniformly respond to all forms of unacceptable
| behavior. Clearly define what exactly is intended by
| SpaceX's "no-asshole" and "zero tolerance" policies and
| enforce them consistently.
|
| I wasn't keying in on a word "dishonest" (though I believe
| he knows exactly what he's doing with his crypto/dogecoin
| musings). I was keying in on "no-asshole" which while
| subjective, started with tweets like his famous "pedo"
| comment surrounding the youth soccer team stuck in a cave
| during floodwater.
|
| > Musk's personal Twitter account
|
| If your tweets impact the market substantially and the
| majority of your wealth is tied to those stocks, it cannot
| be considered a personal account. At best a hybrid account
| of some kind.
|
| Being a public figure is hard, and you lose privileges.
| Lets not act naive and pretend this is not a well
| understood phenomenon.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| One man's jerk is another man's shitposter.
| [deleted]
| btilly wrote:
| My experience is that the more you try to spell these things
| out, the more scope you give for bad actors to engage in
| language lawyering and make the problem worse.
|
| Therefore as an employee I prefer these things to be vague and
| arbitrary, as long as I have some trust in the people making
| the decisions.
|
| Of course in time they become formalized and problematic. Which
| is one of the disadvantages of working at a big company.
| keremkacel wrote:
| Isn't this against some non-retaliation laws?
| heyflyguy wrote:
| I would be willing to bet that in the employee handbook it
| requires that nobody act in a nature that is contrary to the
| advancement of the company. This most certainly is, and is also
| likely easily cited as a lack of productivity of the employee
| while being paid by the company.
| orangepurple wrote:
| Illegal policies are not enforced by courts. For instance,
| forced arbitrarion clauses, no discussions of wages, non-
| disparagement (Does your company say you aren't allowed to
| say negative things about the company, whether online or
| otherwise? Again, this probably violates your right to
| discuss working conditions), confidential information (if it
| violates your right to discuss working conditions), or social
| media prohibitions (if the company social media policy says
| you aren't allowed to discuss or disparage the company in
| social media, that may well violate your right to complain
| about working conditions)
| heyflyguy wrote:
| All true but a wrongful termination suit is far less costly
| than a unionized workforce.
|
| I still don't think it's wrongful termination but do want
| to appreciate your point.
| [deleted]
| lp0_on_fire wrote:
| There are some protections for whistleblowers exposing illegal
| activity, yea, but these employees were not exposing illegal
| activity. They were complaining about his antics/politics.
| 0daystock wrote:
| At will employment. You can be fired anytime for any reason,
| and there's not much in the way of recourse. Though you also
| get to quit without notice at such a job.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _Though you also get to quit without notice at such a job._
|
| This sounds strange to me. Since there's a _massive_ power
| imbalance between employee and employer, how is that seen as
| an equivalent tradeoff?
| 0daystock wrote:
| Doesn't seem imbalanced to me. I can leave and take my
| labor to any other company tomorrow without obligations,
| covenants or restrictions (non-compete agreements
| notwithstanding). I prefer at-will employment. Perhaps low-
| skill or low-quality workers feel otherwise, but I'm
| confident in my ability to gain employment.
| djbebs wrote:
| How is there a power imbalance?
| notafraudster wrote:
| At-will employment laws aren't an equivalent tradeoff --
| which is why they are very uncommon outside the United
| States -- but the alleged benefit of such an arrangement to
| an employee is two-fold:
|
| 1. In places where termination is for cause, termination
| often causes an employee not to have access to various
| government benefits 2. At-will employment likely encourages
| more hiring in the first place, so it's possible that with
| more restricted firing you'd never have gotten the job.
|
| I do not feel these benefits make up for the drawbacks and
| do not favour at-will as an organizing principle for
| industrial relations. But I just figured it would make
| sense to at least say the apparent argument.
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| It should be mentioned here that "for cause" can be any
| number of things, including simply "attendence issues",
| which realistically can be any sickness of you or your
| children that aren't quite covered by FMLA. All this
| realistically takes is you plus your three young children
| getting influenza at different times in a span of two
| months. Or not working mandatory overtime due to child
| care issues.
| notafraudster wrote:
| At-will employment says you can be fired any time for any
| reason except reasons that are explicitly illegal. This would
| include, for instance, discrimination against a protected
| class; anything covered by whistleblower laws (FCPA, all the
| relevant Dodd-Frank whistleblower provisions); or for
| organizing a union. It doesn't appear to me that the
| employees in this case have a slam dunk legal case, given
| that their allegations mostly don't seem to line up with
| whistleblower protection laws and while they were
| collectively speaking as employees, they were not formally
| unionizing. There are likely other ways to pretextually fire
| people engaging in protected activities anyway. But the
| question isn't crazy, this is certainly adjacent to the kind
| of territory that could have some legal protection.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| 0daystock wrote:
| Suing a corporation is timely and costly; and even if
| they're at fault for an illegitimate termination, they will
| drag you to court and humiliate you in the public domain.
| In practice, this means they can and do operate with near
| impunity.
| freespit wrote:
| Yeah right, non-retaliation. Shit the bed like Amber Heard and
| then dont expect any consequences from it.
| numair wrote:
| The most disgusting fact I learned in this article is that
| Shotwell personally backed Musk on denying claims he sexually
| harassed the flight attended. _What?_
|
| Anyone who knows these people and their friends knows that the
| situation as described in the media was _not_ out of the realm of
| possibility. Unless Shotwell, COO of SpaceX, was on that plane
| and witnessed exactly what happened, she is _not_ qualified to
| assist in burying someone's totally insane traumatic experience.
|
| My fellow HN readers, the space startup scene is growing fast.
| Don't work for a CEO/COO that is willing to throw any and
| everyone else under the bus to ensure they can continue to
| collect their own multi-billion dollar paycheck for "making the
| world more connected." This has shades of Sheryl Sandberg all
| over it -- and we know how _that_ worked out for society.
|
| The government needs to work harder to build competition against
| these people, and regulators need to be a _lot_ more careful
| about allowing them to blast all of their crap into space.
|
| I would guess we are a few years away from some former SpaceX
| employees with exit liquidity revealing the dirty truth as a
| means of handling their own PTSD.
| cloutchaser wrote:
| Indeed, if you don't want to work for musk, go work for bezos
| and build rockets for him.
|
| I for one think the timing of the sexual claim makes it obvious
| it's political, but no one has to work for musk.
|
| So leave if you want to, if musk is so offensive. Not everyone
| company is an ESG obsessed multinational.
| numair wrote:
| The fact that you've inserted "political" into a fact-based
| happened-or-didn't situation says more about you, and your
| willingness to buy into people's conspiracy theories, than
| anything about the situation.
|
| SpaceX is operating in a highly regulated industry and
| shoving crap into space, which affects every person on Earth
| for the next several decades. They are _way_ more accountable
| to society than almost every "multinational" you can think
| of.
| cloutchaser wrote:
| A friend of the employee made unsubstantiated claims right
| when Elon was doing his Twitter thing, and threatening the
| stranglehold of establishment lefts information control.
|
| Yes, it's political.
|
| Why didn't the employee go to the police? Why didn't her
| friend reveal this information years ago.
|
| Your point is ridiculously naive.
| smcl wrote:
| > Why didn't the employee go to the police?
|
| You're calling someone naive, while also asking why an
| employee didn't go to the cops with an accusation of
| sexual harrassment against their employer who is the
| richest man in the world?
| cloutchaser wrote:
| Because if she did, she'd have a paper trail, and some
| leg to actually stand on when making accusations right in
| the midst of a political shitshow.
| smcl wrote:
| The victim isn't the one out there making these
| accusations. To be honest I imagine she just wants to
| live her life without worrying about being harrassed
| further by a bunch of Elon Musk fans demanding to see a
| paper trail or asking why she didn't go to the police
| fzeroracer wrote:
| We all know what would actually happen in this situation.
| A bunch of angry Musk fans would claim that it's made up,
| the papers are fake, that they're a political hitjob etc
| followed by self-made investigators harassing her at
| every step. Or Musk would just hire another detective to
| follow her around and call her a pedophile as he seems to
| do whenever someone gets visible enough.
|
| There is no level of evidence that would meet standards,
| and the reason why this became a 'political shitshow' was
| because Musk caught wind of the story ahead of time and
| as powerful people often do, tried to spin it into an us-
| vs-them story.
| k1ko wrote:
| To be fair, I don't think most people would go to the
| police for sexual harassment. It's handled as a civil
| offense unless it rises to the level of sexual assault
| and becomes criminal.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| The "political" aspect of the situation is that a newspaper
| is reporting what an anonymous person says her friend told
| her in confidence years ago without any real corroborating
| evidence. If the media organization were not motivated by
| political animus they would not run such a flimsy story.
| Or, I don't know, maybe they would, but that's how I
| interpret "political".
| kortilla wrote:
| > Unless Shotwell, COO of SpaceX, was on that plane and
| witnessed exactly what happened, she is not qualified to assist
| in burying someone's totally insane traumatic experience.
|
| Or maybe, just maybe, she knows more about the case than
| armchair experts like yourself? She would have been involved
| the investigation/settlement review so would know the full
| details.
| daenz wrote:
| >The letter asked SpaceX management to publicly separate the
| company from Mr. Musk's personal brand, and to take steps to
| address what it said was a gap between SpaceX's stated values and
| its current systems and company culture.
|
| >"Blanketing thousands of people across the company with repeated
| unsolicited emails and asking them to sign letters and fill out
| unsponsored surveys during the work day is not acceptable,"
|
| So it was a mass internal email chain, using company resources?
| And it sounds like they were asking Musk to be gone, with
| plausibly deniability. Is it honestly any surprise that they got
| fired? Hijacking internal systems for a publicity stunt like this
| will always put a target on your back.
| kick_in_the_dor wrote:
| Lol @ "Using company email/internal message boards" ==
| "Hijacking internal systems."
|
| Definitely not biased at all.
| blitzar wrote:
| Never sending another "unsolicited" email or slack message at
| work ever again for fear of being accused of "Hijacking
| internal systems" to ask Johnson for an update on the sales
| report.
| kick_in_thedoor wrote:
| enumjorge wrote:
| It would be unexpected for a company run by a free speech
| absolutist.
| daenz wrote:
| I had to look up what a free speech absolutist was[0]. As far
| as the definition goes, which is about opposing any speech
| restrictions from the state, I don't see how the internal
| communications of a private company falls under that.
|
| 0. https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-
| absolutist/4...
| clankyclanker wrote:
| The point I assume GP was trying to make is that Musk only
| applies that difference when it suits him. That attitude
| shows hypocrisy and is evidence that he's using it to
| further personal power instead of actually caring about the
| moral philosophy of the matter.
|
| He seems to treat his own speech as if it is completely
| unfettered by any restraint, regardless of consequences for
| self or company (see the sheer number of times he's upset
| the SEC via tweet compared to any other C-level in the
| world), while restraining the shit out of his
| subordinates'.
| daenz wrote:
| The SEC is a federal organization (government), so Musk
| thumbing his nose at them in the public sphere is not the
| same as Musk's employees thumbing their nose at him in a
| private setting using company resources. The former is
| clearly in the realm of free speech (gov vs citizen in
| public space), while the latter isn't (citizen vs citizen
| in private space)
| 93po wrote:
| daenz wrote:
| Probably, but I think it's helpful for lurkers to see.
| clankyclanker wrote:
| Edit: To put it more succinctly, Musk isn't interested in
| free speech, he's interested in his speech.
|
| --------
|
| For what it's worth, I agree with you, but I think that's
| one of the least interesting parts of the issue.
|
| From the context of the worker, there's isn't too much of
| a functional difference. Musk is acting as the arbiter of
| others' speech. So he's allowing anybody to say anything,
| unless it goes against the company line.
|
| It's not governmental control of the little people, but
| it's still hella control of the little people, by a body
| that can't be held responsible to the workers (the
| chances of Elon being voted out are nil).
|
| Ultimately, I think we're both agreeing that there can
| and should be social consequences for speech, it's just
| that Elon has an army of well paid lawyers to help him
| avoid those consequences. In this case, the giant power
| imbalance seems like pretty fundamental framing to this
| issue. It's not like both parties would suffer the same
| consequences for making the same statements.
|
| (In short, if you don't trust the government to regulate
| your speech, why on Earth would you trust a single
| unelected individual to do so?)
| daenz wrote:
| >To put it more succinctly, Musk isn't interested in free
| speech, he's interested in his speech.
|
| Maybe. I think what he does with Twitter (if the deal
| goes through) will prove it one way or the other.
| diputsmonro wrote:
| Remember the whole thing about Musk buying Twitter? One
| if his reasons for doing so was because he believes
| Twitter is "censoring" conservative speech. But Twitter
| is a private company, running a private service, so your
| strict government-focused interpretation of free speech
| clearly wouldn't apply.
|
| Musk has stated in his own words that he is a "free
| speech absolutist", and given his complaints about
| Twitter it seems that his interpretation of that is not
| limited to government censorship, but all censorship.
| marvin wrote:
| But Musk has loudly stated that Twitter, a private company,
| should uphold equally strong standards towards freedom of
| speech as the state. Which in itself is a fair argument
| insofar as Twitter is so central to democratic discourse
| that its censorship will have destructive effects on
| democratic discourse comparable to what would happen if
| state censorship did.
|
| But this leads to a pretty blatant double standard if he
| fires his employees for participating in public discussion
| and criticism of himself.
| soperj wrote:
| He believes it should apply to twitter...
| yanderekko wrote:
| I don't think anyone actually believes that a "free speech
| absolutist" would tolerate, say, an employee shouting racial
| slurs in the office through a megaphone. I guess this is
| supposed to be a "gotcha" about free speech absolutism, but
| if you're attacking a definition of the term that no one
| would actually endorse, then maybe it's not a good
| "gotcha"...
| kick_in_the_dor wrote:
| What? Criticizing your boss == "shouting racial slurs in
| the office through a megaphone"?
| [deleted]
| yanderekko wrote:
| These employees aren't being fired for merely criticizing
| their boss.
| blitzar wrote:
| _Elon Musk told Twitter (TWTR) employees that racist
| tweets should be allowed_
|
| So does that mean you should be allowed to think your
| boss is an asshole too??
| yanderekko wrote:
| Yes, you should be allowed to think whatever you want.
| Doubt Musk disagrees with that.
| mcguire wrote:
| Surprised? No. There's no large company in the world where
| attacking top management won't lead to major consequences.
|
| Of course, SpaceX (and Google, along with a stack of other
| "tech" companies) wasn't supposed to be just another large
| company; they wanted to disrupt things, and wanted fanatical
| buy-in from their employees, customers, and fans. (Corporate
| fans? Really?)
|
| It'll take a while, because religions don't die easily, but
| eventually it will become clear to anyone except the die-hard
| that it's just another company.
| doliveira wrote:
| Yeah, populism is quite a constant throughout history. People
| love having a savior and a hero, as demagogue as they might
| be.
|
| I find it interesting how this populism takes shape in the
| tech industry. It manifests as companies pretending to be all
| about mission, community, changing the world, billionaires
| pretending to be pro-freedom, capitalists pretending to be
| anti-establishment...
| achenet wrote:
| That's one neat trick of capitalism - it's really good at
| selling you a critique of it as a luxury good.
|
| "Turning rebellion into money", as Joe Strummer sang.
| doliveira wrote:
| Yeah, and what this letter told us is that those people
| actually bought the PR speech.
| daenz wrote:
| I'm not sure I fully understand your point. Are you saying
| that because they wanted to be "different", they should allow
| behavior like this?
| piva00 wrote:
| Not from what I understand, I understood as they wanted to
| sell this image of being different and tolerant but are
| just the usual corporation.
| mcguire wrote:
| Not quite.
|
| Say you work for General Motors. You can gripe about
| management all you want, but there's no expectation that
| you are going to be able to send out a company-wide memo
| saying the board should boot the CEO.
|
| Now say you work for Tesla, or one of the other companies
| that is desperately trying to hang on to their "startup
| culture" as they get bigger. For that, it's vital that you
| buy into the mission, believe that you personally are
| changing the world.
|
| The other half of that intellectual and emotional
| investment is the feeling that you have control and input.
| If the company makes a business deal that you don't agree
| with, you threaten to organize a walk-out; if the CEO is
| behaving like an idiot (and not like your own lovable
| idiot), you feel like you can get everyone together to tell
| the board to boot him. After all, you, _personally,_ are
| changing the world.
|
| But that's not how it works in a company that won't fit
| entirely into a single conference room. You as an employee
| may have dedicated your life to the company, and you may
| think the company should be responsive to you. But that's
| not how it works (see example 1 above), you just haven't
| realized it yet.
| taylodl wrote:
| He's saying SpaceX is just another company. They demand
| full loyalty (fealty?) from their employees, effectively
| creating a religion. They shouldn't be surprised when their
| employees actually expect the company to be different. Now
| the whole world can see SpaceX is just like Every. Single.
| Other. Company.
|
| So much for "changing the world." You're not changing the
| corporate world, that's for sure!
| gfosco wrote:
| Not sure you can 'change the world', without a unified
| group of people with some shared faith or belief.
| guerrilla wrote:
| You missed the point. They're not changing the world
| _and_ they have a cult. The old way also benefits from
| cults. They are the old way. No change. All they did was
| make things (in their microenvironment) worse by adding
| the cult aspect.
| ganoushoreilly wrote:
| So If it's a shared belief / mission and it's not your
| perspective it's a cult? Are you saying people should
| just work for the money and not the company? That doesn't
| seem to make sense. If your goal, is more capital, you
| want the firm you're a part of to succeed to take part in
| that.
|
| The reality of it is there are a lot of extremely well
| paid people across the US that wear the emotions on their
| sleeves and take everything as a slight these days. This
| is the course correction, you're going to see it more and
| more.
|
| Just as extremists have been saying about _social media_
| if you don 't like it, go build your own.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > So If it's a shared belief / mission and it's not your
| perspective it's a cult?
