I wrote ages ago about the "Steelman," which would be the opposite of a "Strawman," in that you attempt to build an argument for the other side's point of view in order to understand it better.
In some respects, my article may be a Steelman case for Musk; but it also shows that quite a few people are attempting to move beyond politics to look at the actual innovations.
And believe me, I could probably create a Steelman case *against* Elon as well: DOGE is moving too fast, way too many conflict metals used for solar, Tesla's relationship to China is questionable.
Generally, I agree with the professor's premise of separating personality from business. But current times have me reevaluating.
I've question the common belief that business is amoral and shouldn't take a stand. That practice worked when times were peaceful, but it doesn't work when there is social turmoil. Staying neutral to protect profits while the world burns isn't an achievement nor virtuous.
In the past, companies privately donated or used lobbyists to sway politics in their favor. Now they're more open about their affiliations and donations. The "We demand transparency" crowd is loud except for when it's not in their favor. (insert Drake meme)
Re: Dave's comments about battle plan vs real world. I agree. I had a similar response to Adam Grant's opinion on Musk.
"Grant has the luxury of pontificating without being in the trenches. Not much different than activists and politicians (both parties) who live in gated communities and glass houses. Advice/policy without having to participate and experience the outcomes.
Society didn't have a problem with Musk or Trump until they "switched teams". Suddenly, they became evil reincarnated because they're a threat to existing power structures. These men are who they've been, character flaws and all. The primary change is the media framing exemplified by Grant. You don't have to like either one to understand the timeless playbook.
Hatred toward Elon goes way beyond just political beliefs. And no imaginary innovator score can fix that. By your logic, we should ignore the fact that he publicly trashed his trans child, does heil salutes, openly supports Germany's neo-nazi party, recklessly destroys US government institutions, pollutes democracy with his million-dollar voter giveaways, declares empathy as western civilization's biggest flaw (and acts accordingly), and he's the world's biggest troll. Those things aren't guilt-by-association. Those are his own words and deeds. And you think I should look past all of that just because he's an innovator? I love innovation as much as anyone. But I love humaneness just a tad more.
My own opinion is that this is an unconvincing piece. And a reductive one. To me, it seems like the message boils down to "Innovator Man Good". It's the mirror image of what is being criticized. And a blithe dismissal of serious criticism of Musk under the umbrella of "All Things Left".
The notion that Elon Musk is not deserving of the flak he is getting is not right to me. I know it's in vogue to mock certain things on the left (a lot of which does deserve derision) but the criticism of Musk seems justified. His rhetoric and his wielding of X to amplify his views are problematic. How can they not be viewed that way? Every time I hit the "For You" tab, his tweets are at the top. His credulousness when promoting random views on his site genuinely has an outsized impact on people's views of the physical world with which we actually interact each day. To me, he is reckless at best.
He is totally an innovator and deserves credit for that. And I am most definitely not saying he should be censored. But he absolutely deserves to be criticized.
I certainly don't like the idea of Professors pushing their ideology and worldview on students, I can agree with that. But this was a strange route to take from that starting point.
I'm not usually one to disparage a post on the internet because I don't agree with it. But I must say, this is a bit much.
First off -- the LinkedIn post that forms the basis of your argument is saying almost the exact opposite of what you accuse the author of. Paul states that "the most dangerous communications decision a founder can make is becoming synonymous with their company." The very position you go on to attack is the one of people "conflating assumed beliefs of innovators with their actual innovations." These are fundamentally *the same problem.* But the reality is that it is not users who conflate Elon's politics with his products -- it is Elon himself who built this identity. Levi Strauss did not buy a communications platform in order to ensure his political messaging would stay mainstream. People may conflate his name with a pair of jeans, but they don't associate his identity -- and as this professor states, that's by design.
Paul did not pick Elon because he "doesn't like" him. He picked Elon because no one else has put their politics so overtly behind their brand. The professor is, in fact, not trying to disparage the founder of Tesla -- he's trying to give him and those like him advice.
