There's no evidence to support that statement.

Given he continues to talk with the man at times (he replied to one of his tweets the a few days ago) and there's no evidence to support the idea that he did it for monetary reasons, other explanations are much more reasonable. Namely that it was a simple mistake.

Honest question: why do you see it as your job to defend Elon Musk online? I see a lot of people doing it and I find it strange. Why do you care?

Some of us like sticking up for people of similar temperament to us. I'd stick up for the average person that gutted a company he bought and kept it running just like I would Musk.

I like Musk because he doesn't appear to be a woke tool. Is he a tool of a different kind? Probably. But I don't like woke, so I stick up for the non-woke. Is he perfect? No. None of us are.

What does woke mean? Elon seems like he’s always talking about woke stuff. Like trans people and pronouns. He might be denouncing those topics but he still seems to cover them a lot.

> What does woke mean?

Here [0] is an interview with the African-American Marxist Adolph L Reed Jr (professor emeritus of political science at the University of Pennsylvania). He starts out saying he can't define "woke" because it is too diffuse, but if you read on he effectively does define it – despite his initial insistence that he can't – in these terms: faced with a society of immense inequality in wealth and power, in which the 1% lord it over the 99%, the traditional left (to which Reed as an old-school Marxist belongs) is primarily concerned with reducing that disparity, and less over the makeup of that 1% in terms of race/gender/sexuality/gender identity; by contrast, the new "woke" left is more concerned about making sure that the 1% is 50% female, and contains racial/ethnic/sexual/gender minorities in the same proportion to which they exist in the 99%, than about the disparity between the 1% and the 99% in itself.

As the on-and-off richest man in the world, Musk is as 1% as it gets, so I'm not sure he'd like professor Reed's definition – but I do. And I think it is a good response to that tired talking point that "nobody can define woke"

[0] https://tarahenley.substack.com/p/what-is-woke

Why do you care? You’re here engaging all the same. If anything, he’s speaking the truth (no he did not mock anyone’s disability) and those attacking Musk are lying. Yet you question the person being factual. So why do you care?

A couple of reasons:

1. I care pretty strongly about the truth. When I see people actively spreading incorrect information whether through malice or their own misunderstanding I think it’s important to correct it to prevent the deception of others, especially when it’s happened on such a wide scale. He himself doesn’t seem to understand that it’s important to correct this type of thing early so there’s no other option.

2. I care because a lot of the future depends on the success of Elon’s companies and people use tearing down Elon as an excuse to attack his companies. They’re doing amazing things for the future while being constantly attacked for it.

So it’s a double-whammy of self interest and my own internal mental obsessions.

He was certainly fine making accusations in public about this person. When he found out he was given misinformation why didn't he name the person and fire them? Why did he air it out in public in the first place? The whole saga is criminally ignorant and Musk is to blame.

When people make mistakes under him, he never names them and instead takes ownership of their mistakes. Naming and firing them would be in fact a bad sign and a sign of a bad leader.

The public accusations against this person’s character? Are any other CEOs lambasting former employees online?