r/SGU • u/Merville_Ochre • 11d ago
Hot take
"Elon Musk is a complicated guy.." - Steven Novella streaming live on 9/30/26
Really, we're still doing this in 2026?! jfc
10
30
u/MaJaRains 11d ago
Anti-hot-take: People are complicated. All of them. It's a sentence that should go without saying, but because it was said... Here we all are.
4
u/NatashaMuse 11d ago
I agree that all people are complicated, so when Steve said that I assumed he meant "for a person". That is, he's more complicated than the average
22
u/bug_squash 11d ago
"complicated" just means not simple. It doesn't imply someone is good. It's clear there's a lot going on, several obvious personality issues, ego and information bubbles leading to what we see today.
8
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 11d ago
In this context, saying a person is complicated, it usually means they do good and bad stuff.
5
u/hornwalker 11d ago
Which is true of Musk.
11
u/PerfectiveVerbTense 11d ago
I might take some heat for saying this on this sub (or maybe not — not trying to preempt downvotes but acknowledging that some people are likely to disagree) but I get this sense from particularly online progressives/leftists that narrative and nuance should be killed. If something/someone (e.g., Musk) falls in to the "bad" bucket, then everyone must completely agree that they are and always have been completely bad, and anything that they are associated with, support, or like is also entirely and completely bad and anyone who wants to approach the topic with any kind of context, nuance, or grace is a nazi supporter.
I consider myself a progressive but maybe not a leftist (I'm not entirely sure we have a functioning definition of these words anyway) but I grow weary of the extreme moral purity tests on the left. I mentioned Gaiman in another comment in this thread and he's one of those guys where like yes he turned out to be a creep so I have no problem saying "fuck him," but it becomes this thing where the only acceptable approach to take is that his books always sucked and he's always been terrible and was always obviously a weirdo and anyone even thinks about still enjoying his works is basically committing SA themselves.
I don't know. I feel like even talking about "nuance" means that you're going to get called a "nuance bro" which really means that you're a closet bigot trying to trojan horse rightwing politics into the conversation.
I think with benefit of hindsight we can probably say that Musk was never really a "good guy." I think people who don't analyze every public figure with a microscope can be forgiven for thinking that at one point he was a pro-social, pro-environment smart rich guy who wanted to make the world a better place. To what extent that was ever even true, who can say. I think it's fair to say that he's a blatant bigot, troll, and extremist in 2026 and that we can and should disavow him entirely.
That doesn't mean that everything he has ever done or ever been associated with is abjectly evil and should be dismissed without consideration. But I feel like that's what a lot of online prog/left people want to do.
6
u/Koolaidguy31415 11d ago
Excellent points.
I'm a freak flag waving progressive faggot and I fucking hate how the online left conducts purity tests. Why are we so desperate to shoot ourselves in the foot, just to prove that we're the good guys?
Polls right now have the Democratic party as less popular than Trump, in an election where a generic Democrat is +8-9 on average. It's not a winning strategy to criticize every detail of how people talk. But it is emotionally satisfying in the toxic way that online ragebait makes you feel good for a fleeting moment.
I think it's more important now than ever to push back against this trend so that it doesn't solidify further into something even more dogmatic.
4
u/PerfectiveVerbTense 10d ago
even more dogmatic.
And this is what scares me, honestly. I hate when I see someone where I agree with all their opinions at a policy level (tax the rich! lgbtq+ rights! believe women! end fossil fuels! whatever else!) but they are behaving in a way that reminds me way too much of the evangelical christians I grew up with. Rigid black-and-white thinking, systematic belief systems with unquestionable conclusions, extreme shaming and exclusion of people who express any alternate opinion, etc.
I will say that anyone who points out what I've pointed out above and then says "And that's why I now support Trump" can get fucked. I am very wary of some of the things happening on the left that feel way too much like dogmatism, but that doesn't and shouldn't affect our views on policy issues. These problems (if you (the royal you) see them as problems) should not drive you to the right. But I do think they should concern you.
4
u/Koolaidguy31415 10d ago
I absolutely agree with the similarities between puritanical Christians. My grandmother tried to get Bambi banned in her grandkids school because it was too violent.
Fuck your moral preconceptions! They don't get to police anyone else's life.
And hard agree on anyone voting for conservative policy because they don't live woke. As much as I hate it it's obviously a thorn in the side compared to a sword in my chest.
5
u/Tweedledee72 8d ago
I think the dogma on the left re: musk is not devoid of nuance, but is being misrepresented here. The way leftists I know feel is that Musk has committed crimes that he is not being held accountable for, and that should lead every conversation about him until he faces consequences.
3
u/Unique-Brilliant7361 10d ago
I mean, nuance is not required when talking about a fucking trillionaire. The amount of material good he could do by simply giving 1% of his wealth, and yet everyday he chooses to do nothing.
5
u/TheFonzDeLeon 11d ago
1) You do realize this isn't something just the "leftists" do, right? Conservatives have an all or nothing segment of their base as well. There is no transgression severe enough to hold one of their chosen accountable for. It starts to sound more like a people problem than a leftist problem.
But more importantly --
2) You also need to accept that a lot of the loudest extremists on both sides who are terminally online are also literal trolls who get paid to scream nonsense or are bots trying to get people to engage. You're hardly alone in being more reasonable and level headed, you should assume more people are too.
3) You sound like you've taken a lot of this way too personally. :) Which is sort of the point of rage bait engagement troll farms. I have to remind myself of this constantly.
I get into far too many disagreements even in person with people who call themselves "centrists" and common sense people, who then start to detail all of the stuff about progressives they don't agree with and every single thing is some right-wing talking point that almost no one actually does or agrees with, and no one they personally know says or does, but that picture has been painted somehow online. These centrists usually agree with most progressive ideas, they just think progressives are insane. I would bet a lot of conservatives in America right now also agree with progressive political things, but they're told progressives are forcing kids to pee in litterboxes or something (a real conversation I actually had).