|
| Nope, the word cult has a definition.
| daenz wrote:
| I think you may be surprised at how many regular everyday
| people would vote "no" if asked the question "are SpaceX
| employees members of a literal cult?" Either we're all in
| on the cult, or you're using hyperbole.
| guerrilla wrote:
| I think you may be surprised at how many regular everyday
| people believe in astrology. Yeah, people are morons and
| can't apply definitions or see blatant horseshit for what
| it is, moving on. Truth isn't a fucking democracy.
| ganoushoreilly wrote:
| Who's truth? Yours or theirs?
| bmitc wrote:
| > There's no large company in the world where attacking top
| management won't lead to major consequences.
|
| What's interesting to me is that capitalists and usually
| conservatives and libertarians who worship capitalism are all
| too vocal when it comes to socialist and communist economic
| policies supposedly leading to fascism, although they don't,
| but yet, they are fully behind corporations literally acting
| as fascist dictatorships. And by interesting, I mean it
| boggles my mind and frustrates me. It shows these peoples'
| true colors: greed at all costs.
| swatcoder wrote:
| My politics are probably more aligned with yours than
| theirs, but if you're open to being unboggled:
|
| It's easy to draw a categorical divide between authorities
| who are (ostensibly) submitted to voluntarily or
| transactionally; and authorities whose power is asserted by
| sovereign monopoly of force.
|
| Many social organizations from families, to churches, to
| corporations are essentially authoritarian, but
| (conceptually if not always practically) you're able to
| remove yourself from them straightforwardly.
| guerrilla wrote:
| I wouldn't phrase it the way you did but yes, it also
| surprises me, that most people are unable to see
| corporations as authoritarian dictatorships.
| bmitc wrote:
| Perhaps too harsh? If you have a more eloquent way or a
| different angle, I would love to hear it. (Seriously.
| Comments like these can come off catty or sarcastic in
| text only, but I'm genuinely asking. Haha.)
| uejfiweun wrote:
| Here's my unpopular opinion - good riddance. It's not a free
| speech issue because SpaceX isn't a public square. It's a
| company, and companies are top down. If these employees are at
| Musk's company, then they had better be prepared to play by
| Musk's rules, and they did the exact opposite, essentially
| leading a mutiny against the boss and sowing discord within the
| company in the process. SpaceX isn't an activist organization and
| has no obligation to kowtow to the demands of internal activists.
| Not all companies are like this, but again, you should know what
| you're signing up for when you join a Musk company.
|
| And I'd also be willing to bet cash that all these employees were
| very low level, likely new hires out of college, and are all of
| the political activist type. Because for all his bluster, Musk
| really hasn't done anything THAT objectionable besides openly
| shit on Democrats. (No, I don't believe the bogus sexual assault
| allegation from an anonymous friend of a friend, there's no
| evidence).
| szundi wrote:
| If you go to work to a small unknown company, you can feel
| surprised what you get.
|
| Working for Musk - no. You already knew everything.
| koheripbal wrote:
| Activist employees are toxic to company culture.
|
| We created a rule that politics and religion were not
| appropriate topics at work. A couple of people quit in
| response, and morale improved dramatically.
| pbasista wrote:
| > Activist employees
|
| This is a broad term that different people might understand
| differently. Please define it first, then use it.
|
| > politics and religion
|
| This is off-topic. The mentioned discussions and
| disagreements at SpaceX were unrelated to these matters.
|
| In general, it is in my opinion dangerous to say that an
| opinion different than the one of the boss is unwelcome at a
| company. This is how cults and autocracies operate. It
| amplifies the opinion of the leader and unjustly silences
| everything else.
|
| Respectful discussions about the topics of disagreement are
| in my opinion essential for a company to preserve its defined
| ethical standards and not deteriorate into a community ruled
| by herd mentality and groupthink influenced predominantly by
| a single person.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > dangerous to say that an opinion different than the one
| of the boss is unwelcome at a company
|
| That's not what seemed to have happened here. Basically a
| bunch of employees said they were embarrassed by Musk's
| behavior. It's like saying the CEO is a clown. If you
| expect to still have a job after expressing publicly such
| opinions, well that's very naive.
| concordDance wrote:
| Agitating fellow employees to push for condemning the
| company's owner and CEO's public statements in another
| forum is not in the same category as pushing for a
| different material to be used for landing struts. I think
| SpaceX will be fine.
| zpeti wrote:
| Your boss gets accused of something by someone's friend who
| told them in confidence, never said anything for years, and
| then suddenly when your boss does something one side of the
| political spectrum hates, the other loves, this person goes
| to the press.
|
| Not with proof, just hearsay.
|
| This is political.
| stn_za wrote:
| Love this!
| lprd wrote:
| This should be standard practice. Politics these days are
| toxic as it is, why would you want to drag that into the
| workplace? Even if it wasn't toxic, it just seems highly
| inappropriate.
|
| If one wants to be a political activist, perhaps go find a
| job that's better suited for that type of behavior.
| Casteil wrote:
| > Activist employees are toxic to company culture.
|
| Does that include Musk himself, with the way he's been acting
| on Twitter lately?
| Spartan22 wrote:
| Wh
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| Define slavery and then demonstrate how these workers fall
| under that definition.
| [deleted]
| boeingUH60 wrote:
| Honestly, this is the way to go. Discussing politics or
| religion opens a can of worms because people can never agree
| on these things.
|
| I don't care about the political or religious beliefs (if
| any) of people I work with, and they shouldn't care about
| mine. If I really cared, then we could have off-work
| discussions...which I've done a few times (and they were
| respectful and productive).
|
| I also think it's important to say that I'm not in the US of
| A, where political discussions seem to penetrate every aspect
| of life.
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| Believe me, as an American citizen, a _huuuge_ contingent
| of us wish they _didn 't_ penetrate every aspect of life.
| However, I'd argue most times it's the corporate executives
| themselves who are pushing politics at work (read: wokeism)
| and not employees. It seems like nearly everyone's in on
| it.
| middleclick wrote:
| Please define wokeism. Is for example, arguing for
| equality wokeism? Or forming a union?
| transcoderx wrote:
| concordDance wrote:
| Rocking the boat basically.
|
| Are you advocating for change in your workplace that
| isn't strongly linked to workplace peformance? (E.g.
| pronouns in email signatures or having the company take a
| public stance on some contempory issue like BLM) And is
| what you're advocating for considered "lefty"? And wasn't
| even on the public radar 20 years ago? Then it's woke.
| middleclick wrote:
| > Are you advocating for change in your workplace that
| isn't strongly linked to workplace peformance?
|
| Who is doing that? Please cite something.
|
| > And wasn't even on the public radar 20 years ago?
|
| Where does 20 years ago time frame come from? That's
| pretty arbitrary and seems more to be based on your
| feelings than fact.
| slingnow wrote:
| Here's a stab in the dark: you're exactly the kind of
| person that just got terminated at SpaceX.
| oittaa wrote:
| The dude gave you an answer to your question. What are
| you arguing about?
| concordDance wrote:
| I'm trying to give a working definition of "woke" based
| on how I've seen it used. If you have a better one I'd
| love to hear it.
| dubswithus wrote:
| I felt your definition was spot on. Thanks.
| uejfiweun wrote:
| I'm not sure what's up with these people who go around
| commenting asking people to "define X" or "define Y" or
| "cite Z", but IMO it seems they generally have nothing
| interesting to say and aren't worth responding to. Just
| my 2c.
| middleclick wrote:
| When you say something is X-eism and can't even define
| that, that's a reflection of you. During the civil
| rights, was equal rights being categorized as wokeism? Or
| during the suffrage movement? I mean, if it's make you
| upset, that's on you and very telling, I must add. I gave
| you specific examples. Just my 2c.
|
| And for downvoting my comment: not a big fan of free
| speech I see?
| uejfiweun wrote:
| My issue is with your style of debate, because it takes
| work to come up with these definitions and citations that
| you will inevitably disagree with. It's a waste of time.
| To imply that this means I am against civil rights,
| women's suffrage, and free speech... all I can say is go
| fuck yourself.
| [deleted]
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| "Sealioning" in a nutshell:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
| [deleted]
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| Anything relating to equity, diversity or inclusion.
| middleclick wrote:
| Still waiting for that citation for performance and
| wokeism but I guess I will never see it.
| matt-attack wrote:
| I see you're being facetious, but in all honesty, my mega
| large media conglomerate forced us to attend an equity
| presentation where we were told precisely: if you're not
| actively working to quell this particular initiative that
| we right now find important, you're then working against
| it and 100% part of the problem.
|
| Were they talking about green peace? Climate change? Save
| the whales? Homelessness? Air pollution? Food
| preservatives? Obesity? Genocide? Under-representation of
| Jews in the NBA? No.
|
| No apparently you can not be actively working to better
| those situations and you're just fine and definitely not
| part of the problem. Oh but this one cause? Yeah we
| declare you're part of the problem.
|
| Sorry but there are a lot of causes in the world. You
| simply cannot pick and try to guilt me into actively
| supporting it in leau of all the other causes I might be
| personally connected with.
|
| That was quite the insulting seminar.
| tomp wrote:
| Arguing for equality of outcome ("equity") is evil.
|
| Arguing for "inclusivity" in a corporate setting is
| delusional wokeism (as companies are exclusionary by
| definition, they don't hire most people)
| nothatscool wrote:
| Arguing for equality is being a good person, arguing for
| equity instead of equality is wokeism.
| [deleted]
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| jackson1442 wrote:
| A large segment of Americans also wish that their simple
| existence wasn't considered "political" too.
|
| Seems like we've redefined "political" to mean "things
| that make me uncomfortable."
| cr__ wrote:
| Is "the boss is acting like a huge turd" something you're
| allowed to discuss at your workplace?
| concordDance wrote:
| One thing that might make a difference here is how
| subjective "the boss is acting like a huge turd" can be.
|
| If almost everyone would agree on the turdishness given a
| couple of facts on the case (none of this "heard from a
| friend of a friend" bullshit) then discussing and raising
| might be possible (though I'd probably still just leave).
|
| But if people's assessment of the truth of that statement
| will depend hugely on that network of beliefs and values
| called "worldview" as well as exposure to different facts
| on the subject... then it's going to be hard.
| transcoderx wrote:
| It is allowed, but your boss is also allowed to fire you.
| Ianal
| ralfd wrote:
| Is it at yours?
| CBarkleyU wrote:
| Yep
| nerdawson wrote:
| It'd be a foolish thing to discuss openly.
| jackson1442 wrote:
| > politics and religion were not appropriate topics at work
|
| if executives were bringing these topics into the company
| through their outside interactions on twitter, would it be a
| violation of the policy?
|
| > Activist employees are toxic to company culture.
|
| I would argue that musk's personal "activism" (or whatever
| you want to call his twitter account) is far more harmful
| than this letter is to company culture
| electriclove wrote:
| Good thing it is his company
| vkou wrote:
| So, firing James Damore was the correct thing to do, after
| all? Him and his manifesto, and his subsequent behaviour were
| pretty distracting, political, toxic, critical of his
| employer, and wasted workplace resources...
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Interesting. Was he the originator, or reacting to others?
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| Sounds like a deal might be possible! Maybe Google doesn't
| fire Damore and Mozilla doesn't fire Eich and Elon doesn't
| fire ... whoever these people are! We can call this
| agreement "liberalism"! Or "free speech"!
|
| And yet, all I've heard from the left over the past decade
| is that corporate employees have no free speech because oh
| it's not covered by the first amendment, as if that _gave_
| you the right rather than acknowledging it, and how oh
| actually it 's not a free speech issue, it's a safety
| issue, or whatever excuse of the week, and anyway the
| company can do what it wants regardless. (In this one
| instance only, of course.)
|
| So! Fine, normally I'd be against this sort of thing of
| people being fired for voicing opinions, but in this case
| there is a big heaping of schadenfreude involved.
|
| Leopard fence was good for something after all, was it!
| vkou wrote:
| There never was a leopard fence, though. Capricious
| firings being the norm have been par for the course in
| this country for as long as it's been one.
|
| The solution is, of course, employment protections and
| unionization, but 'free-speech liberals' aren't actually
| very liberal, and dogmatically hate both of those things.
| maweki wrote:
| > Activist employees are toxic to company culture.
|
| Like leading an effort to unionize? I know that's socialism
| talking, but democracy in the workplace is as important as it
| is outside of it. And the free sharing of ideas (up to a
| point) is paramount for that process. A company could well
| benefit from active and engaged employees that make a company
| and its goals their own.
|
| Of course, if your company has a top-down leadership culture
| fostering exchangeable employees (and let them feel that),
| then maybe employees that do have an opinion about the
| company and its leadership are indeed "toxic".
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| I think the idea here is that _all_ companies are top-down
| by nature. We can argue about whether they ideally _should_
| be, but none of us alive today set up these realities.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Not all. Cooperative companies exist.
| Spartan112 wrote:
| [deleted]
| zthrowaway wrote:
| It used to be social decorum to not talk about politics and
| religion at work. But the past 10 years everyone wants to be
| an activist now. I'd like to see more rules around this in
| every company. It kills productivity and really distracts
| from the company goals.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > It used to be social decorum to not talk about politics
| and religion at work.
|
| And who benefited from that? Not talking about it _is_
| politics. You cannot avoid that. It 's literally
| impossible.
| whatevenisthat wrote:
| It is not politics to avoid talking about politics and
| religion. Stop imposing your personal view onto others
| and leave people alone. Work is work. Most of us work for
| the check and try to work on cool projects and keep the
| politics and religion for private discourse with people
| at home or at the pub.
| widjit wrote:
| your refusal to understand politics will not make
| politics go away
| guerrilla wrote:
| > It is not politics to avoid talking about politics and
| religion.
|
| It definitely is. It's a stark embrace of the status quo,
| which is politics.
| rifty wrote:
| Not talking about politics specifically at work (which is
| the scope they were addressing of which is pretty
| concretely indicated two sentences later with "work is
| work") does not mean they never talk about politics at
| other times in their life.
|
| Also not talking about politics doesn't mean not engaging
| with politics at all. One could still be listening,
| thinking and voting which means not simply embracing the
| status quo despite not talking about it readily.
| whatevenisthat wrote:
| Nope. Keep your religion to yourself please and thank
| you. Define it however you want, but most people see
| through the bs strong arm tactic to try to force people
| to engage in this shit, and don't want it.
| guerrilla wrote:
| The "strong arm" of accurate characterization and logic,
| okay then... Apparently not strong enough I guess.
| whatevenisthat wrote:
| Accurate according to you
| zthrowaway wrote:
| > Not talking about it is politics. You cannot avoid
| that. It's literally impossible.
|
| No it's not. Trying to change society is politics. What
| you're saying is akin to "silence is violence" which is
| just as ridiculous.
| widjit wrote:
| when you are part of a dominant social group this can
| indeed seem to be the case
| [deleted]
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Holy shit have academics done a number on this country
| and it's youth.
| [deleted]
| srj wrote:
| While your point around tacit acceptance is a good one I
| don't know if it follows that it's productive/appropriate
| to inject this debate into all of these situations. For
| one, the exact issues you care about could be very
| different from someone else's and having all these
| discussions is pretty distracting.
|
| The method in this case, writing an open letter, seems
| like a way to weaponize network effect and have an
| outsized influence over say simply talking to your
| manager or using an internal feedback system. I think
| SpaceX is right to say this causes social pressure
| internally to sign on and not be on the wrong side of the
| "if you're not with us you're against us" attitudes of
| politics today.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > I don't know if it follows that it's
| productive/appropriate to inject this debate into all of
| these situations.
|
| Hard to disagree with that.
|
| > the exact issues you care about could be very different
| from someone else's and having all these discussions is
| pretty distracting.
|
| Definitely, which is part of why women and minorities get
| ignored and hence exploited when the status quo is
| embraced.
|
| > weaponize
|
| God I'm so tired of people's exaggerations. Nonsense.
| srj wrote:
| No, internal channels can accomplish these things as
| well. Or political initiatives and lawsuits. Saying that
| the only choices are a larger open letter type airing, or
| else an exploitation of minorities, that's a false
| dichotomy and the tired exaggeration.
| guerrilla wrote:
| I don't know why you'd assume that wasn't tried or seen
| as futile or not viable or available for some (maybe
| financial reason.) It doesn't really matter if it wasn't
| though, people should use whatever channels work. The
| entire thing is a power struggle. This is just tone
| policing, which is another method of propping up the
| status quo.
| dubswithus wrote:
| Some people are so desperate to force their views on
| others. It is exhausting.
|
| How would you feel if you asked me about a hot button
| issue important to you at work and I declined to talk
| about it. Would you approach HR?
| middleclick wrote:
| > We created a rule that politics and religion were not
| appropriate topics at work. A couple of people quit in
| response, and morale improved dramatically.
|
| Yeah sounds totally believable.
| dubswithus wrote:
| Haven't polls been done that show a majority of people
| don't want to talk about politics at work?
|
| Seems very believable to me.
| bhaak wrote:
| That's what you get if your priorities clash.
|
| One side wants to build cool shit and the other side wants to
| shit post on Twitter.
| GameOfFrowns wrote:
| >One side wants to build cool shit and the other side wants
| to shit post on Twitter.
|
| Do we know in which department the sacked employees worked?
| For all we know, they could have been employed in marketing
| or HR, not exactly the area that "builds cool shit" but often
| those that are active on social media and bent on bringing
| SJW politics into the working place.
| bhaak wrote:
| Have you read what's supposed to be in the letter? Sounds
| like you're victim blaming to me.
|
| I didn't see any SJW politics in that letter but concern
| that Elon's behavior would reflect badly on the company
| itself. Which is certainly true but if you have a
| megalomaniac boss I guess you also need to expect to be
| fired for telling the truth.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| concordDance wrote:
| Ah, the gish gallop. A classic.
|
| Anyway, Musk can show me his dick all he likes if I get 200k
| per viewing.
