> Companies do this all the time though. The trade off is, of course, that you get more support from customers the other side

If by "do this all the time" - you mean pander towards a specific affinity group, then I agree. Patagonia's politics are well known.

What's less common is for CEOs to reverse polarity and publicly declare loyalty to a party in opposition of the products alleged mission.

> What's less common is for CEOs to reverse polarity and publicly declare loyalty to a party in opposition of the products alleged mission.

Take at a look at the list of US states by vehicles per capita or vehicle miles driven per capita. Red states at the top. If you're trying to get people to buy electric cars and stop burning oil, those are the ones you need to convince.

Extra miles don't earn Tesla additional revenue.

Aside: do you believe that Elon's actions are motivated by the desire to reduce gas emissions in red states, or is this more of a thought experiment? My hot take is that his frustrations with Covid lockdowns in California kicked his animus toward Democratic party politicians into high gear.

> Extra miles don't earn Tesla additional revenue.

They do when they run a charging network.

Also, it's easier to sell an electric car to someone who is going to put a lot of miles on it because of the lower cost per mile, and does more good if the goal is to reduce CO2.

> do you believe that Elon's actions are motivated by the desire to reduce gas emissions in red states, or is this more of a thought experiment?

It's a counterpoint to the notion that progressives who live in cities and ride mass transit are the people the CEO of a car company has to appeal to. Whether the goal is to make more cars electric or just to sell more cars.

> My hot take is that his frustrations with Covid lockdowns in California kicked his animus toward Democratic party politicians into high gear.

That's probably not irrelevant.

The problem with politics right now is that everyone sucks and instead of trying to do better they all just want to tell you that the other side sucks worse, which causes aggressive polarization when most people are only listening to one side's pundits or the other. Everyone is being told that they need to vote against the enemy without ever being told what they're voting for.

People (Musk not excluded) then end up in one bubble or the other and the people in the other bubble are obliged to hate them out of tribal loyalty. Which especially rubs people the wrong way when it's someone who isn't squarely in one tribe or another.

Nobody blinks an eye when a Texas oil billionaire takes the conservative position on some issue.

The poll was reposted by tens of thousands of other people and more than two million people voted. Also, this was before he bought the site or made unfriends with Democrats and his followers skew disproportionately to electric car enthusiasts and Star Trek fans. It's not exactly a poll of Fox News viewers.

You’re not doing a very good job of arguing the poll was anywhere near scientific. And at any rate, he upset a lot of people long before then. Do you not remember the whole “pedo guy” brouhaha? And the “I can take Tesla private for $420/share” bullshit that got his in hot water with the SEC?

> Companies do this all the time though. The trade off is, of course, that you get more support from customers the other side.

I'm not quite sure that Trump's publuc would rush over to buy Teslas.

Tesla is not only selling car in US, but Musk behavior is turning off people globally (especially in Europe)

Not because of Musk, but maybe because it particularily doesn't work for them?

Yeah, so are people turned on globally, especially Europe.

This does not tell me anything. Maybe the republicans just have better arguments this time. Or the other way around. And then the losing side after elections may have to grind their teeth for a while. That is the way it is supposed to be.

> The NY Post's Twitter has been banned multiple times

They were, in particular, suspended immediately prior to the 2020 election over a story that was substantially accurate.

> Twitter had terms of use.

Everything has terms of use. All of the terms of use are purposely written so that anything the company wants can be construed as a violation.

But also, "misgendering people" is a point of political dispute. "We prohibited the opposition's politics and then banned them for it" is in fact what they're objecting to.

>But also, "misgendering people" is a point of political dispute.

If I ask you to call me Bill and you keep calling me William, you're an asshole. I don't know how misgendering people is any different. Just call people what they want to be called. You don't have to turn this into some ideological battle.

> I don't know how misgendering people is any different.

If your gender is like your name, which you can choose yourself, then it can't be bound to anything you can't change, like your chromosomes or the hormone levels you had during puberty. In other words, it can't map to biological sex. Which, okay, that's kind of the idea, isn't it? Someone wants to have sex male but gender female.

Except that then nobody really cares about gender at all. When you want to have things like women's sports or prospective dating interactions in which people may want to have biological children or anything else where sex differences actually matter, what people want you to declare is not your gender but your sex.

This then becomes the motte and bailey where gender is supposed to be different than sex but somebody who has reason to actually care about sex is then told that they have to accept gender instead or they're a bigot, as if they aren't different. And that is the point of political contention.

You're overcomplicating it. As I said, "You don't have to turn this into some ideological battle." Someone asked the tiniest favor of you, simply refer to them how they want to be referred, and you said no. That goes beyond any ideology.

But isn't the whole thing asking someone to accept/endorse a different worldview? Is that really a tiny favor?

Calling the man "Muhammad Ali" didn't mean you had to convert to the Nation of Islam. Just call someone what they want to be called. You can do that without any endorsement of the reason behind their request. A "different worldview" doesn't give you permission to be an asshole.

I don't think that's an accurate metaphor, given names are historically pure labels with no external semantic meaning. The direct comparison here is that a man could asked to be named "Karen" and that doesn't to me seem to cause any philosophical conflict. (Some people might not want to do it, but that doesn't mean they have a legitimate reason). (Although there must be some limit here as well, eg "the great and majestic Philip, he who we all aspire to be" surely must be agreed to be unreasonable.)

The difference with pronouns/gender is that they depend on and proclaim external facts. ("She" is used for women and by going by she, I am a woman.) And by asking someone else to say that I am a woman, then really, aren't I forcing someone to change their definition of "woman"/"man"? Why do I have the right to force someone to do that?

Out of curiosity, if someone asked you to use plural pronouns for them, would you? (This is hard to ask in English, because "your" is used for both singular and plural subjects, and "they" has also commonly been used for both singular and plural as well, but imagine) What about pronouns in other languages? Do you really think that in communication, the other speaker shouldn't have any say in any of this?

I don't appreciate comments that suggest that someone you're discussing is an "asshole" for doing something you disagree with and don't think that contributes to the conversation.

What? I hate surnames like 'Bill', 'Chuck' and 'Dick' and wouldn't want them for me, but if some Charles explicitly asked me to call him Chuck, I would call him Chuck, I'm not an asshole.

I am for numbers. Thats very unideological. Then people can pick their identity/label as they want, but in the system its just a unique number.

Forcing speech is different than recommendations.

I personally don't have a problem with any site having a rule of "don't be an asshole on our platform." It's the first rule of this site, for example.

That’s different than being fired if you use standard English parlance.

Ok, I personally don't have a problem with any employer having a rule of "don't be an asshole."

Holding the door open for someone is considered being an asshole to some minority.

wrong. it’s not political to disrespect someone’s identity. it’s the same as being racist. it wasn’t ok to support segregation, it’s not ok to support transphobia and banning medical care.

> But also, "misgendering people" is a point of political dispute. "We prohibited the opposition's politics and then banned them for it" is in fact what they're objecting to.

You’re omitting that they had to make targeted attacks to be banned. You could talk in the abstract all day, as so many did, and never have a problem - it was only when they started targeting specific people who didn’t consent to some kind of debate. This is like going into a gay bar, yelling in some dude’s face that homosexuals are going to hell, and then whining about oppression when the bouncer tells you to leave.