Maybe you should think about it a while longer. Or find a friend who's better at coming up with ideas to help.
There are about a zillion other explanations. Maybe they think that "ANY messaging that encourages EVs dissuades the public from going public transport" and that's harmful. Maybe they see other EV makers as preferable to Tesla. Maybe they care deeply about global warming but just as you said, are letting their anger get in the way of that goal. Maybe they see the immediate harms of Musk's policies as a more urgent problem than climate change.
There's a tremendous leap between "Not supporting Tesla because of Musk" and climate denialism.
I agree that this is bad, but we've already had state mandated lists of forbidden words for years, and this is a reaction to those less explicitly defined rules.
The shift is just which layer of the establishment is making and enforcing the rules. For the past half century, that's been committees at various government agencies, academic counsels and quasi-governmental groups like the AMA, etc.
Those various entities collectively mandated forbidden words that would for instance, prevent a grant from being approved, prevent a person from getting a job or tenure or a promotion or a political appointment, or prevent a paper from being published.
There is a huge range of language policing and forbidden words, phrases and ideas. From the relatively uncontroversial things like using "person with X" as opposed to "an X person" for various conditions to the clearly controversial replacement of "mother" and "woman" with "birthgiving parent" and "assigned female at birth".
I suspect this will get challenged in court and overturned and not really matter in the long term, but maybe it's an opportunity to consider all the power structures we interface with and how they control what we write, say and think.
Germany could power their entire grid using only Organic, fair-trade, hand-picked, artisanal Uranium and still be far ahead of relying on fracked gas and petroleum.
Wind and Solar are great, but still require peaker plants to maintain 24x7x365 power. Grid-scale storage is coming along, but is still cost-prohibitive to do something like power the grid overnight from solar.
I drove a Hyundai that wanted to sync contacts from my phone when I connected it to Bluetooth to play music. I declined for privacy reasons, and the car then had this loud booming audio request to sync contacts every single time I turned on the car and then I had to wait 30 seconds for the car to timeout/fail after my phone denied the request, and then I had to click on a touchscreen to skip the sync rather than retry.
I ended up just not using Bluetooth while I drove that car because it was such a nuisance. I'm not sure whether it was so bad because of incompetence (they never considered users not wanting to share contacts) or out of malice (they know they can wear people down through harassment and hassle to eventually share their data).
You've claimed this twice, but I would guess that almost no one thinks a bank teller is white collar.
Sure they work in an office environment, but their role is more similar to the cleaning crew than to the branch manager.
Nothing about the day-to-day work in terms of autonomy, education, responsibility or any other key intangibles of the job match "white collar". It's akin to being a secretary or a mailman or working in a call center.
Ironically, the actual violence was the people negligently spreading a disease that harmed the innocent people around them.
There's a funny spectrum between like, someone intentionally infecting the water supply of a city with a disease as bioterrorism which is obviously a crime which society at large agrees the police to use violence against the perpetrator to stop the act from happening, arrest the perpetrator and put them in jail. And then at the other end of the spectrum is things like spreading HIV, herpes or Covid which different people have varying opinions on whether that's acceptable, bad but non-criminal or criminally harmful to the people being infected.
Humans have very natural intuition around some types of harm or violence - directly observable things like punching or stabbing someone. But if the harm is more indirect and not directly observable, things like pollution or spreading disease, we don't have the same immediate fight-or-flight activation type of recognition and so we are often more lenient towards the perpetrators of those types of harm.
> how dumb it was for them to think they could create new legal/copyright theory in the wake of the mass-hysteria of 2020.
I haven't followed the details of this case, but as a general notion, that sounds kinda reasonable to me?
Copyright law and enforcement is terribly broken in the USA, with a handful of giant publishers wielding massive, abusive power and the average American being harmed by losing their fair use rights and independent creators being bullied and abused by the giants behind the copyright cartel.
2020 upended society in many ways and created opportunities to fix various dysfunctional parts of society. It changed things as diverse as work-from-home norms to laws around takeaway alcohol from restaurants. The possibility to also improve copyright restrictions seems reasonable.
> Saying "raise your son to be patriotic and fight for his country" is acceptable in western societies.
Maybe kinda in some circles? I suspect almost none of the tech-worker urban liberals who are the majority on HN would embrace that as a parenting notion. Even among military veterans, your phrasing would likely sound a bit off the mark. They would generally see the call as being about protecting other people and serving their country.
To address your second sentence, most people see a big difference in morality between "Protect the innocent from people who would harm them" and "Harm the innocent".
> In places like the US, employees are often terrified of getting fired or laid off because they'll lose their health insurance
This is a common misunderstanding.
If an American loses their job for any reason, they can always keep their current insurance through COBRA. In fact, they don't even need to take any immediate action. If they need healthcare in the month of, or month after, their loss of job, they can go get it and then later on pay their premium to have the insurance retroactively go back in time to cover them. The only difference is that the covered person needs to pay the full premium, while the standard employment agreement has the employer paying a significant portion of the premium.
For people who don't want to stay on their previous employer's plan, the loss of the job is a "qualifying event" which allows them to immediately do things like join their spouse's plan or sign up for an individual "Obamacare" plan through healthcare.gov. There are subsidies based on income to make the premiums manageable for low-income people if they can't afford the market rate.
Maybe you should think about it a while longer. Or find a friend who's better at coming up with ideas to help.
There are about a zillion other explanations. Maybe they think that "ANY messaging that encourages EVs dissuades the public from going public transport" and that's harmful. Maybe they see other EV makers as preferable to Tesla. Maybe they care deeply about global warming but just as you said, are letting their anger get in the way of that goal. Maybe they see the immediate harms of Musk's policies as a more urgent problem than climate change.
There's a tremendous leap between "Not supporting Tesla because of Musk" and climate denialism.