| [deleted]
| kortilla wrote:
| > Cool cool cool, tech bros straight up rejecting reports of
| sexual assaults and publicly calling it a lie
|
| Are you calling Gwynne Shotwell a tech bro? That's her
| stance.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| Sure. Someone who directly depends on Musk not going to
| jail for their employment to not disappear isn't exactly
| the best judge of character. She can even be a tech sis if
| you want, or a 10xer, pick your favorite.
| [deleted]
| lkrubner wrote:
| The workers have a right to organize a labor union. They have a
| right to go on strike and shut the company down. They have a
| right to critique any process or rule in the company that they
| might wish to stop. They have a right to weigh in on the
| consequences of any of the company's processes, goals, or aims.
| The workers have had these rights recognized in law for most of
| the last century.
| DoneWithAllThat wrote:
| Your first two "rights" (form a union, and if they do, to
| organize a strike) are in fact legally protected behavior in
| the US. Latter two are just made-up nonsense. No, they in
| fact do not have those "rights", you just wish they did.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| We are not talking about internal company problems here. We
| are talking about letter about behaviour of the boss outside
| of the company which is of no concern of employees.
| remarkEon wrote:
| This is sort of a meta comment, but if you look across history
| the men and women who forced civilization and technology
| forward were typically gigantic assholes. I'm not sure what to
| make of that, and Musk definitely is an asshole, but that
| doesn't mean I don't root for his space company that's finally
| returned the United States to the stars.
| mola wrote:
| It seems like that because these kind of assholes also wrote
| the history books (or paid the guys that did)....
| zpeti wrote:
| Henry ford wrote a book titled the international Jew.
|
| Is that what you mean?
| triceratops wrote:
| How do you know there weren't equally capable non-assholes
| that the assholes pushed out of the way? Isn't that the story
| of Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison?
| RangerScience wrote:
| That's a really excellent historical example to bring up,
| and, "no".
|
| Edison and Tesla were definitely NOT equally capable. Tesla
| was an absolutely genius inventor and scientist, and Edison
| was a genius businessperson and good inventor. (Or
| something like that, TBH it wasn't Edison's biographies I
| poured over in highschool!)
|
| Tesla received life-long backing and support from
| Westinghouse, major investment from JP Morgan, and more.
|
| Edison tried, and for a chunk of time, did succeed at
| pushing Tesla out of the way, but I'd strongly argue that
| the things that sunk Tesla were not ways that Edison pushed
| him out of the way, nor would I argue that Edison ever
| really succeeded at pushing him out of the way.
| triceratops wrote:
| Thanks for the correction. I think the overall point
| still stands though. Maybe the reason we think that
| mostly only assholes are game changers is because they
| pushed aside, or wrote out of history, equally capable
| non-assholes. It's definitely the kind of thing an
| asshole would do.
| dmurray wrote:
| For most of civilization we've been able to overlook the fact
| that our leaders and heroes are gigantic assholes, and judge
| them by their great deeds rather than minutiae of their
| private interactions.
| mhoad wrote:
| I think the particular argument is that this exact lack of
| accountability was a mistake and allowed a lot of bad
| outcomes for a lot of people and only worked for those who
| already had the power to begin with.
| [deleted]
| xeromal wrote:
| My understanding is the same and I believe it's pretty
| obvious why they always seem to be that way. It takes a
| tremendous amount of self-confidence to push through "the
| system" in any meaningful way and that often comes off as
| assholish. It also causes them to behave the same in every
| aspect of their life. They don't compartmentalize being an
| asshole in business, but they're a Mr. Rogers for everything
| else.
|
| That kind of confidence is pervasive in every aspect of their
| being. They don't have room for doubt.
|
| Reading about wartime generals solidified the thought in me.
| Many generals like Patton weren't even very gifted
| strategically, but they were confident and authoritative in
| their decisions. Oftentimes, that's enough to pull off a
| victory.
| wallaBBB wrote:
| Generally OK, but I'm not sure if we should have different
| perspective for SpaceX considering it's funded by taxpayers'
| money, it's not out there competing in the free market...
| mgiannopoulos wrote:
| There is a difference between winning (over other private
| companies) government contracts to provide a service and
| being "funded by taxpayers money"
| aaomidi wrote:
| Not much in niche industries like this.
|
| They're built to serve government. Any extra customers they
| get is just the icing.
| JackFr wrote:
| > it's not out there competing in the free market...
|
| Tell that to Blue Origin and United Launch Alliance. They'd
| love to know. . .
| kortilla wrote:
| SpaceX isn't funded by taxpayers anymore than Amazon is (for
| JEDI) or the local gas station that sells fuel to federal
| fleet vehicles. Just because the government is a customer
| doesn't put it in the "funded by taxpayers'" camp in the
| sense that the public has any say in the company.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > it's funded by taxpayers' money,
|
| Its getting taxpayers money because the official money hole
| called the NASA can't manage to launch anything in space
| anymore.
| xeromal wrote:
| If you own a gas station and a copy fills up, are you
| "funded" by tax payer dollars?
| uejfiweun wrote:
| That's a fair point. But I'd say that then the issue is
| decided by the voters and our elected representatives - if we
| wanted, we could get the government to cancel their contracts
| if Musk does something really terrible (not saying it would
| be easy). I'd prefer it be done that way rather than internal
| activists pushing their own beliefs onto the company
| unilaterally and disrupting operations - that's one way we
| can be SURE our tax dollars would be wasted.
| concordDance wrote:
| > it's not out there competing in the free market...
|
| Um. They are. SpaceX had almost as many commercial launches
| as gov ones last year.
| Laremere wrote:
| On one hand, I agree with you. I've personally seen low level
| people at a large corporation believe they were unequivocally
| in the right, and tried to use the weight of their moral
| conviction to impose their view of things onto everyone else.
| It's not your job to do this, and it's not my job to care.
|
| On the other hand, there has to be some capacity for this type
| of discussion to occur. Musk owns less than 50% of SpaceX, and
| I generally think employees should have some manner of input
| into the operations of the company they work for. History is
| full of cases where the justified party tried to convey their
| problems politely, were ignored or quietly silenced, and had to
| raise the problem loudly to get any traction. I think it's a
| reasonable desire to want to work for SpaceX, but not want
| someone's first reaction to hearing that you work at SpaceX to
| be bringing up whatever stupid thing Elon has done this week.
|
| If someone has the answer on how to find this balance, please
| popularize it. In the meantime, I've left the large corp I was
| at and joined a small company with 7 others where I don't have
| to deal with such problems or such activists.
| concordDance wrote:
| > I think it's a reasonable desire to want to work for
| SpaceX, but not want someone's first reaction to hearing that
| you work at SpaceX to be bringing up whatever stupid thing
| Elon has done this week
|
| Like a lot of things, the blame for this falls on the news
| media.
| BaseballPhysics wrote:
| The media is now responsible for Musk's unhinged twitter
| account? Man, people really will blame them for
| everything...
| concordDance wrote:
| No, the media is responsible for people hearing about it.
|
| If the mefia ignored him rather than running a story
| every time he runs his mouth the world would be a better
| place.
| BaseballPhysics wrote:
| Or, Musk could behave like a decent, mature human being.
|
| The man is the richest person on the planet. The media is
| _going_ to report on what he says because, you know, he
| 's the richest person on the planet.
|
| I heard the exact same arguments about how the media
| shouldn't cover Trump spouting off, and it's absurd for
| the exact same reasons.
|
| These people hold incredibly sway over industry,
| politics, public policy, etc. Hell, Musk's behaviour has
| led to the Texas AJ investigating Twitter! Not shining a
| light on their behaviour would be journalistic
| malpractice.
|
| The very idea that journalists should just ignore these
| people when they behave badly betrays a fundamental
| misunderstanding of the purpose of journalism in an open
| and democratic society, while also failing to appreciate
| how much sway these people have over the way our world
| works.
| shapefrog wrote:
| I guess it worked out well for Bill Cosby all those
| years, not so well for the ladies of course.
| dubswithus wrote:
| > On the other hand, there has to be some capacity for this
| type of discussion to occur. Musk owns less than 50% of
| SpaceX, and I generally think employees should have some
| manner of input into the operations of the company they work
| for.
|
| The other 50% are not woke.
| jiveturkey wrote:
| It's a fair criticism, albeit written with an entitled flavor.
|
| Where these 5 employees went wrong was in writing it as an
| internal memo, and attempting to rouse the rabble. That's clearly
| unacceptable and they misjudged how swift and certain the
| reaction would be. I do wonder what they were expecting.
|
| Where they went wrong was by posting their criticism as an
| internal memo using internal resources. They should have taken to
| twitter.
| throwaway17jun wrote:
| daheza wrote:
| Really soldified my stance that I should never work for a company
| where Musk is involved.
| cratermoon wrote:
| Because of course they did. Elon is that kind of boss.
| squarefoot wrote:
| At every place I've worked at there were rules on the contract I
| signed that forbade me to engage in any activity that could be
| detrimental to the company public image, and I'm sure SpaceX
| contracts contain such clause too, so technically they can fire
| those people, but doing so at first strike and without warnings
| is pure evil and is the sign of just another company in which
| executives live in a different universe than their workers.
|
| > Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX's president, said the letter had made
| other employees "feel uncomfortable, intimidated and bullied."
|
| This is absolute bollocks. Feeling intimidated and bullied
| because some colleagues criticized the CEO? Come on...
| concordDance wrote:
| Wasn't just criticizing the CEO:
| https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk...
| mike10921 wrote:
| I have worked at companies where I was entirely in disagreement
| with the senior staff's political views. I never sent any letters
| or complained about it. We had a great relationship. My job was
| to provide value to the company while their job was to pay me for
| my job. If I felt it was too much for me to listen to their
| political views I always had the choice to leave.
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| To those arguing that this letter is tantamount to
| insubordination and is therefore a fireable offense:
|
| "Insubordination (noun)- refusing to obey orders from someone in
| authority." [1]
|
| Unless they had received direct orders not to criticize Musk at
| all, internally or externally, they are not guilty of refusing to
| obey orders. And if they had received such orders, that only adds
| to Musk's burgeoning reputation for pettiness and immaturity, in
| which case these are the kinds of orders one could be forgiven
| for disobeying.
|
| The whole point of the letter seems to have been "Musk's behavior
| is detrimental to the company." This implies that they care about
| the company and want it to succeed, and that their loyalty lies
| with it, not with Musk. As well it should. Tesla, SpaceX, etc are
| (or should be) companies, not cults.
|
| 1.
| https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/insub...
| runjake wrote:
| The SpaceX President claims that the fired employees repeatedly
| spammed a large number of employees during paid time[1].
| > "Blanketing thousands of people across the company with
| repeated unsolicited emails and asking them to sign letters
| > and fill out unsponsored surveys during the work day is not
| acceptable."
|
| I appreciate their spirit, because I think Elon _is_ being
| juvenile and distracting, but this seems cut-and-dry.
|
| 1. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/06/spacex-fired-
| emp...
| dlp211 wrote:
| > Blanketing thousands of people across the company with
| repeated unsolicited emails
|
| So a normal day in any business with more than a few hundred
| folks.
| andrepd wrote:
| Why are you taking their claims at face value?
| runjake wrote:
| Because, in the absence of other evidence, it's the best
| take I have.
|
| Also, if the SpaceX president's statement is false, then
| the fired people probably have a lawsuit to file. Would the
| SpaceX president be that dumb? Maybe.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| It's not about "taking their claims at face value", it's
| highlighting those claims because that's the one thing that
| might actually make this firing stick. If the claims are
| accurate, the employees can't claim that the letter was
| "protected activity" relating to workplace conditions.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > Unless they had received direct orders not to criticize Musk
| at all, internally or externally, they are not guilty of
| refusing to obey orders
|
| Wouldn't it be ironic if a man who is "fighting to preserve
| free speech" fired employees for their speech he disagrees
| with? Oh, wait...
| adrr wrote:
| If Musks buys Twitter, do you think he'll allow the Elon Jet
| Twitter account to remain?
| oittaa wrote:
| Yes.
| samatman wrote:
| An open letter like this puts management in a difficult
| position. I'm going to discuss that without considering other
| perspectives, to keep the comment on point, please don't read
| that as endorsement of either the system or, well, anything
| else.
|
| The most powerful response is to have a top level stakeholder
| meeting, identify changes from the letter which need to be
| made, then: fire everyone who wrote the letter, and make those
| changes.
|
| This sends the message that management is responsive to worker
| complaints, and will also send you packing immediately if you
| defect on the company by making anything public which should be
| an internal matter.
|
| If they do only one of these things, it's either demoralizing
| or mutiny. Neither of those outcomes is good, one is completely
| unacceptable. So this is what happens.
| waffleiron wrote:
| > you defect on the company by making anything public which
| should be an internal matter.
|
| I assume they tried making it an internal matter before going
| public. Pushing your employees to have the feeling they need
| to go public instead of being able to solve this internally
| is a failure of the company.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| Yeah a lot of people have a very authoritarian bent without
| realizing it. For many people it is hard to find any
| example of protest or dissent from the less powerful about
| the more powerful, ever being acceptable unless it is the
| type of protest that is easily ignored.
|
| "This should have been kept internal, where we could have
| fired you without publicity"
| mbreese wrote:
| I wouldn't assume that - this was well publicized. That
| publicity had only one purpose -- to put pressure on
| management to act. But I doubt the authors anticipated this
| particular action.
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| I'm not sure it's clear that the people who are being fired
| are directly responsible for the letter being made available
| to the media. From what I can tell, the letter was circulated
| internally by the authors and leaked by an unknown number of
| individuals. If by "defect on the company" you mean "leak the
| letter", then the company appears to be punishing the wrong
| people.
|
| One could argue that those writing the letter should have
| known it would be leaked. But you could also say that about
| any kind of internal criticism. I'd counter that this
| argument has the 2nd-order effect of preventing any kind of
| internal criticism, constructive or otherwise, lest it be
| leaked at some point in the future.
|
| Not to mention, the "demoralizing" label could also be
| applied to Musk's public behavior, which is the bulk of the
| point that the letter and its authors are making.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| > If we believe in democracy, then allowing the economy to run
| by a patchwork of private command structures, with no internal
| democracy or accountability, should make our stomachs turn.
| Alexis de Tocqueville once asked; "can it be believed that the
| Democracy which has overthrown the Feudal system and vanquished
| Kings, will retreat before tradesmen and capitalists?". The
| question he poses requires an address, and not all are shy to
| the challenge.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20211029205638/https://newsyndic...
| hunterb123 wrote:
| MPSimmons wrote:
| Could you please define "woke culture" for me?
| hunterb123 wrote:
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Wait, this is exactly what Elon Musk himself does.
| Remember the whole "pedo guy" incident? And all of the
| Musk noise recently about being conservative and buying
| twitter?
| monkey_monkey wrote:
| "One rule for he, another rule for thee"
| blitzar wrote:
| Complaining about letters instead of working?
|
| Sticks, stones and letters may break my bones.
| larkost wrote:
| Conversely, could this not describe Musk's/SpaceX's
| response to this: complaining about a letter rather than
| working with them?
|
| I don't think anyone has accused the letter writers of
| not getting their job done. So far it seems this is all
| about the boss having a thin skin.
| nearbuy wrote:
| They're accused of making employees feel "uncomfortable,
| intimidated and bullied".
|
| Without knowing the details of the situation, I'm not
| sure we can confidently know whether these employees were
| being jerks or management were being jerks.
| guhidalg wrote:
| I don't hear anyone talking, let alone complaining, about
| Satya tweets, or Cook tweets, or Zuckerberg tweets, or
| any other CEO. I don't hear people discussing publicity
| stunts performed by CEOs not named Elon Musk. I get that
| you're trying to troll but you're not trying hard enough.
| stagger87 wrote:
| Do they tweet stuff like this?
|
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1517707521343082496
| gfosco wrote:
| Marketing teams write their tweets. They never say
| anything interesting or remotely human.
| seoaeu wrote:
| That sounds just like Musk's job description!
| klyrs wrote:
| > Victimhood of feelings sums it up.
|
| Like firing people for being critical of one's Lord and
| Savior?
| hunterb123 wrote:
| They were fired for badgering other employees with a
| letter complaining about tweets.
| UberFly wrote:
| Topics that usually include "racial or social
| discrimination and injustice". They are introduced to the
| workplace in many different forms and reasons. When it
| comes to the workplace, some are justified some aren't.
| There are lots of social issues that should remain muted or
| non-existent in the workplace, but yea it also just depends
| on the situation.
| sangnoir wrote:
| Thank you for your response - I have a follow-up
| question: Is "Treat your colleagues that may be different
| from you with respect" woke culture?
| outside1234 wrote:
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| the_only_law wrote:
| > It can't be good working conditions to have a small group
| of people playing victim and antagonizing others
|
| So you're saying musk should step down?
| hunterb123 wrote:
| Your snark makes no sense. Are you saying Elon is a small
| group of people?
|
| Clearly I was talking about the group who sent out the
| unsolicited internal letter in work channels.
