![He may not be our guy, but you have to appreciate his style. [750x441 - 48KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/fUYmUy.jpg){kind=link}
I think the more clout you gain, the more detractors build. Musk is actually a great guy. The problem is he's just another celebrity and practicing cultish behavior in his stead is stupid, just like with any other human ever, who has positive and negative qualities... just like all other humans.
It doesn't matter how smart someone is or how much you respect them, if you peruse enough of their ideas, you'll eventually disagree on something. In fact, I think that's a good thing. If we didn't have variance of opinion as a species, as fans of a sport, as a block of voters or as an ethnicity/race, we probably wouldn't last long.
truths
I'm trying to think of an idea where there aren't detractors. Went down quite a tangent.
The best I can come up with is "I am".
Potential arguments against could be, "This is just a simulation", "What is reality?", "We are of the universe experiencing itself."
All those responses try but don't actually challenge my statement at all. Obviously it's a cutlet of the famous quote "I think therefore I am" by René Descartes'. Things don't require thinking to be. Only the observer does.
This is the cliff notes of the thought process. With that in mind Change My Mind™.
The best I can come up with is "I am".
Considering the number of NPCs around, I don't think that statement's prerequisite is met all that often.
There is a difference between the worship of an individual vs worship of a group. See the difference between support of biden vs the DNC.
Or the difference between trump and the RNC.
A collective has staying power.
An individual only truly has the "celebrity of the moment". Its why parties exist: because like genes, the individual composed of those genes don't matter. Hence altruism. Only the genes are important.
True. It's easy to cast agreeance to group qualities. With just individuals, it's much harder, but this gets in to bandwagon theory, genetic selection and survival mechanisms and those are pretty off the path here. But, yes, the man doesn't make the group, but the group the man. It's the same reason why slaves don't need masters, but masters need slaves. Any time a particular group elevates a leader, it's not because of the negative qualities they have. The positive qualities they share inspire their cohesion. The only thing the leader does is guides the mob and keeps them together as a unit.
It's the same reason why slaves don't need masters, but masters need slaves. Any time a particular group elevates a leader, it's not because of the negative qualities they have. The positive qualities they share inspire their cohesion. The only thing the leader does is guides the mob and keeps them together as a unit.
Seems cogent but some part of me says I disagree, and I don't know why. Probably because I'm drunk. But I'm gonna need you to elaborate on your thinking here to clarify what the hell you're getting at because I've legit been in a pseudo-religious delirious fever-dream for two days because of the flu, in combination to being drunk.
I'm barely alive as it is. So explain your thinking if you have the time.
(post is archived)