Elon is an organic target for cancel culture. I say organic because I haven’t been able to theorize how these things are coordinated (the attacks on Joe Rogan all of a sudden). It feels so coordinated but there is simply no central PR agency doing it.

So, my best theory is that it’s kinda like the paparazzi. You find the celebrities going through a train wreck life situation (divorce, drugs, etc) and cover them. This organically brings the tabloids to specific targets.

Elon is a very natural target. In this case he has taken a strong stance on workers being able to work during Covid, so in a way he put his battle flag up on that hill. That’s the hill the parasites will flock to.

Rogan took a stance on free speech. So that’s the hill they fought him on (found all the shit he has to apologize for).

The market for this is quite natural at this point, and I have no other words to describe it as repetitious as it is.

People in the know have known Rogan has flaws for years. I first heard the planet of the apes thing years ago, it's only recently that he's exploded in popularity in the mainstream and started playing knowledge rather than sponge. It's the same way information spreads about anything.

Also the reason why you can't work out how these things are coordinated is because you don't understand how social media (maybe just the first word) works and are trying to explain away often very justifiable critique raised by people who you disagree with.

I think there are pretty simple criteria based on what drives viral controversy and "engagement"

1) public figure with household brand

2) controversial statements

3) broad following willing to defend them

Going after personalities clearly over the line is of no value. To optimize clicks and engagement, you want the issue at hand to be as contested as possible : topics the public is deeply split on, subjective, complex, and flimsy or poorly articulated.

The more misinformation the better, because it drive more engagement as people read and post it both to support their priors or show how outrageous it is.

There is a tiny market for comprehensive reporting analyzing issues from multiple perspectives.

US Government actually puts out lists of people who should be banned/marginalized on social media. Almost certainly has similar lists going out to NGO's, many of whose workers also happen to operate prodigiously on social media. It's not explicitly coordinated, so much as nudged and incentivized.

If you're trolling this is pretty funny, if you're serious this is even funnier.

I mean the practice mentioned in the parent post has been common since the McCarthy Era. Gotta keep those commies out of our country somehow /sarc

Joe Rogan called out lies by the White House press secretary. Now there is a huge effort to cancel him. This is the normal pattern of anyone that crosses the left.

But unlike shorting a stock and putting hit jobs on a company you want to tank (for profit), or politically utilizing a scapegoats/attack pieces (for winning power), it’s really hard to trace back who gains by subduing Joe Rogan or an Elon Musk.

The only thing I can think of is the new corporate diversity/woke organizations that want to cultivate an environment where companies need to pay them to keep things from becoming a PR nightmare (that is a new type of manufactured threat). Organizations haven’t even been effective at coercing companies about global labor practices (Nike’s slave wage factories in China), but somehow this new attack vector of social propriety has been extremely effective.

It’s been iteratively effective. Pointing out Nike has 1, then 2, then 3 slave wage factories never escalated the situation. Pointing out Rogan antivax stuff, then the N-word compilation, and perhaps soon that he used steroids, has been hyper effective to reach a knock out blow. By the time we get from ‘Elon’s factories segregates black people’ to the n-th ‘and his ex said he was verbally abusive’, he could be done.

Something to keep track of, or certainly pay some people to ward something like that off. That would make the most sense.

> it’s really hard to trace back who gains by subduing ... Elon Musk

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/ford-motor-co/summary?id=D0...

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/general-motors/summary?id=D...

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toyota-motor-corp/summary?i...

Not particularly hard, as it turns out.

> it’s really hard to trace back who gains by subduing Joe Rogan or an Elon Musk

You would hope people in high places wouldn’t be petty or personally vindictive, but there is plenty to gain from the personal rush you get ruining someone’s life (or at least a couple of months of it).

Happens sadly more frequently than you’d hope.

So your assessment is that the Black workers who joined this suit (or otherwise filed hundred of complaints going back to 2012, as per the DFEH complaint) -- did so out of a spirit of pure and simple vindictiveness, and to gain from the personal rush they will get ruining Musk's life, or at least a couple of months of it?

No I was responding to the parent’s musing on what motivation someone like Jen Psaki would have on coordinating a negative press campaign because someone like Joe Rogan criticized her on a podcast. Of which I responded to, based on my own personal observations of people in high places.