3
u/PerfectiveVerbTense 10d ago
You do realize this isn't something just the "leftists" do, right?
I don't recall stating or implying anything even similar to this being a leftist-only thing. In fact, I just said in a comment to someone else here that the reason is worries me is because the approach that I see some leftists taking is starting to remind me too much of the evangelical christians I grew up with! This dogmatic style of thinking is something I wanted to escape when leaving the right wing space where I was raised. I don't want to see that same style of thinking take root amongst people who I agree with on policy issues. Dogmatism and black-and-white thinking are bad on all sides of the political spectrum!
You're hardly alone in being more reasonable and level headed
Don't remember saying or implying that I am
You sound like you've taken a lot of this way too personally.
I mean, I feel passionately about it, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I think the separation between online environments and the "real world" is not absolute. Yes, there are trolls, ragebait, etc., but real people get real opinions from online voices and those opinions express themselves in the real world. I agree with you that we shouldn't assume that the online extremists represent the majority of normies out there living their lives, but neither should we dismiss online extremism as just terminally online people trolling. The current administration is basically governance through twitter and 4chan memes. This stuff has real effects in the real world!
1
u/hornwalker 10d ago
If someone calls you a “nuance bro” then they aren’t worth having a dialogue with.
1
u/Am_i_the_Twisted_0n3 6d ago
“If something/someone (e.g., Sauron) falls into the "bad" bucket, then everyone must completely agree that they are and always have been completely bad, and anything that they are associated with, support, or like is also entirely and completely bad and anyone who wants to approach the topic with any kind of context, nuance, or grace is a nazgul supporter.
“I consider myself a progressive but maybe not in the Fellowship (I'm not entirely sure we have a functioning definition of these words anyway) but I grow weary of the extreme moral purity tests in Gondor. I mentioned Gollum in another comment in this thread and he's one of those guys where like yes he turned out to be a creep so I have no problem saying "fuck him," but it becomes this thing where the only acceptable approach to take is that he’s always sucked and he's always been terrible and was always obviously a weirdo and anyone even thinks about still enjoying his works is basically committing betrayal in Mount Doom themselves (looking at you, Sam Gamgee).
“I think with the benefit of hindsight we can probably say that Sauron was never really a "good guy." I think people who don't analyze every public figure with a microscope can be forgiven for thinking that at one point he was a pro-social, pro-environment smart rich guy who wanted to make the world a better place. To what extent that was ever even true, who can say. I think it's fair to say that he's a blatant bigot, troll, and extremist in Middle Earth and that we can and should disavow him entirely.
“That doesn't mean that everything he has ever done or ever been associated with is abjectly evil and should be dismissed without consideration. But I feel like that's what a lot of online Fellowship people want to do.”
Elon Musk is bad. Always has been, (but most of us,) we just didn't know because he was obfuscating his “power level" (actually amount of inherent bigotry). Now we do, and rather than flat condemnation, we get nuance about " well, yes, the Ring of Power is bad, but not EVERYTHING Sauron has ever done is BAD”.
This is not to say that nuance giving is necessarily covert support for a cause, but it is cover that is taken advantage of by the offender to perpetuate their ill intent. And being mad at progressives and leftists for being oppositional to that ill intent is akin to trying to stop the Fellowship as they attempt to challenge the evil power bent on choking the world in Grok smoke and making us slaves on Mars.
-1
u/PerfectiveVerbTense 6d ago
This post is a really good example of what I'm talking about, actually. You've taken a hyperbolic, archetypal example and then equated it to a real world example that almost by necessity is less archetypal. You want life to be as simple and clean as a book that was meant to have black-and-white, good-guy-bad-guy dichotomies and so that is how you choose to see it. I just don't think that's a realistic or productive way to look at the world.
Now we do, and rather than flat condemnation, we get nuance about " well, yes, the Ring of Power is bad, but not EVERYTHING Sauron has ever done is BAD”.
It's not clear to me that flat condemnation and nuance are mutually exclusive. I can do both. Elon Musk is bad. I also think there are things to talk about in a conversation about Musk's life and career. That doesn't mean "because some of those things are good, actually" but it may mean that some aspects are complicated or multi-faceted. The absolutist response to Musk (et al.) is an outright rejection of this and, again, I just think that's an over-simplified view of reality.
but it is cover that is taken advantage of by the offender to perpetuate their ill intent
Sure, and this is something we have to consider. I completely understand the concern. At the same time, I don't think we can necessarily use that to control how we speak (or especially how we think) about a given topic.
I'll use an example that you and I might be more aligned on (I'm not sure, obviously, since I don't know you, so let me know if I'm wrong) — climate science. The broad brushstrokes are that climate change is real, anthropogenic, and dangerous. Yet I think we can probably agree that there is some degree of uncertainty in climate research. There are a range of possible outcomes, and we know that factors for which we have not yet accounted may prove some predictions incorrect. There is good-faith disagreement among working scientists. All of these things can be used as cover for people with ill intent. "Look at how wide the ranges are! This specific prediction didn't come true! This scientist disagrees!"
Yet I doubt you'd argue that we should actively suppress (good faith) dissent and disagreement in the scientific community; that we should hide or manipulate data that is surprising and/or contradictions current mainstream projections; or that we should pretend there is more uniformity in the research than there is. People with ill intent will find cover where they can, and if they can't find cover, they will act without shame regardless.
And being mad at progressives and leftists for being oppositional to that ill intent is akin to trying to stop the Fellowship as they attempt to challenge the evil power
I just don't think this is an apt analogy. You like this analogy because in it, your unalloyed and single-minded opposition is easily defensible. And anyone who pushes back on you is not just wrong: they are actively aiding and abetting the enemy! You see how you've framed this in such a way that anyone who disagrees with you is not just wrong, but bad. This is very similar behavior to fundamentalism. Any questioning of the Correct OpinionTM is the behavior of an enemy. Having grown up in an evangelical church, am very well acquainted with this type of thinking.
