3 ms·

I'm not sure this is the biggest or most relevant problem and I can't think of many sincere good faith reasons why you'd bring it up here. It's the consensus ma

I'm not sure this is the biggest or most relevant problem and I can't think of many sincere good faith reasons why you'd bring it up here. It's the consensus mainstream position on this subject on HN, and is discussed and ultimately endorsed many times a week for the last few years.

alephnerd 2y ago
> I can't think of many sincere good faith reasons why you'd bring it up here instead of some other aspect of the scenario. Concepts like "fascism" are ill defined in American political discourse, and can enable actual fascists (as in ethno- and religio-nationalists) to run for office while our valid criticisms are ignored. Calling crony capitalists like a Musk fascists means we cannot call out actual authoritarian religious or ethnonationalists like a JD Vance or Tom Barrett without eliciting a groan from voters who do not follow politics constantly. I sincerely believe this is a messaging issue that can absolutely have a downstream impact.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    I'll agree with you on Musk w/ regards to extremism, but then calling out Sundar Pichai or Jeff Bezos (who largely flipped only because of unearned capital gains tax and potential anti-trust issues) means we lose actual donors who can help us rebuild. We live in a political environment where Citizens United is the lay of the land. It sucks, but that's the reality. We can't piss off potential donors who could help us flip in 26 and 28.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]