Elon Musk supports replacing democracy with government of high-status males | Hacker News Reader

Elon Musk supports replacing democracy with government of high-status males

independent.co.uk

24 pointsisaacfrond22 comments

Given the other commentaries here, let me say that the original post that Musk referred to is unhinged, Musk naturally had to support that crap theory, and the Independent's article gives a good idea what is going here.

The best definition of Musk is: "An Incel with Money"

Elon has at least 12 children with 4 different mothers. He literally cannot be an "INvoluntary CELibate" unless you think he is lying about that, too.

That doesn't invalidate the suggestion that, take an incel, add sufficient money, and you get Musk.

There's a pony in there somewhere

Sarah Silverman: "I don't understand how someone can have 15 kids and still be an incel"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VGXSwe6nEU

This is "news" about a reddit thread from yesterday. Someone went on a spiel about alpha and beta and neurodivergent or whatever and he said "interesting observation." So now he supports polygamous social structure ruled by the strongest or some such nonsense.

There was an interesting observation in the spiel once you throw away all the bullshit about testosterone and what not: most people follow the tribe instead of thinking for themselves. This isn't some novel idea, is well studied and well supported by science, so much so that marketing firms pay good money to give people the impression that a lot of people think or like something because if others believe that they'll go along with it. That's the scientific fact that underlies Reddit valuation as a company, and it was interesting watching the target marks parrot what they heard earlier that day in response to the post that spurned the existence of this article also doing the same.

Hey, Plato did suggest it also!

There is so much wrong with this idea.

"Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Yeah, who do they think is going to consent to this? Or did they think that we're so civically uneducated that we forgot that part? (If so, could it be that they're right?)

High testosterone males plus non-neurotypicals? Yeah, how do you think that alliance is going to hold together?

And then, I'd like to see their evidence that high-testosterone males are actually more able to think clearly, instead of just thinking with their hormones.

And then there's confusing high-T males with high status. While there may be some correlation, there are plenty of high-T males digging ditches or filling out street gangs or whatever. The correlation is far less than perfect. So, which is it actually going to be, high-T or high status? You know that any actual implementation of this will in practice be high status, not high-T - rule by elites, in fact. Anybody advocating that nonsense can feel free to get lost, because we aren't interested in going back to that.

Yeah, cause patriarchy has worked so well in the past.

Once again I have to ask, what went wrong in this guy’s childhood?

His dad is now having children with his half-step-sister so ...

everything?

Ag Pleez Deddy

Read the source, Luke.

Really, read the only two words Elon Musk commented about this topic [1]. This article is completely overblown, borders on deceit in my opinion.

[1]: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1830390502836854925

Those two words are still pretty telling, unless “interesting” is understood to have a deeply cutting sarcasm to it.

Well, according to De beauvoir¹, men are the reasons we reached our current status, as a species

As she said : "women perpetuate the species, men transcend it"

Really interesting book, gives a lots of insights about feminism

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex

I can’t readily find any evidence she ever said those words, and from what I can see of what she actually wrote you seem to have taken a somewhat distorted view of what she seems to have meant by transcendence and immanence. Even if an accurate impression of her views, though, there’s an implicit assumption that our current status as a species is either good, elevated, or even minimally acceptable.

I linked the book (which I recommend reading, again).

Indeed, there is an implicit assumption about our current status as a species. Unlike most other species, we developed ourselves beyond our basic physical capabilities.

You linked its Wikipedia entry, I don’t see your quote there, and DDG doesn’t find anything for it either. I do see various things she said about transcendence and immanence that could be twisted into that, possibly through a bad translation app, but that doesn’t directly map to her believing or implying that men bear responsibility for our status as a species, nor does it map to women only or merely perpetuating the species.

Also the degree to which we developed ourselves beyond our basic physical capabilities presumes our technology isn’t a product of our mind and our opposable thumbs, aka of our basic physical capabilities.

Journos can put their version of the story in the title and then bury the truth somewhere in the article because they can trust no one will read it.

I mean, I'm not sure how else one could spin it, though one might also mention the deranged fake biology angle.

What's the truth?

Someone said "most people just go along with what they think others expect them to think, very few people actually think for themselves" and added a whole bunch of nonsense reasoning about testosterone and autism around that idea and musk said "interesting observation."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com