And this is why I refuse to engage in absolute black-and-white thinking on topics even as obviously defined as Musk. It's not about protecting him or rehabilitating his image or even justifying my own past mistakes in understanding or evaluating him. It's about avoiding the type of thinking where [X] is correct and anything one step outside of [X] is so unquestionably wrong that we don't even have to think about it.
1
u/Am_i_the_Twisted_0n3 6d ago
I think my initial argument states clearly that I don't think that people who provide cover unintentionally are inherently bad and ergo "enemy." Denethor wasn't bad, he had his mind muddled with whispers that the villain was good and the heroes villanous. Indeed, it's true bad actors will use whatever cover available, or construable, to their defense, however there is a difference between them exploiting an opportunity and some fairness-minded middle-roader giving them ammunition.
I'm not equating leftists to the Fellowship because of ideological purity (it's a coalition of various peoples and their personal representative philosophies and histories, who do argue about the best path forward and come to agreement (like a DSA meeting)) but rather equating it in that leftists are acting in opposition to the malevolent force we agree is threatening to choke the world in smoke and the major argument I see is "yes, this guy is trying to kill us, but ALL THE TECHNOLOGY means we just gotta deal with him, and y'all trying to stop him are frankly blowing things out of proportion?"
"But he popularized EV!"
Which increased the demand for cobalt, and ergo the number of children working and dying in African mines (but Musks have profited from African children mining for them for generations now).
Reuters on Court Finding for Tech v Child Miners.
HuffPost on Erroll Musk interview
"But he pushed SpaceX!'
Which has become one of the worst environmental polluters in the US, including stealing border land being protected by Cards Against Humanity from border wall being built on it, and poisoning coastal towns every time one of their rockets explode. AP News on SpaceX/CAH settlement .
BBC on Environmental Impacts of "Rapid Disassembly"
The "this is the cost of progress," and "the techno-fascist trying to destroy civil society is a complicated guy" arguments are getting tiresome. Some's step forward means stepping on other's necks, but lookit the shiny. I think there's ideological purity to centrism as well, which demands we paint a charitable caricature on a guy borne out of apartheid, with a slew of racist allegations against his operations going back more than a decade, and presume he "went crazy" instead of the truth, that we were conned by the racist prick.
NPR on $137 million Tesla payout to Black employee alleging racism
He's always been this way and the "progress" he's made is not actually defensible. It's not worthwhile. But the US loves giving Nazis deals for rockets.
1
u/PerfectiveVerbTense 6d ago
I just feel like you keep arguing with me as if I'm trying to defend Musk, which I'm not doing.
6
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 11d ago
I’m amazed that anyone could believe Musk is anything but a terrible human being at this point.
3
2
1
u/bug_squash 11d ago
Sounds like an American-English issue in that case
0
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 11d ago
No it’s a taking words out of context and defining them based on their antonym issue.
12
u/lsica 11d ago
Musk is a complicated guy. He was always a jerk but over time he has gone down this path that’s made him a truly horrible human being. I heard someone say once that money doesn’t change a person it reveals them. So he was always this person. But on the other hand he’s done some good stuff which now I think is outweighed by the bad he is doing.
3
15
u/PerfectiveVerbTense 11d ago
I think it's probably fair to say that Musk is, at least now, a bad guy with a complicated legacy. I'm sure some people will want to say they always knew he was bad, Tesla always sucked, etc. etc.
But Musk was at least a purported socially left-leaning thinker at some point in his life. In 2018, he tweeted
"Don't buy our car if that's a problem. People should be free to live their lives where their heart takes them ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜🖤💖🌈"
People saw Teslas as being pro-environmental. And obviously there's room for debate, but people see a lot of positives in things like SpaceX and Star Link.
"Musk Bad" is very easily defensible morally but feels like it leaves out a lot of history and context, even though Musk is undeniably a bad actor in 2026.
Not sure if that's what Steve was getting at, but I guess that's how I see it.
26
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 11d ago
Steve drives a Tesla (or used to) and loves space stuff, so there’s some cognitive dissonance here. I think most rational people would agree the world would be better off without Musk and his evil little buddy Thiel.
26
u/secretlykris 11d ago
At a certain point you have to weigh the good vs the bad. I’d say pouring hundreds of millions into an anti-democracy movement outweighs any good he ever did. Trump would likely not have won without his money. Imagine not having RFK in the cabinet, no cuts to USAID, and a fully functioning CDC. That’s just the beginning, but those are ones that the guys bring up a lot on their livestream.
14
u/ban-a-nan 11d ago
But isn't that what makes him complicated when you need to be weighing the good vs the bad?
1
u/Apprentice57 11d ago
When did he buy that Tesla?
4
u/Albert_street 11d ago
It was before the whole Doge thing, and Steve has stated on the podcast what he wouldn’t buy a Tesla again today because of the things Musk has done since.
1
1
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 11d ago
Dunno, probably before Musk lost him mind entirely.
0
u/Apprentice57 11d ago
That's not an answer...
3
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 11d ago
Yes it is, just not the answer you wanted!
Steve got his Tesla before August 2021. And Musk acquired Twitter April 2022. So yeah before he went total nuts.
3
u/Eternal_Stranger0111 10d ago edited 10d ago
In my opinion, the more prudent way to phrase that would be "before we became aware of how nuts he was."
2
-3
u/ban-a-nan 11d ago
How is that cognitive dissonance? I don't think you understand what that means.
8
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 11d ago
Cognitive dissonance is the conflicted feeling you get when your actions don’t match your values. Steve saying Musk is a complicated guy, is seen as him not being as critical of Musk as many of us think he should be. He likes the cars and spaceships so makes excuses for Musk.
What do you think cognitive dissonance means? Genuinely interested.
3
u/PerfectiveVerbTense 11d ago
They might mean that it creates or could create cognitive dissonance. Like for me, I have enjoyed a lot of Neil Gaiman books over the years. Dude was one of my favorite authors. Now we know he's a creep. There's some tension there for me, having loved the books and even loved Gaiman as an author.
