MS NOW95%

Musk's SpaceX IPO is where greed meets hate 73%

By Paul Waldman0%

6/11/2026, 12:53:04 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Politically Left Leaning Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 34.8% saturation with 397 hits. Analysis detected 3,656 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,140 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.3% and a BS Rank of 73% (5,939 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.90% of the article peer group.

This Friday, SpaceX will execute its initial public offering. 
The company has set a share price of $135; that would put its value at $1.77 trillion, making it the largest IPO in history. 
On Wall Street they are practically vibrating with excitement, as banks and investment firms compete to get in on the action. 
Demand for the shares is reportedly off the charts. 
The IPO will likely make CEO Elon Musk the world’s first trillionaire. 
Some investors consider Musk a genius and a visionary; others just want a piece of the cash grab. 
But all of them are pretending that this IPO can be separated from the repugnant things about Musk  his promotion of white supremacy and antisemitism, the poison his social media network pours into global debate every day, the damage he has done to the federal government. 
None of that exists in a separate sphere from his businesses. 
It is not a hobby or a sidelight. 
It is the very heart of who he is and the world he is seeking to create. 
Musk and his IPO are where greed meets hate, and that stain should be on anyone who participates. 
Musk has turned the social media network formerly known as Twitter into the most important amplifier of hatred in the world today. 
This week, ahead of the IPO, Musk encouraged what became an anti-immigrant pogrom in Belfast. 
This horrific series of events began when an immigrant in Northern Ireland was charged with attempted murder  an event that was caught on video. 
Far-right provocateurs in Great Britain and elsewhere immediately called for anti-immigrant protests, which Musk used his X account to amplify to his 240 million followers. 
When a far-right politician pledged “to prosecute officials and politicians who knowingly placed dangerous third world savages in our communities,” Musk replied on X, “This is the way.” 
He also shared a post announcing locations for anti-immigrant protests and a post from the far-right Restore Britain party that said, “Do not make peace with evil. 
Destroy it.” 
Later that day, masked men rampaged through a Belfast neighborhood, burning cars and setting fire to houses where they believed immigrants lived. 
“As a woman from an ethnic minority background looked down from an upstairs window, some of the men rushed the front door and broke it down,” The Guardian reported. 
“As they stormed the property, some claimed to be ‘liberating’ it. 
Graffiti nearby demanded ‘local homes for local people.’” 
Musk denies that he promotes violence. 
But he has turned the social media network formerly known as Twitter into the most important amplifier of hatred in the world today. 
This is hardly the first time the richest man on the planet was an awful human being. 
Henry Ford, for instance, was a hateful antisemite; Adolf Hitler decorated his office with a picture of Ford, who published and distributed works like “The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem.” 
But the automaker’s reach pales in comparison to what Musk can do with X. 
After Musk bought the platform (and later rolled it into his artificial intelligence company, xAI), he dismantled many of its guardrails against disinformation and hate. 
In short order, neo-Nazi and other far-right accounts began to flourish on the site. 
I certainly experienced it. 
Thanks to writing on the internet for decades, I have thick skin. 
But when my ordinary comments about politics started being greeted with “Get in the oven, Jew,” I decided I had had enough. 
I left X, which I haven’t regretted for a moment. 
This was a feature of X, not a bug, and it is reflected in Musk’s personal drift to the right. 
An analysis earlier this year by The Guardian found that Musk “posted about how the white race was under threat, made allusions to race science or promoted anti-immigrant conspiracy content on 26 out of 31 days in January.” 
A longer examination by The Washington Post in April found that Musk had made “posts about race and his concerns about perceived threats to Whiteness” hundreds of times in recent months, at a dramatically accelerated rate from his previous dabbling in white supremacy. 
Offline, Musk threw up a stiff-armed salute at Trump’s inauguration, and he has long promoted the Nazi-aligned Alternative für Deutschland party in Germany. 
Let’s not forget the wreckage left by Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency. 
Then there’s Grok, xAI’s chatbot. 
From its beginning, Musk specifically positioned Grok as a rebuttal to “woke nonsense” from other AIs. 
Last summer, xAI had to roll back a Grok update and delete “inappropriate” posts last summer after the chatbot started spewing antisemitism and dubbing itself “MechaHitler.” 
People have used Grok to produce millions of sexualized images of real people, including children. 
(In a statement at the time, xAI said, “We take action against illegal content on X,” such as by suspending accounts and working with authorities.) 
Earlier this year, Musk merged xAI into SpaceX, and now Grok is at the heart of the SpaceX IPO. 
In its propsectus, SpaceX claimed “the largest actionable total addressable market (‘TAM’) in human history. 
We estimate that our quantifiable TAM is $28.5 trillion.” 
But $22.7 trillion of that estimate comes not from anything space related, but from “enterprise applications” of AI  in other words, businesses spending money to use Grok. 
And let’s not forget the wreckage left by Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency. 
This assault on the capacity of the federal government left agencies dismantled, sensitive data compromised and thousands of committed civil servants purged. 
