Why we should all game-shame Elon Musk

Okay, sure, those two words apply to all stories involving Elon Musk. You're allowed and indeed encouraged to think them. It's quite cathartic. Still, they're not the ones I had in mind here.
There are two words one ought to think of when considering a recent news story involving Elon Musk. No, not those two.
The two words that should spring to mind right about now, and which show that Musk may be losing some crucial ground with a constituency he could once rely on are: git gud. I am not, for the avoidance of doubt, having a stroke. Look, I'll explain.
Last Saturday, before his big bust-up with tariff idiot Peter Navarro, the clown prince of the White House appeared on a livestream, playing action role-playing game Path of Exile 2. As you may know, Musk usually prides himself on being a good – nay, excellent – gamer. What a shock it was, then, for streamers to watch him try and fight the game's very first boss and die again, and again, and again.
Sick of embarrassing himself and being rinsed by more or less everyone watching, he ended up rage-quitting after half an hour, and that was the end of that. To say it was mortifying for him would be an understatement. Musk had, for some time, claimed that he was one of the world's top players of PoE 2, but gamers realised earlier this year that something was afoot.
In the end, he was forced to admit that, yes, he'd hired some people to level up his characters while playing on his account, so he could pretend to be more proficient at the game that he'd let on. Elon Musk is, should you need a reminder, 53 years old. It would be easy to spend the rest of this column making fun of him for having done this, but it feels worth looking at the demographic he's chosen to betray instead.
If you're not a gamer, the one thing you should understand about them – well, us – as a community is that meritocracy reigns supreme. It always has, and probably always will.
There is something of the great unifier about video games, in that gaming doesn't care about what you look or sound like, or where you live, or how old you are. All that matters is how good you are at playing whatever game you've chosen as your poison.
I am, for the avoidance of doubt, not exactly defending it as a culture. It can often feel quite thankless, obnoxious and idiosyncratic. That's where 'git gud' comes from, by the way.
Anyone who's ever struggled with a level or a boss in a game and turned to forums for advice and answers will have encountered it. Someone else will, at some point, have asked a similar question and been hit with the two-word answer. How do I beat this seemingly unbeatable villain? Easy: get good.
You may find this attitude childish, and you may well be right, but that's not quite the point. The point here is that gamers, male ones especially, had long respected and loved Elon Musk, but the tide may now be turning. Explaining you're a busy and powerful man who just doesn't have time to also be a master gamer is one thing; lying about being great, being found out, then showing yourself up in public is quite another.
Oh, and it should go without saying that Musk's association with an administration whose tariffs have delayed the release of Nintendo's much-anticipated Switch 2 won't be doing him any favours either. That the console's price tag will now be dearer in the US than it was ever going to be is sure to draw the ire of many of these gamers.
Will this matter in the long run? Perhaps, perhaps not. What we do know is that Gamergate was, in a way, the beginning of the end for the glory days of the internet, and the cultural power of gamers cannot be underestimated. A lot of them are, by definition, very online, and it wouldn't take much of a mood change for them to alter the way even reactionary social media users feel about Musk and his ilk.
Even if none of that does happen in the end, we can still bask in the glory of the Tesla Twat having made a complete tit of himself in front of the very people he's always desperate to impress. Doesn't that put a spring in your step?

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Guardian

18 hours ago

• The Guardian

The line between entertainment and reality is getting fuzzier. But making the distinction is more important than ever

