as opposed to just the "Twitchy" responses, and what is your definition of an inappropriate "hit piece"?

There is a big new bio out about Elon and the NYorker article points out that it mentions Musk's family background, but seems to completely gloss over some pretty alarming background with his grandfather (who is referenced). The article touches on this and from an interesting perspective given Musk's role in social media today. And the article starts out quite clearly noting one should not lay the sins of of the father (or grandfather) on the children. The interesting intersection with Musk is what he would do with some of what his grandfather apparently said and wrote back in his time. This makes it a "hit piece"? Certainly it would be if everything the NYorker is saying is fabricated -- which, maybe it is. Is this your claim? Or maybe it's a problem because it is completely irrelevant to anything else in the world -- so its only purpose is to spit at Musk? Perhaps -- although direct relatives of famous people seem interesting for most (curiously, only sometimes it seems) and it seems an interesting angle given the biography and thinking about Musk's role in modern social media. Curious how you fully define a "hit piece". Is it just about veracity? Is an essay a "hit piece" when involving someone you like, but interesting and less offensive when involving someone you don't like?

Why is it so hard to try and present an issue with one's own words and brain today? Social Media and Twitter/Twitchy world truly is rotting human brains.






[Post edited by fishhoo at 09/22/2023 4:03PM]