Immense damage has been done by the destruction of the U.S. 
Agency for International Development, the world’s largest foreign aid agency, which Musk spoke gleefully of “feeding  into the wood chipper.” 
The toll is mind-boggling. 
Hundreds of thousands around the globe have already died because of the rapid withdrawal of food and medical aid. 
The devastation will compound as time goes by. 
One study published in The Lancet projected that by 2030, more than 14 million people will have died as a result of the shutdown of USAID, including 4.5 million children. 
A study by the Center for Global Development estimates between 670,000 and 1.6 million lives lost annually due to the cuts. 
SpaceX doesn’t have to bring in fantastical profits to work out well for early investors; all that’s necessary is that the hype machine keeps rolling so they can offload the shares  and the risk  to a steady supply of new investors. 
That machine is wholly dependent on Elon Musk. 
But buying into Musk means buying into the future he is trying to create, a future in which government’s ability to protect the public interest is crippled, inequality worsens, AI slop drowns the internet and the ideology of hate prevails. 
If you invest with him, that’s what you’re investing in. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.7%Paul Waldman: 9.7%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias10.7%This article: 4.6%Paul Waldman: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias4.6%This article: 13.5%Paul Waldman: 4.5%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic13.5%This article: 1.9%Paul Waldman: 1.2%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic1.9%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Paul Waldman: 3.5%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias5.2%This article: 0.7%Paul Waldman: 10.0%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect0.7%This article: 0.9%Paul Waldman: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.9%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.1%Paul Waldman: 3.2%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias1.1%This article: 9.3%Paul Waldman: 4.9%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias9.3%This article: 30.4%Paul Waldman: 24.6%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias30.4%This article: 1.9%Paul Waldman: 0.4%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias1.9%This article: 8.1%Paul Waldman: 4.2%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error8.1%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 4.2%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 5.4%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Paul Waldman: 3.4%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.3%Paul Waldman: 1.4%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Paul Waldman: 9.2%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem7.7%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 3.7%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.6%Paul Waldman: 3.0%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority15.6%This article: 6.1%Paul Waldman: 3.0%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma6.1%This article: 6.0%Paul Waldman: 3.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope6.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.5%Paul Waldman: 11.4%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization17.5%This article: 2.8%Paul Waldman: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring2.8%This article: 1.6%Paul Waldman: 1.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon1.6%This article: 28.8%Paul Waldman: 13.3%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion28.8%This article: 8.7%Paul Waldman: 3.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question8.7%This article: 20.2%Paul Waldman: 5.7%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)20.2%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 1.5%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.7%Paul Waldman: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division1.7%This article: 8.9%Paul Waldman: 2.4%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal8.9%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.5%Paul Waldman: 0.8%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.5%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 2.7%Paul Waldman: 2.1%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy2.7%This article: 14.7%Paul Waldman: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote14.7%This article: 10.8%Paul Waldman: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection10.8%This article: 34.8%Paul Waldman: 21.6%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice34.8%This article: 13.3%Paul Waldman: 5.8%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination13.3%This article: 20.3%Paul Waldman: 9.4%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias20.3%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.9%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1140 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers16%attributed speech962writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageThe Guardian • 29 words • 0.0% coverageThe Guardian • 11 words • 100.0% coverageThe Guardian • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageThe Guardian • 38 words • 100.0% coverageThe Washington Post • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coveragexAI • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageSpaceX • 15 words • 100.0% coverageSpaceX • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Washington Post

100%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words24% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B+84.4 ptsWriter: 15.6%The Washington Post: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-41.3 ptsWriter: 41.3%The Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-15.8 ptsWriter: 15.8%The Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-11.2 ptsWriter: 11.2%The Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-10.4 ptsWriter: 10.4%The Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.