I mean, you don't have to believe it makes him one, but it's not like people can't find examples of things that they might consider worth the label:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50695593

his defense being....

> Mr Musk told the court this week the phrase "pedo guy" was common in South Africa, where he grew up.

Holy moly - reading that article I never knew the British caver's lawyer was the same completely delusional Lin Wood from the idiotic "kraken" lawsuits. No wonder he lost the case.

You should do a google search before posting on HN. Dude's done tons of really mean, rude, or questionable things. At many levels. It's not on the OP to prove it to you with exhaustive sources or whatever when you can just look around you and get examples.

But since you want an actual link, here: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=elon+musk+douchebag&ia=web

I find it pretty ironic that the Hacker News user calling someone a douchebag goes on to provide what amounts to a "Let Me Google That For You" (lmgtfy) link.

If I came off as calling someone a douchebag, that's my bad - I've reread my comment and don't see that there, but if it happened I'm sorry. Could I re-word it somehow?

My main point was that saying "nuh uh" isn't a substantive rebuttal to a claim, especially when there's a pretty solid wealth of evidence in both directions (Musk has been a real turd to some people, specifically unionizers or laborers in his domain as well as that one anti-submarine guy who he leveraged his wealth to slander as a paedophile, but has helmed pioneering work in battery tech, propulsion, and non-government viable (!) approaches to lots of technological hurdles).

So, given the context of him being a known polarizing figure, "what has he done to deserve 'asshole':(" is not a substantive comment. LMGTFY is appropriate here, if anywhere?

I'd grant the "pedo" thing. But I'm not sure what else. Link didn't provide anything of merit.

There are very few things you can do that are a bigger asshole move than calling the person who bravely rescued a bunch of children a pedophile because you didn't get to be the hero.

Not to defend childish Twitter name-calling, but the reason he did it was that the dude picked a pointless fight with him first. Let he who has not escalated an insult battle throw the first stone.

Your sentence is a a classic example where everything after the "but" pretty much contradicts what came before it.

No, they are addressing two different things. The second half addresses the parent assertion that he did it simply out of spite over whose cave rescue solution worked out first.

You may not be personally deafening him, but you are certainly offering a possible defense. So while you say "Not to defend childish Twitter name-calling" , you are also offering a possible defense for someone calling another person a pedophile without cause.

I might be misremembering the sequence of events, but I thought he called him names because the said hero publicly told Elon to shove the microsubmarine he was trying to build into his ass. Which kinda changes the picture entirely, at least for me.

Not really when the "microsubmarine" solution was never going to work and every minute was vital to get the kids out alive. So more of a "piss off and let people who actually know what they're doing focus on the job"

And regardless of that, it is still a massive asshole move to call someone a pedophile because they told you to shut up. Those two insults couldn't be more different in severity and social implications.

The pedo thing makes you an asshole. You can still have virtues while also being an asshole. I'm not really sure what there is to discuss on that point.

Every billionaire is supposedly an "asshole" and the only reason is because they have the money to do all of the things that regular people would also do but pretend they don't because they don't have the power to do anything.

The fact that nature places constraints on ordinary humans’ worst instincts is probably a good thing. We’re all fundamentally egomaniacal idiots who would do stupid things if granted absolute power. The fact that our society has granted a few PayPal co-founders something akin to such power is not a strong argument that such power is a good idea.

Yes, I don't have a reddit account either, because both here and reddit are very pro-censorship. I do understand though that your comment adds no value and should supposedly be downvoted according to the community standards of this site. My point is not a troll, it is always the case that people who have no power pretend that <if you just give me the power> I will be the <really good person>. They just want power like everybody else.

Well, you're technically right in that pointing out obvious trolls is discouraged here; instead, let's be charitable and take your comment at face value then.

> Every billionaire is supposedly an "asshole"

I don't know if this is true; I think some have a pretty strong image in the public eye. Gates for a long time hit that mark, though the COVID vaccine era allegations work against him now. Musk himself - case in point - is polarizing, but beloved by many. Buffet AFAICT is seen as a kindly, humble market guru with a penchant for helping those who need it. The Kardashians' (specifically Kylie Jenner's) wealth is admired and lauded by many. Tony Khan is ranked highly in sentiment across billionaires, and even the polarizing Vince McMahon is well beloved by an adoring group. Donald Trump, who is maybe a billionaire?, is the actual locus of much attention, merchandise, and adoration, of a large portion of the USA. Mukesh Ambani is a respected and admired figure in India. I don't know what the burden of proof to countermand this is.

> the only reason is because they have the money to do all of the things that regular people would also do but pretend they don't because they don't have the power to do anything.

This seems wildly, unsupportably reductive. Could you back this up with anything? I've engaged with the thought for a bit and am now more genuinely curious that I was before, so - W there for the HN zeitgeist, probably.

> I do understand though that your comment adds no value and should supposedly be downvoted according to the community standards of this site.

Maybe, maybe not. I'd rather call out a troll and help others see it if it'd otherwise fly under the radar and scum up conversation.

> My point is not a troll, it is always the case that people who have no power pretend that <if you just give me the power> I will be the <really good person>. They just want power like everybody else.

This is completely unfounded, and - to me, very subjectively - sounds like projection. I vehemently do not want unilateral power, but I also don't want others to have it. Where do I fall on your political compass graph?