this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
704 points (98.8% liked)
Enough Musk Spam
2204 readers
28 users here now
For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.
No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.
Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.
Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.
Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, that's fallacious in two ways: equivocation and appeal to emotion. Neutrality is not defined by upsetting both sides equally, because that means one side could shift the definition of neutral in their favor by being (or pretending to be) more upset.
Actual neutrality requires objectivity and calling out crocodile tears based on exaggerations (or even wholly imaginary issues, for that matter) as what they are.
Neutrality is not truth
I beleive the first would be an appeal to moderation fallacy. I mean, you're right in calling out the illogical BS. I'm just saying I think it's this particular flavour of illogical BS.
I'm sure you can see your way out of one just fine but favourite way to call out an appeal to moderation fallacy is to ask "if I said the sky was predominantly yellow and you, rightly, corrected me and said it was predominantly blue, would it be logical for a third person to conclude that the sky was green?"