4 ms·

> “America’s right-wing tech bros are celebrating Donald Trump’s victory” A. Why wouldn’t they? By definition, they are right-wing. B. The headline implies th

> “America’s right-wing tech bros are celebrating Donald Trump’s victory” A. Why wouldn’t they? By definition, they are right-wing. B. The headline implies that they are “taking over.” If so, from who? Perfect centrists? Leftists? Were they impartial themselves?

Ocha 2y ago
A. Who said they wouldn’t? It is stating a fact B. From people who represent mix of left, right, center, whatever
techfeathers 2y ago
I dunno, the elected representatives of the American people? Or are we done with the pretenses we still have a democracy?
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Well, see, they won the election, so...
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    What election did elon musk win?
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      I was pretty sure someone was going to say something like that. Musk didn't, of course. Neither did any of the cabinet members win an election for that position. Neither did any of the cabinet members or advisors of any previous administration. But Musk being appointed is a consequence of Trump's election, just like all cabinet members, advisors, and so on for every previous administration. You elect the person, you get their crew. So people like Musk are "taking over" from other people who did not themselves win an election, but were put in positions of power by those who did win elections. If you're going to argue that Musk wasn't elected (and he wasn't), then you also have to note that every person that is getting replaced by a Trump appointee is also someone who wasn't elected. I may not like the people Trump is putting in position - they, um, don't seem like A players - but this particular criticism is unfair. Trump won a democratic election; he appoints his people just like all previous administrations did.
      - techfeathers 2y ago
        Except the person I responded to specifically said he was responding to the headline. If it really is the PayPal mafia taking over and not them subservient to them as a part of the Trump Administration, that would be bad. Them being appointed to cabinet positions (or cabinet adjacent) is not in of itself bad / against democracy.
      - giraffe_lady 2y ago
        I can't remember ever seeing a private citizen so publicly a part of a presidential campaign, with the explicit expectation that a new government department with novel scope and power would be created for them to control. The potential for this may have been latent all along, but it's incorrect or disingenuous to say that this is anything like the normal allocation of cabinet roles.
        throw10920 2y ago
        > I can't remember ever seeing a private citizen so publicly a part of a presidential campaign What does "private citizen" mean, exactly? The majority of people in every political campaign are US citizens, if that's what you're getting at.
        giraffe_lady 2y ago
        Do you think that's what I was getting at? That seems like an almost useless definition in this context. I can't see why I would use it or why you would suggest it. I was assuming that I was speaking to more-or-less literate adults who can infer a reasonable meaning for words without me having to define them precisely. In any case what I mean "exactly" is someone not a career politician or bureaucrat, nor with stated aspirations to become one.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
- Mountain_Skies 2y ago
  There are some who really want to replace annoying old democracy with an exciting new product named "Our Democracy". It's almost, but not quite, entirely unlike democracy.
  - techfeathers 2y ago
    What are you trying to say?
mschuster91 2y ago
> A. Why wouldn’t they? By definition, they are right-wing. You can be right-wing but still be in support of democracy and decency. That's the crucial issue to be had with Musk and Thiel - both for example are vocally opposed to the free press, with Elon having auto-reply poop emoji on press enquiries and Thiel outright bankrupting Gawker in revenge for outing him as gay via financing Hogan's lawsuit (not that I support that kind of tabloid journalism, but since it wasn't wrong it doesn't warrant tanking the entire medium). There's many people who manage to be conservative or right-wing but still value the constitution and its principles and are willing to put country before party and people.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  As a Trump supporter/Republican voter I support the free press, I don't support whatever the fuck "journalism" these days (read: at least the past ~10 years, and likely longer than anyone realizes) is. Whether it's blatant lies like the fine people hoax or the koi fish feeding, or more subtle manipulation like constantly and endlessly sensationlizing the commons into fear and rage, I detest all of it. Free press is good, but "journalism" as it stands is a cancer upon human society.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > I don't support whatever the fuck "journalism" these days (read: at least the past ~10 years, and likely longer than anyone realizes) is. Thank Fox News and the other Murdoch rags for setting off the spiral, and social media / clickbait mechanisms gave media at large the rest.
- throw10920 2y ago
  > both for example are vocally opposed to the free press ...a free press that is incredibly politically partisan, polarizing/radicalizing, spreads misinformation/disinformation, and doxxes people (e.g. NYT doxxing Scott Alexander, CNN doxxing a minor because they misunderstood his political beliefs and proceeded to spread misinformation about him) is the literal opposite of democracy or decency - supporting them erodes both of those things. > with Elon having auto-reply poop emoji on press enquiries Twitter having an auto-reply poop emoji on press inquiries is also irrelevant to, well...anything. No company is required to have a dedicated line to respond to press inquiries. > but still value the constitution and its principles Musk, at least, values free speech (I'm not going to defend Thiel, because that story is pretty bad for all parties involved), which is an actual right enumerated by the Constitution, far more than any of the media companies that he dislikes. Before he took over Twitter, Twitter actively colluded with the US Government to censor speech, which absolutely infringes on the spirit, if not the letter, of the first amendment.
xxs 2y ago
Yay, The US is polarized that an election victory is to be celebrated like a sports event.
bborud 2y ago
It isn't "from who" (well, "from whom") it is "from what". They appear to be set to move more power to the executive branch from the other branches of government while at the same time undermining both independence and impartiality of the other branches. Granted, this has been happening steadily over the last couple of decades. Even the SCOTUS has been part of this by expanding the powers of the president. But with appointments that are only loyal to a person (Trump) and not the nation, the US is entering into new territory. The US is already rated a "flawed democracy". It hasn't been a "full democracy" for several years. The next stop down is "hybrid regime". If Trump et al do what they say they intend to do, this is what the US will become. The scary bit is that we now have at least one generation, possibly two, where a huge number of people will shrug and go "so what?".
- exceptione 2y ago
  > It hasn't been a "full democracy" for several years. Correct. The USA is recognized as an anocracy for a few years. (Not that any foreign official will refer to the USA in that way of course)

