| |
| ▲ | Nextgrid 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The media has an incentive to frame things as "protesting against Musk" but I wonder how much this is simply due to BYD's better price/quality ratio? Tesla has had quality issues long before Musk's descent into madness, which could be influencing purchasing decisions regardless of recent events. | |
| ▲ | jaggs 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm not sure the word totalitarian means what you think it means. | | |
| ▲ | SilverElfin 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is a definition I found: > A system of government where the people have virtually no authority and the state wields absolute control of every aspect of the country, socially, financially and politically. The CCP does exactly this - it wields absolute control, except where people are already doing its bidding by default. | | |
| |
| ▲ | acdha 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Elon Musk personally plowed enormous amounts of money and energy into harming American democracy: not just getting Trump elected, not just DOGE, but also things like heavily threatening Republican lawmakers not to serve their constituents and elevating some of the worst voices on X. Somewhat ironically, Tesla is receiving the backlash despite also having been damaged by having an absentee CEO at key moments but it’s understandable: giving Tesla money literally funds that effort since the hundreds of millions he spends on politics, not to mention buying Twitter, came mostly from Tesla shares. In contrast, China’s government significantly predates the existence of BYD and companies like it have been part of China opening up somewhat and definitely improving the standard of living for millions of people, not to mention the whole “backing away from wholesale destruction of the planet” part. That’s not to say I approve of the Chinese government but simply that it’s priced into much of what we buy and buying from BYD isn’t actively contributing to tearing down a better system of government the way buying a Tesla does. | | |
| ▲ | SilverElfin 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | The activities you’re describing may not be ones you or I agree with but they’re definitely part of democracy. So it’s hard for me to see the argument that it’s harming it. On the other hand, any money put into the Chinese economy, especially in competition with big parts of democratic economies, is helping non democratic power survive and grow. | | |
| ▲ | acdha 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | They’re not part of democracy, they’re using the tools democracy to tear it down by concentrating so much power in one person to push deeply unpopular policies. Even in the deepest red districts, Republican officials are avoiding their constituents because they know what they’re doing isn’t what most people in their districts want, but they’re still more afraid of crossing Trump or Musk than listening to their own voters. Similarly, look at the various ways that people who, yes, were democratically elected are trying to restrict voting and gerrymander districts. Again, that’s Republicans using the fact that they were at one point able to win fair elections to make future elections less fair so they can stay in power. Calling that democracy is like calling private equity looting “business development”. | | |
| ▲ | SilverElfin 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > They’re not part of democracy Donating money, enabling more free speech on X, DOGE (an efficiency exercise at least in its goals), etc all seem like a part of democracy to me. > Similarly, look at the various ways that people who, yes, were democratically elected are trying to restrict voting and gerrymander districts. Again, that’s Republicans using the fact that they were at one point able to win fair elections to make future elections less fair so they can stay in power. Do you think these actions taken to stay in power are limited to one party? |
|
|
|
|
