[flagged]
For all other cases, you can still try to not give money to people who suck by going for fair trade products and stuff like that.
Your assumption lies on the "without realizing it".
If you realize how bad the people are, you can do something about it.
The likes of Musk are extremely bad, and have been personally responsible for many, many abhorrent developments in both national and foreign stages.
Thus, it's natural that people avoid anything which is directly and indirectly tied to the likes of Elon Musk.
Don't you agree?
The problem is you have no idea what people are invested in what companies. How do you know that when you shop at $friendlySustainableCompany that people like Musk do not have shares there?
That's not an argument that justifies in any way ignoring the people you do know.
Do you think it's ok to ignore the far-right activist who has been deeply involved in election fraud?
I, too, have a Starlink account for emergency backup service that I plan to switch over to Amazon LEO as soon as it's available. Lesser-evil principle at work again. Yes, there are things that aren't great about Amazon, but Amazon's practices are largely in sync with my capitalist values.
Musk's businesses are also compatible with my capitalist values, but those values don't include his special additional bonus values of Nazi-adjacent behavior, association with known pedophiles, sabotaging the government, or active subversion of elections. It's not a religious thing, it's just that given a choice, I'd rather support someone else.
Not a valid legal defence. I think we need to build tooling that makes moral stances like yours easier to adhere to, then see how people react when they realize just how impossible it is.
There are degrees of antisocial behavior, and there's a limit to what I will tolerate from others and indulge in myself. That limit is not zero, to be honest, but it's far from the standard set by Musk.
Is this about journalists talking about musk, or about musk himself? I mostly learn about his views through his own tweets that twitter always makes sure to serve me in my home page, and "goes for clicks"/"generating outrage" seems to fit well how musk uses his platform. In any case, his politics seem awful to me even without any journalistic mediation of them.
The issue isn't just Musk's politics. It's that his actions have been evil, the kind of negative impact that major wars have.
We're talking something like 1 million dead people per year with a quarter of those being children. For a level of assistance that cost the US nothing (0.43% of federal spending). This is an evil that in a few years puts you on the list of biggest mass murderers in history.
I know this was “the line” upfront… but USAID had nothing to do with aid… it was a soft power factory… it was the “we’re helping” face of the CIA.
It's hardly groundbreaking or evil considering every single country with large wealth plays this game (eg; china, india europe ect), I give you lots of money and help your people and in exchange you do/don't do xyz. if you do xyz then we take away the money
Um… yes. Run by the CIA, with their helping face mask.
Even if you disagree with what is easily researched… in no fucking way were they and aid organization.
That was the low information “news follower” line put forward until it was so obviously disproven that everyone updated and pretended they didn’t complain about missing HIV vaccines to Africans.
Just look at the whole DOGE mess. Brush aside anything you believe can be brushed aside due to incompetence. Look at the result.
Explain exactly what can possibly lead you to believe that his politics are less extreme than you possibly think.
You're talking about the Nazi salute guy, by the way.
"My heart goes out to you" with a throwing gesture that ends with your arm outstretched. Of course, only the final position was blasted all over the press.
You need to be terribly naive to ignore the fact that the guy known for supporting a swath of fascist and far-right groups, to the point the guy even hosts their events, wasn't casually throwing around Nazi salutes.
Big Oligarchs are not your friend and some of them are way worse than Musk, partially because they keep their cards close to their chests.
What makes Musk different than Blackrock for instance? Or Monsanto, or Shell, or any corporation both of us rely on and support, in return for being able to eat, fuel our car, etc.
Is it because Musk isn't lobbying behind the corporation but doing it publically?
I truly don't understand where ya'll draw the line.
I truly don't care what other people do or want, I just look to ensure I can live the life I desire while respecting that which others want or impose. As if me being angry or boycotting them will change their hearts. If it changes anything it's their tactics (more deception).
Another example is AI. I despise it, and honestly think it's evil. Yet I'm using it to secure financial stability in a way that does not require AI to sustain.
So when AI takes over my programming job I have the alternative already running, thanks to AI.
Don't reject the massive advantages of Starlink because of a man, just as you're not actively starving yourself despite our food supply being basically poison, caused by boards of men.
There I read the labels and where possible buy local.
It's the easiest non support of my life, I don't use Twitter, don't have a Tesla, don't use grok.
I believe the previous commenter was referring to Musk's emails with Epstein, many of which were released by the DOJ Jan. 30th earlier this year. On Nov 25, 2012, Musk asked Epstein "What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?" Source: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01977...
So I think it would be fair to say he had more involvement with Epstein than a dinner. Epstein was a convicted sex offender since 2008, so it's not like people around Epstein didn't know who they were dealing with.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/02/28/elon-mu...
If you ever visit Bonaire let me know and I can show you the abundance of life we are stewarding on my land.
It's mostly setting healthy boundaries on what we perceive we can affect. I don't buy American food (except Cocoa Rice Crispies), functionally it's a boycott. Is that the reasoning? No, it just tastes like crap.
