Since recent events are leading people to boycott every product/service owned or operated by a certain person (including Twitter/X), I’ve seen people labeled as a Nazi for promoting/using Teslas.
Does endorsing this product somewhat support the owner either directly or indirectly? Perhaps. Does that mean you necessarily agree with all of his views/actions? I don’t think so, but it might be seen as tolerating them enough to not want to distance yourself from him/cease participating in any action that could in any way support him entirely? Or maybe just prioritising certain things above those principles, or not believing that your use of the product is meaningful in message or impact in relation to support for the figurehead?
It’s a shame because while there are a lot of other EVs, Teslas are a popular line that are in many ways leading the world in electric & hybrid vehicle technology. A boycott of Tesla could do some harm for the world & hinder the fight against climate change (similar to a boycott of Greta Thunberg’s climate efforts over her position on Israel). Is it worth that risk to disassociate from/remove any possible support for the person? Maybe?
Also, notably, the person in question didn’t found the company, contrary to popular misconception, and simply purchased it when he saw a business opportunity like he did with multiple other companies. So it would be a shame to forever link the brand with him inextricably rather than recognising its origins and potential to exist outside of his orbit (and maybe it will divest from him eventually, possibly as a necessity for commercial viability/brand image in the wake of this apparent boycott).
Lastly, some have pointed out that while the owner’s views on climate change issues are mixed at best (with quite a few scientists having accused him of climate misinformation-spreading), his association with climate-friendly tech innovations could inspire the political group he is now heavily embedded in to reconsider the potential utility of such technologies or the need to address climate change in general, many of whom are currently resistant to those ideas.
Umm…
If the CEO of a company does the “normal” capitalistic stuff, like shitty wages, then its just bussiness, and the person is giving in to the convienience isn’t necessary doing something wrong. There is not ethical consumption under capitalism.
But
musk has crossed the line from “average shitty capitalist” to a LITERAL NAZI DOING A NAZI SALUTE BEHIND THE PRESIDENTIAL PODIUM ON LIVE TV
If you buy anything with a musk as CEO or majority stockholder, it means you don’t care if you do bussiness with nazis, and that is (IMO) a very shitty thing to do.
(If you bought it before you knew about his fascism, you get an exeption from this rule)
Like the market isn’t all filled with nazis and you have no choice. You have a choice. There are many car manufactureres that are, while being a shitty capitalist, aren’t LITERAL NAZIS.
Like this isn’t just some N-word slip of the tongue (even that is already fucked up by it self), this is a full on fascism, musk is a LITERAL NAZI DOING A NAZI SALUTE
You literally cannot trust a nazi on “promises” of doing better for climate change.
You might save a bit of emissions on the electric cars. But simultaneously, SpaceX will be using un-optimized rockets with total disregard for the climate to achieve his wet dream of getting a human on mars, maximizing the rocket’s performance, when there is a slightly more expensive rocket design that could save a lot of environmental damage, with the same performance. The fascist will pick the cheaper option, doesn’t matter of the enviornmental damages.
(sorry for the caps, I have to emphesize the point)