5 ms·

I hope people aren't being excessively cruel, but... > through no fault of my own Giving money to an enemy of the people should have consequences, even after

I hope people aren't being excessively cruel, but... > through no fault of my own Giving money to an enemy of the people should have consequences, even after the fact. That's how we prevent it from happening in the future.

anonfordays 2y ago
>Giving money to an enemy of the people should have consequences, even after the fact. That's how we prevent it from happening in the future. I'll remember this comment when conservatives are the ones destroying something because the owner/CEO/etc. are Marxist child groomers or whatever. They'll be justified because giving money to an enemy of the people should have consequences, even after the fact. That's how we prevent it from happening in the future.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  If what is being destroyed is a bunch of stock prices, and if the owner/CEO/etc. is under fire for using their wallet to disproportionally influence politics, then yeah more power to 'em. It's not about sending a message from left to right, but rather from bottom to top: > Your contribution to politics should be 1 vote and 0 dollars, or else.
sMarsIntruder 2y ago
This is complete madness. So, you define who is an “enemy of the people”? You’re more dangerous than the “problem” itself.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  No, everybody does. And they talk to each other about it, and this affects prices and how investments are allocated, which determines whether and which people have government-influencing amounts of power. I'm not proposing we trash his Tesla, I'm proposing that we maintain the stigma. For better or worse this is how markets work, so lets use them.
  - sMarsIntruder 2y ago
    “Everybody”, who? You’re excusing a wrong social behaviour, just because you think to be on the right side of history. And this is just you, not “everybody”.
    - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
      In our economy, the value of things is determined by the attitudes of everybody who interacts with those things. That's what I mean by everybody--we all get to decide whether to shame or praise each other based on the decisions we make. Quite a lot of money has been spent ensuring that people believe--for better or worse--that the symbols that we surround ourselves with are an expression of who we are. That if we wear the right brands, or drive the right kind of car, then others will know that we're the right kind of people. Why else do people wear MAGA hats? Sentiment around symbols is the board on which on which billionaires play power games. Are you proposing that it should only work in one direction? That it's fine to drive Apple stock up by expressing approval of somebody's MacBook, but it's forbidden to drive Tesla stock down by expressing disapproval of somebody's Tesla? Because that's absurd.
b112 2y ago
This is an absolutely absurd comment. This election changed perceptions. Punishing someone after perceptions have changed is morally bankrupt behaviour. This person could have bought their car pre-twitter, waay before perception change, and certainly stated a buy due to environmental concerns. This sort of blind political hatred against innocents is literally this biggest problem with America today.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  If you give somebody money, and they do harmful things with that money, then you are partially at fault. It's not political hatred, I just want people to take some responsibility for their actions. I don't want to see anybody harmed, or have to take losses beyond the abysmal resale value of their car, but if developing an economy that is compatible with democracy means hurting some feelings along the way, well that sucks but it may be a necessary evil.
  - b112 2y ago
    You are not even the tiniest bit at fault, if you did not know ahead of time. You must realise that most people are busy working, trying to put food on the rable, raising a family, and helping their local community. Most don't read hours of news and social media every day, and barely hear anything from Twitter, etc. Those same people buy thousands of products yearly, from food to cars, and have zero time to anaylise all aspects of each purchase. Expecting them to pay attention, to even know about the latest outrage is absurd. Five years ago, Elon was still considered a shining light of environmental purity. In five years more, opinions may yet change again! Yet you seek to cause real world harm to the lives of people who bought Teslas, when doing so was considered the very best you could do environmentally?! This is morally bankrupt. This is not acceptable. Please, I beg you, think on this. Attitudes such as this are harming democracy, not helping.
    - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
      How is it harming democracy? Do you think that we shouldn't send a message to investors that letting their money get involved in politics is a good way to to lose that money, or do you think that there's a better way to do so? I'm aware that there wasn't a good way to predict that the power was going to go to Musk's head like it has. It was a very easy mistake to make, I almost made it as well. But if we avoid classifying it as a mistake, then we protect the value of the brand, and then we too are complicit in the harms caused by its owner--whose legitimacy (in the eyes of our myopic leadership) is derived from the value of his brands. I'll admit that it's a bit of a hack, there are better ways to implement democracy, but can any of the them be used right now?

anonfordays 2y ago

>Giving money to an enemy of the people should have consequences, even after the fact. That's how we prevent it from happening in the future. I'll remember this comment when conservatives are the ones destroying something because the owner/CEO/etc. are Marxist child groomers or whatever. They'll be justified because giving money to an enemy of the people should have consequences, even after the fact. That's how we prevent it from happening in the future.