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| Musk is the one doing the distraction.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| You don't have to follow Elon's Twitter.
|
| However you do have to be in work channels, and this
| group of people sent the unsolicited letter in those
| channels.
|
| And now we're all having to talk about the letter.
| fzeroracer wrote:
| Musk's behavior and actions directly impact things like
| hiring, employee retention and more
|
| You can argue you don't have to follow Elon's twitter,
| but when you try to hire someone and they quote Elon's
| behavior as a reason why not to work for your company
| what do you expect?
| aeternum wrote:
| He's been tweeting random memes and joke content for many
| years. The only thing that changed recently is he said he
| might vote Rep rather than Dem.
|
| Musk was a fool for bringing politics into this. But its
| also pretty dishonest for employees to claim to feel
| intimidated and bullied just because he's considering
| endorsing a different political party.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| You aren't engaging in argument, you're just doing this
| childlike back and forth of "Yes I am!" "No you aren't!".
| the_only_law wrote:
| Yes, actually, you're right, at the same time my comment
| is upvoted pretty well and yours is greyed, which pretty
| much sums up HN in [current year].
| Cd00d wrote:
| I find it ironic that you're worried about a 'woke culture'
| while speaking on behalf of other people's feelings that you
| don't know or work with.
| throwyawayyyy wrote:
| Well, sure, it's probably legal to fire them.
|
| But it smacks of "one rule for me, one rule for thee" from Mr
| "free speech absolutist" Musk, right?
| ajhurliman wrote:
| I think there's a higher bar for working at Twitter than
| there is for having an account on Twitter
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| I think we're in agreement. I made a similar point in another
| reply in this thread. I argued that talking about whether the
| firings are _legal_ is irrelevant since most states have at-
| will employment laws, and that a more useful question is
| "are these firings a good idea?"
| IncRnd wrote:
| THat's not how the term "insubordination" is used in the
| context of employment.
|
| Insubordination also might be "Directly questioning or mocking
| management decisions". [1]
|
| Another example: 5 insubordination in the workplace examples
| [2] 1. Refusal to complete a task 2.
| Refusal to come into work 3. Refusal to remain at work
| 4. Disrespecting authority figures 5. Sabotaging team or
| organizational activities
|
| [1] https://www.upcounsel.com/insubordination-in-the-workplace
|
| [2] https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-
| development/insu...
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| The authors aren't mocking Musk at all. The tone of the
| letter is professional yet direct and constructive. As far as
| questioning "management decisions", the closest example of
| this that I can find is the mention of the company's
| selective application of things like the "No Assholes"
| policy, which seems like a completely valid problem to
| surface. For the most part, they're questioning his tweets
| and their effect on employee morale.
|
| As for the 2nd example- which of those 5 points are the
| letter's authors guilty of? The only one of those 5 that
| looks even remotely relevant is #4, but even that's a stretch
| since there's a difference between "criticizing" and
| "disrespecting".
|
| Musk might believe those two things are one and the same, but
| they are, in fact, quite different.
| IncRnd wrote:
| > The authors aren't mocking Musk at all.
|
| I never said they are, and that's not why they were fired.
| From the article: "The letter, solicitations and general
| process made employees feel uncomfortable, intimidated and
| bullied, and/or angry because the letter pressured them to
| sign onto something that did not reflect their views," Ms.
| Shotwell wrote.
| HillRat wrote:
| Even so, they're not protected against being fired --
| circulating an internal letter criticizing leadership is, in a
| right to work state without existing workplace union agreements
| and outside of a whistleblower or other protected situation,
| enough to get you fired, though _not_ fired for cause. Are the
| optics bad? Yes. Is it indicative that "free speech
| absolutist" Musk believes your right to speech ends where his
| feelings get hurt? Certainly! But there isn't much the
| employees can do other than claim unemployment and then bring
| their talents to a competitor.
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| Except for Montana, every state in the US is an at-will
| employment state. Meaning the employer (and the employee) may
| terminate employment at any time, with or without cause or
| prior notice. In circumstances like this, the idea of "X is
| enough to get you fired" loses its meaning, since "X" could
| mean anything or nothing at all.
|
| Therefore, the relevant question is not "is the company
| within its rights to fire these employees", but rather "was
| it a good idea for the company to fire these employees".
| noasaservice wrote:
| And in many of those states, you can be fired for simply
| _being_ gay or trans.
|
| edit: Given how fast this post hit -4, I have to assume
| that these people are *OK* with being able to fire gay or
| trans people at a whim. That ain't cool, one bit.
| [deleted]
| fknorangesite wrote:
| No, you're being downvoted because you are, thankfully,
| wrong:
|
| Supreme Court rules workers can't be fired for being gay
| or transgender
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/15/supreme-court-rules-
| workers-...
| mbesto wrote:
| Which makes this whole thread hilarious, because so many
| people are implying wrongful termination, which, to your
| point, doesn't really matter. Unless of course the
| individual is a protected class.
| kube-system wrote:
| Firing someone for belonging to a protected class is only
| one of many types of wrongful termination. There are
| several other types of illegal terminations.
|
| There are also laws that prohibit employers from
| punishing employees in certain circumstances relating to
| organizing/petitioning when in regard to concerns about
| workplace issues.
|
| For example:
|
| >You have the right to act with co-workers to address
| work-related issues in many ways. Examples include: [...]
| joining with co-workers to talk directly to your
| employer, to a government agency, or to the media about
| problems in your workplace
|
| https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-
| law/em...
| BobbyJo wrote:
| > "X" could mean anything or nothing at all.
|
| Somewhat untrue in theory. Completely untrue in practice.
| There are a few things you legally cannot be fired for, and
| a whole plethora of things a company would need to very
| very careful about firing you for, lest they wind up in
| court.
| colpabar wrote:
| > Is it indicative that "free speech absolutist" Musk
| believes your right to speech ends where his feelings get
| hurt? Certainly!
|
| I don't really get how musk's feelings on free speech apply
| here. SpaceX is not the government, and it's not a
| communications platform. I also think it's unfair to say "his
| feelings are hurt" - it seems perfectly logical to get rid of
| employees that so strongly disagree with the way the company
| is being run.
|
| And I have to wonder, why even work there if that's how you
| feel? This just looks like another example of a group of
| people who have "problems" with their company but don't want
| to give up the pay that it provides them.
| Aeolun wrote:
| colpabar wrote:
| cloutchaser wrote:
| I think it's probably even worse than that, it's a group of
| people wanting attention and publicity, using a cause that
| an Elon hating mainstream can use, for mutually helping
| each other.
|
| I principled person would at least quit before making a
| scene in the media, rather than spamming many people in the
| company.
|
| This is look at me behaviour coupled with politics at its
| worse.
| thehappypm wrote:
| "Musk believes your right to speech ends where his feelings
| get hurt? Certainly! "
|
| This is totally incorrect.
|
| Free speech in this case is an opinion. The right to free
| speech is not freedom from consequences for voicing opinions.
| davidcbc wrote:
| Consequences like... being banned by Twitter perhaps?
| mwint wrote:
| You don't have a right to not be banned from Twitter.
| Musk has been saying he thinks the way Twitter bans
| people is unhealthy for democracy.
|
| Point me to the place he's said you have a capital-R
| Right to not be banned from Twitter.
| bko wrote:
| What other organization wouldn't let go of someone under
| these circumstances? Are there any employees that openly,
| pulicaly and very vocally criticize their leadership
|
| Imagine working with someone like this? If you've been in an
| organization with people are constantly getting into flame
| wars about political issues, its incredibly distracting to
| those that want to get work done.
|
| Some people buy the whole "we're a family" HR spin, but its
| not true. You're there to do a job and you're paid to do so.
| fundad wrote:
| Chances are it won't be found to be retaliation against
| workers organizing for working conditions with less drama.
| Even if it is and they get fined, for them it's just a fee.
| andrepd wrote:
| I have privately and openly criticised my employer on
| several occasions, and never have I been sacked for that.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _have privately and openly criticised my employer on
| several occasions_
|
| Huge difference between calling out issues and publicly
| demanding the CEO to be fired.
| kube-system wrote:
| The letter being circulated doesn't ask for Elon to be
| fired.
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| > What other organization wouldn't let go of someone under
| these circumstances?
|
| Any organization that's worth working at, obviously. And
| there are plenty of them.
| sanity31415 wrote:
| I'd hate to work anywhere that tolerated this kind of
| narcissistic employee "activism", glad that companies are
| finally putting a stop to it.
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| Interesting! What would you do if, for example, the
| leadership of your company said they were going to start
| implementing illegal policies preferring people of
| certain races or sexes for job reqs? Would you say
| nothing? Leave?
| bko wrote:
| Give me an example of someone doing this in another
| organization. Would you be willing to share your
| organization and any criticism you have of leadership?
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375913/alphabet-
| employee...
|
| I don't have any complaints about my current
| organization, but whenever I feel something has
| transgressed my personal code of ethics I'm first very
| vocal about it internally and if necessary externally.
| I've only ever left companies voluntarily after this, and
| most have made efforts for me to stay. And it's not like
| I've been working at the most progressive companies
| ever.. maybe just don't work at a Musk company.
| bko wrote:
| Google has fired plenty of people for openly criticizing
| them. I never said an organization will necessarily fire
| someone for openly criticizing leadership. It's a case by
| case but within their right.
|
| I personally think its obnoxious and counterproductive
| for someone to call management out publicly. That's no
| way to operate an organization. Its a sign that someone
| is toxic. Some orgs like Bridgewater tried that but
| that's def not a place I would want to work. The
| appropriate channels and structure exist for a reason.
| They're not perfect but I'm not arrogant enough to think
| I know better than everyone else
|
| https://www.cnet.com/tech/google-fires-another-ai-
| researcher...
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| > I personally think its obnoxious and counterproductive
| for someone to call management out publicly. That's no
| way to operate an organization. Its a sign that someone
| is toxic.
|
| Seems like we have come to the real root of things! We
| can agree to disagree.
| kube-system wrote:
| The organizations that are worth working at don't have
| employees who have a reason to publicly criticize their
| leaders because their leaders effectively manage internal
| affairs internally.
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| Yep, exactly right. Instead SpaceX gets Gwynne acting as
| Musk's mouthpiece/enforcer. I would kill to know how she
| really feels about all this considering that the company
| is primarily her success.
| fundad wrote:
| Yeah people give him the benefit of the doubt that the is
| meeting his fiduciary obligations because he's CEO. They
| assume if the CEO does it, it's good for what he wants
| for his companies. We know it's more about his ego but
| are we going to argue that fiduciary obligation isn't
| enforced to people who are obviously part of a death
| cult?
| stevenwoo wrote:
| Basecamp and github most recently off the top of my head.
| IIRC one of Basecamp's founders is about the same ballpark
| as Musk and was called out to his face at a company meeting
| and on the other side Github kept the Nazi sympathizer who
| criticized the Jewish employee for complaining about Nazis,
| but fired the HR decision maker and tried to rehire the
| Jewish employee.
| fundad wrote:
| Yeah it's not about progressive vs conservative, it's
| industry vs workers. The managers who are good to their
| workers get weeded out before making it to the top.
| runarberg wrote:
| Common. If your CEO is making extremely inflammatory
| political statements publicly, and you don't agree with
| those statements you are kind of in a dilemma. You either
| remain silent and and be perceived as broadly agreeing with
| --or at least tolerating--the CEO's statements, or you
| speak out against them. In either case you are making a
| political decision.
|
| Elon Musk put his workers in this dilemma and he should
| have expected a subset of them to speak out critically
| against him. I honestly don't know other large
| organizations in our industry that is in the same
| situation, so there is really nothing to compare it with.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > they're not protected against being fired
|
| Of course they are. Concerted workplace activity to improve
| workplace conditions is protected under NLRB. It's literally
| the definition of protected activity.
| logifail wrote:
| > Musk believes your right to speech ends where his feelings
| get hurt?
|
| It could be that Musk recognises that a significant group of
| his staff - likely the majority - simply don't want a loud
| minority group - possibly a tiny minority - "making waves"
| and intimidating others into joining their cause.
|
| I've just started Nassim Nicholas Taleb's latest book, but in
| previous work he wrote about "The Most Intolerant Wins: The
| Dictatorship of the Small Minority"[0]
|
| This example could _easily_ be one of those instances.
|
| Back in the old days(!) one was expected to do one's job
| well, to treat others professionally - and to expect others
| to treat you well - but _don 't bring your private causes
| into the workplace and expect everyone to love you for it_.
| Do what you like on your own time, but on the company's time,
| follow the rules.
|
| [0]https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-
| dict...
| notahacker wrote:
| > It could be that Musk recognises that a significant group
| of his staff - likely the majority - simply don't want a
| loud minority group - possibly a tiny minority - "making
| waves" and intimidating others
|
| That's also Twitter's policy on trolling and harassment
| which his _totally sincere_ "free speech absolutism" seeks
| to end.
|
| Intimidation isn't asking fellow employees if they agree
| with the content of an open letter, it's public figures
| calling a blogger and telling them if their blog
| criticising Tesla isn't taken down, their totally unrelated
| boss will be getting a phone call . Guess which one Musk
| personally involved himself in...
| logifail wrote:
| > Intimidation isn't asking fellow employees if they
| agree with the content of an open letter [..]
|
| Errm, if fellow employees _feel intimidated_ by you
| pitching up and asking them to sign, that 's what we call
| intimidation, at least these days.
|
| If you want to organise an open letter, put it up
| somewhere public, tell everyone involved, and wait for
| people to sign it? Or not, it's their choice.
| notahacker wrote:
| Like... send email circular asking people if they wanted
| to participate in a survey and maybe sign an open letter
| posted on SpaceX communication channels you mean?
|
| So far, the only person who has suggested employees felt
| intimidated is the COO defending the decision to fire
| them. Just in case you were inclined to actually believe
| that her priority was to encourage employees to speak out
| against harassment and not intimidate them into silence
| she added that the company had "too much critical work to
| accomplish", no place for "activism" and told remaining
| employees to "stay focused",
|
| I mean, I accept it's theoretically possible the _real_
| intimidation wasn 't the COO firing 5 people for the
| "unacceptable" sending of emails asking people if they
| agreed with their views about management and the anti-
| harassment policy "during the work day", but I'm going to
| file that one away under _very unlikely_
| logifail wrote:
| Q: Are there (m)any COOs who think their companies should
| focus on activism and not, you know, actual work?
|
| Perhaps people who support activism should just start
| their own companies - as majority shareholders they could
| easily mandate that management specify time to be spent
| on activism... no need for focus.
| notahacker wrote:
| > If you want to organise an open letter, put it up
| somewhere public, tell everyone involved, and wait for
| people to sign it? Or not, it's their choice.
|
| > Perhaps people who support activism should just start
| their own companies
|
| Got it. Employees should sort of organise an open letter
| and tell everyone involved but also not organise an open
| letter or tell anyone because how employees spend their
| waking hours and what they should think is up to
| management.
|
| Also, sending an email circular asking people to sign a
| petition is intimidation, but telling people that
| activism is an "unacceptable" loss of focus whilst
| announcing firings is all about _protecting_ people from
| intolerance of other viewpoints.
|
| I mean, employers can and do fire people all the time for
| embarrassing the company, though doing it for criticising
| the CEO and insufficiently strong protections from
| harassment tends to be dodgy ground. But the idea that
| they're doing so to promote tolerance is the most
| Orwellian bullshit take imaginable. Popper's paradox of
| tolerance is about what level of safeguard is necessary
| to prevent free speech democracies from collapsing, not
| making it clear that people aren't allowed to criticise
| their boss and especially not on company time.
| logifail wrote:
| > Employees should sort of organise [..]
|
| It's not clear whether employees should be using company
| resources and company time to organise _against_ the
| company or its management. Is that something we think is
| a given right? If so, why?
|
| There is a reason that during a (legitimate!) strike
| pickets have to stand _off_ their employer 's property.
| We had that in the 70s with the NUM, we had that in 2010
| when BA strikers were prohibited from entering (private)
| Heathrow property[1]
|
| > the idea that they're doing so to promote tolerance is
| the most Orwellian bullshit take imaginable
|
| 1) there's quite a lack of tolerance left of centre, and
| 2) context is everything.
|
| Your starter for ten: I'll give you a quote, so without
| searching, take a wild guess who said it...
|
| > "Everybody understands _all lives matter_. Everybody
| wants strong, effective law enforcement. "
|
| [1]
| https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/mar/16/british-
| air...
| notahacker wrote:
| 2) context is everything.
|
| Indeed. The context has nothing to do with weird
| digressions about the tolerance of the left or picket
| line legislation in the UK. The context is that a company
| fired some people for sending emails criticising a CEO
| with a long track record of being even less tolerant of
| criticism than the average CEO whilst asserting it's
| unacceptable for staff to question the company's anti-
| harassment policies. The context is the CEO also has a
| track record of threatening to get people who _never_
| worked with him fired from their completely unrelated job
| if they don 't take their blog posts criticising him and
| his company down. Stating that he _may_ be legally
| entitled to do this is one thing. Citing the paradox of
| tolerance to argue that cancelling people who criticise
| Elon Musk and ruling out the possibility of debate on
| SpaceX harassment policy is in fact compatible with
| "free speech absolutism", because email circulars
| questioning the boss' behaviour and harassment policies
| (or blogging on SeekingAlpha, I guess) intimidates people
| is... something else entirely.
| trs8080 wrote:
| > Back in the old days(!) one was expected to do one's job
| well, to treat others professionally - and to expect others
| to treat you well - but don't bring your private causes
| into the workplace and expect everyone to love you for it.
|
| Excluding of course, the CEO of the company in question. He
| can say anything he wants, fight with and call people
| pedophiles on Twitter, run a crypto pump and dump scheme,
| spread pandemic conspiracies, etc etc etc to the point that
| investors in his companies have spoken up about it and now
| his own employees are writing letters. That behavior is
| totally professional and ok.
| dlp211 wrote:
| I think that it's interesting that you cite "the most
| intolerant win" and assume that it applies to those trying
| to change the workplace today and not the de facto work
| place that you so cherished.
| willis936 wrote:
| This take seems to flip reality on its head. The tiny
| minority is Musk and his followers.
| k1ko wrote:
| Funny you mention reality. I don't even consider Musk
| Republican, but let's assume that for the sake of
| argument. Latest generic congressional polling has
| Republicans leading by handful of points.
|
| https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia%27s_Polling_Index:_Ge
| ner...
| logifail wrote:
| > The tiny minority is Musk
|
| As Terry Pratchett so wonderfully put it in Making Money
| (Discworld #36)[0], there is "a piece of ancient magic
| called [..] fifty-one percent of the shares".
|
| As far as what happens at SpaceX goes, Musk isn't the
| minority. He's the (?? 78%) majority owner.