> I truly don't care what other people do or want, I just look to ensure I can live the life I desire while respecting that which others want or impose.
This is nihilism. If you have any beliefs, you don't seem to feel it important or necessary to exercise them. You acquiesce without even being challenged.
> Another example is AI. I despise it, and honestly think it's evil. Yet I'm using it to secure financial stability in a way that does not require AI to sustain.
This is also nihilism. You claim to have a belief, but do not exercise it. In your own example, your beliefs are meaningless; you are ultimately lead to whatever action is the most likely to lead to material comfort.
It's because Musk enjoys it.
Any other tu quoque fallacies to dispense with?
I think it's pretty easy to understand.
You have a service you want, but subscribing to it is a clear and direct way to financially support the advancement of fascist, extremist political groups and regimes pushing alarmingly racist and xenophobic policies not only in the US but also across the world.
Does your convenience justify a totalitarian shift? I don't think so. Do you think it does?
Wisdom is preparing for the shift using any legal means neccesary.
Morals are a mostly internal issue anyway, not based on solely external actions. You know the whole stealing bread to feed hungry children idea.
What you are doing we teach our kids to be virtue signaling. Nobody is saying or at least I am not assuming you support Musk if you have Starlink. I simply think you have need for sattelite internet.
Just like I don't automatically assume your reason for eating meat (if you do) is to show your approval for modern slaughtering practices. Or if you wear clothing... does that mean you support exploitative labour?
Also FYI nobody really cares about American policies outside the US. We're mostly busy insulating ourselves from the effects we're perceiving.
More European food cause your food is now weird, more Chinese stuff since you don't manufacture much anymore, less media content cause they all want to teach our kids about more genders we know about.
But we do love Starlink! Fastest internet we ever had here.
Not it's not. Most people don't want to be a Nazi. We defeated it once, we'll do so again. This time a bit earlier on I hope.
> Wisdom is preparing for the shift using any legal means neccesary.
Wisdom is knowing that people like you have always been there. There always have been nihilist you wouldn't trust with your kids. And that's okay. They'll just be lonely.
> Morals are a mostly internal issue anyway, not based on solely external actions. You know the whole stealing bread to feed hungry children idea.
People don't steal bread for many reasons. A big one is they want to keep a system alive that provides for them. As soon as that stops, because people like you stop caring, or because they don't have the means, their reasons for not stealing are reduced to "I don't want be caught". Again, I wouldn't trust someone who doesn't understand that.
> What you are doing we teach our kids to be virtue signaling. Nobody is saying or at least I am not assuming you support Musk if you have Starlink. I simply think you have need for sattelite internet.
By uttering a blanket "Everything is virtue signalling" you actually shout "I don't understand empathy" and you're effectively signalling "I can't be trusted" to anyone who wants to hear it. And that's okay. People will just not trust someone without empathy and move on.
> Just like I don't automatically assume your reason for eating meat (if you do) is to show your approval for modern slaughtering practices. Or if you wear clothing... does that mean you support exploitative labour?
No. And that's because slaughterhouses don't publicly advocate for animal cruelty. And clothing brands don't publicly advocate for child labour.
Musk advocates publicly to support fascism. He openly promotes fact-free voices that incite hatred. That's enough for people to stop cheering him on. If you don't remember how popular he was at one point, he will.
It's not that complicated. If you truly wanted to know why people hate Musk in particular, you only need one thing: empathy.
> Also FYI nobody really cares about American policies outside the US. We're mostly busy insulating ourselves from the effects we're perceiving.
The US is making it hard to avoid.
> More European food cause your food is now weird, more Chinese stuff since you don't manufacture much anymore, less media content cause they all want to teach our kids about more genders we know about.
Now you're rambling.
Why did Musk buy Twitter? Do you remember how totalitarian-like Twitter was controlled?
Or do you wish me to forget since it was for the left?
The totalitarian shift is coming from people like you who feel like you have a total control on what is true and right. And from that standpoint you then declare others to be racist and xenophobic without attempting to truly understand their reasoning.
Not to mention the ever-increasing lack of tolerance for religion based views. Is it not your consitution that says that all men are born free, and are free to vote based on their OWN conciousness?
Yet they are labeled right-wingers and publically shamed and marginalized when possible. Even when all they want are federal repeals so each state can decide.
Do you not see that you guys have become the totalitarian ones? Wanting to impose how to view even life itself on others.
You dont NEED a starlink like you need food or being able to commute etc.
Tesla, starlink are more a luxury for an average hn user.
Tell me more about how Starlink is a luxury.
Especially considering it's a full $10 less than the monthly robbery by our local Telco.
Open support for right-wing parties and politics all over the world.
If you can show me the list of people you boycotted due to open support for left-wing parties we can talk.
Or do we only attempt to silence those that have standpoints we don't agree with?
Let me know, I'm new to this silencing of opinion thing but I notice it's what society will democratically choose for given the loud voices in that direction.
And do you really belive the richest man in the world, owning one of the largest social media sites, is being "silenced"?