Aaahhhhhhhhggggyhgderggdukjgffddswrtf
This is going to be a completely pointless comment, but I have to exorcize this demon:
- “oppressed” is already a value judgement, so none of this can be “foundational” in the way he is claiming
- oppression is a bad thing by definition, otherwise we’d call it something else
- so the oppressed are always right in not wanting to be oppressed, by definition
dtgdrthgedseewqwefvvujnhfyjgfesaaaaaaaaaaghhhhh
He’s literally saying “have you considered that bad things might actually be good”
To apartheid failsons, the oppressed can deserve to be oppressed, actually.Exactly. When the weak group is in the right, we call them oppressed. Otherwise we call them terrorists, insurgents, criminals or something like that.
“Should be that right is right” is such an idiotic sentence as well.
“Should be that right is right” is such an idiotic sentence as well.
“A=A” Randroid shit.
I’m so sick and tired of this nerd speak dude just admit you’re a fascist who wants fascism it’s not hard and you’re not going to lose subscribers.
Dude’s smart enough to understand a dog whistle. He knows what he’s saying. It’s pretty explicit
“Bro! You just posted cringe, but you are not going to loose subscriber”
Dude is trying to sound so smart and yet keeps on failing at it spectacularly.
He is so dumb it’s crazy
I’ve heard too much ketamine over too long can turn you into a dumbass, and he started on third base.
people don’t like being oppressed and a society founded on oppression contains inherent contradictions arising from conflict between the oppressor and oppressed classes
aha! you have committed the logical error of assuming that the oppressed are always right!- The undesirables always have a choice to do the right thing and get into the trains to the camps!
right makes right
the first rule of tautology club has been revised. previously, the first rule of tautology club was the first rule of tautology club. now, the first rule of tautology club is ‘anytime you see elon musk on the street, smack him in the back of the head as hard as you can’
How long is it going to take for chuds to stop pretending they’re not fascists? Just admit it!
adds the word “fascist” to his lists of people he wants to purge from Burgerland to this day, so I have no idea.That’s true, I wonder how that makes the openly identifying fascists feel.
Fascists only care about power, and they have no issue lying either. They know mainstream politics has to optically denounce fascism, but they also know a when a particular political figure advances their cause
: “The fascists were wrong because they weren’t 
. Heil mein Führer!”
Even with minimal cynicism it should take all of 10 seconds to realize this is just Might makes Right obscured by tautology:
Right makes right
law makes right
politicians make law
voters make politicians
advertising/propaganda makes voters
money makes advertising/propagandaQED
right makes right
Damn I wish I could have thought of that
“There is nothing wrong with singing ‘kill the Boer, kill the farmer’.” – Julius Malema
But the left does not argue that “weak makes right”. I don’t see anyone on the left saying that the Argentinian government’s policies are right, despite then being in a very weak position. On foreign policy, I don’t see the global left supporting Taiwan or even Ukraine, despite both states being in weak positions compared to their much larger neighbour, and one of them even being at war after the much larger neighbour invaded. Most are neutral and just want peace, and a few states even support Russia and China explicitly. The appeal to weakness and admiration of failed projects is something that is usually seen amongst egalitarian/radical liberals and the kind of person that argues “communism is a good idea in theory, but real communism has never been tried” types.
And that’s the most charitable interpretation of what Musk has said, as other users have said judging who plays what part of the “oppressor/oppressed” dynamic is always a value judgement, and the oppressed are always right in not wanting to be oppressed by their oppressors within that specific dynamic.
To the right, the oppressed are necessarily weaker than the oppressors. Therefore, considering the oppressed to always be the correct side of a conflict is equivalent to considering the weaker party to always be the correct side of a conflict. In other words, weak makes right.
Others in this comment section have pointed out errors in this argument, so I won’t bother reiterating them here.
Just that thing where they can’t fathom how we think, so they just invert how they think and decide that must be it. They have a reflexive worship of power that compels them to always see the oppressor as correct? We must simply think the exact opposite, nothing more complicated than that.
Chuds lack the imagination or the empathy to even begin to understand other points of view and other perspectives. The best they can do is imagine crude clumsy mock-ups of themselves that are wrong and bad.
In this case, “weak makes right” is how the chud imagines caring about disadvantaged people must feel like.
He is longing for the “good old days” when the AmeriKKKan Constitution was new. When women, non-whites and the poor were property and the indigenous were vermin to be removed from their land executed.
He is longing for the “good old days” when the AmeriKKKan Constitution was new.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
He is longing for the “good old days” when the AmeriKKKan Constitution was new. When women, non-whites and the poor were property and the indigenous were vermin to be removed from their land executed.
Whenever someone smugly states that they are a “constitutionalist” or the like, that’s what they mean.
Constitutionalism is fine if you have an actually decent constitution. The U.S. constitution is not that.
Yeah, and here in Burgerland, if someone says they are a “constitutionalist” what they mean is the document penned by slavers that had lofty aspirations to lord over the ignorant masses and continue enjoying acts of cruelty with their slaves.
To this day, a provision still exists in the Burgerland constitution permitting slavery:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Oh, I’m quite aware of that loophole.
Prison labor’s all but certain to be plugged into robo servants soon, in addition to all their current roadway cleanup and treat-assembly toiling.
Yeah, I’m not surprised you know since you’re on Hexbear, this was more in case it benefited anyone else to read it
Hey everybody, I just wanted to remind everybody that I care about doing the right thing even if it’s some untermensch’s idea and my haters don’t and you are being irrational if you don’t agree.
He calls that thinking? All I hear is “I, the richest man in the world, LOVE cowards!”
Not sure if what he posted makes no sense or if that’s because English is not my first language, but I cannot make sense of what he tried to say.
Could someone please explain it to me in simpler terms?
He’s saying that people that are disadvantaged are
not always “right.” And then he swings hard for the fascist fences by suddenly trampling over that open ended vagueness by saying might makes right, actually.Thanks its clearer now.
This was pretty much my take. Idk why he seems to think he needs to periodically post some quasi-intelligent drivel once a month though. His fans already think he’s Space Jesus and the Left hate him for being a fascist dork and aren’t at any risk of suddenly thinking he’s some wise sage.
Otherwise he’d lose relevance. As a mere CEO, he’s not doing the actual work at his companies after all
He is saying it should be “correct makes strong and as either side can be correct it is being correct that makes you strong” … I think. Or he’s saying “strong makes correct” as in “sometimes weak is correct but strong is always correct.” Either way its some murky ‘too-clever-for-my-own-britches’ bullshit.
Have considered that tautology exists, silly leftists?
