>I don't consider "pedo boy" to be slander any more than someone in the west calling another a "motherfucker".

'motherfucker' is a common phrase even outside of strictly english - speaking countries , and very few people go on to explain how the person had sex with a mother.

'pedo boy' is impossibly uncommon, regardless of what the singular defending belligerent claims, and furthermore he went on to publicly accuse the person of actual pedophilia.

yeah : i'm sure it didn't fail in court due to unlimited deep pockets and lawyers on retainer.

is there anything beyond willful ignorance ? You and I have had differences of opinion before, but yeesh -- talk about a hill to die on, defending elons' shite behavior during that phase.

▲

WalterBright 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> 'pedo boy' is impossibly uncommon

All it has to be is common in S Africa where he grew up. As I mentioned before, different cultures have widely varying common forms of insults.

> furthermore he went on to publicly accuse the person of actual pedophilia.

That was after being sued for $195 million. I've also remarked that I am not defending libel. A common insult is not libelous.

P.S. People successfully sue rich people all the time, because that's where the money is.

▲

estearum 7 hours ago | parent [-]

So your argument is that:

1. Musk calling him "pedo boy" isn't Musk actually calling him a pedophile, and there's nothing wrong with a grown man using insults (against an aid worker risking his own life to save children) that 14-year olds in the 80s in South Africa allegedly used on playgrounds

2. Musk telling Buzzfeed that the same exact guy is actually a pedophile (specifically a child rapist) who took a 12 year old bride was totally unrelated to the prior "pedo boy" comment, and you would never defend such an action

Fascinating pretzel you've folded yourself into. Not sure who you think you're fooling, hope it's not you though!

To be clear, I don't think anyone here is suggesting Musk should be held legally accountable for anything. Not sure why you keep falling back to this "libelous" standard. No one cares and defamation suits are virtually impossible in the US.

Your original snarky question was what is reprehensible about him. You are now defending his clearly reprehensible moral character, through some convoluted "didn't mean it but it was okay but also he totally did say the same thing in clearer terms weeks later and I would never defend that."

Interesting to note your own motte-and-bailey retreat on this point too though.

	▲	WalterBright an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Let's review: 1. Musk offers money and engineering help 2. diver insults Musk on national TV 3. Musk insults diver on twitter 4. diver sues Musk for $195 million 5. Musk retaliates by investigating him Neither of them are saints, and neither are "reprehensible" people. The jury in the lawsuit called it right by deliberating for one hour and then dismissing the lawsuit. And insulting someone and engaging in libel is not the same thing, and is not a "retreat". P.S. It's fine to write your own interpretation of my remarks, but it is not fine to put them in quotes suggesting I wrote them.