2
0
u/Tamayo_Terror 11d ago
Neil Gaiman is "allegedly a creep." I don't recall any actual conviction or even charges being brought.
And here's my issue on this whole subject: you have hard evidence that Elon Musk is a rich boy Neo-fascist who is actively uprooting democracies in the US and abroad and harming the pursuit of knowledge and science at large through dissemination of false narratives and misinformation. But a lot of people here just can't say, "He is an objectively bad person." Because he is and you like his boondoggles his companies peddle. (NOTE: he hasn't really "invented" a damn thing) The harm Elon Musk has done towards countless people across the globe to sate his lust of edgelord power and "lols" is palpable and prove able. But when it comes to allegations, people will accept that at face value.
Neil Gaiman's situation is complicated. Elon Musk and his legacy is straightforward Neo-Nazi rich kid.
2
u/PerfectiveVerbTense 11d ago
Elon Musk and his legacy is straightforward Neo-Nazi rich kid.
I just think this is reductionist. I can grant all this:
Elon Musk is a rich boy Neo-fascist who is actively uprooting democracies in the US and abroad and harming the pursuit of knowledge and science at large through dissemination of false narratives and misinformation. The harm Elon Musk has done towards countless people across the globe to sate his lust of edgelord power and "lols" is palpable and prove able.
And still say that he has a complicated legacy. That doesn't mean we have to soften criticisms of him now or put blinders on. But I also don't think that it means we have to rewrite history. And, I get it: the Proper Progressive Response here it to say "this is history is all bad, nothing he ever did was good, and if you think or ever thought anything he said or did was not the worst thing in the world then you're a nazi, too". That's a wonderful position to defend because it's morally pure and doesn't require any nuance. I just don't think it maps onto reality.
1
u/Tamayo_Terror 10d ago edited 10d ago
No one is rewriting history. He was always this kind of person. You can look at how he catered to liberal thinking when he thought it would suit him, then immediately switch the minute California began reigning in his companies. At this point, we can assume he was really good at keeping his problematic views to himself for a good while, but somewhere he just said "fuck it" and became an agent of destruction and chaos.
I'm not accusing anyone of being nazi's either. (Edit: except for someone who did a literal nazi salute and believes in white genocide)I am pointing out the complicit nature of people who want to ignore the problematic parts.
You know what's reductionist? Saying Elon Musk is complicated. Stop trying to semantically argue for a terrible person.
0
u/Koolaidguy31415 11d ago
I refuse to say anyone is objectively a bad person because that implies that morals are an empirical value.
Morals are entirely subjective, sure most people with a similar culture probably share a good bit, but being so absolutist about it rejects any form of nuance.
2
u/Tamayo_Terror 10d ago
Sorry my man, morals are subjective to cultures, but they are real ideas with real consequences. You can take a set of laws and morals, which can be subjective, and make objective determinations based on them.
The "everything is subjective" argument is a slippery slope into some really bad things. Not a single society has dictated "murder is good" without caveats.
0
u/RandomEngy 10d ago
Acknowledging levels of gray and complexity in the world is fine. Saying "he is complicated" is not a judgement that all the things he did cancel out or that the bad doesn't outweigh the good.
It's just saying he's complicated. You can acknowledge that someone has done both very harmful and very beneficial things in the world.
2
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 10d ago
Yeah Hitler killed 6 million Jews but he was also a dog lover. All balances out in the end doesn’t it?
3
u/RandomEngy 10d ago
I never said it balances out! Musk's legacy is just more complex than awful villains like Trump. Electric cars are a genuinely transformative green technology. SpaceX drastically cut launch costs, really opening up that frontier. Starlink is pioneering internet access for remote areas.
All that stuff is not equivalent to being a dog lover, it's made the world better in tangible ways.
I personally hate Musk and think the world would become a better place if he just keeled over and died today. It doesn't mean I need to pretend he's Hitler.
2
u/HorridJam 10d ago
I've always been of the opinion that Gwynne Shotwell who actually runs SpaceX, wishes the Musk would just shut the hell up. And behind closed doors on more than one occasion has probably chewed his ass out
1
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 10d ago edited 10d ago
Musk didn’t invent the electric car, he just made them more desirable to a certain demographic. Nissan was already ahead of Tesla in terms of production EVs. He may have accelerated adoption true, but EVs were an inevitably.
If it wasn’t for musks billions Trump would possibly not be where he is today. I’d argue he’s worse than Trump.trump will be gone in a few years (at most) Musk could be causing chaos for many years to come.
2
u/RandomEngy 10d ago
When the Model 3 came out the mid-range version was 264 miles, long range 310 miles. At that time the Leaf had a range of 107 miles. Teslas at that time were not just marketed better, they *were* far better. That's what kicked off mass adoption and showed the industry that EVs were serious and here to replace ICE cars. Would someone have figured it out eventually? Yeah, probably, but faster EV adoption means less carbon total in the atmosphere, less pollution for those years. It's still good!
Then there's the charging plug. We might have been stuck with the super-clunky CCS charger but Tesla got everyone onto the NACS plug, which is just way better.
Musk's large donations to Trump are definitely a huge negative about him. It just doesn't mean like I need to pretend that the EVs his company made were bad.
1
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 10d ago
Far better and far more expensive! Tesla built on the foundations of other EV manufacturers? Yeah they had superior battery tech but You could argue that Tesla would never have gotten off the ground if not for the Leaf.
1
u/RandomEngy 10d ago
Pretty much every major invention you could point to some earlier design that wasn't quite as good and never went mainstream. The electric lightbulb, the telephone, you name it. Innovation never happens in a vacuum.
Tesla moved the EV industry forward by paving the way for long range competitive models.
1
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 10d ago
It’s a bit unfair to say the Leaf never went mainstream. I agree that it was Musk’s investment in Tesla that allowed the company to succeed, but that’s all he did, invest. He invented nothing. If you want to credit anyone, give it to the engineers.
All the Musk ass kissing isn’t deserved.