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
If what is being destroyed is a bunch of stock prices, and if the owner/CEO/etc. is under fire for using their wallet to disproportionally influence politics, then yeah more power to 'em. It's not about sending a message from left to right, but rather from bottom to top: > Your contribution to politics should be 1 vote and 0 dollars, or else.

sMarsIntruder 2y ago

This is complete madness. So, you define who is an “enemy of the people”? You’re more dangerous than the “problem” itself.

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
No, everybody does. And they talk to each other about it, and this affects prices and how investments are allocated, which determines whether and which people have government-influencing amounts of power. I'm not proposing we trash his Tesla, I'm proposing that we maintain the stigma. For better or worse this is how markets work, so lets use them.
- sMarsIntruder 2y ago
  “Everybody”, who? You’re excusing a wrong social behaviour, just because you think to be on the right side of history. And this is just you, not “everybody”.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    In our economy, the value of things is determined by the attitudes of everybody who interacts with those things. That's what I mean by everybody--we all get to decide whether to shame or praise each other based on the decisions we make. Quite a lot of money has been spent ensuring that people believe--for better or worse--that the symbols that we surround ourselves with are an expression of who we are. That if we wear the right brands, or drive the right kind of car, then others will know that we're the right kind of people. Why else do people wear MAGA hats? Sentiment around symbols is the board on which on which billionaires play power games. Are you proposing that it should only work in one direction? That it's fine to drive Apple stock up by expressing approval of somebody's MacBook, but it's forbidden to drive Tesla stock down by expressing disapproval of somebody's Tesla? Because that's absurd.

b112 2y ago

This is an absolutely absurd comment. This election changed perceptions. Punishing someone after perceptions have changed is morally bankrupt behaviour. This person could have bought their car pre-twitter, waay before perception change, and certainly stated a buy due to environmental concerns. This sort of blind political hatred against innocents is literally this biggest problem with America today.

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
If you give somebody money, and they do harmful things with that money, then you are partially at fault. It's not political hatred, I just want people to take some responsibility for their actions. I don't want to see anybody harmed, or have to take losses beyond the abysmal resale value of their car, but if developing an economy that is compatible with democracy means hurting some feelings along the way, well that sucks but it may be a necessary evil.
- b112 2y ago
  You are not even the tiniest bit at fault, if you did not know ahead of time. You must realise that most people are busy working, trying to put food on the rable, raising a family, and helping their local community. Most don't read hours of news and social media every day, and barely hear anything from Twitter, etc. Those same people buy thousands of products yearly, from food to cars, and have zero time to anaylise all aspects of each purchase. Expecting them to pay attention, to even know about the latest outrage is absurd. Five years ago, Elon was still considered a shining light of environmental purity. In five years more, opinions may yet change again! Yet you seek to cause real world harm to the lives of people who bought Teslas, when doing so was considered the very best you could do environmentally?! This is morally bankrupt. This is not acceptable. Please, I beg you, think on this. Attitudes such as this are harming democracy, not helping.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    How is it harming democracy? Do you think that we shouldn't send a message to investors that letting their money get involved in politics is a good way to to lose that money, or do you think that there's a better way to do so? I'm aware that there wasn't a good way to predict that the power was going to go to Musk's head like it has. It was a very easy mistake to make, I almost made it as well. But if we avoid classifying it as a mistake, then we protect the value of the brand, and then we too are complicit in the harms caused by its owner--whose legitimacy (in the eyes of our myopic leadership) is derived from the value of his brands. I'll admit that it's a bit of a hack, there are better ways to implement democracy, but can any of the them be used right now?