Gina Chick, David Genat, Guy Sebastian, Poh Ling Yeow, Elon Musk and Donald Trump don't have a lot in common – except that they are the living embodiment of the essential truth of reality television: there can only be one winner. Gina, David, Guy, Poh and countless others have turned their success at surviving, dancing, cooking and singing into brilliant careers probably beyond their wildest dreams. Donald Trump applied the same single-mindedness to become the most powerful man in the world. For more than a decade he was in the living rooms of millions of Americans most weeks, picking winners, barking his judgment. Viewers did not see the squadrons of producers, camera operators, sound people, makeup artists, fixers and fawners. Truthiness trumps honesty as most of us understand the concept of accuracy. As a nearly 80-year-old, DJT has instinctively absorbed the lessons of television all his life. While others struggled to make sense of communications scholar Marshall McLuhan's theory that 'the medium is the message', he lived it. He strove to be an influencer before the term was invented; he was, and continues to be, the ultimate product placement. The sneers of others fed him. For all the talk about the power of social media, Elon Musk, learned at his expense that while his platform is great for proclamations, self-promotion and advertising, its narrative power still does not match the ingrained habits of television storytelling. 'I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far,' he posted, waving a white flag on X. Meanwhile, the rest of us nodded sagely, we knew this would happen, pass the popcorn, enjoy the show. Except this is not a show, even though the logic of television we have all grown up with encourages us to think it is. The man at its centre has the capacity, literally, to destroy the world. This fact that no doubt lingered in the minds of other world leaders as he made a typically attention-winning departure from the G7 Canadian summit last week. He quickly slapped down the French president, Emmanuel Macron, who with typical candour, suggested the president had left to broker peace in the Middle East. Like all stars, DJT also has an enormous capacity to charm. Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of the Atlantic who did enormous (temporary) damage to the new regime when he revealed he had been included in a classified group chat on Signal organised by Mike Waltz, who not long afterwards ceased to be the president's national security adviser. Goldberg describes a subsequent meeting in the gilded Oval Office: 'What I found on this particular meeting was a Trump who was low-key, attentive and eager to convince us that he is good at his job and good for the country. It isn't easy to escape the tractor beam of his charisma, but somehow we managed.' While a young DJT was absorbing the lessons of the age of television in midtown Manhattan, 50 blocks south, Neil Postman, a brilliant scholar at New York University, feared where this new manufactured reality might lead. In his erudite, yet snappily titled treatise, Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman described the way the methods of television had transformed, and in his mind debased, the public sphere. Entertainment and emotion prevail; the worst tendencies in human nature pandered to; truthiness is enough. Postman had little objection to television as entertainment, what worried him was when these methods and rituals were also adopted in news and current affairs, in the serious programs that provide the information that inform big decisions. As we would say now, nuance and complexity are lost. He turned time and again to Aldous Huxley to make sense of what he feared was unfolding. 'He was trying to tell us that what afflicted the people in Brave New World was not that they were laughing instead of thinking, but that they did not know what they were laughing about and why they had stopped thinking.' We are the poorer for not knowing what Postman would make of this moment. He died a year before the first season of The Apprentice went to air in 2004, with 'decent ratings and mocking reviews'. DJT took an elevator 21 floors down to the pretend boardroom on the fourth floor of Trump Tower, where contestants who had been set tasks to rescue his failing enterprises awaited his judgment. As Emily Nussbaum documents in Cue the Sun, at that point no one understood how he would use the platform as a stepping stone to his grander ambition. When he did, one of the early apprentices urged voters to look beyond the artifice of television and recognise the risk. Celebrity was transformed into a vocation. The real world a B-roll backdrop. Australian networks were quick to adopt the formats of reality television, in the process creating some of the best in the genre. Our Housewives of … are considered some of the greatest, and Alone has restored a lost sense of authenticity. Despite Pauline Hanson dancing with the stars, there is still a line between public life and entertainment. But it is getting fuzzier as the attention seeking demands of the contemporary online media environment reward froth and emotion more than substance. Preserving this distinction between real and make-believe is more important than ever. Julianne Schultz is the author of The Idea of Australia, the co-editor of First Things First (Griffith Review) and the librettist of the multi-award-winning opera Black River

