Personal attacks generally aren't encouraged on HN, even if you don't like the person.

We're evaluating a public figure's ability to lead. That's not a personal attack.

> is being a thin-skinned an emerald mine scion who believes in astonishingly racist tropes.

That's a personal attack. Talking about failures of planning in mass manufacturing, backlash due to public statements, and casual behavior about publicly traded companies and information related to them, those would be material criticisms that we can discuss civilly.

The claims of racism and inheriting some amount of money from a debunked emerald mine conspiracy aren't helpful on their own.

Racism is relevant for a CEO. Thin-skinned is relevant for a CEO. Whether they inherited wealth is relevant for how you judge their wealth.

> debunked

Kind of? His dad was originally making the claim but is now saying something different.

> conspiracy

You have a weird definition of conspiracy.

Then make the connection between racism and damages to a company relevant to the discussion, or being thin-skinned and the same.

There is zero evidence that Elon profited off the emerald mine his dad bought shares in, and the allegation is that he conspired to hide that money somehow. It's a normal definition of conspiracy.

> Then make the connection between racism and damages to a company relevant to the discussion, or being thin-skinned and the same.

They both have obvious consequences in a leadership position. Obvious consequences are enough.

> There is zero evidence that Elon profited off the emerald mine his dad bought shares in, and the allegation is that he conspired to hide that money somehow. It's a normal definition of conspiracy.

1. I have never heard this "hiding money" part of it so I don't think that's the crux of it.

2. "Some guy hid his own money" is not a conspiracy. This is baffling.

> Obvious consequences are enough.

Obvious potential consequences are not enough. This is the richest man in the world, surely you have an example.

What does being rich have to do with it?

It's hard for someone outside a company to point to a direct consequence of racism in the company leadership. That doesn't make it not-bad for the leadership to be racist.

Surely you're not saying it's okay to discriminate as CEO if you make enough money.

And if you want a consequence of being thin-skinned, uh, anything to do with twitter? Half his interactions with the SEC?