4 ms·

Assuming that a Tesla is a vehicle that you would enjoy more than an alternative vehicle option or that would better fit your needs (which is presumably the sit

Assuming that a Tesla is a vehicle that you would enjoy more than an alternative vehicle option or that would better fit your needs (which is presumably the situation if you are considering buying one), then the value you are giving up for yourself by going with an inferior-for-your-needs option far, far outweighs the money from an individual sale that goes to Musk. If you are willing to hurt yourself more than you are hurting Musk, then I guess sure, you do you.

vouwfietsman 2y ago
Are you criticizing the entire concept of a boycott?
- MostlyStable 2y ago
  I don't know why people feel this need to take the words that someone said and add an entirely new meaning to them. Notice that nowhere in my comment or the comment that I replied to does the word "boycott" appear (and the first comment doesn't even really suggest one). So much of the poor quality of discourse online is people doing exactly what you did: take a comment someone made and decide to interpret it in a way that makes the commenter seem bad and the person reading it feel good. Here is (in my opinion) the civil way to make your point: Yeah, it's probably true that the value to the individual is greater than the value that Musk gets (this is the entire concept of consumer surplus), but in some cases, an individual might feel it justified to take a hit for moral reasons, such as in a Boycott. You are replying to the thing I actually said and inviting further discourse rather than asking a rhetorical question that you believe (likely incorrectly) that you already know the answer to.
  - hinkley 2y ago
    > I don't know why people feel this need to take the words that someone said and add an entirely new meaning to them. This is playing games. Whether you intended it or not. I called for boycott. You dismissed it. GP called you on it and now you’re playing dumb. This worked in public discourse a long time ago but nobody buys it anymore. It’s a bad deflection. HN is better at it than Reddit but there’s still way too many people who pretend like their reply has nothing to do with the chain of conversation they attached it to. Some of that is how we display follow-ups, but I can’t fix that.
  - vouwfietsman 2y ago
    > I don't know why people feel this need to take the words that someone said and add an entirely new meaning to them. I am genuinely curious to your definition of boycott and how that is different to what you and the original commentor are talking about. Note that this is not to say that I do or do not approve of a boycott in this case, rather I find it intriguing that you seem to argue that boycotts in general make no sense. Also note that my comment is a question, and though I understand it can be read sarcastically, was actually not meant as such and so the entire reply you made is mostly an adversarial situation playing out in your head.
- hinkley 2y ago
  They always do. “If you don’t like it leave.” <leaves> “Quitter! Voting with your wallet is so pointless.”

vouwfietsman 2y ago

Are you criticizing the entire concept of a boycott?

MostlyStable 2y ago
I don't know why people feel this need to take the words that someone said and add an entirely new meaning to them. Notice that nowhere in my comment or the comment that I replied to does the word "boycott" appear (and the first comment doesn't even really suggest one). So much of the poor quality of discourse online is people doing exactly what you did: take a comment someone made and decide to interpret it in a way that makes the commenter seem bad and the person reading it feel good. Here is (in my opinion) the civil way to make your point: Yeah, it's probably true that the value to the individual is greater than the value that Musk gets (this is the entire concept of consumer surplus), but in some cases, an individual might feel it justified to take a hit for moral reasons, such as in a Boycott. You are replying to the thing I actually said and inviting further discourse rather than asking a rhetorical question that you believe (likely incorrectly) that you already know the answer to.
- hinkley 2y ago
  > I don't know why people feel this need to take the words that someone said and add an entirely new meaning to them. This is playing games. Whether you intended it or not. I called for boycott. You dismissed it. GP called you on it and now you’re playing dumb. This worked in public discourse a long time ago but nobody buys it anymore. It’s a bad deflection. HN is better at it than Reddit but there’s still way too many people who pretend like their reply has nothing to do with the chain of conversation they attached it to. Some of that is how we display follow-ups, but I can’t fix that.
- vouwfietsman 2y ago
  > I don't know why people feel this need to take the words that someone said and add an entirely new meaning to them. I am genuinely curious to your definition of boycott and how that is different to what you and the original commentor are talking about. Note that this is not to say that I do or do not approve of a boycott in this case, rather I find it intriguing that you seem to argue that boycotts in general make no sense. Also note that my comment is a question, and though I understand it can be read sarcastically, was actually not meant as such and so the entire reply you made is mostly an adversarial situation playing out in your head.
hinkley 2y ago
They always do. “If you don’t like it leave.” <leaves> “Quitter! Voting with your wallet is so pointless.”