politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Office Space parodied these feckless "efficiency consultants" but of course neither Musk nor this fluff piece writer see the irony.
I guess the world has become so stupid, satire couldn't survive.
I think you missed a lot of the tone of the article if you think the writer was in favor of Musk's actions.
I mean, it's open to interpretation, but the reason I said that is because the author uncritically accepts a lot of Musk's and Trump's premises which legitimizes Musk's actions, while consistently avoiding any clear criticism.
E.g.:
Frames that Musk actually is seeking to "trim the federal bureaucracy" in the author's voice.
Bold mine. This paragraph together has a lot of tells. The phrase "weed out slackers" implies there are real "slackers" that Musk is fairly "weeding out."
Musk's "demanding rigorous reporting" also legitimizes and normalizes Musk's harassment of these employees. The author's use of "classic Musk fashion" with this legitimized language implies the author also has a positive opinion of Musk.
"Looking to save a cool $1 trillion" is breezy casual language that could be argued to restate Musk's goal, but use of "save" is a positive connotation word, and subtly implies waste. "A cool" before money is meant to make the number more impressive.
The closing paragraph is meant to look neutral but again, this seems to lionize DOGE by making them look like hard workers (no need to verify or be skeptical of the 120 hour claim?), and frame it as Musk having a killer response to the Office Space question.
Read the article through the lens of a MAGA and maybe that will convey it better - this seems like hype, loosely coded for mainstream.
Same quotes with emphasis changed:
I'm sure you intend this to highlight the alternative reading of the article, but just being frank and no offense, I actually don't see the difference. Most of the things you highlighted are things I explained why they are implicitly actually legitimizing Musk and his actions, some seem random, and none of them contradicts my theory.
But yes, there's are competing ways to interpret this. That's why I call it a "fluff piece" rather than a outright authoritarian sycophancy.