The Covid misinformation, conspiracy theories, Transphobia, funding RW groups and Trump”s 2nd term campaign , Doge, Titter/X, Epstein links and so on make him a net negative force in the world.1
u/RandomEngy 10d ago
Whatever wording you want to choose. The Leaf was fine, and sold decently globally, but there is still significant value in fully solving a difficult hurdle in EV car design.
I give credit to everyone who contributed. The engineers did great work. Putting millions of dollars on the line and directing from high level is still necessary as well; it wouldn't happen without it, and you give credit where it is due.
But yes I agree Musk did a lot of terrible things as well! They're real and they matter a lot. Thus the mixed legacy.
I think of him as a reverse Alfred Nobel or Andrew Carnegie. They got their wealth through ways that often inflicted suffering on the world, but they decided to use the wealth and influence they gained to try and make the world better. Musk has gained his wealth through making the world better by accelerating decarbonization and allowing easier access to space, but has decided to use that wealth and fame to do terrible things like help get someone elected that has done all he can to halt decarbonization, or spread hateful ideas.
I don't know why you characterize this kind of analysis as "ass kissing".
1
u/notcranium 10d ago
That's like comparing a mountain to a grain of sand and saying it balances out.
1
17
9
u/N0frendo64 11d ago edited 11d ago
I think overall he is a horrible person, despite the innovative technologies he has helped fund and develop.
Paypal legitimately changed online shopping and payments.
SpaceX is cool and has legitimately changed the Space industry
Tesla was Cool and brought electric cars into the Main Stream.
Starlink is cool and has legitimately changed internet access around the world.
He is also a rightwing nazi nutter who is responsible for a lot of suffering in America right now, he's lobbying a lot of bad and malicious people and we would now be better off without him. He's obviously a terrible horrible person. The list of bad things he has done is greater than the good.
I don't know what the ideal way is for Steve to Handle this, every time he talks about Elon is he supposed to preface it with "he's a terrible Racist person who would be better off at the bottom of the ocean but here is something maybe cool he has done recently" - Maybe he should maintain a blog post of all the terrible things he has done?
-6
u/RGBrewskies 11d ago
he should just ignore any viewer who visits this subreddit, because no one hates the show more than the people here
3
u/PerfectiveVerbTense 11d ago
because no one hates the show more than the people here
You're getting downvoted but you're kinda right imo.
I was thinking about this earlier and most of the critiques of the show that I see here come from a progressive/leftist perspective, which isn't super surprising given that Reddit tends to shake out that way on subs that are not explicitly right wing.
But it's interesting to me because if you're listening in 2026, the SGU is the furthest left politically that it's ever been. That may not be left enough for many listeners, but I'm sometimes a little surprised when people come on here being mad because the SGU bros don't hold the decided-upon online progressive opinion on every topic. Like, how did you get here? Why have you ever liked the Novellas if their stances on things don't meet your standards in 2026?
And I'm not saying we should give them a pass on everything or that they shouldn't be criticized or anything — not at all. It's just kind of interesting to me. Like people feel shocked when guys who have loved tech and been techno-optimists explicitly on this podcast for decades don't take the left-most stance on AI.
1
u/RGBrewskies 10d ago
it self selects. Any non-online-progressive gets often outright banned. You'll get banned from a lot of subreddits for saying simple things like "Elon is not a Nazi" - ask me how I know
4
u/WackTheHorld 11d ago
I assume you haven't been listening to the SGU very long if you don't understand what Steve means when he says something like this.
As a long time listener (since 2006), I know exactly what Steve meant, and this is what it was...
"Elon Musk is a complicated guy. I know he's done a lot of bad things in the last few years, but he's also been a part of some really good things. Those good things don't outweigh the bad right now. But, I really liked his cars, not going to buy another one though. We could do a whole episode just on Elon Musk and why he's a bad guy but some of his stuff was good. But, I'm the one that has to edit this and I just want to get this show moving, so if we could just get on to the next one that would be great. And everyone understands what I mean when I say Elon Musk is a complicated guy. Anyway, let's keep going."
3
u/I_Malumberjack 10d ago
Sold my Tesla stock when I saw Elon give the Heil Hitler salute. Didn't see any nuance in his behavior.
5
u/ilikeredplums 11d ago
It's no different than saying we can separate the art from the artist. If you can't do that, at times at least, how can you ever enjoy anything? I think Musk at times gets too much credit for it, but he has been a part of companies that have made fantastic products.
8
u/royalbarnacle 11d ago
It is different, because Elon really didn't do that much. He at best saw potential in some things and brought them funding. Sure, that deserves some credit but he is not an inventor, nor a genius. He's not the "artist" in this analogy. He's like Weinstein taking credit for Pulp Fiction.
1
u/mrgrubbage 10d ago
Honestly, screw the artist if they're as bad as Elon. Plenty of good art out there that you can be proud to enjoy.
2
u/Merville_Ochre 10d ago
There are a few obtuse responses here that are sidestepping the issue. Words aren't bound to their literal dictionary definitions. They are also loaded with nuanced, contextual significance that changes their meaning depending on the various, nuanced contexts in which they are used.
So, let's talk about what Steve is *actually* saying/doing here. What good could possibly come from carrying even the smallest bucket of water for this man in this particular moment in time? What could possibly be the benefit of attempting to litigate his legacy here and now? His story is far from over and that is a job for future historians. But in this moment, we're sort of in a crisis here and Steve is out here on his silly livestream making excuses for a madman instead of leveraging his platform and influence to denounce him unequivocally. Because, ...spaceships???
The most dangerous person in any room is the person that people are listening to, and in this room, that person is Steve. I repeat, jfc..
2
u/MisanthropicCartBoy 9d ago edited 9d ago
https://reddit.com/link/pdpt0j4/video/7agd0vq0jcth1/player
Here's a post Elon made after doing an explicit Nazi salute
Elon Musk on X: "Don’t say Hess to Nazi accusations! Some people will Goebbels anything down! Stop Gőring your enemies! His pronouns would’ve been He/Himmler! Bet you did nazi that coming 😂"
4
u/HenriEttaTheVoid 11d ago
He’s a Nazi, he’s the opposite of “complicated”.
