What I see is that people here and on places like Reddit seem to support expression of political views when it is for their side. They wouldn’t take issue with CEOs supporting leftist social justice issues, for example. But when it is a CEO supporting centrist or right-leaning views, they don’t support it. And not just that, but they go out of their way to manufacture outrage or signal their actions in order to suppress their political opposition, who they feel should not be able to express their views. When you can’t handle your opposition’s ideas being aired, you don’t support democracy. Sure you can make the claim that your money should go where you see fit, but it does also mean that you don’t support a society where ideas can be discussed.
> when it is for their side. They wouldn’t take issue with CEOs supporting leftist social justice issues, for example. But when it is a CEO supporting centrist or right-leaning views, they don’t support it.
I want to push back on something here because I am centrist, even right-leaning in some respects. What Elon Musk has done is not normal. Donald Trump is not normal. He is dangerously unfit for office. The tactics he and Musk have engaged in (such as courting and amplifying extremist groups) have nothing to do with ordinary civil discourse between "conservative" and "liberal" philosophy or policy proposals. And it's a false equivalence to suggest that they do.
Hm. But we want "our" leaders to be controversial and to make points, no? To know where they stand and where they want to go to. I need this clear distinction. Before i did not really have a political home, i saw common-sense disappear, that i used to know. But with these controversial voices i got to know so many interesting people and their voices, it helped me a lot to be positive about the future, which i saw dim in the past.
usually this is because leftist views are inclusionary and supporting diversity and disability, while right wing views are marginalising and hierarchical
