[bravetraveler]

It's a rhetorical wedge trying to establish value without actually doing so. I'd assume they're a stakeholder of some measure.

People and their choices attribute that value. Not snide people judging the decisions of others.

Tesla or anyone will sell you a golf cart. Most of the decision is personal style, categorically subjective.

Nearly all of the people I know don't buy new cars or lease. They're at least five or more years from ever seeing an EV because of used car affordability.

Case in point: the boots theory. The car they have is better than the one they could maybe get.

[paulcole]

I’m too dumb to understand any of what you’re trying to say here.

[bravetraveler]

I edited it endlessly lol, not sure how much makes sense to be fair. I actually deleted this post and sent it again, realizing I was making the same mistake.

The 'self own' depends on the idea that one is selecting against their interests due to distaste for a given CEO.

First, who are they to say this? Something not objectively the best must be evaluated to find where it lands. Merits aren't universal, this falls to the individual. You did well to get to this point in your post.

Second, let's pause for a minute and think of how contrived this is. Outside of social media, how often does this happen? I get the feeling this is a distinctly Elon+Tesla problem. However, we can't completely separate the man from the companies.

The "boots theory" talks about how it costs more to be poor, many cheap boots instead of a more expensive pair. This tries to explain some counter-intuitive decisions people have to make.

In this light, maybe people rank their opinions over dubious features in an overpriced appliance.

Knowing it's a loose attempt, I'll try to say something equally silly: anyone wearing a belt clearly can't buy pants or is trying too hard to impress.