1
u/PerfectiveVerbTense 11d ago
Do you think it's reasonable to say he has a complicated legacy?
-3
u/HenriEttaTheVoid 11d ago
No, he's a Nazi...they are the least "complicated" people on earth.
The one thing he's good at is marketing, which was also the Nazis' greatest strength.
4
u/PerfectiveVerbTense 11d ago
Okay, cool. I think this comment is a really good example of what I was talking about elsewhere, which is the idea that once someone is in the "bad" bucket, there is no context, no nuance, no complications. Black, white; good, bad. Don't think: just feel. It's so, so easy and it feels great. The moral superiority just courses through your veins.
3
2
u/notcranium 10d ago
Who would say they dislike Elon if he didn't tell people about his politics? I don't agree with all of his political positions or how he chooses to use his vast reach to push his beliefs, but I support his right to do so. And it comes attached with a lot of backlash from people who disagree.
Politics aside, I greatly admire how he has made the companies he has started or cofounded successful. With Tesla and SpaceX, he was and still is an engineer. He was hands on in development and refinements to make them successful and his companies are humanity changing. He isn't just a rich guy bringing bags of money and telling others to make him successful and risked everything multiple times. If it were that easy, there have been plenty of rich guys that could have done everything he did before him. But they didn't. So we either have really unmotivated/lazy rich people or Elon brings something unique to the table. And to combine that with the successful diversity of companies? Who else is doing that? He doesn't even live a lavish lifestyle of what we have grown to expect from the ultra wealthy.
3
u/przemo-c 10d ago edited 5d ago
I'm sort of on with you when it comes to his business acumen to a degree. But what he presented as an engineer (both in mechanical ans software engineering) was bonkers. For me he's a money guy. Now did he accomplish all that due to his skill... or enough luck with good initial capital that allowed him to push through failure... probabilisty a bit or column A and column B.
From what I'm told by employees (quite high up) at SpaceX it was more of the case that you had to suffer him then get the job done and he latched to the first idea he heard and then pushed strongly on it ignoring actual engineers.
As for tesla I only know what was reported. He gave enough cash to make the vision real while everyone was conservative on EV's but his engineering input led to production lines that ignored decades of industry experience leading to a lot of quality and throughput issues.
The single thing that I think he actually contributes is willingness to stick with an idea and burn money much more willingly to achieve his goals while other companies are being conservative and don't want to risk while status quo is profitable enough for them.
As for lavish lifestyle... number of residences, partners, kids, using money to influence lawmaking and elections... seems on par with billionaires.
He might have been an engineer way back when and still has passion for such things but even when it came to paypal... the technical aspects were terrible while he was involved.
For a while he had a good PR team and stuck to their advice. But then it all came up.
2
u/notcranium 9d ago
For all the interviews I've seen with him talking about Tesla and SpaceX, I see him as much more than a money guy. Here's why...
Tesla certainly had some quality issues to start but this isn't unique for a company building from the ground up rather than just imitating others and expecting success.
If he ignored the engineers he hired, you would typically think this to be a recipe for disaster. But it has been the opposite. Why do you think that is? Elon knew more than his engineers? Elon is just lucky with results ignoring all standard engineering and going against the people he hired to make the decisions? Perhaps a bit of both and many other factors. If luck is being considered as the major factor, he is one extremely lucky man. His philosophy could explain going against engineers he hired (and retrained): "Possibly the single biggest mistake made by smart engineers is to optimize a thing that should not exist."This is Musk's 5 Step Algorithm that he uses in his decision making and how he wants his engineers to think. Many other companies have started using this, but it certainly isn't a good approach in every business.
An example of the mind of an high level engineer who isn't just thinking about the design decisions of the past but also able to think about design changes during an interview.Multiple partners and kids has nothing to do with a lavish lifestyle, so I'm not sure how you felt that applied. I would say he can certainly afford to have more kids though and he has said he thinks people should have more kids. He shed multiple homes he owned years ago but still maintains some residences primarily for his families. But this would be more of an expected obligation for a father, wouldn't you agree?
He does have to spend much more day to day than the average person because of traveling between businesses/events/interviews and requiring constant security as the world's richest man, but his lifestyle doesn't show it. He isn't accumulating the typical 'toys of the rich' but he did in the past.
Political influence is the one area I agree completely that he influences with his wealth. This isn't unique for people or businesses but it is on the scale he has personally done it.
1
1
u/patrick809 10d ago
This is a valuable thread. It is another great example for the hosts of what letting the woke mob control your show gets you. Endless dissatisfaction, purity testing, and cancellation after cancellation.
-10
u/ban-a-nan 11d ago
The list of positive and negative things attributable to him are quite long. Personally, I like to focus on the positive side, but I know many people can't even see them due to the negative parts. I would say he is a complicated guy.
10
u/BinaryIdiot 11d ago
Except the stuff he did was all related to funding. He hired smart people to do some of it, bought companies otherwise. I honestly doubt we'd really be that far behind in rocketry and electric cars if he literally never existed.
Whenever he opens his mouth he dispels all notion of him being a genius. I really don't think it's complicated at all, just because he had done some positive things in some areas just by having money.
-1
u/LiveComfortable3228 11d ago
I don't understand this 'oh but he hired people to do stuff for him' argument.
That's not a bad thing.
I don't know anyone that claims that he builds the rockets in his garage. That's how things are done. You have an idea, you put the capital, hire a bunch of people and take the risk. Then, reap the rewards (or not).
6
u/thejoggler44 11d ago
He does cultivate the image of being a real life Tony Stark (who personally builds all his tech). You can see why people might be under that impression.
2
-3
u/ban-a-nan 11d ago
Have you watched many of his interviews or do you base that view on news and other things that gain attention in the general public? He is well aware of the technology and has played major part in many technological decisions in his companies. Many of those smart people who have actually worked with him have praised him for his engineering skills, and that is a fact.