You go on to state that marketers -- eg, those developing brand identity -- should stay out of politics. It seems to me that here you are actually restating professor Paul's *original argument." This, in essence, is all he's saying. He uses Elon Musk only as a convenient example. What he means is just that politics needs to stay out of marketing, *for the benefit of the company.* He too, is a capitalist not an activist. It's just that unlike you, he's accepting that it was, in fact, not the mistake of millions of well-informed consumers that conflated Musk's brand with his politics, but a deliberate choice on Musk's part -- and one that is severely hurting his company.
"Innovator Man Bad" -- I don't believe anyone has ever said that. People today do not dislike entrepreneur's innovations. Conversely, entrepreneurs today are making their politics a bigger part of their innovations, which opens that door to more alienation. As Paul originally states, making a founder's values part of a brand leads to an unnecessary loss of customer base. People who have boycotted Tesla or X are not "ignoring the past;" they are factoring in new information they did not have then about the company's values.
"Our craft isn't supposed to be political, we're supposed to be data-driven and dispassionate." -- I'm sorry, can you repeat that? So, marketers today should be focused only on numbers. Alright, let's sell as many weapons to gangs as we can. Actually, let's start dealing drugs -- huge untapped customer base right there. Immoral? Sure. But we're not supposed to be moral, or human. We can leave that to the politicians and the masses. You can correct me if I misinterpret you here, but that position to me seems ethically abhorrent and one that if universally adopted would put us in a very, very bleak world indeed.
As I said, I'm not generally one to respond like this. But the picture you paint does not strike me as one reflected in reality. If you'd like to take your own advice and speak to someone across the aisle, I'd love to hear a reply :) (and I am, assuredly, cybertruck free)
This is reminding me of the Cathy Newman interview with Jordan Peterson. "So you're saying that marketers should sell guns and drugs?" "No, I'm saying marketers should be data driven and dispassionate."
That's a fairly ridiculous interpretation of that LinkedIn post, so much so that you're clearly using it as a strawman. The post clearly made the point that it was Elon's decision to make his personal brand synonymous with Tesla, and then make his personal brand a political brand, that was a problem. You take that concept and jump miles over to a defense of "everyone in academia is not allowed to have opinions".
The poster was right, we do not all have to accept the politics of Musk and it was his choice to intertwine those with his company so deeply. Saying otherwise is, honestly, un-American.
Adam, I appreciate sharing ideas but if you're going to publish such biased stuff at least publish articles from the other side of these arguments as well. I don't really enjoy reading one side of every argument.
I don't think I've said no to anyone who has asked to publish a story here. In fact in 20 years of blogging both here and the old domain pretty sure have published liberal, conservative and libertarian thoughts. I actually feel that's rare. Anyway as I said above if you have something you want to share, just ask.
While this is the first-time today it's been implied that I'm "Un-American," it likely won't be the last.
I get that my bias is pretty obvious here — and that's why I had a bit of a "steelman" case in the first reply — but I understand that goes with the territory.
No, this isn't just a disagreement on opinion. This is you condescending the rest of us to not have opinions. That's a serious problem you should think about.
I only read this because Adam published it. I regret it and won't do so again.
Oh dear…‘based’. 😅 Look you make a good point on boycotts - got an article I’m stewing over about that issue for other reasons. But there’s a blind spot - unless you can correct me!- free market arguments can’t be made both ways - innovation (a major argument in favour) can’t at the same time say that the market can’t then reject products or services for whatever reason, including political ones. Surely it’s a free market? Or is not? In that sense the ‘left’ that you think are being spoilers of the free market are actually endorsing it in a way that should make Milton Friedman blush. Appreciate you indulging me on this btw.
The free market is absolutely free to reject products or services for whatever reason; if the past three months lead to the demise of The Musk Empire for reasons that are entirely political then...that must be the free market at work.
Or it's free speech at work, or a combination of the two.
It really does seem to be that you can't criticise Musk without also:
1 - Being assumed to be a woolly leftie
2 - Being assumed to think the innovations he's led like reusable rockets and Teslas are some sort of scam (they aren't).
Outside of the mostly US based fanbase, like here in the UK, Musk has been seen flat out boosting rabid neo-nazis in Europe and here too. If you know even the slightest bit of history, you'll know that this isn't 'just a bit offensive to lefties' (who you might think are being sensitive to his trolling) - these are deeply anti-democratic and historically stupid and dangerous things to do given his platform and reach.
