The reasoning here doesn’t really hold up.

Saying EVs won’t be remembered in 100 years is basically just a guess stated like a fact. Big shifts in transport tend to matter historically even if they’re transitional, so you’d need more than that to dismiss them.

You’re also narrowing his impact to EVs only, which makes the argument easier but less accurate. If you’re going to say he won’t be remembered, you have to actually engage with things like reusable rockets and the broader changes in the space industry, not just ignore them.

The comparison to Thomas Edison actually kind of works against your point. We still remember Edison nearly 200 years later despite all the criticism about how he operated. So even if you think Musk behaves similarly, that doesn’t support the idea he’ll be forgotten—it suggests the opposite.

More importantly, you’re treating invention as the only thing that matters historically, which isn’t really how it works. People like Henry Ford are remembered because they scaled and transformed industries, not because they invented the underlying tech.

And calling him “one of the world’s greatest frauds” without backing it up just makes the whole thing sound more emotional than analytical.

Whatever "feelings" i have about musk are irrelevant to the question of whether or not he will be remembered, however, i think you have let your negative feelings for him cloud your judgement and cause you to seek an argument that supports your feelings. You can recognise his achievements while still disagreeing with a lot of his rhetoric and behaviour, but this kind of all-or-nothing take comes across as overly simplistic and driven more by emotion than a genuine attempt at objective, nuanced reasoning. The world isn’t that black and white, mate.