Ocha 2y ago

A. Who said they wouldn’t? It is stating a fact B. From people who represent mix of left, right, center, whatever

techfeathers 2y ago

I dunno, the elected representatives of the American people? Or are we done with the pretenses we still have a democracy?

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Well, see, they won the election, so...
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  What election did elon musk win?
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    I was pretty sure someone was going to say something like that. Musk didn't, of course. Neither did any of the cabinet members win an election for that position. Neither did any of the cabinet members or advisors of any previous administration. But Musk being appointed is a consequence of Trump's election, just like all cabinet members, advisors, and so on for every previous administration. You elect the person, you get their crew. So people like Musk are "taking over" from other people who did not themselves win an election, but were put in positions of power by those who did win elections. If you're going to argue that Musk wasn't elected (and he wasn't), then you also have to note that every person that is getting replaced by a Trump appointee is also someone who wasn't elected. I may not like the people Trump is putting in position - they, um, don't seem like A players - but this particular criticism is unfair. Trump won a democratic election; he appoints his people just like all previous administrations did.
    - techfeathers 2y ago
      Except the person I responded to specifically said he was responding to the headline. If it really is the PayPal mafia taking over and not them subservient to them as a part of the Trump Administration, that would be bad. Them being appointed to cabinet positions (or cabinet adjacent) is not in of itself bad / against democracy.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      I can't remember ever seeing a private citizen so publicly a part of a presidential campaign, with the explicit expectation that a new government department with novel scope and power would be created for them to control. The potential for this may have been latent all along, but it's incorrect or disingenuous to say that this is anything like the normal allocation of cabinet roles.
      - throw10920 2y ago
        > I can't remember ever seeing a private citizen so publicly a part of a presidential campaign What does "private citizen" mean, exactly? The majority of people in every political campaign are US citizens, if that's what you're getting at.
        giraffe_lady 2y ago
        Do you think that's what I was getting at? That seems like an almost useless definition in this context. I can't see why I would use it or why you would suggest it. I was assuming that I was speaking to more-or-less literate adults who can infer a reasonable meaning for words without me having to define them precisely. In any case what I mean "exactly" is someone not a career politician or bureaucrat, nor with stated aspirations to become one.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Mountain_Skies 2y ago
There are some who really want to replace annoying old democracy with an exciting new product named "Our Democracy". It's almost, but not quite, entirely unlike democracy.
- techfeathers 2y ago
  What are you trying to say?