So nothing to do with the original subject of the thread, basically.

See https://calfkicker.com/examining-the-democratic-super-pac-th...

Musk and Tesla are thorns in the sides of various hegemonic cultural narratives and political agendas.

Per the lawsuit:

As early as 2012, Black and/or African American Tesla workers have complained that Tesla production leads, supervisors, and managers constantly use the n-word and other racial slurs to refer to Black workers. They have complained that swastikas, “KKK,” the n-word, and other racist writing are etched onto walls of restrooms, restroom stalls, lunch tables, and even factory machinery. They have complained that Black and/or African American workers are assigned to more physically demanding posts and the lowest-level contract roles, paid less, and more often terminated from employment than other workers. They have also complained that Black and/or African American workers are often denied advancement opportunities, and more often and more severely disciplined than non-Black workers.

So you think the workers who stuck their necks out to file these complaints -- going back as early as 2012, mind you -- have done so to spite Musk for being a thorn in the side of ... "various hegemonic cultural narratives and political agendas"?

Or that if a lawsuit of this gravity and nature does get filed against lawsuit -- that the press should keep mum about it?

>So you think the workers who stuck their necks out to file these complaints -- going back as early as 2012, mind you -- have done so to spite Musk for being a thorn in the side of ... "various hegemonic cultural narratives and political agendas"?

That absolutely does not follow from my other comment.

I don't see how else your comment relates to the original article, then.

Other than to insinuate that the main reason "these stories from Tesla keep coming out" ... is because Musk is a "thorn in side" of various narratives.

Musk's family has a long history of exploitation in one of the most racist places in the world (Apartheid South Africa).

I notice everyone denying these claims seems to ignore that.

Elon’s alcoholic and abusive father (whom his family fled South Africa for Canada to escape when Elon was 17) claims to have had a small ownership interest in a now defunct emerald mine, but there’s no record of it and the rest of his family have all denied his claim. He was by all accounts a broke drunk.

His Dad says the opposite and I tend to believe him.

One would have to be a complete moron to stay poor if white and living in an apartheid state where almost 90% of the population is oppressed because of skin color.

>“We were very wealthy,” says Errol. “We had so much money at times we couldn't even close our safe.”

>With one person holding the money in place, another other would slam the door.

>“And then there'd still be all these notes sticking out and we'd sort of pull them out and put them in our pockets.”

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musks-dad-tells-bi-abou...

Yeah I read the story. The full thing sheds a lot more light on what was actually happening which was a drunk father was becoming increasing insecure hearing about the son he used to beat being so successful and started telling stories.

There are not only 3 other differing accounts, but others have vouched for the fact that Elon arrived in Canada with just $1000 and often had to shower at the YMCA in the early days. He’s also on record having worked various low paying manual labor odd jobs in Canada. Not exactly what you’d expect from a son of generational exploitation wealth.

>others have vouched for the fact that Elon arrived in Canada with just $1000

I dont buy the claim and strongly believe Paypal was built to move undeclared stolen/smuggled resource wealth into the western banking system.

The average American is generally clueless about how white miners have historically operated in Africa. Not totally the public's fault since positive spin is relatively cheap/easy to buy for these types.

Ouch! That is a strong claim, even when expressed as a belief.

I am not sure it is a very sensible way to do that. Electronic paper trails everywhere.

I'm no fan of Musk, but you don't have a claim, just vague conjecture. Post sources that his family was exploitative

I think it's a little of column A, a little of column B. Column A, because I'll bet it's much harder to find stuff like this on similarly sized companies. Column B because when you do those companies don't market themselves as a billionaire's generous gift to save the world.

Elon Musk has certainly brought his companies into the public interest through his marketing and flamboyant takes on political and social issues.

That said, I do think this story is newsworthy based on the severity of the DFEH lawsuit and prior history with the Diaz case. The bigger question is not if there is bias in news reporting, but DFEH action. That is to say, is Tesla actually an outlier in workplace environments or selected based on other criteria.

It happens all the time, just hidden behind arbitration, Diaz escaped arbitration as he was sub contracted and Tesla forgot to make subs sign up to arbitration. An expensive lesson.

The rate of stories increased since Tesla moved its headquarters out of California.