> Modern journalism goes for clicks, which means generating outrage.

Is this about journalists talking about musk, or about musk himself? I mostly learn about his views through his own tweets that twitter always makes sure to serve me in my home page, and "goes for clicks"/"generating outrage" seems to fit well how musk uses his platform. In any case, his politics seem awful to me even without any journalistic mediation of them.

I've seen his tweets direct. You don't have to spin his opinions for them to look horrendous.

How does you spin his reply of "100%" to a "white solidarity is the only way to survive" tweet as not very extreme?

> His politics are less extreme than you probably think.

Just look at the whole DOGE mess. Brush aside anything you believe can be brushed aside due to incompetence. Look at the result.

Explain exactly what can possibly lead you to believe that his politics are less extreme than you possibly think.

You're talking about the Nazi salute guy, by the way.

Sure, and anyone who thinks that was a Nazi salute fell victim to clickbait.

"My heart goes out to you" with a throwing gesture that ends with your arm outstretched. Of course, only the final position was blasted all over the press.

> Sure, and anyone who thinks that was a Nazi salute fell victim to clickbait.

You need to be terribly naive to ignore the fact that the guy known for supporting a swath of fascist and far-right groups, to the point the guy even hosts their events, wasn't casually throwing around Nazi salutes.

Did you see what DOGE did to the government? In particular to USAID? Estimates are that this has already killed hundreds of thousands of people who relied on that aid.

The issue isn't just Musk's politics. It's that his actions have been evil, the kind of negative impact that major wars have.

We're talking something like 1 million dead people per year with a quarter of those being children. For a level of assistance that cost the US nothing (0.43% of federal spending). This is an evil that in a few years puts you on the list of biggest mass murderers in history.

>USAID? Estimates are that this has already killed hundreds of thousands of people who relied on that aid.

I know this was “the line” upfront… but USAID had nothing to do with aid… it was a soft power factory… it was the “we’re helping” face of the CIA.

It was not the "helping face of the CIA" it's a means for the United States to maintain first world power order in a quid pro quo scheme.

It's hardly groundbreaking or evil considering every single country with large wealth plays this game (eg; china, india europe ect), I give you lots of money and help your people and in exchange you do/don't do xyz. if you do xyz then we take away the money

> it's a means for the United States to maintain first world power order in a quid pro quo scheme.

Um… yes. Run by the CIA, with their helping face mask.

Even if you disagree with what is easily researched… in no fucking way were they and aid organization.

That was the low information “news follower” line put forward until it was so obviously disproven that everyone updated and pretended they didn’t complain about missing HIV vaccines to Africans.

If you haven't donated every cent you have to poor foreigners, you have contributed to their deaths. How can you live with yourself?