Elon Musk

Rank 46 of 47
|
Score -125
11/3/2025, 6:45:15 PM
X
In reply to:
Ricky T šŸš€šŸš˜šŸ¶
@TalbottRicky
Ā·
26d
@jasondebolt @alex_avoigt I watched this talk.

Looked up everything he said in reference to this. Everything he said, happenedā€¦.

So it seems like what Elon did wrong was mention things that people donā€™t want to believe or hear, even if those things are true, because ā€œI donā€™t wanna believe itā€
Jason DeBolt āš”ļø
@jasondebolt
Ā·
26d
@alex_avoigt Tell us exactly what you mean by ā€œcompletely unfounded nonsense about Europeā€, because I havenā€™t heard Elon say a single thing factually incorrect about the situation in the UK.

Back up your own unfounded nonsense.
Alex
@alex_avoigt
Ā·
26d
Elon continues to spread completely unfounded nonsense about Europe, thus damaging Tesla and making it increasingly unlikely that FSD supervised will be approved in Europe anytime soon.

It's really sad and hurts to listen to his completely fabricated fact free stories that exist
The London Economic
@LondonEconomic
Ā·
27d
Action needs to be taken against him

The statement is part of a public discourse involving a debate about Elon Musk's comments on Europe and their impact. The conversation includes accusations of spreading misinformation and calls for accountability.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement by @TalbottRicky suggests that Elon Musk's comments are truthful, which could be seen as defending against harm if true, but lacks evidence.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The conversation involves accusations and could be seen as disrespectful, potentially violating privacy and dignity.Ā [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement attempts to promote understanding by suggesting that the comments are true, but lacks substantiation.
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The conversation includes personal attacks and lacks constructive dialogue, focusing on accusations rather than evidence-based discussion.Ā [-1]