5 ms·
For what it's worth, the way you've phrased this question doesn't sound like you want to discuss any of these issues. It sounds like you have bones to pick with
by cptroot 1y ago
For what it's worth, the way you've phrased this question doesn't sound like you want to discuss any of these issues. It sounds like you have bones to pick with what people have said and want to argue about it.
- wefinh 1y agoFrankly, I would phrase this question the same way. But it has more to do with society, that simply just don't want to be responsible for anything. And that is the same society that put Musk on pedestal, that Simpsons immortalized and the same society has a bones to pick when reminded about those glorious moments, but not to just be ashamed of themselves and their behaviour, like you are demonstrating here just perfectly.
- jxjnskkzxxhx 1y agoYes. He's insinuating that the only reason you would dislike musk is sure to his association with trump. He's also insinuating that people who dislike trump just like the opposite of what trump like, so that is trump dislikes musk then they musk like him. He's just a troll.
- tonymet 1y agothe left loved musk until he started helping trump
- jxjnskkzxxhx 1y agoHave you never heard the expression that the friends of your enemies are your enemies? Strange. Anyway I've despised that guy since the Thai cave episode. Don't know if I'm "the left" tho.
- tonymet 1y agoDespising Elon is acceptable. He's cringy . but is he a fascist? that's the absurd part.
- jxjnskkzxxhx 1y agoMy definition of fascist is a person that is ok with, or perhaps takes active steps towards, a society where powerful people can manipulate/pick/write the rules in order to further increase their power. By this definition it's not "absurd" at all to call him a fascist. Yes, I realize there are degrees. No point telling me that the Wikipedia definition is different. This is the definition which I think is the most useful because it captures the essence of why fascism is bad: it's an instability of the system. According to this definition all the usual suspects are fascists (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao), but also characters like Trump and his enablers, and Musk and his fanboys.
- tonymet 1y agoare there democrat examples who fit this definition?
- tonymet 1y agoI ask because your definition is very broad. Generally, every political system has business owners / elites / lords who have more influence. The Bolsheviks had almost exclusive influence and control, but they weren't fascist. Most liberal democracies have elites and lobbyists who have more influence than the common man. they aren't fascist. I think your definition is convenient because it's so broad and then you can apply it to who you dislike. Among the american elite, at least 1/5 of congress, most of the senate, most of the fortune 500, a good chunk of hollywood would qualify as fascist according to this definition.
- jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago> The Bolsheviks had almost exclusive influence and control, but they weren't fascist. Who is "the Bolsheviks"? Most supporters of the party did not have as explicit goal to accumulate power for themselves. If you're referring to Lenin and Stalin, they certainly where fascists by the useful definition. > Among the american elite, at least 1/5 of congress, most of the senate, most of the fortune 500, a good chunk of hollywood would qualify as fascist according to this definition. No, I disagree. Most of those people have only enough power to effect miniscule tweaks to the system. Those don't qualify. Like I said, it is in part a matter of degree. > I think your definition is convenient because it's so broad and then you can apply it to who you dislike. Aaaaand I'm done talking to you.
- tonymet 1y agoi agree with the first part, but how does that make me a troll? It is peculiar.