• Artemis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m not having kids because billionaires have bribed, lobbied, and misinformed this country, and by extension the world, to the brink of ruin

  • Obinice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why report on that guy’s opinions as if they matter? He’s rich, not a voting rights expert.

    He’s a fascist, too, which people conveniently ignore because he’s rich and some of it might rub off on them.

    • MrCrowBard@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      For the same reason the opinion of someone like Rupert Murdoch matters. Its not about their viewpoint directly as an individual, its the fact they control massive platforms that can and do sway public opinions.

      In murdochs case he’s had an influential impact on British politics over the last 40 years and has used his media empire to act as a king maker.

      Musk isn’t as savvy or as intelligent as Murdoch but that doesn’t mean is influential position should be ignored.

    • zeeps@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t like Elon Musk, but can you explain what makes him a fascist? I feel like people are really throwing that term around a lot and it’s kind of concerning.

      • Necronomicommunist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I personally find Ur-Fascism by Umberto Eco a good read. Fascism is really hard to pin down because it’s quite a wide category due to the different tendencies in history.

        • cmbabul@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The War on Everyone by Robert Evans is another good one for our current situation, he draws and builds from Ecos definition there

      • cook_pass_babtridge@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think eliminating voting rights for citizens without children is a fascist policy. Fascism is about enforcing a “correct” or “natural” hierarchy in society. Historically this has usually been about race, but has also included other factors (for example, disabled people were the first group targeted for extermination by the Nazis). For some of us, not having kids is a choice (and imo a valid one that shouldn’t be punished by the state). But this sounds like an easy way to discriminate against same-sex couples, and all fascist systems have a history of doing that.

      • sleet01@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a fair question, but you’re probably getting downvoted because you “feel like people are really throwing that term around a lot and it’s kind of concerning”. People are throwing the term around a lot because of all the fascism, and the fact that you find the term more concerning than the actual fascism is a bad look.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Welcome to the rise of aggressively pro-natalism billionaires, because it’s 2023 and we’re not imploding fast enough.

    Remember, you won’t have a seat on the transport to Mars. And if you ever get there, it will be to work the mines.

    • bi_tux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because they like two things: money and power.

      If the people are free, they have less of both

  • Zerlyna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s amazing he’s had sex 10 times. I don’t get what’s attractive about him in any form.

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I disagree with his fundamental premise that people with children can see the interests of society better.

    I don’t have children, but I have heard from every possible source that once you have children they become your world.

    How is a person expected to reason clearly about the interest of millions of people when they are running an ancient biological program focused on the interests of a tiny family unit?

    edit: I once saw the argument that having family doens’t make you a better person. Having family makes you a ruthless user and taker on behalf of your family. Most of the stories you hear of people giving in to corruption, happen because those people can’t afford to lose their jobs, because they have mouths to feed. Once you have kids, you must choose whether you value your kids over your civic responsibility, or vice-versa.

    • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      People with children won’t have the time to research issues too deeply, and they will be sleep deprived for several years.

      They make better sheep.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What happened to free speech absolutist

      It turns out he’s a disingenuous shit-bag. But you didn’t need me to tell you that.

  • PhoenxBlue@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is this guy literally having a psychosis?

    His actions lately (I say lately, loosely) have been absolutely batshit bonkers.

    I’m enjoying the show none the less

  • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    How about we stop caring what that clown has to say?

    I find it especially egregious the people who (rightfully) bash him, but continue to support his products such as Twitter and Tesla. Stop supporting him. Especially on Twitter. Advertisers have fled the platform. Some users have as well. If even 1/2 the people who claim to hate the guy just stopped using Twitter, the entire platform would collapse. Instead you people prop up that site by going to it.

    • Kleinbonum@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      People whine about how shitty the API has become and how shitty tech support is and how there’s no one to talk to when they run into bugs - yet they keep paying Musk $42,000 a month for that privilege.

    • Dissasterix @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most of the rights after the first 10 are 100% alienable in a naturalist sense. A man in the jungle will speak freely and associate voluntarily… A man in the jungle has a right to not be lorded over for more than 8 years by one individual (a la 25A, for instance)…? The verbiage becomes meaningless.

      • queermunist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Uh if a jungle cat wants you to shut the fuck up then your inalienable right to free speech won’t protect you lol

              • queermunist@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                And if they shoot you for resisting arrest you won’t be struggling much after that.

                Nothing is inalienable.

                • Dissasterix @lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, I can be killed. And, sure, inanimate objects and the deceased do not have rights. However it would still be questionable as to why a restrained person was shot :p Further, our mortality does not mean that we dont have rights, lol. This is objectively true as you will die yet you have inalienable rights.

      • pallas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The US Bill of Rights only includes the first 10 amendments, so the 25A isn’t included. It also doesn’t itself contain “unalienable”, that being only in the Declaration of Independence, and in the discussions around the proposal of the amendments.

        While the whole unalienable rights of all people that we’re just stating as one country rather seems like Enlightenment ridiculousness and extremely pretentious, and I’ve certainly seen interpretations that are extremely hegemonic, such as arguing that the US Bill of Rights applies to all countries, it doesn’t include later amendments.

        • Dissasterix @lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A man of civics :] Very cool.

          I agree with pretentiousness-- They were trying really hard. By and large I like that, the big ideals. The unavoidable glaring problem is the paradox of freedom AND governance. Like, even lawless pirates begged the question; ‘What do we do with a drunken sailor?’. Its not trivial.