|
| So, if you work at SpaceX and don't like him, I think the
| options boil down to: a) suck it up, or b) find somewhere
| else to work ...
|
| ... or maybe c) leave and start your own SpaceX? We all
| know competition is good. Of course in that case you'll
| really have Skin In The Game[1] - and coincidentally
| that's the Taleb book I've been reading this afternoon.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Money [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_Game_(book)
| mempko wrote:
| Isn't a group of 1 still a minority? Isn't Musk himself a
| loud minority of the company who wields lots of power?
| Isn't SpaceX in this case already a Dictatorship of the
| Small Minority?
| kmeisthax wrote:
| This isn't entirely applicable here - the minority group
| isn't being _picky_ , they are alleging _misconduct_.
|
| Also, that linked post is _something else_. In the span of
| one really long essay, he went from halal food, to trying
| to intellectually rehabilitate Brexit, to a maximally-
| extended version of the Paradox of Tolerance, and then
| finally to disproving the right-libertarian thesis that
| market manipulation is impossible. I genuinely can 't tell
| if this is brilliantly considered, or just authoritarian
| right-wingers trying to specifically feed _me_ propaganda.
| soSadm4n wrote:
| Oh but there is more employees can do than just work
| elsewhere for some other indifferent, childish blowhard;
| employees could not work until these childish snowflakes are
| dealt with.
|
| Real trade can happen without the speculation game. Some
| people may not get to build rocket engines in such a system
| but the species doesn't owe a minority of first world
| engineers everything they want anymore than it owes an even
| smaller minority of billionaires.
|
| The propaganda has worked really well; you seem to actually
| believe human agency is coupled only to the money making
| endeavors before us today.
|
| Past technology is a joke relative to ours and so will these
| fancy things we make today seem to the future. Fleeing Earth
| on rockets is not the only path. It's the only path we are
| allowed to speak to. Alternatives would cause the wrong
| people to lose privilege and power.
| steve_g wrote:
| Could this be a protected concerted activity? In the US,
| there are some basic protections when two or more employees
| work together to improve the conditions of their employment.
| I don't know what does or doesn't qualify for this
| protection, though.
| Tagbert wrote:
| And there are probably not clearly defined rules for this.
| What would need to happen now is for them to file a
| complaint with the National Labor Relations Board and that
| group could make a ruling about whether this is protected
| activity or not.
| groby_b wrote:
| Ayup. And if they're smart, they hire a lawyer for that.
| usrusr wrote:
| Is there any indication that free speech absolutism of the
| Muskian kind might also extend to people who aren't
| "financially independent"?
| groby_b wrote:
| The NLRB would like a word with you. They've held that public
| complaints might qualify as protected activity - and "right
| to work" doesn't get you a get-out-of-jail-free card for
| that. The key is that this was "concerted" activity - a group
| of employees, not a single individual grousing.
|
| I strongly hope the fired individuals _do_ look into getting
| a labor lawyer representing them.
| concordDance wrote:
| > Is it indicative that "free speech absolutist" Musk
| believes your right to speech ends where his feelings get
| hurt? Certainly!
|
| I'm sure you can think of reasons other than "feelings
| getting hurt" for these firings...
| [deleted]
| thereddaikon wrote:
| It's a pretty simple universal rule that you don't try to make
| your boss look bad. And doing so is a great way to end your
| employment.
|
| I'm not sure why anyone is surprised by this. Whether what they
| said is right or wrong it was still damaging to the owner of
| the company and the company's reputation as well.
|
| Its like the Tesla guy who was fired a few months back. Yeah it
| was his own car. Yeah it was on his own time. But he, a tesla
| employee was making the company look bad by uploading videos of
| the car failing to self drive to Youtube.
|
| You don't get to not be a representative of your company just
| because you are off the clock. If people know that you work for
| X company then anything you say or do may be seen through the
| lens of "An X company employee"
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| > You don't get to not be a representative of your company
| just because you are off the clock. If people know that you
| work for X company then anything you say or do may be seen
| through the lens of "An X company employee"
|
| But that's _exactly_ the point that the letter's authors are
| making about Musk himself, and his tweets. Either the same
| rule applies equally to both Musk and his employees, or
| there's an unfair double standard which should be remedied.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| It doesn't work that way when one of them owns the company.
| If Musk were CEO then maybe they would have a point. But
| Musk isn't CEO. In fact I don't think he's an employee of
| SpaceX at all. He is the majority owner of the company. The
| most important of the investors. And legally speaking the
| company has a duty to him, not the other way around. CEO's
| can and do get fired for making companies look bad. Happens
| all the time. You can't fire an owner.
|
| Now we can discuss how we think it ought to work all day
| long. But that is how it does work today. It's not an even
| relationship and never has been. The guy signing the checks
| gets to decide if he wants to employee you. If people
| decide that he's a dick and don't want to work for him then
| he will find it hard to hire good talent.
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| He is in fact CEO, according to CNBC:
|
| > SpaceX has fired at least five employees who were
| involved with circulating a letter around the company
| that was critical of CEO Elon Musk...[1]
|
| Further, if this link is to be believed, he is no longer
| a majority owner of SpaceX:
|
| > According to filings that SpaceX has made with the
| Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Musk currently
| owns 43.61% of SpaceX's outstanding stock as of August
| 2021.[2]
|
| 1. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/06/17/spacex-fires-
| employees-a...
|
| 2. https://wccftech.com/elon-musk-now-owns-less-than-
| half-of-sp...
| thereddaikon wrote:
| CNBC should do better fact checking. The CEO of SpaceX is
| and has been Gwynne Shotwell
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| The link you're pointing to says that Shotwell is COO,
| not CEO.
| jeffwask wrote:
| Musk is free speech warrior that's why he is about to be taken
| to the cleaners on this Twitter deal.
|
| ...except when that free speech is a respectful letter crafted
| by his employees asking him to tone down his social media
| because it's reflecting poorly on their work.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| 993 comments here and literally only one person called it
| insubordination.
| bko wrote:
| > The whole point of the letter seems to have been "Musk's
| behavior is detrimental to the company." This implies that they
| care about the company and want it to succeed, and that their
| loyalty lies with it, not with Musk. As well it should. Tesla,
| SpaceX, etc are (or should be) companies, not cults.
|
| Here's an experiment. At your place of work, circulate a
| document criticizing leadership and how they're all wrong. Make
| sure to publicize this loudly to people outside the
| organization. See what happens. What should the appropriate
| response be?
|
| You have to work with these people and its incredibly
| distracting and out of line. These are children that think they
| can just shout down leadership and suffer no consequences. The
| rest of us who live in the real world understand that hierarchy
| doesn't exist arbitrarily and we're not entitled to have
| someone pay us while we're spitting in their face.
| Ombudsman wrote:
| > These are children that think they can just shout down
| leadership and suffer no consequences.
|
| Exactly. Although, it's hypocritical of Musk to fire
| employees who criticize him but criticize Twitter for
| banning/censoring accounts for spouting opinions that Twitter
| doesn't align with. If SpaceX has this right, Twitter should
| too.
| etamatem wrote:
| > Here's an experiment. At your place of work, circulate a
| document criticizing leadership and how they're all wrong.
| Make sure to publicize this loudly to people outside the
| organization.
|
| This happens often: I'm guessing about once a month, and
| _nothing_ happens. The difference is that Zuckerberg is not a
| needy, thin-skinned billionaire,and will directly address
| employee criticism in Q &As - as well as press leaks like a
| well-adjusted adult
| anvuong wrote:
| No, the difference is Meta is a publicly traded company,
| SpaceX is not. Meta don't want this kind of negative
| publicity since it directly affects their stocks price,
| mishandle these things can lead to lawsuit from investors.
| For SpaceX, they don't have to care about any of those
| things.
| etamatem wrote:
| > Meta don't want this kind of negative publicity
|
| No, it does not, but it still happens. Most of our
| internal[1] Q&A discussions leak to the press (
| _especially_ criticisms of leadership[2]), but Zuckerberg
| decided it 's the cost of internal openness. I'm yet to
| hear of anyone fired for leaking company discussions, or
| even witch-hunts to find leakers. Musk is being a baby, I
| hope they bleed irreplaceable talent.
|
| 1. These have remained unchanged post-IPO, have nothing
| to do with public listing, and Meta would like them to be
| confidential
|
| 2. One of our recently-promoted execs was publicly and
| vociferously criticized by employees for something they
| did, and the critics are still employed, because the
| execs are not petty.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| No, the difference is that Zuckerberg, for all his
| faults, is not a narcissitic sociopath.
| yellowapple wrote:
| > For SpaceX, they don't have to care about any of those
| things.
|
| They do if they want customers. ULA and Blue Origin would
| love nothing more than for SpaceX's leadership to piss
| off NASA and burn some of those juicy government contract
| opportunities.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| I don't really think Zuckerberg cares that much about
| short term fluctuations in the stock price. He has
| majority control, the market has effectively zero power
| if he doesn't like its ideas.
| brtkdotse wrote:
| > Here's an experiment. At your place of work, circulate a
| document criticizing leadership and how they're all wrong.
| Make sure to publicize this loudly to people outside the
| organization. See what happens. What should the appropriate
| response be?
|
| At most places, leadership actually... leads. Musk is a token
| publicity figure at best at this point, a mascot.
| fossuser wrote:
| It also just seems ridiculous to try to separate Musk from
| the companies he's built. He's clearly a major factor in
| their success and it'd be stupid to remove him.
| mempko wrote:
| Why is it clearly he is a major factor? If anything it
| seems he brought his companies close to bankruptcy multiple
| times and the government bailed him out. Tesla with a half
| billion dollar loan from the DOE. SpaceX with it's multi
| billion dollar NASA contracts. He could just be incredibly
| lucky or his major skill is knowing how to milk the public
| for funds.
| fossuser wrote:
| The loan was paid back early and did exactly what it was
| supposed to do (incentivize alternative energy company
| creation). I think they may have even paid an early
| payment penalty to be done with it? So it wasn't a
| bailout at all.
|
| SpaceX doesn't get those contracts for nothing - they're
| the first to commercialize reusable rockets in a serious
| way and have massively reduced costs as a result.
|
| All of this stuff was explicitly laid out by Musk
| (despite massive knee-jerk criticism which continues
| despite the proved success) and his companies were able
| to execute on it.
|
| It's not luck to do this repeatedly in multiple extremely
| challenging verticals (at the same time) successfully.
| Phlarp wrote:
| Does that boot taste good?
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Would you apply the same logic to your leaders drowning the
| company stock and killing the public image ?
|
| What should the appropriate response be ?
| awestroke wrote:
| Leave the company?
| bko wrote:
| Your company may make decisions that you don't agree with
| or are objectively stupid. There is a proper channel to
| voice your concerns. They may be ignored in which case you
| can leave if you feel strongly enough about it. This is
| what adults do.
| waffleiron wrote:
| > This is what adults do.
|
| I am sure the people who wrote the letter are adults. You
| don't have to insult people you don't agree with.
| diob wrote:
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| SpaceX isn't a public company.
| waffleiron wrote:
| To have stock (and for it to have value) you don't need
| to be a public company.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| polotics wrote:
| You write: """we're not entitled to have someone pay us while
| we're spitting in their face""" The writer(s) of this letter
| definitely didn't spit in any Tesla customer's face. Elon is
| not buying all the Teslas, probably didn't pay for his.
| waffleiron wrote:
| > The rest of us who live in the real world understand that
| hierarchy doesn't exist arbitrarily and we're not entitled to
| have someone pay us while we're spitting in their face.
|
| And someone isn't entitled to spit in your face just because
| they pay you. Respect for people should go both ways, and the
| view that just because someone is rich, above you in the
| ladder, you should just shut up and take it, isn't a good one
| too.
|
| Workers have very little power to fight back, yes there might
| be consequences but they wouldn't have written this letter if
| they didn't feel they weren't already living under the
| consequences of bad leadership.
| cj wrote:
| > Workers have very little power to fight back
|
| Workers (especially the average HN reader) have incredible
| power to fight back... find a new job and switch companies.
| Lots a companies are hiring even with the macro economic
| issues.
|
| From an employee perspective it's insane to me that one
| would put so much energy into fighting their leadership
| rather than just leaving the company for a better one.
| cloutchaser wrote:
| Because their motivation is becoming some sort of public
| martyr, not actual change or principled behaviour
| waffleiron wrote:
| That's quite a reach, this was posted in an internal
| Teams channel and leaked. The original authors might not
| have wanted to become "some sort of public martyr".
| yellowapple wrote:
| > Workers (especially the average HN reader) have
| incredible power to fight back... find a new job and
| switch companies.
|
| Outside of the tech industry (and even then), this ain't
| anywhere near as easy as you assert. Lots of companies
| are "hiring"... for positions with shit pay and inflated
| qualifications.
|
| > From an employee perspective it's insane to me that one
| would put so much energy into fighting their leadership
| rather than just leaving the company for a better one.
|
| From an employee perspective it's insane to me that one
| would be entirely oblivious to both the risks inherent in
| quitting (especially given the current economic
| conditions) and the notion that maybe people might like
| everything about their company aside from one or two
| things that need changed.
| dsco wrote:
| These people can go work for other employers, or even start
| competing businesses. This type of agitative behavior is
| detrimental to productivity and serves no purpose. If they
| wanted the company to succeed so much why didn't they just
| become management themselves and have a positive impact
| that way?
| api wrote:
| Flip it over: if you worked for Apple and wrote and
| circulated an open letter criticizing Tim Cook's advocacy
| of LGBTQ rights, what would happen?
|
| I bet you'd be fired.
|
| I said the same thing by the way about the guy who got
| fired from Google for circulating a misogynistic rant about
| female engineers. That was also stupid and unprofessional
| at the very least.
|
| Politics at work can be generally problematic. Political
| rants at work that criticize leadership or coworkers or are
| broadly offensive are probably going to get you fired.
| adrr wrote:
| Strawman to compare criticizing a gay man's LGBT advocacy
| to asking a leader to stop being a jackass on Twitter. I
| am sure board members have made the same statements to
| Musk because there is fiduciary responsibility to not
| alienate your customers. As a shareholder in Tesla, I
| would love to see Musk get off of Twitter.
| dubswithus wrote:
| What would happen if the letter criticized Tim Cook for
| being a homophobe for inviting MBS to Apple.
|
| Yes, I know Tim is gay.
| bko wrote:
| > And someone isn't entitled to spit in your face just
| because they pay you. Respect for people should go both
| ways, and the view that just because someone is rich, above
| you in the ladder, you should just shut up and take it,
| isn't a good one too.
|
| How is Musk spitting in their face? By shitposting on
| twitter? By voting for the wrong candidate? These people
| need to get over themselves. Not everything is about them.
| They're free to leave.
| waffleiron wrote:
| > These people need to get over themselves.
|
| And how do you not apply this to Musk, who fired people
| after a bit of critique?
| bko wrote:
| It's his organization. Why is that so hard to understand?
| The leader and some person working there are not the
| same. If I hired a cleaner and she started posting
| publicly how shitty my interior design, I would fire this
| person. It's not what you pay her to do.
|
| I would argue it was a good move. Like I said, its a
| distraction and completely out of line. Imagine you were
| managing someone and they think its okay to arbitrarily
| go above your head and call you out publicly. This is
| incredibly toxic and not a person living in the real
| world.
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| Technically, the organization belongs to a group of
| shareholders, of which Musk is one. And apparently, Musk
| is now a minority owner.[1] And as chairman and CEO, Musk
| has a fiduciary duty to the other owners to act in the
| best interests of the company. I would argue that he
| failing to abide by that directive by failing to apply
| the "no assholes" policy to himself (along with the other
| points the letter makes), thereby harming recruitment and
| branding efforts.
|
| Also, you're comparing complaints about the company's
| double standards with a cleaner complaining about shitty
| interior design? Do you really think those two things are
| equivalent?
|
| 1. https://wccftech.com/elon-musk-now-owns-less-than-
| half-of-sp...
| LouisSayers wrote:
| And in the context of SpaceX, how exactly has he been "an
| asshole"?
|
| People don't have to like him, but it doesn't seem he's
| actually done anything other than make people work hard
| at their jobs...
| trs8080 wrote:
| SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell on Monday said the
| aerospace company's "no a--hole" work policy ensures
| everyone is heard and creates space for staff to propose
| big ideas.
|
| "At SpaceX, we have a 'no a--hole' policy," Shotwell said
| in a virtual speech to graduates in Northwestern
| University's 2021 commencement ceremony. "These kinds of
| people -- a--holes -- interrupt others, they shut down or
| co-opt conversation, and they create a hostile
| environment where no one wants to contribute," Shotwell
| said. She is also SpaceX's chief operating officer.
|
| Interrupting others stifles innovation and stops people
| solving difficult problems, Shotwell said.
|
| "In short, the best way to find solutions to hard
| problems is to listen harder, not talk louder," she said.
| "Embrace the ideas of your fellow workers, especially
| when they differ greatly from yours."
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-president-gywnne-
| shot...
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| > And in the context of SpaceX, how exactly has he been
| "an asshole"?
|
| Why does it matter whether his actions are in the context
| of SpaceX? He is associated with his companies (and vice-
| versa) to a greater extent than probably any other
| current head of business. Separating Musk from his
| companies in the minds of the public would be an exercise
| in futility, and his personal branding and thirst for
| public attention seem designed to encourage this.
| Therefore, every public action he takes has an effect on
| each of his companies, including SpaceX, regardless of
| whether said action took place "in the context of" those
| companies.
|
| With that said, here are some of Musk's "greatest hits":
|
| 1. The tweet comparing Bill Gates to the pregnant man
| emoji [1]
|
| 2. referring to the guy who rescued the Thai cave divers
| as a "pedo" [2]
|
| 3. committing securities fraud [3]
|
| 4. tweeting that he'd start a STEM school called Texas
| Institute of Technology & Science (aka TITS) in an
| industry already rife with casual sexism [4]
|
| 5. implying that Tesla employees would lose their stock
| options if they unionized [5]
|
| 6. branding Tesla's driver assist technology as
| "autonomous", implying it requires no human intervention
| and therefore meets the criteria for full self-driving.
| [6]
|
| The above actions range from needlessly trollish to
| outright illegal. One could argue that you don't build
| multiple billion-dollar companies without being an
| asshole to some of the people some of the time, but you'd
| be hard-pressed to argue that these are not the actions
| of an asshole.
|
| 1.
