I don't understand this mentality.
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.
Choosing to stand up for your principles in one instance, doesn't mean you suddenly have to fight all the battles all at once, even those that aren't apparent you (yet). How do you know this person is not choosing principles on other occasions already? IMO doing this is better than doing nothing. You can always choose to pick up more battles later. Other people can fight the other fights. Everyone always choosing self over principles will be worse in the long run
How do you know that the shareholders and directors of the places you shop arent secretly way worse than Musk?
I literally don't, so I don't choose to be a moral warrior in that area. I would say healthiness is the main driver there.
There I read the labels and where possible buy local.
Elon is publicly terrible, on the Epstein list and supports the far right.
It's the easiest non support of my life, I don't use Twitter, don't have a Tesla, don't use grok.
Elon Musk is far from the nicest person in the world and there are many fair reasons to dislike him but he wasn't in "the Epstein list" (whatever that is), he was pictured with a number of other tech CEOs at a dinner with Epstein, who was a wealthy financier.
I don't normally engage with comments like this as I assume there's no hope for someone who may be so willfully blind to the facts. My comment is more for those who might read what you wrote and accept it as truth.
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.
[dead]
This passionate apologia of nihilism is not consistent with not caring what other people do or want. If "virtue signalling" elicits such reaction, perhaps it's actually working. Besides, voting with your wallet, an actual tangible action, is not virtue signalling.
How is it nihilism?
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 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.
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.
> What makes Musk different than Blackrock for instance?
Open support for right-wing parties and politics all over the world.
Plus doing it to a hundred million followers and controlling the medium that delivers his message.
And then citizens get to vote on what they perceive as important.
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.
Am I not allowed to choose who I buy my stuff from? Or is it only businesses that are allowed to decline services at will.
And do you really belive the richest man in the world, owning one of the largest social media sites, is being "silenced"?
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?
It's because Musk enjoys it.
Any other tu quoque fallacies to dispense with?
> I don't understand this mentality.
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?
It's going to shift anyway.
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.
But virtue signaling is a good thing! It's a way for us and for our communities to express that some things are distasteful and out of the norm. It should be uncontroversial to say "I don't like racism and thus I do not do business with known racists!" I'd even argue that's not really virtue signalling since it is accompanied by a direct action on the part of the signaler, but that's besides the point.
The totalitarian shift is coming from the attempt at being totalitarian.
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 know, the horse thing was probably a joke. He's probably not going to actually give you a horse. Right?
You know if your internet drops out you could just use your phone or idk not have internet for a bit.
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.
My local internet is 5 Mbit. I am a programmer. Average latency to servers I work on is 200ms.
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.
I'm a fairly average HN user but I earn my livelihood by working from home. Backup connectivity is cheap.
I think this is one of my favorite comments on HN. Thank you for putting it into words.
I stumbled on a long article post by John Conrad @johnkonrad about War on Rocks on X that explains this mentality. I haven't seen it put this way before.