I was following the other way around… people are dismissing Musk as a whole and turning this into a binary debate, so I felt the need to point out that Musk’s achievements aren’t really disputable, so it’s silly to treat this as a binary debate.

It can be “yeah musk has done stupid things and brilliant things” but not “musk has done stupid things and anyone who defends him is a fanboy and what he has achieved positively is now moot.” And the post I was replying to, and indeed much of the debate, takes that form.

And y’know personally that really bothers me. Casting people as goodies or baddies just really gets to me for some reason. I don’t know why, it’s just really irrational behaviour that I can’t tolerate very well.

Casting people as “goodies” and “baddies” might be rational. Suppose humans have a need (or desire) to predict another’s actions, or consequences of another’s actions.

Humans do not have all the time and resources in the world to evaluate each individual they interact with, directly or indirectly, so they may choose to use prior probabilities to model their world, as a shortcut.

It seems plausible that if this model of the world developed by shortcut is sufficiently accurate, then it would be rational to use this approach because the time and resources conserved can be better directed elsewhere (for the individual’s benefit).

Of course, erroneous or excessive use of prior probabilities may lead to negative effects for societies (possibly visible only in the long term).

That’s an instinct we can and should avoid in general debate though.

Why? What do the previous achievements matter in a discussion about a self described “free speech absolutist” suddenly banning accounts without any transparency

All I care as a Twitter user is if the accounts I follow will be there tomorrow- if not my experience is diminished

MIGB, what makes musk think he can behave like a spoiled brat and people still keep liking him? He’s had his day in the sun and now he’s just a rich annoying brat.