So yes, people are doing whatever they can to take him down. It's not about brand. It's about survival and a desire not to have the most terrible chapter in human history repeated because we didn't stand up to a political man-child who happened to be good at making stuff.
You do know he turned up live at the AfD just before the elections in Germany right? I'm not sure what else to call that? Extremes of either kind are dangerous. That's not the only thing. If he was supporting the Communist party in the UK I'd be against that too
I haven't studied the AfD enough to know how "far-right" they are. Quick check of the internet says they're "Eurosceptic" (not bad), "pro-Russian" (bad), but against mass immigration into Europe, especially from Muslim countries (this, IMHO, means you want to properly vet your immigrants and try to avoid terrorism, lest you give up your country).
Hmm ok are you US based Dave? These things may seem a bit far away for you then- so I get it in that case. The AfD may present a nice brochure but even Nigel Farage (who I’m no fan of) has suggested they ‘clean up their act’ and got scolded by Musk for it. Call me a democratic absolutist but that doesn’t sound healthy. All I’m saying is Musk doesn’t need defending - he’s incredibly powerful and abusing that power. Not only can he take it, he fully deserves it for being an utter political clown. Follow him for a while on Twitter if you can bear it. It soon becomes clear when he talks about areas where he’s not an expert in, that he exposes his breathtaking arrogance. Wait til he talks about something you know about (as oppose to engineering) & you realise he’s also a dangerous fool regardless of success in some areas. He’s remarkable AND ridiculous in different places
I will give you that the "right" in all its forms has a narrative problem and that narrative is shaped by the left saying that everything to the right of the left is "alt-right," or "far-right," or, in the case of AfD, "possibly Nazi." And I've watched all sorts of people be called "Nazis" for way too long; long enough to watch that word lose a lot of its meaning.
Cue the Andrew Breitbart "War" meme. That's where we are.
Does going to Mars make sense as a pursuit? I don't know, but Elon's SpaceX seems more likely to make that happen than Bezos's Blue Origin. Both figures are arrogant, yes, but I'll ignore their arrogance and personal shortcomings and see what they can manifest in the space race.
But I'm not giving up my Amazon account because Bezos is running around doing goofy publicity stunts sending female celebrities on an 11-minute flight, even though I think it's, again, goofy. He, too, is incredibly powerful and might be abusing that power by letting his girlfriend go up in the air.
I guess I don't understand this paragraph, as in these 2 views can coexist, right? Reasonably, someone could have a strong or weak argument on the particular way they think Elon is bad (or behaving badly, or neglecting something important) that's entirely separate from his business acumen.
"If your theory is that Elon is bad, but you get into the real world and see that he’s actually one of the most disruptive innovators we’ve ever seen, you may need to rethink your approach."
I understand that this is probably meant less as a general philosophy and more as a rebuttal to specific Musk critics, but it feels like it raises more questions than it answers. Like, what is "the real world" in your definition? Is it simply whatever's winning? I suspect it's not that simple, but that didn't come through in the piece for me.
Good thoughts, James: "it's not that simple" is right, so the fact that it didn't come through is on me.
If you drive a Tesla you don't drive an "Elon," and the benefits of driving an EV didn't magically stop being benefits on January 20. So I guess the real world here is one where EVs are now disruptive, there seem to be more Teslas on the road than ever, and if I bought one a few years back and now hate Elon my Tesla is still a good vehicle.
thanks for this! That makes sense. Appreciate you elaborating, and this lines up (in my head, at least) more with the rest of your piece.
I think about this sort of stuff a lot differently than most, I suspect, but I do think I line up with you in a crucial aspect: Liking or disliking Elon means acknowledging/grappling with what he's done in business, whether that's the companies he founded and/or built, how he's dealt with employees and regulators, etc. Still lots of room to have a range of views on him.
I wrote ages ago about the "Steelman," which would be the opposite of a "Strawman," in that you attempt to build an argument for the other side's point of view in order to understand it better.
In some respects, my article may be a Steelman case for Musk; but it also shows that quite a few people are attempting to move beyond politics to look at the actual innovations.
And believe me, I could probably create a Steelman case *against* Elon as well: DOGE is moving too fast, way too many conflict metals used for solar, Tesla's relationship to China is questionable.
Anyway, thanks for reading.
