How about faulting him for his pro-China tweets -- praising China for having zero domestic COVID cases; calling on Taipei to hand over some control of Taiwan to China. Meanwhile, seeking favorable treatment from China's government.

I disagree with your premise (as does Musk who is faulting Apple for NOT advertising on Twitter; or anybody who has ever been faulted for not, say, doing the dishes or any other common thing), but even by your standard there's a real problem here.

> I disagree with your premise (as does Musk who is faulting Apple for NOT advertising on Twitter; or anybody who has ever been faulted for not, say, doing the dishes or any other common thing), but even by your standard there's a real problem here.

Ignoring china/musk/etc in this argument, I just wanted to say that's not what's going on here. Apple isn't being called out for "not doing [X]" they are being called out for an action, changing their advertising strategy.

Not doing the dishes as your example, is being called out for an inaction ("why won't they say they disagree with [X]") and not equivalent. If the example was "they started doing the dishes then quit" that would be a fair equivalent to this, as they actively performed an action.

I think Russell's teapot is adjacent to this. The burden of proof is on the claimant, i.e. "they haven't publicly denounced [X]" is trying to shift the burden to the other party when it should be "through action {Z} they have shown they agree with [X]".

It depends on how many related topics they are talking about and usually talk about. And "weird" is a weak implication.

It's both self-interested and hypocritical, in my view.

"Weird" was a reflection of the sarcasm of the comment.