Let's be specific, "pedo guy". And that was an insult in response to an equally profane insult from the other guy. Two wrongs don't make a right, but he apologized and people who have said equally bad or worse things also occupy high places...
I think you again have missed the point that it was not an unprovoked comment. It was in response to another insult. I don't know how betting money on an insult makes it not an insult. It's one thing to attack someone because they dislike you or it's not provoked at all. It's another to respond to an ad hominem with another. Nobody is disputing he went far overboard than he needed to, and that his position gives him dangerous influence (as with many celebrities). In the end he deleted the tweets and apologized. Unless you have reason to believe that it's insincere, I'm not holding weight on a war of words.
What it emphasises is the need for self-moderation especially when your state of mind is in fight mode. The mistake here is Elon's stream of consciousness doesn't stay off of twitter for his own determent. That is not an inherently malicious thing. People get into arguments all the time and say stupid regrettable things in the moment. Playing out on the internet--especially with a big power dynamic at play no doubt is bad. But let's not forget we're not robots here--hence we're not sending people to jail after arguments.
Yes Elon is known for manic states, it's not a new detail. The legal discovery process is basically also "digging up dirt", and both sides do it before a trial to bolster their cases. That doesn't imply malice (as in, wanting to harm someone aside from mocking them), which is also something for a jury to determine. And a jury decided, unanimously after viewing the totality of the case, that the comments did not amount to defamation.
> he didn't apologize
> He said in court that insisting somebody is a pedo is a common playground insult in Africa.
Apologizing and making this clarification are not mutually exclusive things.
Let's keep emotion away to understand what's happening. You emphasise the alleged hate and are regurgitating the private investigator points. He made an accusation as an insult. And dug in on it, on his own FU money, to not lose the argument. It's not right, but missing the crucial context before and after: he was not the instigator, and he apologized for it after.
> Are you implying it is okay for Elon to make false child rapist accusation?
People say much worse than "pedo guy" in arguments, although this is subjective. In a response to another insult, I'll mark "Sorry pedo guy..." as an informal childish remark, not a sober threat with the intent to harm someone.
> Nobody said they were mutually exclusive.
> I am saying that he didn't apologize.
I don't understand what you're saying here. This means he can apologize for and also clarify the context behind the insult. So far, his last words on the topic in sworn statements are that he didn't mean the comments to be a statement of fact and apologized.
> Second the diver had to prove damage, which was hard to do.
They had to prove if a reasonable person would take the statement as a fact of matter. Whatever dirt he dug up with an investigator is something that happened after the fact, and private comments he made digging in are self-inflicted collateral damage, not preceding the comments in question.
> I have no idea how his general trait is relevant with this specific event.
The totality of the case also needs to mention the context that he was trying to help, on his own dime, children who were trapped underground. It doesn't make his comments right, but taking statements at face value lacks human context.
Have you looked at some crazy behaviours from Musk?
Like how he teased SEC. How he tried to falsely accuse British diver as a child rapist.
Not to mention, the price isn't that good. There were people who bought at 70 a few months ago.
Offering at 44 is kinda meh.
If musk offered 1000 per share, then the lawsuit may have had some weight.