Generally, I agree with the professor's premise of separating personality from business. But current times have me reevaluating.
I've question the common belief that business is amoral and shouldn't take a stand. That practice worked when times were peaceful, but it doesn't work when there is social turmoil. Staying neutral to protect profits while the world burns isn't an achievement nor virtuous.
In the past, companies privately donated or used lobbyists to sway politics in their favor. Now they're more open about their affiliations and donations. The "We demand transparency" crowd is loud except for when it's not in their favor. (insert Drake meme)
Re: Dave's comments about battle plan vs real world. I agree. I had a similar response to Adam Grant's opinion on Musk.
"Grant has the luxury of pontificating without being in the trenches. Not much different than activists and politicians (both parties) who live in gated communities and glass houses. Advice/policy without having to participate and experience the outcomes.
Society didn't have a problem with Musk or Trump until they "switched teams". Suddenly, they became evil reincarnated because they're a threat to existing power structures. These men are who they've been, character flaws and all. The primary change is the media framing exemplified by Grant. You don't have to like either one to understand the timeless playbook.
2013's Time Cover and media darling.
https://time100.time.com/2013/04/18/time-100/slide/elon-musk/"
---
If you can't create or build, then you criticize and tear down. Envy is at the root.
The time calls for us to build. It will be hard, but it will be worth it for future generations.
Society did have a problem with Trump. His reputation was always that of an unlikable blowhard, long before he got involved in politics.
https://youtu.be/8q9IkntjueE?t=90
Hatred toward Elon goes way beyond just political beliefs. And no imaginary innovator score can fix that. By your logic, we should ignore the fact that he publicly trashed his trans child, does heil salutes, openly supports Germany's neo-nazi party, recklessly destroys US government institutions, pollutes democracy with his million-dollar voter giveaways, declares empathy as western civilization's biggest flaw (and acts accordingly), and he's the world's biggest troll. Those things aren't guilt-by-association. Those are his own words and deeds. And you think I should look past all of that just because he's an innovator? I love innovation as much as anyone. But I love humaneness just a tad more.
There's some Kool-Aid left in the bottom of your glass.
I hate kool-aid as much as I hate trolls.
I have a few serious problems I should think about, so let me put my condescension at the top of the list.
My own opinion is that this is an unconvincing piece. And a reductive one. To me, it seems like the message boils down to "Innovator Man Good". It's the mirror image of what is being criticized. And a blithe dismissal of serious criticism of Musk under the umbrella of "All Things Left".
The notion that Elon Musk is not deserving of the flak he is getting is not right to me. I know it's in vogue to mock certain things on the left (a lot of which does deserve derision) but the criticism of Musk seems justified. His rhetoric and his wielding of X to amplify his views are problematic. How can they not be viewed that way? Every time I hit the "For You" tab, his tweets are at the top. His credulousness when promoting random views on his site genuinely has an outsized impact on people's views of the physical world with which we actually interact each day. To me, he is reckless at best.
He is totally an innovator and deserves credit for that. And I am most definitely not saying he should be censored. But he absolutely deserves to be criticized.
I certainly don't like the idea of Professors pushing their ideology and worldview on students, I can agree with that. But this was a strange route to take from that starting point.
I'm not usually one to disparage a post on the internet because I don't agree with it. But I must say, this is a bit much.
First off -- the LinkedIn post that forms the basis of your argument is saying almost the exact opposite of what you accuse the author of. Paul states that "the most dangerous communications decision a founder can make is becoming synonymous with their company." The very position you go on to attack is the one of people "conflating assumed beliefs of innovators with their actual innovations." These are fundamentally *the same problem.* But the reality is that it is not users who conflate Elon's politics with his products -- it is Elon himself who built this identity. Levi Strauss did not buy a communications platform in order to ensure his political messaging would stay mainstream. People may conflate his name with a pair of jeans, but they don't associate his identity -- and as this professor states, that's by design.
Paul did not pick Elon because he "doesn't like" him. He picked Elon because no one else has put their politics so overtly behind their brand. The professor is, in fact, not trying to disparage the founder of Tesla -- he's trying to give him and those like him advice.
