Yes, how dare someone on the Straight Dope care about truth over team rah-rah.
? In what way do you suggest that that meme is “idiotic”, and in what way do you think it’s defending “the truth” to complain about it?
Because according to Fortune magazine,
That is, the World Food Program said that the world’s wealthiest should be chipping in a few billion dollars to save the lives of millions of people.
Musk said that if they showed him a precise plan for it he’d give the money (although in his tweet, not atypically, he rounded up the mission to the more grandiose “solving world hunger”).
They showed him the precise plan, and he didn’t give them the money.
Basically just as ekedolphin’s quoted meme describes.
Of course, there was that nearly-six-billion charitable donation from Musk to an undisclosed recipient at about the same time, and we can hope that perhaps that went towards fighting world hunger. But it seems reasonable that if Musk, or his fans, want Musk to get credit for following through on his own totally voluntary “dare” to the WFP to show him a plan for using six billion dollars to fight world hunger, then he needs to, y’know, show that he did in fact follow through on it.
That’s not “rah-rah”, that’s not “idiocy”, that’s not irresponsibly “hating” on Musk “regardless if it’s true or not”: that’s just a rational description of the situation based on journalistic reports of facts. Grumbling vaguely about “haters” isn’t an adequate rebuttal.
In fact, nate, pretty much everything you’ve said in this thread so far claiming to be in defense of “truth” about Musk has been less true and more partisan than the criticisms of Musk you’ve been trying to dismiss.
No, it’s the half-assed attempt from some of you to actually skim an article to try to justify the hate you have for Elon after reading all the shit flung against him for several years through headlines.
So dive into the plan you’ve linked, @Kimstu and actually see how detailed it is. I’ll wait.
But for the impatient, this is the plan.
I don’t need to half-ass anything to justify my hate for Elon.
He’s a billionaire. All billionaires are inherently worthy of scorn.
That isn’t the World Food Programme (WFP) Global Operational Response Plan; that is just an article (note the categorization under “Stories” at the top of the page) that consists of an executive summary and a pair of tanles that breaks down their planned allocations by region and recipient nation. The WFP Global Operational Response Plan: Update #3 – November 2021 can be found here (scroll down to the bottom for the download of the PDF), and even that should be understood to be a summary of the individual detailed distribution plans for the nations listed in Section IV.
Since that exchange, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has seriously (and perhaps catastrophically) reduced grain yields and shipments from that country which are crucial for relief efforts and general food security across the Middle East and North Africa, exacerbating food insecurity levels not seen since the 2007-2008 global financial crisis. Musk’s response? Get into a one-sided online Twitter ‘feud’ with the Kremlin and then launch a $US44B leveraged buyout of Twitter for ostensibly altruistic reasons of protecting freedom of speech, although there are reasons to doubt his sincerity to that principle. Meanwhile, food insecurity and famine are being amplified by a shortage of grain, rise in global grain prices, and restricted availability to potash and other fertilizers from Russia and Ukraine.
Stranger
My problem with Musk is that he comes across - intentionally - as a disruptor, as a rebel, as someone who likes to “move fast and break things”. And that’s great, if he were a run-of-the-mill tech multimillionaire. But now, he’s the richest man in the world, maybe in history, holding more power with less oversight than anyone before him. Do we really want someone like that to be an agent of chaos?
Also, he comes across as a bit of an asshole.
He’s so fucking insufferable.
You misunderstand – that’s actually a demonstration of nate’s plan. 
But you don’t. You care about about attacking the SDMB for saying negative things about Elon Musk. No matter how many cites are given to back up their claims, you try and find one inconsequential aspect that you can quibble about, as if that proves everything wrong.
If you were interested in disproving the meme, you wouldn’t have attacked first. You’d have found some way to argue against the claims made. Even now, the best you can do is to try and quote some summary of the plan and act like it wasn’t actionable. Not, you know, finding a cite to prove that any claim in the meme is wrong.
The SDMB has no vendetta against Musk. Some individuals might, but the Dope as a whole does not. So the fact that no one agrees with you should tell you something. As should the fact that you find it so hard to find cites to back up your way of thinking about it. As should the fact you instead just attack us as bad people.
Stranger_On_A_Train has already explained your error in mistaking a posted version of an “Executive Summary” of the WFP plan for the detailed plan itself. I’ll just point out in addition that Musk’s “I dare ya” tweet didn’t actually specify any criteria for the level of detail he expected in the plan.