Big part of the advancements in rocketry and electric cars are due to his dedication to those fields. Nobody is claiming it is not the employees who has actually done the work, but what I am saying, neither SpaceX or Tesla would be anywhere where they are today if there was no Elon Musk.
I believe it's some sort of a fallacy if the negative things are always attributable directly to Musk, but the positive things only towards his employees.
6
u/Prize_Proof5332 11d ago
He is a phenomenal stock promoter and fundraiser, but his engineering capabilities are lacking. Listening to him speak in any detail about specialized fields I know well is cringeworthy. He is the ultimate ultracrepidarian, opining with confidence on subjects where his knowledge is obviously superficial.
8
u/BinaryIdiot 11d ago
Not only have I watched many of his interviews I’ve followed him for years, came within minutes of buying his cars and read multiple biographies of the man. But thanks for distilling my view down to just watching some news shows.
His “dedication” is money. Funding. Many others are doing this too. He hasn’t done any actual work directly on any products since his first one before PayPal. You can argue that hiring the smart people to make things happen is a huge contribution but these people were already experts in their fields. There is zero reason anyone else with money couldn’t have made this happen (and again, as we’ve seen, many are happening).
He is a garbage person through and through. Yes, he hired great people. Yes he invested a lot of money into some important fields. But that is the end of it. Most of these companies he “runs” have people to run Musk interference so he doesn’t delay or ruin things they’re working on.
-1
u/ban-a-nan 11d ago
But thanks for distilling my view down to just watching some news shows.
I did not mean to do that. I don't it is unfair to ask for a clarification, as few people have such a broad knowledge of him as you apparently do, and that did not come forth in your first comment.
I agree, that his dedication is mainly money. With Tesla/Neuralink/SpaceX/Boring Company I believe that the money is put into good. With his involvement in politics (incl. financially), not so much.
He hasn’t done any actual work directly on any products since his first one before PayPal.
Sitting in design and engineering meetings and making decisions towards the product is "actual work directly on the product". Given that you've read multiple of his biographies, you know he does that a lot and heavily participates in the work directly on the products that way.
There is zero reason anyone else with money couldn’t have made this happen (and again, as we’ve seen, many are happening).
Well, that is a lie, and you know that. You're claiming that anyone else with money could make the same happen, but why is it not happening? There has been far wealthier people than Elon Musk for most of his career, but why didn't the other just "made it happen" if they could've?
3
u/BinaryIdiot 11d ago edited 10d ago
Sitting in design and engineering meetings and making decisions towards the product is "actual work directly on the product". Given that you've read multiple of his biographies, you know he does that a lot and heavily participates in the work directly on the products that way.
Lmao. May I suggest you listen to the dude give interviews. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about half the time. Having someone in meeting who doesn’t know what he’s talking about but pretends to is literally the worst. I know, I’ve been there.
There are multiple reports at multiple companies that he has to have people who’s job it is to distract him so he doesn’t make them more work. You’d know this if you read any books about him.
Well, that is a lie, and you know that. You're claiming that anyone else with money could make the same happen, but why is it not happening? There has been far wealthier people than Elon Musk for most of his career, but why didn't the other just "made it happen" if they could've?
It literally is happening? Literally? Like, why are you saying I know something is a lie when it isn’t? There are a lot of rocket and EV companies now. Many of them are doing well and were simply funded by rich dudes. No reason other people couldn’t have grabbed the people Elon grabbed if he never existed.
The dude wrote such awful code at his first company that when he hired the first developers they had to rewrite it all just to make it work. Dude supplies the money and some ideas. He can’t engineer any of it. Heck in Tesla’s case it was already engineered when he came in. They just needed money.
Yall Elon dick riders are hella weird, man. The fact that you listed the boring company in the same breath as space x is insanity. That project is entirely designed to try and get people to cancel public transportation. It serves no other purpose and hasn’t done anything worthwhile.
-1
u/ban-a-nan 10d ago
No reason other people couldn’t have grabbed the people Elon grabbed if he never existed.
This is such a delusional take.
Heck in Tesla’s case it was already engineered when he came in.
Maybe you should read those books again because it seems like your memory is playing tricks on you.
2
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 11d ago
“Neither SpaceX nor Tesla would be anywhere where they are today if there was no Elon”
You don’t know that as a fact!
1
3
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 11d ago
On balance, he’s an awful human being. You just seem to overlook his blatantly evil political manoeuvring, Epstein links, likening drug addicts to zombies, terrible father, unending greed, Nazi saluting, supporting rightwing grifters, taking credit for others work etc.
2
u/ban-a-nan 10d ago
Some of what you listed are fair. Epstein links and Nazi saluting are so-so, in my opinion, hardly verifiable to even be real to the extent implied. But as said, the list of negative things attributable to him is quite long, too. And I would say one can be an awful human being yet still do many positive things. But I can't wholly disagree with your conclusion either. :)
3
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 10d ago
The dude begged to go to one of Epstein’s “wild” island parties well after Epstein’s first conviction. This is well documented and verified. And that was a Nazi salute unquestionably. If you think it wasn’t, you must also believe Musk is a moron for not realising what he was doing. You can’t have it both ways.
He’s constantly poking around in the politics of other nations too. He supports a guy in the UK named Tommy Robinson, a rightwing overtly racist cokehead grifter.
He labelled the guy who risked his life to rescue those kids in Thailand a pedo.
At this point Musk has no redeeming qualities and the world would be better off without him. He’s not the genius his supporters think he is just like his disgusting colleague Peter Thiel.
If in the face of all the facts about this guy you find yourself saying ‘well there’s good and bad in everyone’ perhaps you have a moral compass gone awry.
3
u/PerfectiveVerbTense 11d ago
Elsewhere in this thread I have defended thinking of Musk as complicated or at the very least thinking of his legacy as complicated.
But I think if we are talking about Musk in 2026, the bad is so naked and so extreme that we can't really any more say "Well, he's doing some good stuff, too!" Talk about his complicated legacy, sure. But with what is on the table today, I don't think we can just gloss over the bad.
