I keep seeing this talking point, and I can’t tell if it’s just bad faith propaganda, or if so many people really are this obtuse.
Where did anyone get the idea that selling a car because the head of the company is a Nazi is intended to reduce the number of extant cars? It’s such a specifically stupid argument that I have a hard time believing more than one person came up with it on their own. It’s like if you were debating coke vs pepsi, and suddenly there were hundreds of people chiming in, “Have you tried standing on your head and peeing into your own mouth?” It’s neither intelligent nor relevant in any way. That’s what you sound like. Having one person say it is weird, but seeing multiple comments makes you wonder if you’re not just mindlessly repeating something somebody told you to say.
The meme is suggesting passing the thing along to the next person who will then be the target. Like selling a nazi uniform to someone else who will wear it instead, it wxchanged hands but is atill around.
It is an obvious possible first take, not some mysterious coordinated pooh poohing of a meme.
it’s like if you were debating coke vs pepsi, and suddenly there were hundreds of people chiming in, “Have you tried standing on your head and peeing into your own mouth?” It’s neither intelligent nor relevant in any way. That’s what you sound like.
This both makes zero sense as a comparison and shows you lack reading comprehension skills.
I agree, you’re making zero sense. Nazis didn’t make money selling uniforms. Maybe Hugo Boss did, but that’s not at all analogous to a car.
The point is not to destroy a uniform, the point is to stop driving a Nazi car. If someone wants a Nazi car, they can either buy a new one or buy a used one. If there are more used Nazi cars available, then this drives the price down, reduces the aura of scarcity, and reduces the number of new Nazi cars sold, and thus reduces the amount of money going into Nazi pockets.
That is a massively better response than accusing people of some weird conspiracy and insulting them for not seeing things the same way you do.
I don’t think it actually works that way, and people simply boycotting future purchases seems like a more effective strategy at cutting off Tesla income since that is already working in Europe.
Boycots only work so far as people agree with you. This also includes boycots, but it forces the price down and used volume up so even people who disagree may buy used instead of giving money to Tesla.
Yeah, it’s hoping they agree with you and trying to give them the extra push to ditch it. Obviously this won’t effect someone who supports Musk.
The point is, selling it drops the value. This is even better than a boycot only. A boycot has people who agree not buy. Dropping used value and increasing supply makes people who don’t agree not buy (from the company).
And if they disagree but understand the purpose then they can sell their car and use the money to buy a new one and the old one is still on the road so the letter backfires.
I get the idea behind the letter, just don’t think it will do what it is intended to do.
The number of cars isn’t the issue. I don’t know how many times I’ve said this. That part doesn’t matter at all. The number of cars Tesla sells is what matters. More used sales means fewer new sales, all else being equal. The number of cars could remain the same, but Tesla (and by extension Musk) make less money.
I keep seeing this talking point, and I can’t tell if it’s just bad faith propaganda, or if so many people really are this obtuse.
Where did anyone get the idea that selling a car because the head of the company is a Nazi is intended to reduce the number of extant cars? It’s such a specifically stupid argument that I have a hard time believing more than one person came up with it on their own. It’s like if you were debating coke vs pepsi, and suddenly there were hundreds of people chiming in, “Have you tried standing on your head and peeing into your own mouth?” It’s neither intelligent nor relevant in any way. That’s what you sound like. Having one person say it is weird, but seeing multiple comments makes you wonder if you’re not just mindlessly repeating something somebody told you to say.
The meme is suggesting passing the thing along to the next person who will then be the target. Like selling a nazi uniform to someone else who will wear it instead, it wxchanged hands but is atill around.
It is an obvious possible first take, not some mysterious coordinated pooh poohing of a meme.
This both makes zero sense as a comparison and shows you lack reading comprehension skills.
I agree, you’re making zero sense. Nazis didn’t make money selling uniforms. Maybe Hugo Boss did, but that’s not at all analogous to a car.
The point is not to destroy a uniform, the point is to stop driving a Nazi car. If someone wants a Nazi car, they can either buy a new one or buy a used one. If there are more used Nazi cars available, then this drives the price down, reduces the aura of scarcity, and reduces the number of new Nazi cars sold, and thus reduces the amount of money going into Nazi pockets.
That is a massively better response than accusing people of some weird conspiracy and insulting them for not seeing things the same way you do.
I don’t think it actually works that way, and people simply boycotting future purchases seems like a more effective strategy at cutting off Tesla income since that is already working in Europe.
Boycots only work so far as people agree with you. This also includes boycots, but it forces the price down and used volume up so even people who disagree may buy used instead of giving money to Tesla.
So does writing a letter to someone to pass their swazticar on to someone else.
Yeah, it’s hoping they agree with you and trying to give them the extra push to ditch it. Obviously this won’t effect someone who supports Musk.
The point is, selling it drops the value. This is even better than a boycot only. A boycot has people who agree not buy. Dropping used value and increasing supply makes people who don’t agree not buy (from the company).
And if they disagree but understand the purpose then they can sell their car and use the money to buy a new one and the old one is still on the road so the letter backfires.
I get the idea behind the letter, just don’t think it will do what it is intended to do.
The number of cars isn’t the issue. I don’t know how many times I’ve said this. That part doesn’t matter at all. The number of cars Tesla sells is what matters. More used sales means fewer new sales, all else being equal. The number of cars could remain the same, but Tesla (and by extension Musk) make less money.