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1517707521343082496
|
| 2. https://time.com/5339219/elon-musk-diver-thai-soccer-
| team-pe...
|
| 3. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/e
| lon-mu...
|
| 4. https://qz.com/work/2082746/elon-musks-tweet-captures-
| everyd...
|
| 5. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/998454539941367808
|
| 6. https://screenshot-media.com/technology/ai/tesla-
| autopilot-u...
| mempko wrote:
| Because people died fighting for democracy in politics.
| Yet we accept complete authority when it comes to our
| private lives. Ridiculous.
| kgran wrote:
| Well, you could say the same about all dictatorships,
| whether organizations or countries: if you don't like it,
| leave it (unless you can't, e. g. North Korea). But I
| think this argument is flawed, to say the least. After
| all, an employment contract (and labour law in general)
| acts both ways - it's not a subordination of an employee
| to an employer.
| trs8080 wrote:
| "His organization"? Does SpaceX not partially pay
| employees in stock options / RSUs? How about other
| shareholders?
| [deleted]
| andrepd wrote:
| It's amazing, someone fires a bunch of people for writing
| an open letter, and it's _the latter_ who need to "get
| over themselves". Outstanding.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Well yes, they need to get over themselves to the extent
| that they even thought their letter was appropriate in
| the first place, and would have no negative consequences
| for themselves.
| [deleted]
| trs8080 wrote:
| > How is Musk spitting in their face? By shitposting on
| twitter? By voting for the wrong candidate?
|
| You're asking questions that were answered in the letter:
|
| "Elon's behavior in the public sphere is a frequent
| source of distraction and embarrassment for us,
| particularly in recent weeks... As our CEO and most
| prominent spokesperson, Elon is seen as the face of
| SpaceX -- every Tweet that Elon sends is a de facto
| public statement by the company. It is critical to make
| clear to our teams and to our potential talent pool that
| his messaging does not reflect our work, our mission, or
| our values."
|
| His behavior devalues their work and denigrates the image
| of the companies they work for.
| fuckcensorship wrote:
| > His behavior devalues their work and denigrates the
| image of the companies they work for.
|
| Then they should go work elsewhere if it bothers them
| that much. Nobody is forcing them to work for a company
| ran by Elon Musk.
| trs8080 wrote:
| Er no, as employees they're also paid partly in stock
| options (RSUs?). They're literal shareholders in the
| company, they have a say in how it's run.
|
| And I don't know about you, but many people don't just
| run away when faced with a difficult situation - they
| face it head on and try to improve it.
|
| Furthermore, if I spent years of my life contributing to
| a mission that I believe in, giving a company my best
| work, I'm not going to just walk away because of the
| actions of a single entitled individual, no matter how
| rich he is.
| fuckcensorship wrote:
| So employees compensated by their employer via stock
| options are entitled to attempt to sabotage their
| company's leadership from within without repercussion?
| trs8080 wrote:
| They're not trying to sabotage anything. They're asking
| for SpaceX to disassociate itself from statements made by
| Musk, an individual, which harm the company.
| jcadam wrote:
| There's this long lost dark art known as "tact." Folks who
| came of age after the advent of social media seem to be
| completely unfamiliar with it.
|
| It's something you use when trying to address a delicate
| subject whilst minimizing the blowback. Calling out the
| head of your organization publicly via a scathing open
| letter would not be it.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Wasn't this a non-public communication which was leaked?
| thraway11 wrote:
| "SpaceX, the private rocket company, on Thursday fired
| employees who helped write and distribute an open letter
| criticizing the behavior of chief executive Elon Musk,
| said three employees with knowledge of the situation."
|
| First paragraph of the article.
|
| And of course there is also this, "In an email, Gwynne
| Shotwell, SpaceX's president, said the letter had made
| other employees "feel uncomfortable, intimidated and
| bullied.""
| rgbrenner wrote:
| _circulate a document criticizing leadership and how they 're
| all wrong._
|
| It didnt say Elon was "all wrong"... it criticized 1 or 2
| things. For all we know they agree with the other 99%.
|
| This is a common in these responses defending Elon. They take
| the letter, turn it into something much much worse.. and then
| say: _dont they deserve to be fired?_
|
| The version of the letter youre describing does not exist.
| teawrecks wrote:
| "all wrong" in this case was ambiguous. I interpreted it as
| meaning "all members of leadership are wrong about
| something" not that "leadership is wrong about all things".
|
| But I also disagree with their argument simply because
| Musk's actions are very public and represent the employees
| who stand behind him. It would be one thing if these were
| internal decisions that employees disagreed with, but
| that's not the situation. Musk is a leader, and the people
| who choose to stand behind him rely on him to represent
| them well. If they feel he is not doing his job, they are
| well within their rights to voice their concerns to him. If
| he reacts like a baby-man who can't take criticism, then
| the workers should be ready to take their skills elsewhere.
| maybelsyrup wrote:
| > hierarchy doesn't exist arbitrarily
|
| Yes, it does.
| enriquto wrote:
| > At your place of work, circulate a document criticizing
| leadership and how they're all wrong. Make sure to publicize
| this loudly to people outside the organization. See what
| happens.
|
| Ha! We do that all time at the university and nobody cares.
| At all. Nothing happens. Ever. It is somewhat infuriating, to
| be honest!
|
| Are you saying that academia is "not the real world" ?
| arandomhuman wrote:
| > Are you saying that academia is "not the real world" ?
|
| If you are attempting to compare liberties those in
| academia have to corporate employees e.g. most people who
| are employed, no its not like the "real world".
| rayiner wrote:
| > Are you saying that academia is "not the real world" ?
|
| Universities are a unique creature where ideas and debate
| are the whole point, "more so than getting things done."
| That's also part of the "real world" in some sense, but it
| isn't the world nearly all of us reside in. I would
| recommend any organization that wants to be successful
| outside of that unique context to not emulate the model of
| universities. That includes non profits and NGOs. Hierarchy
| exists almost universally in human organizations. That's
| not an accident--it's necessary for groups of humans
| working together to be effective.
| j-bos wrote:
| Perhaps. Would you say working in academia is mo different
| from working in industry?
| bko wrote:
| People have been fired for a lot less at universities.
| Often time its not even attacking the organization or
| people, just for saying the wrong thing about a political
| issue.
| noasaservice wrote:
| Academia follows some really strange rules, including
| things like tenure regarding academic freedom and speech.
| They also hire copious amounts of teacher assistants at
| poverty wages called "stipends", which also seem to bypass
| minimum wage laws.
|
| Even though they too act like businesses, because of
| 500-year precedents, wouldn't be a fair comparison.
| SturgeonsLaw wrote:
| > Are you saying that academia is "not the real world" ?
|
| Saying it's "not the real world" is unfairly denigrating,
| but people have made the argument that academia is it's own
| bubble with different rules to the world of private
| enterprise. Challenging existing ideas is a core tenet of
| higher education, but that can cause blowback in the
| private sphere. The existence of tenure, and sidelining of
| the profit motive (not quite elimination) also changes
| things.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| I'd argue that a university is a very different type of
| organization than a company like SpaceX, with vastly
| different expectations on employee behavior.
| IncRnd wrote:
| The environment in academia is absolutely not the same as a
| corporate environment.
| namecheapTA wrote:
| Implying that academia is anything like the real world that
| 99% of people exist in is something only an academic would
| be foolish enough to imply.
| enriquto wrote:
| There's surely two orders of magnitude more people
| working in academia than in rocket science. Does your
| argument prove, then, that SpaceX is not the real world,
| either?
|
| We are all in the same world; this whole "you are not
| real enough" argument is ridiculous, and doesn't really
| mean anything.
| jimbob21 wrote:
| I'm not the person you're responding to, but yes I would
| argue academia is not the real world i.e. private sector
| companies. Its academia. There are a whole different set of
| rules because it is not a privately run for-profit company.
| And nothing ever happens specifically because that's
| absolutely par for the course in academia. There's a whole
| different culture there.
| Bhilai wrote:
| Do internal survey results and their "anonymous" verbatim
| count?
|
| I have seen plenty of examples of scathing verbatim against
| leaders at several different companies. Not to mention poor
| and declining scores on questions like "I trust my leadership
| blah blah" year after year on internal employee surveys. Were
| those people fired, no!
| memish wrote:
| SpaceX is the most ambitious company on Earth, working toward
| the goal of making humans a multi-planetary species.
|
| Their orders are to get to Mars.
|
| Employees that are bikeshedding, sowing internal discord,
| engaging in mutiny, are not working toward the goal and in fact
| actively hindering it. That's all the reason needed to prune
| them from the otherwise focused and ambitious team.
| cratermoon wrote:
| But Elon's hyperbolic tweets and offensive behavior don't
| actively hinder getting to Mars? I mean, he's the guy running
| the company, you'd think what he says and does would have a
| lot more influence over the success or failure of the
| company's goals.
| memish wrote:
| Whether they are offensive is a personal opinion and it's
| fully your choice whether to take offense.
|
| Personally I don't. I also don't take offense at anything
| Chris Rock or Ricky Gervais says. Others do take offense to
| what they say. That's their choice, their opinion, and not
| one that can or should be enforced on others.
| tzmudzin wrote:
| To a degree only. Some speech is generally considered
| offensive.
| cratermoon wrote:
| I distinguished his hyperbolic tweeting and other public
| statements from his offensive _behavior_ , such as his
| well-documented[1] misogyny and cruelty.
|
| 1 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/elon-musk-
| twitter-te...
| memish wrote:
| What they cite is not an example of misogyny. The pedo
| guy thing is beyond the pale, but he acknowledged that it
| was wrong and a mistake. What more do you want? The rest
| of their examples, who cares. It's tame for Twitter
| standards. The article's author sounds like a church lady
| scold who has too much time on their hands.
| mthoms wrote:
| What those comedians say has zero effect on _your_
| career. Like it or not, Musk _represents_ his employees.
| His childish babbling is actively hurting the reputation
| of the company these people work for. Thus, it is
| affecting their careers.
|
| I'm not saying what they did is right or wrong but your
| outright dismissal of their (valid IMHO) concerns is
| missing lots of nuance.
| shakes_mcjunkie wrote:
| But the point is his behavior causes problems and you're
| implying it's okay for him to act that way but anyone
| else to call him out is a problem. That doesn't foster
| good workplace values.
| andrepd wrote:
| amusedcyclist wrote:
| chucksmash wrote:
| Maybe, maybe not, but this level of vitriol is unmerited
| and makes HN worse.
| nr2x wrote:
| Yes, Elon should have his twitter taken away for distracting
| from the mission. 100% agree.
| memish wrote:
| You could make the argument his twitter use is distracting
| from the mission and I agree in part. I think it's hard to
| say whether it's a net negative or positive for SpaceX and
| Tesla, because a lot of what he posts is about those
| companies. It might be better if he just stuck to that.
| nr2x wrote:
| First off, I don't think the average twitter user is in
| the market for a rocket so I don't see the point. Second,
| the target demographic of Tesla is not people who are all
| in on voting Republican, they are a lot more likely to be
| affluent eco conscious types, so Elon shitposting about
| politics is definitely not great for the brand.
| shakes_mcjunkie wrote:
| Musk himself isn't "bikeshedding" and "sowing internal
| discord" with his behavior? I've worked at companies before,
| and if you've ever worked at a company you'd know garbage
| flows down from the top. His behavior as an executive affects
| everyone and the company's goals.
| [deleted]
| JackFr wrote:
| tan*ta*mount /'tan(t)@,mount/ equivalent in seriousness to;
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| I'm confused, are you saying I used the term incorrectly?
| Because the definition you provided seems to fit the context
| in which I used the term.
| nr2x wrote:
| Exactly, if they didn't care they'd leave, instead they risked
| a lot in an effort to save the company from its teenager CEO.
| anothernewdude wrote:
| > In an email, Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX's president, said the
| letter had made other employees "feel uncomfortable, intimidated
| and bullied."
|
| I don't think that was the letter, I think that was the firing.
| Gatsky wrote:
| Anecdotally companies run by obvious assholes (eg Ellison and
| Oracle) or that engage in obviously bad behaviour (eg Big
| Tobacco) don't have these problems. I guess their reputations
| filter out the type of employee who would do what was done at
| SpaceX.
| wewtyflakes wrote:
| ITT: A lot of temporarily embarrassed billionaires.
| mysore wrote:
| seems kinda hypocritical. would be scared to go to mars with this
| guy.
| sam_goody wrote:
| I don't see why it is hypocritical.
|
| I am pro free speech, but would never dream of using company
| resources to try to publicly embarrass my CEO. And certainly
| not when the issue at hand is not related to company
| performance.
|
| > would be scared to go to mars with this guy.
|
| Anyone who is against Musk will add this to their litany of
| complaints. Anyone who loves him will be baffled why this is a
| story ;)
|
| As an aside, even negative publicity is publicity, and I
| imagine that this whole Twitter deal will lose Elon gobs of
| cash, but make his other companies more valuable. "Distancing
| themselves from Elon Musk", from a purely capitalist
| perspective, sounds like a bad bet.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| He'll be dead before then
| sbf501 wrote:
| I know most of HN wasn't even born when this happened, but from
| 1990 onwards, Jerry Sanders III, the then-CEO (& founder) of AMD
| created a similar schism in his company. A the time he was
| presiding over an industry that was seen as disrupter-AMD taking
| on villain-Intel.
|
| Sanders always had a giant ego and a lust of showing off and
| thumping his chest. We all took this with an eyeroll, well, some
| of us did. At one point it was too much, had a bunch of internal
| promotional posters and flyers made depicting himself as a buff
| Indian Jones whipping Intel, while his playboy-bunny wife looked
| on longingly at her hero.
|
| Many AMD employees literally _saw_ him as a muscled hero savior
| and themselves as victims, like Rambo-Trump photoshops of today,
| or the sycophantic adulation of Musk worshipers. This lead to
| people picking sides: Sanders had so distracted his employees
| with his mouth and antics by creating a schism where some people
| were like "knock off the rich-guy BS", while others were like,
| "Go get 'em!". It created a lot of internal conflict. I was only
| there for a while, but it was amazing how you couldn't do your
| job without some image of Sanders as hero being shoved in your
| face by some fan employee.
|
| I can relate to the SpaceX employees, having a mercurial asshat
| for a boss is tedious, even if the pay is great. But AMD was
| floundering technologically at that time, and it wasn't until
| Sanders FINALLY stepped down that AMD really took Intel to task:
| beating them to 1 GHz and 64-bit processing. I can only imagine
| the brain-drain due to his asshole behavior was the problem, but
| that's just my $0.01.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > In an email, Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX's president, said the
| letter had made other employees "feel uncomfortable, intimidated
| and bullied."
|
| Whatever the situation, this is just brazen propaganda
| techniques. How shameful and obvious. I'm a little surprised it
| hasn't been called out in this discussion.
| WalterBright wrote:
| In my younger and stupider days, I made some ill considered
| criticisms of my boss. I was lucky I wasn't fired on the spot.
| chasd00 wrote:
| Twitter is the worst thing to happen to Musk. The social media
| addiction knows no class/age/wealth/religious/creed boundary.
| It's like social cancer that slowly destroys your relationship to
| society.
|
| Musk has done great things but these days I think he's at his
| lowest point.
|
| /I've said this about three times now in threads like these.
| fullshark wrote:
| He's the same old Elon, the pedo guy tweet and taking Tesla
| private at $420 are just as embarrassing if not more so , he's
| just on the other side of the culture war divide now (I.e the
| Republican side) so he's now considered shameful in many parts.
| evan_ wrote:
| weird comment, many many people considered "pedo guy" and
| everything else to be shameful at the time
| fullshark wrote:
| Op and others are claiming he's at his lowest point now in
| terms of shameful behavior presumably.
| evan_ wrote:
| the phrase "keep digging that hole" comes to mind.
| fullshark wrote:
| Fair he's always been polarizing, but the size of the
| naysayers (and fanboys) seems to have grown quite a bit
| recently and I think it comes down to politics.
| plokiju wrote:
| He's also become the richest man in the world over the
| last few years (at least publicly known wealth). That
| tends to bring you a lot of attention. His politics isn't
| the only thing that changed
| evan_ wrote:
| Do you think it's out-of-bounds to criticize someone
| based on their publicly-stated political views?
| riazrizvi wrote:
| Worst thing? His influencing is central to his success.
|
| Unfortunately for civil discourse, it's more effective to
| create controversial messaging that resonates with your
| followers, than sanitized messaging that is generally
| inoffensive. Controversial messaging makes your supporters
| increasingly loyal and attentive, as the noise from vocal
| 'haters' just keeps feeding your base. It's perverse, it's
| toxic, it's exhausting but it works.
|
| Look at the price earnings ratio of Tesla. What else is it but
| the world's largest meme stock? His messaging vibes very
| strongly with Wall Street Journal readers and the Reddit
| trading community.
| anothernewdude wrote:
| A company that brooks no criticism is no different from a
| Regime that does the same. It had better be involved in basic
| extractive activity, because more complicated ventures tend
| not to work if the become brittle like this.
|
| What does SpaceX do again? Uh Oh.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > Unfortunately for civil discourse, it's more effective to
| create controversial messaging that resonates with your
| followers, than sanitized messaging that is generally
| inoffensive.
|
| Those aren't the options. You can - and many do, as a matter
| of course - create effective, powerful messaging that is not
| 'sanitized' or offensive. You can see it all the time on HN.