You go on to state that marketers -- eg, those developing brand identity -- should stay out of politics. It seems to me that here you are actually restating professor Paul's *original argument." This, in essence, is all he's saying. He uses Elon Musk only as a convenient example. What he means is just that politics needs to stay out of marketing, *for the benefit of the company.* He too, is a capitalist not an activist. It's just that unlike you, he's accepting that it was, in fact, not the mistake of millions of well-informed consumers that conflated Musk's brand with his politics, but a deliberate choice on Musk's part -- and one that is severely hurting his company.
"Innovator Man Bad" -- I don't believe anyone has ever said that. People today do not dislike entrepreneur's innovations. Conversely, entrepreneurs today are making their politics a bigger part of their innovations, which opens that door to more alienation. As Paul originally states, making a founder's values part of a brand leads to an unnecessary loss of customer base. People who have boycotted Tesla or X are not "ignoring the past;" they are factoring in new information they did not have then about the company's values.
"Our craft isn't supposed to be political, we're supposed to be data-driven and dispassionate." -- I'm sorry, can you repeat that? So, marketers today should be focused only on numbers. Alright, let's sell as many weapons to gangs as we can. Actually, let's start dealing drugs -- huge untapped customer base right there. Immoral? Sure. But we're not supposed to be moral, or human. We can leave that to the politicians and the masses. You can correct me if I misinterpret you here, but that position to me seems ethically abhorrent and one that if universally adopted would put us in a very, very bleak world indeed.
As I said, I'm not generally one to respond like this. But the picture you paint does not strike me as one reflected in reality. If you'd like to take your own advice and speak to someone across the aisle, I'd love to hear a reply :) (and I am, assuredly, cybertruck free)
This is reminding me of the Cathy Newman interview with Jordan Peterson. "So you're saying that marketers should sell guns and drugs?" "No, I'm saying marketers should be data driven and dispassionate."
Touche ;) Doesn't change the fact that we can retain our humanity while being data driven :)
That's a fairly ridiculous interpretation of that LinkedIn post, so much so that you're clearly using it as a strawman. The post clearly made the point that it was Elon's decision to make his personal brand synonymous with Tesla, and then make his personal brand a political brand, that was a problem. You take that concept and jump miles over to a defense of "everyone in academia is not allowed to have opinions".
The poster was right, we do not all have to accept the politics of Musk and it was his choice to intertwine those with his company so deeply. Saying otherwise is, honestly, un-American.
Adam, I appreciate sharing ideas but if you're going to publish such biased stuff at least publish articles from the other side of these arguments as well. I don't really enjoy reading one side of every argument.
I don't think I've said no to anyone who has asked to publish a story here. In fact in 20 years of blogging both here and the old domain pretty sure have published liberal, conservative and libertarian thoughts. I actually feel that's rare. Anyway as I said above if you have something you want to share, just ask.
While this is the first-time today it's been implied that I'm "Un-American," it likely won't be the last.
I get that my bias is pretty obvious here — and that's why I had a bit of a "steelman" case in the first reply — but I understand that goes with the territory.
Thanks for reading!
No, this isn't just a disagreement on opinion. This is you condescending the rest of us to not have opinions. That's a serious problem you should think about.
I only read this because Adam published it. I regret it and won't do so again.
https://www.hottakes.space/p/we-want-innovation-but-without-the/comment/109007124?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=mjn5
Oh dear…‘based’. 😅 Look you make a good point on boycotts - got an article I’m stewing over about that issue for other reasons. But there’s a blind spot - unless you can correct me!- free market arguments can’t be made both ways - innovation (a major argument in favour) can’t at the same time say that the market can’t then reject products or services for whatever reason, including political ones. Surely it’s a free market? Or is not? In that sense the ‘left’ that you think are being spoilers of the free market are actually endorsing it in a way that should make Milton Friedman blush. Appreciate you indulging me on this btw.
The free market is absolutely free to reject products or services for whatever reason; if the past three months lead to the demise of The Musk Empire for reasons that are entirely political then...that must be the free market at work.
Or it's free speech at work, or a combination of the two.
Read the room.
It really does seem to be that you can't criticise Musk without also:
1 - Being assumed to be a woolly leftie
2 - Being assumed to think the innovations he's led like reusable rockets and Teslas are some sort of scam (they aren't).