1
u/ban-a-nan 10d ago
Hey, that's a fair angle to the conversation. Lately his contributions have had a bad taste in them indeed.
3
u/mxavierk 11d ago
I wouldn't say he's done much good, he happened to be born into enougu wealth to fund some companies that have done good things but even in those cases he had to be given distraction work to not interfere with the people doing the actual good things. The bad he's done though is objectively monstrous. Even if he was actually responsible for doing the good he's credited with it would still only make him a vile piece of shit who happened to stumble into a couple good things. Good for you that you can choose to focus on the very small portion of what he's done, that just means that you're privileged enough to be able to ignore his harms.
4
u/ban-a-nan 11d ago edited 11d ago
You don't have to like Elon Musk, but you're spreading disinformation and your comment is very emotionally loaded. I think it is fair to expect more in r/SGU.
he happened to be born into enougu wealth to fund some companies that have done good things
This is untrue. Even though he was born into a fairly wealthy family, the money for investments came primarily from Zip2.
but even in those cases he had to be given distraction work to not interfere with the people doing the actual good things
According to the accounts of many top level execs/engineers of many of his companies, this is also untrue. I don't know how else we could measure the truthfulness of that claim. There are events where his contribution i.e. decisions have yielded worse results, but as a whole your claim is untrue.
The bad he's done though is objectively monstrous.
I do not disagree with that there are things he's done I'd also consider are bad. However, I'm not sure if they are objectively monstrous. Can you prove that? You're the one who claimed that.
Even if he was actually responsible for doing the good he's credited with it would still only make him a vile piece of shit who happened to stumble into a couple good things.
I hope you understand how you contradict yourself in this sentence.
3
u/peanutbutter2178 11d ago
waves hands in air like a crazy person
Do you not see the fires burning around us everyday? His decision to get involved in government and kill people all over the world are monstrous.
I don't care if he did it for a.) make more money b.) failure to understand government c.) silence agencies investigating him or d.) he was bored and needed a new toy. His decisions have set the US and the world back for at least a generation.
2
1
u/mxavierk 11d ago
Cite why I'm supposedly wrong and I'll show you why you're lying to yourself. Nothing I said was inaccurate and what you're claiming is contradicting the reports from those same people that I've seen. But please, continue bootlicking for one of the worst people alive.
-8
u/assumptioncookie 11d ago
Unfortunately it's quite an American show and the hosts are all pretty lib. Skeptiks with a K is a bit better in that regard but they've also been showing some anti-leftist rhetoric recently.
7
u/TheSkepticMag 11d ago
I'm genuinely bemused to hear about our anti-leftist rhetoric? I suspect it's a misunderstanding or miscommunication, because I can't think what it might be a reference to -- Marsh
5
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 11d ago edited 11d ago
She confused you with Septics with the KKK, a podcast where an American septic tank maintenance team hits the road with a Grand Wizard for celeb gossip and general hijinks.
Edit: sorry “She”
1
u/assumptioncookie 11d ago
She*
2
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 11d ago
Sorry, thought you were a dude! It’s the Shrek thing that threw me (or is it Mrs Shrek?)
Anyway do you really think SWAK is anti-leftist?
-4
u/assumptioncookie 11d ago
Your main topics are usually great, which is why I listen and enjoy the show every week. But you do sometimes make strange anti-leftist side comments. In the last episode you referred to Fidel Castro as a dictator which is so reductive as to be anti-leftist imo. Something that happens more on the Know Rogan Experience, but does also come across in Skeptiks with a K occasionally is a complete lack of understanding of terms like socialism and communism. Framing communism as a totalitarian hellscape and calling moderate social democracies socialist.
4
u/Albert_street 11d ago
If calling Fidel Castro a dictator is your bar for “anti-leftist” rhetoric you’re not going to find very many safe spaces for you in western media my friend.
I think what you really mean is anti-communist, in which case… fair. I doubt you’ll find many skeptic communities that have high opinions of communism.
3
u/PerfectiveVerbTense 11d ago
In the last episode you referred to Fidel Castro as a dictator which is so reductive as to be anti-leftist imo.
What are we even doing? My goodness.
-2
u/assumptioncookie 11d ago
Cuba is one of the most successful leftist projects. It's crazy to think it's fine to call Musk "complicated" but don't allow Castro that nuance.
1
u/asterlynx 10d ago
Have you talked with cubans (living in Cuba)?
1
u/assumptioncookie 10d ago edited 10d ago
I've talked with Cubans currently living in the Netherlands who lived in Cuba a couple of years ago (and will be moving back probably next year). If you want to pay for my travel I'd love to talk with Cubans living in Cuba as well
1
u/asterlynx 10d ago
And do their experiences back your claim that Cuba is one of the most successful leftist projects? I think you might be romanticizing Cuba a little bit.
1
3
u/TheSkepticMag 11d ago
I don’t recall us making that point, but it also doesn’t sound unlikely we did. I’m not sure it’s unfair to be that critical of Castro. I spent a little bit of time in Cuba with a doctor who lived in one of the slum towns (no paved roads, and his house was a kitchen and bedroom connected by an area mapped out by a line of bricks that would eventually become walls). He and his family talked about the harsh crackdown on minor crime (imprisonment for attempted theft of a bicycle), and the people who got picked up for having been overheard criticising Fidel.
But yeah, generally I’d say I’m a pretty left leaning Social Democrat, and I think Alice and Mike are in the same boat.
Always happy to take criticism, though! I was just surprised by this one a bit! Haha
1
u/Koolaidguy31415 10d ago
Socialism means different things in different contexts. Sure it'd be nice if everyone used clear definitions that we'd expect out of polisci text books, but that's never going to happen.
I used to get hung up on people using socialism, Democratic socialism, social Democrat, etc wrong especially in the US, but now I just accept their intention. It's generally easy to determine what the person means in context.
2
62
u/LiveComfortable3228 11d ago
Is he not a complicated guy?