| comrh wrote:
| This is such an astute and concise description of one of the
| reasons we're currently living in this bizarro world. It can
| be applied across American culture, to both sides of the
| political divide, and even brands are beginning to do this.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Tesla and SpaceX are not successful because of Twitter.
| res0nat0r wrote:
| Eh, Warren Buffett has been doing just fine for decades now
| and I don't believe has ever done any shitposting on Twitter.
| Sebguer wrote:
| Where did OP say this was the only path to success? Warren
| Buffett took the more traditional one of just being related
| to influential and powerful people.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| Buffett has worked the media/pr angles magically. He
| interviews just frequently enough. He has his homespun
| wisdom persona. His letters to shareholders are marketing
| gold.
|
| His followers show up to the annual meeting like a pack
| of cult members.
|
| None of this is to say he's a bad guy, he seems like a
| good guy. But he's a marketing genius too. No vitriol
| spewing required.
| davesque wrote:
| That's a false dichotomy. In reality, there are more options
| than just "be boring" or "be sensational." Those other
| options just aren't in fashion right now.
| qsdf38100 wrote:
| So in practice those aren't really options if you have to
| compete with what is in fashion currently.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > Worst thing? His influencing is central to his success.
|
| Musk has been more unhinged in his online activities than
| ever in the past six months or so, coinciding with a 45%
| slide in TSLA share price. Hypothesizing that his social
| media addiction is central to his 'success' would be pretty
| easy to test by simply comparing TSLA's performance to
| another auto manufacturer, e.g. Ford or GM. Doing that, TSLA
| is not showing any advantage - all three have suffered about
| the same amount of share price decrease.
|
| So just looking at the numbers, it's clear Musk could just
| focus entirely on productive work, skip the 'influencing' and
| wanton reputational damage to the businesses he manages, and
| it wouldn't make a bit of difference. TSLA and the others
| would arguably be in the same place if the average person had
| no idea who Elon Musk was.
| rland wrote:
| Tesla wouldn't have been capitalized in the first place
| without Musk (and, by extension) without Musk's twitter.
|
| If anything, Musk should focus entirely on the influencing
| and stop making decisions about product (see [1]) -- that
| is what he is good at!
|
| [1] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15347233/musk-
| attributes-...
| riazrizvi wrote:
| Not according to BusinessInsider [1] that notes that he
| lashes out in the media to cover particularly bad moments
| for Tesla. We saw this tactic being used over and over
| again during the previous Presidency. It works so well
| because there is only so much room 'above the fold'. So as
| long as you fill it with a sensational nothingburger, then
| damage is controlled.
|
| [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-lashing-out-
| recess...
| onelovetwo wrote:
| He's at his lowest point in the eyes of the media (which is how
| most of us see the world) but hes actually at the highest point
| in his career and achievements.
|
| Tesla is about to explode in production with their "biggest
| building in the world factory" in texas, berlin and china.
|
| SpaceX is about to achieve the holy grail of the space industry
| (an affordable and reusable rocket) not to mention Starlink.
| juve1996 wrote:
| Musk has many achievements, that's why it's so frustrating to
| see him act this way.
|
| There are plenty of billionaires with unpopular politics.
| Only a few are in the news. That is by choice.
| enumjorge wrote:
| > in the eyes of the media
|
| Everyone can see his tweets, public statements and
| interviews. Musk is doing a great job embarrassing himself
| without the help of "the media".
| onelovetwo wrote:
| and a lot think hes the only person with common sense in
| the tech/business world.
|
| I'd like to know though, what statement do you think is
| "embarrassing"?
| huhwat wrote:
| Tesla cars are garbage, speaking as a Tesla owner. They demo
| nicely, but they are put together poorly. The minute there's
| any meaningful competition they'll crumble.
|
| Combined with the risks from their autopilot system and their
| mistreatment of workers and their CEO being a right wing
| edgelord? There's plenty of reasons to think Tesla might not
| be on a good path.
| yreg wrote:
| >they are put together poorly
|
| This depends a lot on the factory / year of production.
| E.g. the 2021/2022 from Giga Shanghai have great quality.
| Of course, consistency is the key, Tesla has to achieve it
| across all of the factories.
|
| And I have no idea what 'risks' are you talking about
| regarding autopilot.
| sib wrote:
| Tesla cars are _not_ garbage, speaking as an owner - we
| currently have both our 2nd [2018 Model 3] and 3rd [2022
| Model Y] acquired-new Tesla vehicles.
|
| Other than tire rotation, cabin air filter change, and
| wiper fluid refill, our cars have required no maintenance.
|
| But arguing from anecdote doesn't really help.
| dntrkv wrote:
| Tesla has been topping the list in terms of buyer
| satisfaction for many years now. They have their issues,
| but people love them.
| huhwat wrote:
| They did top the lists, but they've dropped off as owners
| deal with the reality of owning them.
|
| An electric car, competently built, will wow most folks.
| Remember that the satisfaction numbers are comparing
| apples to oranges, given the limited competition Tesla
| has at the moment.
| dntrkv wrote:
| https://www.consumerreports.org/car-reliability-owner-
| satisf...
|
| https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/global-happy-
| motorist-in...
|
| They're still at the top.
| tzs wrote:
| They've also been topping the lists of unreliability.
|
| Many people like the things Tesla does well enough to not
| be bothered by the things it does poorly so are
| satisfied.
|
| Tesla seems to have the best EV drivetrain in the
| business (I'm counting the battery as part of the
| drivetrain) and the best charging network, but seem to be
| worse in most other aspects.
|
| My guess is that the other car companies will catch up on
| EV drivetrains faster than Tesla can catch up on the rest
| of a car.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| Teslas have been exploding for several years now.
| yokoprime wrote:
| And this is what i fail to understand. He has kept his nose
| clean, apart from some minor incidents ("pedo" tweet comes to
| mind). How does he have the time and why does he bother to
| spend his time making noise on Twitter. He should focus on
| the final push to get both of his major companies to the next
| level. It's almost as if he's gotten bored and wants to move
| on, but has to keep up the appearance of being involved in
| day-to-day managment of these companies
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Tesla has always been "about to explode" in one way or
| another. When will people realize that manufacturing
| businesses, when they are limited by property and equipment,
| are slow-burning?
|
| Also, "reusable" doesn't matter as much as "affordable" for
| rockets. I am waiting for one of the smaller companies with a
| dirt cheap rocket to eat SpaceX's lunch.
| adolph wrote:
| The significant component of affordability for rockets is
| the cost of mass to orbit. Think airline model not private
| aviation.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| they are growing 50% y/o/y. that is explosive growth.
| Juicyy wrote:
| Their stock is down 40% YTD that is not explosive growth.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| That is very good, but roughly in line with other
| comparable companies. It's not "worth more than the rest
| of the car industry" explosive
| joenathanone wrote:
| Being reusable is the only way to make an affordable
| rocket.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| That's actually not true. For example, the Russian Soyuz
| is expected to still have lower cost per kg to LEO than
| the Falcon rockets from SpaceX. Fuel is the vast majority
| of the cost of a rocket launch.
| asadotzler wrote:
| That's completely wrong. Fuel is a tiny fraction of a
| rocket launch. At best, SpaceX's Falcon 9 costs $15
| million to refurbish and re-launch (according to Musk).
| About $200,000 of that is fuel. That works out to 1.3% of
| costs which is far from "the vast majority."
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| $200,000 is the cost of the atoms in the fuel. Most of
| the rest of the $15 million is the cost to get those
| atoms to the right temperature and pressure when they are
| stored at a different temperature and pressure, transport
| those atoms, and put them in the shell. Not to mention
| the cost of cleaning and coating the fuel tanks to make
| sure that they are inert and won't react to the fuel
| (this has to be done on non-reusable rockets too).
|
| This is the typical sleight-of-hand that comes at Musk
| companies. The atoms in the fuel are cheap, but the
| process of turning those atoms into usable fuel is very
| expensive. This is the case for almost all rockets.
|
| The Soyuz is partly cheap to launch because it doesn't
| need a lot of special fuel handling.
| joenathanone wrote:
| > is the cost of the atoms in the fuel.
|
| Are you being obtuse on purpose? The atoms of the fuel,
| really? Where can I buy fuel by the atom?
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| You can buy the atoms from Sigma Aldrich or any other
| chemical supplier. You have to buy a lot of atoms, and
| you have to buy them by the liter.
|
| If you want rocket fuel from those chemicals, you are
| going to have to pressurize them and cool them or warm
| them, and you need a lot of energy and equipment to do
| it. That is the expensive part. Often, rocket fuels are
| heavily pressurized orsupercooled, and supercooling a gas
| is expensive. That allows you to store more energy in a
| given volume.
| jimrandomh wrote:
| Rather than digging in after your initial mistake, it'd
| be better to google it. This is a no-stakes random
| internet argument, so you've gotten the lesson cheap; but
| if you repeat the same mistake elsewhere you could do
| yourself a lot of harm.
| saberience wrote:
| err, are you forgetting the cost to literally build a
| rocket? Or are you arguing somehow that fuel costs more
| than building the first stage of a rocket?
|
| The idea somehow that Soyuz is cheaper than Falcon-9 is
| laughable.
| thraway11 wrote:
| Looks like SpaceX should've kept those employees after
| all. Apparently they work for free!
| smaryjerry wrote:
| On the contrary, I think Musks use of interviews and twitter
| has only helped him and his companies every step of the way. If
| you have been following him you have seen that he recently
| announced that he would be voting republican for the first time
| ever due to the change in the party stances of democrats and to
| expect backlash from announcing so. It funny that we are seeing
| exactly that backlash. Not two weeks ago people were also
| complaining that Musk wanted to reduce the work force by 10 %
| and have people work from the office, although those may have
| been separate things, I believe the 10% reduction was a leaked
| e-mail. The backlash there also seemed unusual, and I only
| attribute it to his political stance, as his company has lost
| around 50% of its value on the stock market, along with most of
| the other tech related stocks and it was almost as if he
| correctly predicted the further decline of the market in
| general we have seen lately. His responses to that seemed
| incredibly reasonable, a reduction in workforce and costs and
| measure to improve productivity. And yet as I said the response
| was not well taken in the media or online, it seems in my
| opinion to have started once people were made aware of his
| political stance. A stance which he says has always been
| consistent whether voting democrat or republican, it's just
| that the parties have shifted in certain ideologies a I think
| we can all remember when democrats were the free speech party
| and now that opposite appears to be true.
| therealdrag0 wrote:
| BS. There's a been a long history of criticizing Musk. His
| political stance is nothing new.
| mint2 wrote:
| He's teetering on the edge of being Howard Hughes 2.0
| misiti3780 wrote:
| lol - no he is not. Howard Hughes was mentally ill, didnt
| leave his house or shower (was a germaphobe), was super
| secretive (didnt meet people in person for years), never
| built anything important (although had a shitload of
| failures, like the wooden airplane) and inherited a lot of
| his initial money and revenue streams.
|
| Musk is none of those things.
| fwip wrote:
| > inherited a lot of his initial money
|
| Elon Musk is literally the child of an apartheid emerald
| mine owner.
| saberience wrote:
| Citation please. I've seen no actual concrete evidence
| that Elon inherited any significant sum of money from an
| "emerald mine." This seems to be one of those internet
| myths which lives on in forums despite no credible
| evidence.
| status200 wrote:
| What a lazy argument... Elon's father is a fairly sketchy
| individual, and his wealth had an obvious boost to Elon's
| life and upbringing.
|
| "After Maye and Errol divorced in 1980, Elon mostly lived
| with his father, who says he owned thoroughbred horses, a
| yacht, several houses and a Cessna"[0]
|
| "Errol returned to South Africa with a half-share in a
| Zambian emerald mine, which would help to fund his
| family's lavish lifestyle of yachts, skiing holidays, and
| expensive computers." [2]
|
| [0] https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/04/10/2014-rocket-
| man-the-o...
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/world/africa/elon-
| musk-so...
|
| [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20211122143742/https://ww
| w.busin...
| panick21_ wrote:
| Nobody denies that Musk family was wealth. They were
| wealthy because his father was a successful engineer.
|
| And at one point his father made a small investment in a
| mine. And even that is grounded on shaky evidence.
|
| This mine investment might have been profitable (we dont
| know) but the idea that his family had some waste emrald
| mines is nonsense and that investment certainly didnt
| make the family rich.
|
| And given their bad relationship, Elon lost support from
| his father when he came to US/Canada.
| mlindner wrote:
| Zambia didn't have apartheid.
| fwip wrote:
| His dad is still alive, he hasn't "inherited" it yet.
| mlindner wrote:
| No he isn't. His father was an engineer. Not a major mine
| owner.
| mesofile wrote:
| > Howard Hughes was mentally ill
|
| Not his entire career, his later decline became famous due
| to the scope of wealth and influence that allowed him to
| indulge in some truly eccentric behavior, but he didn't
| build said wealth & influence peeing in jars.
|
| > never built anything important (although had a shitload
| of failures, like the wooden airplane)
|
| Never built anything? How about Las Vegas? Or the several
| companies he founded and ran successfully across wildly
| divergent fields? The man designed, built and flew an
| aircraft that broke world speed records at the time.
|
| > inherited a lot of his initial money and revenue streams
|
| Seriously? Do you not know Musk's family background?
|
| Actually the more I think about it the more I think mint2's
| comparison was apt, Musk really is a Hughes-like figure,
| quite brilliant in ways, but with a powerful thirst for
| publicity and corresponding need to control his image. I
| could see his paranoid tendencies tending to dominate in
| the years to come, especially if his halo fully
| disintegrates
| mlindner wrote:
| > Seriously? Do you not know Musk's family background?
|
| Musk hasn't inherited hardly any money at all (a couple
| thousand when he left SA and a bit more later when he
| started his first company). I think you're the one who
| doesn't know Musk's background.
| status200 wrote:
| Shocking lack of research on your part. His mother was a
| supermodel and his father was/is a fairly sketchy
| businessman. Despite knowing his father had a dark side,
| he still chose to be with him after their parents
| divorce, signaling where his true emotions lay:
|
| "After Maye and Errol divorced in 1980, Elon mostly lived
| with his father, who says he owned thoroughbred horses, a
| yacht, several houses and a Cessna."[0]
|
| He has had a charmed existence his entire life.
|
| [0] https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/04/10/2014-rocket-
| man-the-o...
| acover wrote:
| How much did musk inherit? All I know is from the Ashley
| Vance book - he started zip2 in poverty then rolled that
| into x.com.
| [deleted]
| mlindner wrote:
| A couple thousand when he left South Africa for Canada as
| a teenager. And then about $20,000 (10% of a $200,000
| seed round) when starting Zip2. That's the extent of
| money given to him by his parents that wasn't spent for
| him during when he was being reared as a child.
| meatsauce wrote:
| How do you inherit money from a dead father who is still
| alive?
|
| What a brain-buster!
| panick21_ wrote:
| Musk father was a pretty successful engineer. The twitter
| claim that his family is some amazing african slave
| owning dimond royalty is delusional.
|
| Musk far more helpful gift was the fact that his mother
| was Canadian.
|
| His father didnt want him to be in the Canada/US and
| didnt pay for most of it.
|
| Musk certainly has no inhereted wealth, his father is
| alive.
| meatsauce wrote:
| Too much TV, friend.
| mint2 wrote:
| Musk tweets accuses random people of being pedophiles on
| Twitter and is legally not supposed to tweet anymore about
| certain topics without getting prior approval. He also
| exhibits paranoia and often a lack of being grounded in
| reality.
|
| I didn't say he is Howard 2.0 Hugh's, I said he's teetering
| on the edge of it. If in a few years he goes full Hughes
| would anyone actually be surprised?
| rednerrus wrote:
| He takes a shit ton of stimulants. It should come as no
| surprise that he's behaving erratically.
| achenet wrote:
| I read somewhere that his (now ex) girlfriend Grimes once
| chewed him out for going on twitter whilst tripping on
| acid.
| rednerrus wrote:
| Fame is the worst drug.
| unboxingelf wrote:
| Well put. His accomplishments are long and impressive but it
| seems social media has distracted, if not corrupted his line of
| sight.
| meatsauce wrote:
| Or, maybe, and hear me out; you just don't like what he has
| to say, which in the real world, means absolutely nothing to
| 99.999% of the planet.
| testbjjl wrote:
| > you just don't like what he has to say, which in the real
| world, means absolutely nothing to 99.999% of the planet.
|
| Yes, but could mean a lot to the talent pool discussed in
| the open letter, in the face of growing competition to
| SpaceX and Tesla, which ultimately will impact the product,
| revenues and value. Seems shortsighted or almost as if he's
| done working on hard problems.
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| > His accomplishments are long and impressive
|
| What are Elon Musks accomplishments? His ability to get
| financing? Hiring the right people to push the success of
| SpaceX and Tesla? His ability to inflate the stock price of
| his company (above that of a historic bull market).
|
| This isn't a cynical comment, I'm honestly trying to
| understand his actual accomplishments other then the
| ancillary praise one gets in America just for getting
| rich(er).
| ayewo wrote:
| SpaceX was founded _after_ Blue Origin owned by Jeff Bezos
| and today, they are ahead of them in terms both technology
| and volume of launches they handle.
|
| Fisker Automotive and Better Place are two electric car
| startups that were founded _after_ Tesla that you 've
| probably not heard of, even though between them, they
| raised close to a billion dollars.
|
| The reason why he gets so much praise is because he tends
| to do quite well--better than other smart folks that are
| similarly resourced (i.e. access to VC capital)--in
| industries notorious for high rates of failure or where it
| is hard to break even.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisker_Automotive
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place_(company)
| Qub3d wrote:
| > Hiring the right people to push the success of SpaceX and
| Tesla?
|
| Probably this. Its not easy to do.
|
| I think there is also something to be said about the
| singularity of vision Musk brought to these companies. Its
| easy to dismiss (and I haven't been a fan of him much since
| the whole Thailand incident) but its one of those annoying
| aspects that eludes the desire of developers' (i.e. the
| average reader of this site) desire to quantify everything.
|
| It makes me think of the story of Steve Jobs after his
| return to Apple, where he called a meeting of team leads,
| made a quadrant on a white board with the edges labeled
| "desktop" and "portable" on the vertical, "consumer" and
| "professional" on the horizontal, and demanded the company
| only produce 1 product to fill each of the four squares,
| eliminating the rest.