The National

a day ago

• The National

McScenius: Let's put brains together to bring about a smarter Scotland

Those emeritus professors of snark, Steely Dan, put one aspect of the genius myth very well. Once you declare your geniushood, all the rest of your behaviours – however cranky or cruel – come to be justified. As Helen Lewis writes in her funny, combative new book, The Genius Myth, we have plenty of current examples of this. Most notable at present is Donald Trump, declaring himself a 'pretty stable genius', while his conversational 'weave' baffles all who hear it. Trump then appoints Elon Musk as a 'pretty high-IQ individual', on the basis of his tech business success. Yet he departs from his Doge post in ignominy, leaving a trail of administrative destruction behind him. READ MORE: Owen Jones: Opposing Israeli violence is 'extremist'? The world's upside down As Musk advances both on our brains with neuro-filaments, and on the starry skies with satellites and Mars ships, the temptation is to say: let us be protected from such 'high-IQ geniuses'. Lewis lays out the historical seeds of what she regards as a 'dangerous' idea. Originally and classically, genius was visited upon us, a bolt of insight from a higher realm. It became individualised from the Renaissance onwards. Leonardo da Vinci was the original 'scatter-brained polymath' archetype of genius. The Romantics liked their geniuses 'boyish, naughty, in the late stages of tuberculosis and, best of all, dead by suicide', as The New Yorker review puts it. Geniuses were also natural and child-like; and out of that fragility, we assume their 'precious gift' extracts a 'terrible price'. This archetype also excuses behaviours like 'alcoholism, family abandonment, unfaithfulness, abuse, weirdness, failure to take responsibility'. The shit-posting, ketamine-gobbling, games-obsessive, promiscuously-parenting Musk is all too exemplary of these cliches of genius. To top it off, Victorian and early 20th-century eugenicists like Francis Galton and Hans Eysenck believed they could measure genius, by using tests to identify a person's 'intelligence quotient' (IQ). Lewis has grim fun with Nobelists like William Shockley, who got a Nobel for inventing the transistor, but then descended into arguing that 'caucasians' had higher IQs. Shockley even tried to set up a sperm bank for Nobelists (it's noteworthy he didn't consider an egg bank), and advocated for the eradication of lower-IQ people. Great delight is taken by Lewis in pointing out that Shockley came to his world-changing transistor idea while working at Bell Labs. This was an 'alchemical space of collective achievement', a set of 'ripe social conditions constructed by previous breakthroughs'. That is, Bell Labs was a place of 'scenius' (using Brian Eno's term for a fertile milieu of talents and experiments). It's out of these scenes that superhuman acts of 'genius' might occur. Lewis admits that this sociological explanation is deeply unsatisfying for most people. READ MORE: Scotland wants no part in further dangerous nuclear experiments 'We find it intuitively easy to understand human-sized stories, where someone does something,' Lewis says in a recent interview. 'Our brains crave stories with protagonists and don't want mushy explanations that involve complex social forces.' I accept this, as well as Lewis's injunction that ascribing genius 'says as much about us as it says about them'. The educationalist Howard Gardner, in his 1997 book Extraordinary Minds, emphasised how great innovators need a coherent field around them, in order that their novel moves make sense. Picasso's paintings, like Les Demoiselles d'Avignon or Guernica, shake up traditions of portraiture or landscape. Joyce's Ulysses, or Woolf's To The Lighthouse, have the great 19th-century novels around them to trouble and unravel. It's even clearer in music. I wouldn't hesitate to call John Coltrane, Stevie Wonder or Prince 'geniuses' of pop and jazz music. I also wouldn't deny that they came to their moments of blinding newness from imbibing and inhabiting long-standing traditions. Coltrane was trained in barroom blues and big bands. Wonder came from the gospel tradition, as well as passing through the Motown hit factory. Prince drank from all those wells self-consciously throughout his musical life, giving himself an enormous toolbox to use. However, I still feel that genius – even if it is a 'lightning strike' upon individuals, already thriving in 'fertile conditions', as Lewis concludes – is something that extraordinary minds can and do perform. The thrill is when separate domains are conjoined, in ways unimaginable before the act of genius, to produce a new domain – one that triggers a cascade of fresh activity. There are two Scottish geniuses who