Agree that cards against humanity, in direct response to Musk’s action, are using donations to point out how fucked up it is that the richest man in the US is trying to buy votes? Yes.
Agree that musk escalated his attempt to buy votes again? Yes.
I’m not sure if you’re obtuse or trolling, but here we go:
Party A, a shithead trying to buy votes in a way that is unique in our democracy, does shitty behavior.
Party B, a group of satirists and comedians, doubles down and repeats the shitty behavior while jumping up and down with cymbals and horns, calling out the person who started it and the fact that it may not be illegal. Party B is engaged in performance art to raise an issue.
Party A then escalates the shitty behavior with more money and a new lottery twist. This escalates the shittiness to new levels, hereto unseen in our nations history.
Party B, the satirists, having made their point initially, do not engage in any new satire.
Clear? The person who starts doing something shitty and then makes it shittier is indeed shittier than the people outright mocking that behavior by imitating it and loudly shouting about how shitty it is.
Put another way:
Nazis marching down a street and chanting are shitty. Clowns, playing tubas and doing cartwheels in makeup around the Nazis to make them look even more stupid, are not shitty even though they too are marching and making noise.
Intent matters. Musks is to steal an election through outright bribery. CAH intent is to raise the profile of this bribery, to make it an issue that has to be addressed.
Glad to see you agree with me.
Agree that cards against humanity, in direct response to Musk’s action, are using donations to point out how fucked up it is that the richest man in the US is trying to buy votes? Yes.
Agree that musk escalated his attempt to buy votes again? Yes.
Musk is paying people to sign a petition. How is that any different from what CAH is doing?
If Musks behavior is shitty, then CAH behavior is equally shitty. If CAH behavior is not shitty, then Musk’s behavior is not shitty.
I’m not sure if you’re obtuse or trolling, but here we go:
Party A, a shithead trying to buy votes in a way that is unique in our democracy, does shitty behavior.
Party B, a group of satirists and comedians, doubles down and repeats the shitty behavior while jumping up and down with cymbals and horns, calling out the person who started it and the fact that it may not be illegal. Party B is engaged in performance art to raise an issue.
Party A then escalates the shitty behavior with more money and a new lottery twist. This escalates the shittiness to new levels, hereto unseen in our nations history.
Party B, the satirists, having made their point initially, do not engage in any new satire.
Clear? The person who starts doing something shitty and then makes it shittier is indeed shittier than the people outright mocking that behavior by imitating it and loudly shouting about how shitty it is.
Put another way:
Nazis marching down a street and chanting are shitty. Clowns, playing tubas and doing cartwheels in makeup around the Nazis to make them look even more stupid, are not shitty even though they too are marching and making noise.
Intent matters. Musks is to steal an election through outright bribery. CAH intent is to raise the profile of this bribery, to make it an issue that has to be addressed.