But the left does not argue that "weak makes right". I don't see anyone on the left saying that the Argentinian government's policies are right, despite then being in a very weak position. On foreign policy, I don't see the global left supporting Taiwan or even Ukraine, despite both states being in weak positions compared to their much larger neighbour, and one of them even being at war after the much larger neighbour invaded. Most are neutral and just want peace, and a few states even support Russia and China explicitly. The appeal to weakness and admiration of failed projects is something that is usually seen amongst egalitarian/radical liberals and the kind of person that argues "communism is a good idea in theory, but real communism has never been tried" types.
And that's the most charitable interpretation of what Musk has said, as other users have said judging who plays what part of the "oppressor/oppressed" dynamic is always a value judgement, and the oppressed are always right in not wanting to be oppressed by their oppressors within that specific dynamic.
To the right, the oppressed are necessarily weaker than the oppressors. Therefore, considering the oppressed to always be the correct side of a conflict is equivalent to considering the weaker party to always be the correct side of a conflict. In other words, weak makes right.
Others in this comment section have pointed out errors in this argument, so I won't bother reiterating them here.
Just that thing where they can't fathom how we think, so they just invert how they think and decide that must be it. They have a reflexive worship of power that compels them to always see the oppressor as correct? We must simply think the exact opposite, nothing more complicated than that.
Chuds lack the imagination or the empathy to even begin to understand other points of view and other perspectives. The best they can do is imagine crude clumsy mock-ups of themselves that are wrong and bad.
In this case, "weak makes right" is how the chud imagines caring about disadvantaged people must feel like.
But the left does not argue that "weak makes right". I don't see anyone on the left saying that the Argentinian government's policies are right, despite then being in a very weak position. On foreign policy, I don't see the global left supporting Taiwan or even Ukraine, despite both states being in weak positions compared to their much larger neighbour, and one of them even being at war after the much larger neighbour invaded. Most are neutral and just want peace, and a few states even support Russia and China explicitly. The appeal to weakness and admiration of failed projects is something that is usually seen amongst egalitarian/radical liberals and the kind of person that argues "communism is a good idea in theory, but real communism has never been tried" types.
And that's the most charitable interpretation of what Musk has said, as other users have said judging who plays what part of the "oppressor/oppressed" dynamic is always a value judgement, and the oppressed are always right in not wanting to be oppressed by their oppressors within that specific dynamic.
To the right, the oppressed are necessarily weaker than the oppressors. Therefore, considering the oppressed to always be the correct side of a conflict is equivalent to considering the weaker party to always be the correct side of a conflict. In other words, weak makes right.
Others in this comment section have pointed out errors in this argument, so I won't bother reiterating them here.
Just that thing where they can't fathom how we think, so they just invert how they think and decide that must be it. They have a reflexive worship of power that compels them to always see the oppressor as correct? We must simply think the exact opposite, nothing more complicated than that.
Chuds lack the imagination or the empathy to even begin to understand other points of view and other perspectives. The best they can do is imagine crude clumsy mock-ups of themselves that are wrong and bad.
In this case, "weak makes right" is how the chud imagines caring about disadvantaged people must feel like.