From the comments: 'This response from Musk comes across as "when someone has a complaint, attempt to discredit them instead of responding to said complaints," which is just deflection. If Tesla feels that these complaints are misleading and has systems in place to address them, explain those systems and respond to the criticisms themselves, don't attack the messenger.'
Agree with this comment. The details in the article make it seem unlikely that the counter claim that the person in question was a plant of UAW seem unlikely. Unfortunate that Musk didn't use the opportunity to make this a positive response rather than a negative one.
> Our understanding is that this guy was paid by the UAW to join Tesla
Calling it his "understanding" gives him a lot of latitude to say anything that happens to be convenient without offering any evidence. Let's check back if he actually produces any. Until then, we should be aware it's lazy and dangerous for the media to present opposing sides of just any point as equally legitimate when one side has a definitively greater burden of proof.
> Considering the employee in question has been working at Tesla for four years and this is the first evidence of “agitating for a union”, it would truly be a “long con”, if true.
Musk is a 'paid agitator' for environmentally responsible consumption, for the benefits of interplanetary civilization. For, generally, Silicon Valley's ethos of progress. It does not discredit him. Readers here know that intellectual & ideological workers labor as much as any farm or factory hand. To pay them does not impugn their sincerity (nor would their volunteerism imply idealism). Open source software may be malicious, closed source software commendable.
Musk is a thoughtful capitalist: the above notion has occurred to him. He speaks cynically. Though a paid agitator for shareholder value, I had thought him until now sincere. Disappointing!
6 comments
[ 76.1 ms ] story [ 100 ms ] threadAgree with this comment. The details in the article make it seem unlikely that the counter claim that the person in question was a plant of UAW seem unlikely. Unfortunate that Musk didn't use the opportunity to make this a positive response rather than a negative one.
Calling it his "understanding" gives him a lot of latitude to say anything that happens to be convenient without offering any evidence. Let's check back if he actually produces any. Until then, we should be aware it's lazy and dangerous for the media to present opposing sides of just any point as equally legitimate when one side has a definitively greater burden of proof.
> Considering the employee in question has been working at Tesla for four years and this is the first evidence of “agitating for a union”, it would truly be a “long con”, if true.
Musk is a thoughtful capitalist: the above notion has occurred to him. He speaks cynically. Though a paid agitator for shareholder value, I had thought him until now sincere. Disappointing!