So even if the WFP hadn’t had a raft of particular mechanisms and approaches underlying their “Executive Summary” overview, it would still have been a dick move for Musk to challenge them “I’ll give you $6 billion if you give me a detailed plan of how you’ll spend it to fight world hunger!” and then respond to their submitted plan with “Actually, this plan doesn’t meet the criteria for level of specific detail that I had in my head but never told you about when I made that challenge, so nah, not giving you the money.”
Honestly, nate, you’ve spend six weeks in this thread trying to dig yourself out of the hole you’re in, and you just keep digging yourself deeper.
Nobody AFAICT is trying to deny that there is some irrational and/or generalized negativity for Musk floating around among all the valid specific criticisms of him. (Smapti, for example, avowedly scorns him just for being a billionaire, which, okay fine, but is obviously not based on any particular evidence of assholery on Musk’s part.) But where you go drastically off the rails is in trying to argue that therefore ALL the valid specific criticisms of Musk are just manifestations of irrational/envious “hating”, which is simply not defensible.
Ever since your post #14 in this thread you’ve been trying to sell Musk as a fundamentally “admirable” person whose apparently assholish behavior consists merely of being “a bit odd on twitter”, possibly because he’s “on the spectrum” (which indirectly insults all the many, many neuroatypical people who nonetheless manage not to behave like assholes). And since that position repeatedly puts you at odds with the facts, you keep on falling back on distorted selective versions of the facts which other people then have to correct. And then you interpret their corrections and rebuttals as merely more evidence of their irrational hatred for Musk, whom they should instead be admiring, and round and round the circle goes.
I don’t understand why you can’t seem to wrap your head around the fact that Musk as an imperfect human being may have achieved some things worthy of admiration, and maybe even some things that objectively “advance humanity”, while also being in many ways an asshole. What’s so complicated or inconceivable about that?
I mean, that’s great you found this but I don’t know what this has to do with the exchange between Musk & Beasley.
You can follow that link and scroll to the bottom to see a link labeled “See full plan here”. In this plan you will see no reference (unless I’ve just overlooked it) to the document you linked. So why do you think this is just an executive summary of that document?
This isn’t a criticism of WFP at all… it’s a criticism of how people make quick, rash judgements based on incomplete or misleading headlines & tweets.
To be fair, Musk’s tweet is not about fighting world hunger, but solving world hunger.
Time after time I’ve proved myself right. I think I was wrong about a plan for SpaceX to build a power plant in Boca Chica, which I admitted, but otherwise I believe the one presenting facts is me. It’s not like I’m not aware of the common criticisms towards Musk, but it’s that when you dive just a tad deeper they are flatly wrong or at best misleading. I’ll say it again, it reminds me of how the right treats the Clintons.
Does anyone anywhere think that six billion dollars is all that’s needed to “solve world hunger”?
Because the first subheading is literally “ Executive summary: US$6.6 billion ask”. Did you not read your own cite?
No, and nobody has said that it is. The requested $US6.6B is intended to avert the then-present “hunger crisis” (in common terms, starvation) seen at the highest levels since the 2007-2008 global financial crisis of 42 million people on the brink of famine. Actually solving world hunger would take a commitment by leading world economies to ensure a regular uninterrupted supply of macronutrients, a longer term plan for sustainable agriculture using local resources in famine-prone areas, and a campaign of family planning and education to prevent overpopulation in regions that cannot support large population growth as well as establishing economic security so that people don’t have large numbers of children for ostensibly economic or cultural security reasons.
Stranger
Obviously only skimmed the article to justify … erm … whatever he’s been doing.
That feeble goalpost-shoving was already addressed in post #304.
I mean, I get that you probably sincerely believe that, but the fact that literally nobody else here agrees with your perception of the situation should give you pause.
You can either just sink deeper into the conspiracist-type mindset that asserts that the wall-to-wall disagreement and refutations are simply MORE evidence of how ubiquitous the irrational anti-Musk hate is, or you can try to understand and accept the reality that you are not “the one presenting facts” here.
Somebody who could imagine it’s valid to compare specific fact-based criticisms of Musk’s documented statements and actions with delusional right-wing fantasies about how Bill and Hillary Clinton have had dozens of their political enemies murdered—and moreover are running a pedophilic sex-trafficking ring out of a pizza-parlor basement—is not a trustworthy purveyor of rational analysis on this subject.
When it comes to the subject of Elon Musk, nate, you’re an unreliable source, full stop. Best of luck with figuring out a more accurate perspective on the discourse about him.
Interesting comment section in this article.
I treat comment sections like grade school children on a field trip; something best ignored if it can’t be avoided or eradicated.
Stranger
Except when some of the comments are from the author of the article.