zlacker

It is -- and I cannot stress this enough -- entirely OK to root for the failure of a company that is owned, directed and dominated by an odious person with abhorrent politics.

Compare:

- hoping Ballmer-era Microsoft would fail in their attempts to snuff out Linux

- hoping that USSR would fail in their attempts to snuff out large numbers of their own citizens

- hoping that the Confederates would fail at snuffing out resistance to literal slavery

- (in fiction,) hoping that the Death Star would fail at snuffing out various planets, etc

and so forth.

There is not some weird list of permissible root-reasons. You have no gotcha; you are just gotten.

>>1attic+(OP)
I like Michael Hobbes's succinct gripe regarding the "debate RFK" nonsense about a week ago (alas, on Twitter, hence no link to the thread):

> The problem with this asinine debate over debating is that everyone is trying to come up with a content-neutral principle.

>>1attic+(OP)
And speaking of having no gotcha but just being gotten, if you have showdead=true you can see one of Musk's biggest stans trevioustrouble rolling out their very best most deep and thoughtful arguments in support of Musk:

>>36556393

>trevioustrouble 1 hour ago [flagged] [dead] | parent | context | prev | next [–] | on: Twitter Is DDOSing Itself

>It’s just a feed, and needs to be rate-limited for unregistered users. No need to pull out your philosophy-degree. The people that were fired from Twitter were fired for good reason and if you think you’d do a better job than Elon with Twitter, you wouldnt.

>* PS: Dislike my comment fags

And then they sum up their politics and best arguments and what the Twitter they're fighting so hard for and what Musk they worship so much is all about, in just one word:

>>36556423

>trevioustrouble 1 hour ago [flagged] [dead] | parent | context | flag | vouch | favorite | on: Twitter Is DDOSing Itself

>fag

And that's the best they've got.

It really makes Musk's apologists so angry and frustrated to see everyone laughing their asses off at Musk explosively and bloodily sharting himself in public like that, because now they have to follow behind the elephant and wipe up all the mess.

>>0xcde4+22
I think the bigger problem there is that RFK could win the debate but that still wouldn't make vaccines cause autism.

>>0xcde4+22
Disclaimer: I'm not American and have only the foggiest notion of who RFK is, but the urge to identify boundary conditions for 'permissible wants' does feel especially America-y to me. I speculate that it has something to do with the veneration given to markets --- the underlying anxiety being that having feelings about an intensely cultural use of forty billion dollars is somehow antithetical to the conduct befitting an ideal rational agent.

>>1attic+(OP)
None of your examples actually align with the general sentiment here. In your examples, you cite specific goals that should fail, which may be part of a broader approach which includes more noble goals.

For example, you say that Microsoft should fail in attempting to snuff out Linux, not that Microsoft should fail generally.

You say that the USSR should fail to kill their own people, not that the USSR should fail to thrive as a people or a nation.

In this case the equivalent would be to call for Twitter to fail at... what exactly? Free speech?

I think you've been gotten. You don't perceive these examples as equivocations when they are, and it is blinded by dislike for a figure you disagree with rather than a specific bad goal.