exemplify this. Firstly, the physicist James Clerk Maxwell, of whom Einstein said 'the special theory of relativity owes its origins to Maxwell's equations'. Maxwell had a profound ability to see analogies between different areas of science and mathematics. His crowning achievement – Maxwell's equations – unified electricity, magnetism and optics into a single theoretical framework. This synthesis anticipated Einstein's later unifications (of spacetime and mass-energy), establishing the basis of modern field theory and quantum electrodynamics. But it's Maxwell's conceptual leaping across domains that remains awesome. In literature, this reminds me of another I would call 'genius', novelist and artist Alasdair Gray. The domains Gray effortlessly bridges is fictional prose and figurative illustration. His 1981 masterpiece Lanark, illustrated and fashioned by Gray as an object, also connects wildly different literary domains – angst-ridden realism, dystopian science-fiction, the end of the novel's narrative placed at the beginning. Gray tangles up the frames of causality, in many of his novels, just as Maxwell challenged mechanistic visions of physics. The thrill of Gray's genius is felt when you go through the original novel of Poor Things (1991). Its Frankensteinian tale of self-creation is richly illustrated throughout. It feels like a wholly different historical world. I'm not so sure of Maxwell's milieu. But one would have to accept that Gray was partly produced by the 'scenius' of the second Scottish Literary Renaissance – embedded in the bohemias of Glasgow and Edinburgh, embarking on groups and magazines with James Kelman, Janice Galloway, Liz Lochhead, Philip Hobsbaum and many others. So is one implication of Lewis's social explanation of 'genius' that such hot-beds can be fomented and prepared? Not so much the 'genius bars' of an Apple showroom, but the bars and 'third places' in which flashes of genius might occur? Can these be nurtured, even planned? If domain-crossing is a fundamental process leading to genius-like activity, then one would have to say, in Scotland, the buildings and ambitions to support it are moving into place. I was honoured to accept an invitation to become an associate at the Edinburgh Futures Institute earlier this year, because I could see in the edifice (and its research prospectus) that domain-crossing is an expectation, not an exception. READ MORE: Interim head appointed at university after damning report into financial crisis But in Dundee and Glasgow universities, there are also 'advanced studies' centres. All of them look at major challenges and megatrends – around AI, health, urban development – and declare their intent to rub together many different talents and specialisms, in pursuit of lasting solutions. So there's your 'McScenius' – but of course there can always be more of it. For example, is there enough traffic between the universe-building taking place in Dundee's games sector, and the massive computations – now to be even greater with the supercomputer recommission – operating in Edinburgh? What worlds could we be virtually simulating, in order to help repair the actual world? Another example: will the tumult around community power – whether land ownership, renewable energy generation, ecological lifestyles – compel innovations in democracy and organisation, supported by radical tech? And if so, what Hume- or Smith-like Second Enlightenment minds might survey this, and elaborate new models of progress and development from it? There's doubtless many other zones like this in Scottish life. And it's as important to identify and foment them, right where we are now – when proximity and engagement are vital. An independent Scotland should be the ideal framework for such a culture of immanent, everyday genius. But we shouldn't be put off from pursuing a Scottish 'scenius' by political or constitutional log-jams. It may be that we have an answer to the Dan. And that, thanks to Helen Lewis's excellent provocation, we do know what we mean by 'genius'.

The Independent

2 days ago

• The Independent

Rod Stewart details why his friendship with Trump has ended

Rod Stewart has renounced his friendship with Donald Trump, stating that Trump became a different person after becoming president. Stewart and Trump had a long-standing relationship, owning properties near each other in Palm Beach, Florida, and attending social events. Stewart cited Trump's continued sale of arms to Israelis as one of the reasons he can no longer count the US president as a friend. The singer's comments come after a public falling out between Donald Trump and tech billionaire Elon Musk. Stewart also discussed his upcoming performance at Glastonbury Festival, where he will play the Legend's Slot on the Pyramid Stage.