Outside of the mostly US based fanbase, like here in the UK, Musk has been seen flat out boosting rabid neo-nazis in Europe and here too. If you know even the slightest bit of history, you'll know that this isn't 'just a bit offensive to lefties' (who you might think are being sensitive to his trolling) - these are deeply anti-democratic and historically stupid and dangerous things to do given his platform and reach.
So yes, people are doing whatever they can to take him down. It's not about brand. It's about survival and a desire not to have the most terrible chapter in human history repeated because we didn't stand up to a political man-child who happened to be good at making stuff.
Took 3 full days for the "neo-nazi" thing to come out in the comments; surprised you're the first.
You do know he turned up live at the AfD just before the elections in Germany right? I'm not sure what else to call that? Extremes of either kind are dangerous. That's not the only thing. If he was supporting the Communist party in the UK I'd be against that too
I haven't studied the AfD enough to know how "far-right" they are. Quick check of the internet says they're "Eurosceptic" (not bad), "pro-Russian" (bad), but against mass immigration into Europe, especially from Muslim countries (this, IMHO, means you want to properly vet your immigrants and try to avoid terrorism, lest you give up your country).
Hmm ok are you US based Dave? These things may seem a bit far away for you then- so I get it in that case. The AfD may present a nice brochure but even Nigel Farage (who I’m no fan of) has suggested they ‘clean up their act’ and got scolded by Musk for it. Call me a democratic absolutist but that doesn’t sound healthy. All I’m saying is Musk doesn’t need defending - he’s incredibly powerful and abusing that power. Not only can he take it, he fully deserves it for being an utter political clown. Follow him for a while on Twitter if you can bear it. It soon becomes clear when he talks about areas where he’s not an expert in, that he exposes his breathtaking arrogance. Wait til he talks about something you know about (as oppose to engineering) & you realise he’s also a dangerous fool regardless of success in some areas. He’s remarkable AND ridiculous in different places
I am based.
I am based in the US, too.
I will give you that the "right" in all its forms has a narrative problem and that narrative is shaped by the left saying that everything to the right of the left is "alt-right," or "far-right," or, in the case of AfD, "possibly Nazi." And I've watched all sorts of people be called "Nazis" for way too long; long enough to watch that word lose a lot of its meaning.
Cue the Andrew Breitbart "War" meme. That's where we are.
Does going to Mars make sense as a pursuit? I don't know, but Elon's SpaceX seems more likely to make that happen than Bezos's Blue Origin. Both figures are arrogant, yes, but I'll ignore their arrogance and personal shortcomings and see what they can manifest in the space race.
But I'm not giving up my Amazon account because Bezos is running around doing goofy publicity stunts sending female celebrities on an 11-minute flight, even though I think it's, again, goofy. He, too, is incredibly powerful and might be abusing that power by letting his girlfriend go up in the air.
I guess I don't understand this paragraph, as in these 2 views can coexist, right? Reasonably, someone could have a strong or weak argument on the particular way they think Elon is bad (or behaving badly, or neglecting something important) that's entirely separate from his business acumen.
"If your theory is that Elon is bad, but you get into the real world and see that he’s actually one of the most disruptive innovators we’ve ever seen, you may need to rethink your approach."
I understand that this is probably meant less as a general philosophy and more as a rebuttal to specific Musk critics, but it feels like it raises more questions than it answers. Like, what is "the real world" in your definition? Is it simply whatever's winning? I suspect it's not that simple, but that didn't come through in the piece for me.
Good thoughts, James: "it's not that simple" is right, so the fact that it didn't come through is on me.
If you drive a Tesla you don't drive an "Elon," and the benefits of driving an EV didn't magically stop being benefits on January 20. So I guess the real world here is one where EVs are now disruptive, there seem to be more Teslas on the road than ever, and if I bought one a few years back and now hate Elon my Tesla is still a good vehicle.
thanks for this! That makes sense. Appreciate you elaborating, and this lines up (in my head, at least) more with the rest of your piece.
I think about this sort of stuff a lot differently than most, I suspect, but I do think I line up with you in a crucial aspect: Liking or disliking Elon means acknowledging/grappling with what he's done in business, whether that's the companies he founded and/or built, how he's dealt with employees and regulators, etc. Still lots of room to have a range of views on him.