mschuster91 2y ago

> A. Why wouldn’t they? By definition, they are right-wing. You can be right-wing but still be in support of democracy and decency. That's the crucial issue to be had with Musk and Thiel - both for example are vocally opposed to the free press, with Elon having auto-reply poop emoji on press enquiries and Thiel outright bankrupting Gawker in revenge for outing him as gay via financing Hogan's lawsuit (not that I support that kind of tabloid journalism, but since it wasn't wrong it doesn't warrant tanking the entire medium). There's many people who manage to be conservative or right-wing but still value the constitution and its principles and are willing to put country before party and people.

Dalewyn 2y ago
As a Trump supporter/Republican voter I support the free press, I don't support whatever the fuck "journalism" these days (read: at least the past ~10 years, and likely longer than anyone realizes) is. Whether it's blatant lies like the fine people hoax or the koi fish feeding, or more subtle manipulation like constantly and endlessly sensationlizing the commons into fear and rage, I detest all of it. Free press is good, but "journalism" as it stands is a cancer upon human society.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > I don't support whatever the fuck "journalism" these days (read: at least the past ~10 years, and likely longer than anyone realizes) is. Thank Fox News and the other Murdoch rags for setting off the spiral, and social media / clickbait mechanisms gave media at large the rest.
throw10920 2y ago
> both for example are vocally opposed to the free press ...a free press that is incredibly politically partisan, polarizing/radicalizing, spreads misinformation/disinformation, and doxxes people (e.g. NYT doxxing Scott Alexander, CNN doxxing a minor because they misunderstood his political beliefs and proceeded to spread misinformation about him) is the literal opposite of democracy or decency - supporting them erodes both of those things. > with Elon having auto-reply poop emoji on press enquiries Twitter having an auto-reply poop emoji on press inquiries is also irrelevant to, well...anything. No company is required to have a dedicated line to respond to press inquiries. > but still value the constitution and its principles Musk, at least, values free speech (I'm not going to defend Thiel, because that story is pretty bad for all parties involved), which is an actual right enumerated by the Constitution, far more than any of the media companies that he dislikes. Before he took over Twitter, Twitter actively colluded with the US Government to censor speech, which absolutely infringes on the spirit, if not the letter, of the first amendment.

xxs 2y ago

Yay, The US is polarized that an election victory is to be celebrated like a sports event.

bborud 2y ago

It isn't "from who" (well, "from whom") it is "from what". They appear to be set to move more power to the executive branch from the other branches of government while at the same time undermining both independence and impartiality of the other branches. Granted, this has been happening steadily over the last couple of decades. Even the SCOTUS has been part of this by expanding the powers of the president. But with appointments that are only loyal to a person (Trump) and not the nation, the US is entering into new territory. The US is already rated a "flawed democracy". It hasn't been a "full democracy" for several years. The next stop down is "hybrid regime". If Trump et al do what they say they intend to do, this is what the US will become. The scary bit is that we now have at least one generation, possibly two, where a huge number of people will shrug and go "so what?".

exceptione 2y ago
> It hasn't been a "full democracy" for several years. Correct. The USA is recognized as an anocracy for a few years. (Not that any foreign official will refer to the USA in that way of course)