Because its kind of pointless to the point t of sealioning.
Like take for example when the leader of Wagner group died in a plane crash and it was pretty obvious putin had him killed. Would asking a random lemmy user to provide proof of that claim add anything to thr discussion?
In this case and the Wagner example, if the point isn’t obvious it’s reasonable to ask for some kind of proof to get a better understanding of the point. But I do agree that there’s no reason to ask for proof in this case, because the conspiracy theory is already so nonsensical that any proof would just compound the nonsense.
People simply need to stop putting him on a pedestal and accept that he isn’t some genius businessman whose inner machinations are an enigma. He made a stupid deal and bought a company he doesn’t know how to run so he’s running it into the ground, that’s it. No grand conspiracy required. You need a grand conspiracy only if you can’t accept that Musk is just an ordinary man whose biggest contribution to his success is having wealthy parents.
You clearly imply insider trading going on. The fact that it might not be (I’m not sure if the law) musk being guilty of insider trading, but just commiting fraud so others could do so, is being pedantic and silly.
Always a great sign if posts asking for evidence are getting downvoted.
Because its kind of pointless to the point t of sealioning.
Like take for example when the leader of Wagner group died in a plane crash and it was pretty obvious putin had him killed. Would asking a random lemmy user to provide proof of that claim add anything to thr discussion?
In this case and the Wagner example, if the point isn’t obvious it’s reasonable to ask for some kind of proof to get a better understanding of the point. But I do agree that there’s no reason to ask for proof in this case, because the conspiracy theory is already so nonsensical that any proof would just compound the nonsense.
People simply need to stop putting him on a pedestal and accept that he isn’t some genius businessman whose inner machinations are an enigma. He made a stupid deal and bought a company he doesn’t know how to run so he’s running it into the ground, that’s it. No grand conspiracy required. You need a grand conspiracy only if you can’t accept that Musk is just an ordinary man whose biggest contribution to his success is having wealthy parents.
The question doesn’t make sense in context because that’s not what my comment was implying. It’s down-voted for being silly, not pedantic.
You clearly imply insider trading going on. The fact that it might not be (I’m not sure if the law) musk being guilty of insider trading, but just commiting fraud so others could do so, is being pedantic and silly.
TSLA is his Twitter collateral. Really surprised nobody else sees what I see lol…
Lol, I’m no fan of Elon either.