> I think most people will agree that empowering the edgelord Shopify CEO is not going to improve most people's outcomes.

This is another logical fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

> All you need to do is read his tweets to see that he should have less power (much less), not more

I'd like you to make a real argument. What specific tweet of his implies he should have less power and why?

▲

slowin 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not a logical fallacy. You made the unsubstantiated claim that people would want their right to vote stripped from them. I do not think people want guys like this in power: https://xcancel.com/tobi/status/2081155797640171641

▲

bagxrvxpepzn 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> You made the unsubstantiated claim that people would want their right to vote stripped from them.

That wasn't a claim, it was a hypothetical.

> I do not think people want guys like this in power: https://xcancel.com/tobi/status/2081155797640171641

What is it specifically about this tweet that means him being in power would have bad outcomes?

▲

slowin 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I'd start with some German guy calling native Canadians who are actively civically engaged "useful idiots" and his suggestion that the unemployed and retried shouldn't have a voice in their community.

▲

bagxrvxpepzn 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> his suggestion that the unemployed and retried shouldn't have a voice in their community.

I don't see him making that suggestion. It's pithy so it's hard to really pin down a meaning to the tweet but I think he's saying that these town sessions aren't a meaningful expression of democracy because only a specific section of society is in attendance and one that may not understand key issues relevant to working or young people.

▲

slowin 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Calling people "useful idiots" is pithy?

	▲	bagxrvxpepzn 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In this context, I would call it pithy sure. It's concise and direct. He's not explaining further. He clearly isn't calling the other categories he listed (the " Retired, Unemployed, Unemployable") useful idiots, that's why he listed "useful idiots" separately. I don't know to whom he is referring as useful idiots but I don't think it's immoral in itself to use the term "useful idiot."