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| > Hiring the right people to push the success of SpaceX
| and Tesla?
|
| I'm obviously not a fan but I agree he likely deserves a
| lot of credit for this. But at the same time, don't a lot
| of people participate in hiring decisions throughout a
| company? The board? Other executives?
|
| It irks me that Musk should get all the credit of what is
| undeniably a team effort.
| thraway11 wrote:
| Today, yes probably a lot of people participate in hiring
| decisions. But in 2002, not so much.
|
| If you're actually curious there is a good book on SpaceX
| early days.
|
| Liftoff: Elon Musk and the Desperate Early Days That
| Launched SpaceX
| https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/53402132-liftoff
|
| If you read the book I think you'll agree, desperate is
| the correct word in the title of that book and Elon did
| plenty.
|
| I still can't believe they're landing rockets backwards.
| When I took control systems it was the canonical example
| of an unstable system. Guess those books need updating.
| :)
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >What are Elon Musks accomplishments? His ability to get
| financing? Hiring the right people to push the success of
| SpaceX and Tesla? His ability to inflate the stock price of
| his company (above that of a historic bull market).
|
| The word we use to describe people-managing at this high
| level is "leadership".
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Musk is a marketing genius. Creating a cult of personality
| around your companies is not at all an easy thing to do.
| AceJohnny2 wrote:
| > _it seems social media has distracted, if not corrupted his
| line of sight_
|
| Social media is the effect, not cause, of his bad behavior.
|
| He was known to be an impulsive bully long before he ranted
| on Twitter.
| meatsauce wrote:
| He's a hard boss for sure. That's why he is successful. He
| doesn't take your shit and pushes you to do your job at its
| maximum potential. Of course, you don't need to work there,
| McDonalds' is always hiring and I hear they will be nice to
| you.
| whymauri wrote:
| Literally digital opium.
|
| I say as I type into a seperate social network. It's hard to
| escape, honestly...
| dont__panic wrote:
| Lots of civilizations have struggled with drug problems in
| the past. The Americas, China, India all had lots of
| problems with opium addictions during colonial times, IIRC.
| And of course the USA post-WWII has dealt with a slew of
| drug problems, from cocaine heroin to meth. How have past
| civilizations broken free from the yoke of drug addiction?
| Maybe we can take some cues from the past.
| iamcurious wrote:
| Seeing how smoking cigarettes went from being popular to
| being rare in a lots of places I would say:
|
| 1 - make it uncool (no more james bond smoking in
| cinemas, packaging that reminds of diseases)
|
| 2 - make it expensive (tax the hell out of it)
|
| 3 - make it a hassle (no smoking in closed spaces,
| airplanes, universities etc)
|
| The thing is, both weed and social networks became
| popular right about when smoking stopped being popular.
| So maybe there is an extra step, a perverse one:
|
| 4 - provide a substitute addiction.
| meatsauce wrote:
| Sin tax is fascism. I don't need you squeezing me because
| you THINK you know what's best for me.
|
| It is a slippery slope.
|
| What's next?
|
| No more cup cakes because sugar gives you diabetes?
|
| How about no more hip hop music because it largely
| celebrates violence and influences kids to join violent
| gangs?
|
| No more cars because AOC might whine with another 24
| tweet wall of bar-stool wisdom?
| generj wrote:
| If it is a slippery slope, why have sin taxes have been
| limited to nicotine and alcohol despite existing for
| literally centuries?
|
| Internalizing externalities is one of the primary
| functions of government. I'm incredibly happy I rarely
| have to smell cigarette smoke.
| assttoasstmgr wrote:
| Many countries and some (mostly left-run) cities in the
| US have implemented a sugary drink tax:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax
| achenet wrote:
| I like to think that for step 4, you can provide a
| healthy substitute.
|
| Personally, the thing that got me to quit smoking weed
| was getting really into brazilian jiu-jitsu.
|
| It may be possible to generalize this.
|
| Besides that, I really like your post, the 1st 3 points
| are solid. ^_^
| che_shirecat wrote:
| that's the thing, they don't break free without some
| exogenous factor that forces a total reckoning. e.g.
| China with opium, getting humiliated by western powers in
| the opium wars. this sort of thing always marks the end
| of a declining empire. even after the opium wars, it took
| a century before resurgence. stuff like trafficking drugs
| in China now are punishable by death, they've learned
| their lesson for sure.
| tlogan wrote:
| It seems that what is happening here is that "woke" people (ultra
| left) working at spaceX and Tesla are finally realizing that Elon
| Musk is actually not part of the "woke" (ultra-left) movement but
| more like good old Republican.
|
| So they are angry and they want to explain that to others. On the
| other hand, some people know that there is no "woke" white rich
| guy.
| blitzar wrote:
| Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, recently described himself as
| a "free speech absolutist."
| walkhour wrote:
| The fact that this comment is upvoted and is taken as a gotcha
| argument or something with any validity when it requires five
| seconds to realize it's easily refutable is not a good show for
| HN
| blitzar wrote:
| Go for it, give it your finest five seconds.
| walkhour wrote:
| There's no contradiction between desiring free speech in
| the public sphere - which is what Musk claims he wants -
| and not wanting to associate yourself with people who
| support certain speech, which is what Musk has done.
|
| The comment I replied to before is a non sequitur, this
| doesn't mean what Musk is doing is right, simply that
| mindlessly upvoting a Trump-rally-tier argument is not
| conducive to anything good.
|
| Eventually HN will become reddit and we'll just upvote "our
| side", regardless of whether the argument has merit.
| vkou wrote:
| Free speech absolutists are rarely consistent about absolutism
| within their own fiefdoms.
|
| As far as I can tell, the only intellectual consistency within
| that movement is that the people pushing it want to be allowed
| to say anything they want anywhere they want, without any
| consequences.
| concordDance wrote:
| This presumably means he's unhappy with regulation of speech in
| the "public square". Company internal coms may fall in a
| different category for him.
| smcl wrote:
| Doesn't sound very "absolutist" then
| ralfd wrote:
| .
| qayxc wrote:
| That's not a left or right issue - it's simply a fact of
| life.
|
| Example: you are free to verbally shit all over your boss and
| company in public; just don't expect to work there for much
| longer.
|
| Another example: you are free to call the 1.93m thug who
| bumped into you a blind idiot, just don't expect to face no
| physical consequences for exercising your right to give him a
| piece of your mind.
|
| It's funny how some people try and make this a political
| issue when it's really not and never has been.
| [deleted]
| mola wrote:
| So being banned off Twitter is a consequence for your free
| speech, right?
| qayxc wrote:
| If a company decides you violated their ToS and
| consequently doesn't want you on their platform anymore -
| then yes. They didn't involve the government to take away
| your civil rights or punish you and you are free to join
| a different platform.
|
| It's like being banned from the regulars' table for
| constantly being a nuisance and then complaining to the
| bartender that your former buddies don't want you at
| their table anymore.
| checker wrote:
| The audience can respond any way they like without infringing
| on the speaker's rights or breaking any laws. It's not a
| right to work at SpaceX and it's not illegal to fire
| employees with cause.
| blitzar wrote:
| It's not a right to have a twitter account and it's not
| illegal to ban a user with or without cause.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| There is no contradiction. Twitter (outward facing) has some of
| the attributes of public fora.
|
| His speech comments were always about public discourse. Not
| private organizational. In Twitter feed we are all equal. In
| Twitter internal there is hierarchy.
| blitzar wrote:
| So what you are saying is that they should have posted this
| on twitter - then it would have been protected free speech...
| pkt_nspktr wrote:
| Not GP, but since you need a bit more context: if someone
| posted something critical of one's employer on Twitter,
| Facebook, or used public comment time at city hall, one
| should expect to no longer be employed. Whatever critical
| was posted _is protected free speech_ in that the
| government (local, state, or national) could not punish the
| speaker. However, the speaker should expect that future
| employers would be hesitant to hire someone who airs a
| company 's dirty laundry in public.
|
| On the other hand, if someone posted something critical of
| a government policy (pick your poison), that is also
| protected free speech, in the United States. In this case,
| retribution from an employer, the (public) platform where
| it was posted, and the government should all be prohibited.
| The speaker should expect that future employers not care
| about policy preferences, only that the speaker can perform
| the job for which they are hired.
| blitzar wrote:
| So what you are saying is that the original poll ...
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1507259709224632344
|
| >Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy.
|
| >Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this
| principle?
|
| 70% of people, including Musk and the consequences
| promised are all just plain wrong.
|
| Clearly the _the government (local, state, or national)
| is not punishing the speaker_ of any tweets, never has
| done, doesnt have any intention to etc - so what is the
| big deal, who are we "saving freedome of speech" from?
|
| Also last time I checked, being _critical of one 's
| employer_ is neither a crime nor a violation of any
| employment contract that I have ever signed. Its a bad
| look sure, but to be honest it is boardering on a 1984
| thought crime if you are instantly fired if you think
| your boss is a bit of a dick.
| [deleted]
| qayxc wrote:
| He is. He just - like most other free speech proponents -
| conveniently fails to mention the part about consequences.
|
| It's also no secret that he's very much fine with Claqueurs and
| boot lickers, but amusingly thin-skinned when it comes to
| critique aiming at his person, ideas, or companies. He even
| shut down his personal "The Onion"-clone for fear of its
| activity might reflect badly on him or one of his companies at
| some point in the future [0].
|
| [0] https://www.mic.com/p/elon-musks-first-foray-into-comedy-
| was...
| cloutchaser wrote:
| Anyone can sue musk if he libels them with his tweets.
|
| Anyone can circulate letters in spacex, but spacex can fire
| you.
|
| You can say whatever you want. That doesn't mean there aren't
| consequences.
|
| Critics of free speech need to realise this is a silly debate
| between them, no "free speech absolutist" wants speech
| without consequences. This is basically a NYT and CNN talking
| point and nothing to do with reality.
| Marazan wrote:
| Ah, so we will hear no more about the threat of "cancel
| culture" then?
| votepaunchy wrote:
| Nobody is saying these former employees should not be
| allowed to work any job ever again, just that SpaceX is
| not the right workplace for them.
| zpeti wrote:
| Not to mention there is a difference in criticizing the
| CEO of a company for unsubstantiated and unproven claims,
| circulating internal letters, and getting fired, and
| saying that a man is not a woman on Twitter and not being
| able to work in most academia or media ever again in the
| next 5-10 years or maybe forever.
|
| The place is context and result is comletely different.
| qayxc wrote:
| There's also always the option to simply _not_ spout off
| about personal opinions all over the internet unasked,
| especially when knowing about possible consequences.
|
| Does everyone these days feel the need to become a martyr
| over completely insignificant personal opinions about all
| kinds of drivel that doesn't even affect them personally?
|
| Is this really the hill some of you want to die on,
| because it's more important to you to discuss the
| relevance of genitals with billions of people, than to
| just keep this shit to yourself and maybe rage about it
| offline with friends and family and keep your job and
| future prospects?
|
| Do you really have so little going on in your lives that
| you absolutely must have a strong opinion about everyone
| and everything and just have to share this in the most
| public, traceable, and persistent way possible, lest your
| mind implodes from all the piled up internal stress?
| kortilla wrote:
| What an exasperated and weird defense of cancel culture.
| Trying to convince people something is irrelevant because
| the consequences are so high...
| qayxc wrote:
| A weird defence you say? How about publishing a newspaper
| article about how certain aspects of communism make sense
| in the US back in the McCarthy era.
|
| Heck, back then just a word from a disgruntled neighbour
| could land you a visit from the feds and potential
| jailtime. Today, it's getting banned from some oh-so-
| irrelevant social media platform that gets people all
| riled up.
|
| You want to know what high consequences are? Outing
| yourself as homosexual in Iraq, Suda, Saudi-Arabia, or
| Jemen. All these countries can have you sentenced to
| death for just expressing your love to an individual of
| the same gender - or worse, just being accused of doing
| so.
|
| It's truly fascinating how whiny some folks are about
| potentially facing negative consequences for trouble they
| voluntarily and willingly getting themselves into for no
| reason and over miniscule BS they just want to rage
| about.
|
| Instead of doing the grown-up thing and writing letters
| to their representatives - you know, the people you
| elected to care about such issues and pass legislation
| that reflects your interests - they instead want to stand
| on a pedestal and shout their opinions for all the world
| to hear.
|
| If you want to try and convince people, go talk to them.
| Do it in a context where it actually matters, like a
| school board meeting where rules are discussed that go
| against your conviction. No one's stopping you and no
| one's going to "cancel" you for doing so.
|
| Honest to god question: what did people do in the early
| 1990s, 1980s, 1970s, etc.? Did they all spend their free
| time writing angry letters to newspapers, TV- and radio
| stations and have heated discussions in the middle of
| time square shouting their opinion at every passer by?
| dhimmsoclock wrote:
| By that logic, we shouldn't be concerned about people
| living in poverty, because there's other people being
| shot and killed and raped and tortured in war. How about
| those activists for the hungry and homeless just stop
| getting riled up about it, don't they know how much worse
| war is?
| cloutchaser wrote:
| When children are getting hormone treatment, without any
| real oversight, with lifetime consequences, a lot of
| people feel like they have to get involved yes. That's
| just the way some people are.
|
| You might not like that, but I do.
|
| And in case you don't believe the truly terrible effects
| of this, have a read in the detrans subreddit.
| fsociety wrote:
| I have read the detrans subreddit. A lot of the accounts
| involve trauma in not being accepted in a non-cis
| identity. Others in not receiving enough support from
| either doctors or through therapy. There is varying
| oversight in receiving hormone treatment as well.
|
| Trans groups are wide and varied. You will find plenty
| who believe in the weight of the decision and that it
| should be made accordingly.
|
| This doesn't excuse the huge amount of disrespect and
| hurt that gets thrown towards someone because they ask to
| be identified as a man or a woman. Just the other day
| someone burned a pride flag in Baltimore and ended up
| burning down three houses and sending four people to the
| hospital.
|
| Surely in their mind somewhere, there was a thought that
| they were saving children from a "delusion". But in this
| instance who has the delusion?
| mola wrote:
| Yeah, good luck standing in court against a billionaire...
| His money puts him above most laws, especially non criminal
| ones. This is ok because he owns stuff is an antithesis to
| a democratic free country with a rule of law. It's
| basically a step towards monarchy.
| hrbf wrote:
| The consequences of "free speech" are way easier if you're
| the one doling them out as opposed to receiving them. There's
| a massive power imbalance that this particular billionaire is
| looking to escalate in his favor.
| [deleted]
| Spartan112 wrote:
| That's just the most hypocritical thing to be. Free speech
| means not being prosecuted by the government, so being a
| free-speech absolutist as an indiviual is completely
| meaningless.
|
| If he is trying to be a free-speech absolutist in terms of
| every opinion being heard equally and fairly without
| punishment, which is what absolutist implies, he is also a
| hypocrite as shown in his numerous actions against critics.
|
| Overall, no matter how you spin and turn it, Musk is not a
| free-speech "absolutist" in any way. He has no specific
| position on free-speech other than what has the basic law
| that applies to every citizen.
|
| What a joke.
| kumarvvr wrote:
| This action and being a "free speech absolutist" are not
| mutually exclusive.
|
| Free speech, refers to public speech, and especially in the
| context of the state not creating laws / rules that stifle
| dissent or criticism _of the state_ or _those holding public
| office_
|
| Free speech _does not_ mean _speak anything_ and it certainly
| does not mean _my speech may not have any downstream effects_.
| smcl wrote:
| So if I break TOS on Twitter is getting kicked off a
| downstream effect?
| checker wrote:
| It certainly sounds hypocritical if you're willing to play
| liberties with the definition of free speech. However, free
| speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of such speech.
| The audience can respond any way they like without infringing
| on the speaker's rights (and it's not a right to work at
| SpaceX).
|
| These employees should have expected this reaction; Musk
| doesn't seem like the type to pass up executing his right to
| impose consequences. Hopefully they were prepared and have
| achieved some of the impact they were hoping for.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| He has most definitely been arguing against consequences as
| part of it. You know, like getting banned on twitter.
| checker wrote:
| He's free to whine about it, buy the company, or start his
| own platform. If he truly cared then he'd be lobbying for
| Congress to limit the "ban rights" of companies and
| individuals running platforms like Twitter (personally I
| would not vote for anyone supporting such a bill). Before
| the recent Supreme Court I would say that it would take an
| amendment; now I'm not so sure that such a bill would be
| overturned.
| hiram112 wrote:
| This is a little disingenuous. Twitter itself is the means
| of "speech." I don't think Musk or anyone else has stated
| that your Tweets should exempt you from consequences off
| the platform. Similarly, the ability for everyone to speak
| their mind on the world's modern town square doesn't give
| Twitter employees carte blanche within the corporate
| hierarchy.
| blitzar wrote:
| > I don't think Musk or anyone else has stated that your
| Tweets should exempt you from consequences off the
| platform
|
| I am pretty sure that is exactly what many many people
| have stated, implied, campaigned for etc.
|
| Its a core part of the _culture war_
| pydry wrote:
| >However, free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences
| of such speech.
|
| Except when that consequence is being banned from twitter,
| apparently.
| ekianjo wrote:
| Proof is that the employees were free to say what they wanted.
| And now they get the door. Where is the problem? Free speech
| does not mean you don't get to suffer the consequences of what
| you say.
| [deleted]
| midislack wrote:
| Go woke, get a new jerb. Find a leftoid CEO if that's your bent.
| dubswithus wrote:
| The problem is these people think they have a right to work at
| a company.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-17 23:02 UTC)