Mark Zuckerberg Defends Peter Thiel's Trump Ties In Internal Memo (theverge.com) 562
Soon after it was announced that Project Include, a community for building meaningful, enduring diversity and inclusion into tech companies, would no longer work with Y Combinator startups, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended Thiel's status as a Facebook board member in a message to employees. "We can't create a culture that says it cares about diversity and then excludes almost half the country because they back a political candidate," Zuckerberg wrote. "There are many reasons a person might support Trump that do not involve racism, sexism, xenophobia, or accepting sexual assault." The Verge reports: A screenshot of the memo was posted to Hacker News yesterday, and it later surfaced on Boing Boing. A Facebook spokesman confirmed the authenticity of the five-paragraph memo to The Verge. It appears to have been posted on Facebook for Work, the enterprise version of Facebook that the company recently made available to other companies. Thiel's endorsement of Trump has put those CEOs in a difficult position. On one hand he is a close adviser; on the other, his support for an erratic, racist demagogue has outraged many of their employees and partners. Like Y Combinator's Sam Altman before him, Zuckerberg defended the company's ties to Thiel by saying that the company has a moral obligation to consider a variety of viewpoints, no matter how abhorrent. "We care deeply about diversity," Zuckerberg wrote. "That's easy to do when it means standing up for ideas you agree with. It's a lot harder when it means standing up for the rights of people with different viewpoints to say what they care about. That's even more important." Of course, as the designer Jason Putorti wrote on Medium this week, Thiel already has an outsized capacity to stand up for ideas he agrees with: he spent $1.25 million to promote them. Zuckerberg's memo reads as if he is defending Thiel's right to post on Facebook. In fact, the question is whether someone who promotes opposition to gender and racial equality should be allowed to serve as a steward for a company whose stated mission is to connect the world.
Minefield (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Minefield (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok...I'm not the biggest Trump fan, hell, I con't care for either one of them...
But with all that Trump has said or promoted, I've not seen yet where he came out to promote the agenda that is against equality in matters of gender and race.
Has Thiel himself come out for these views against equality? If so, I missed that.
Trump has said a lot of stupid shit, but I've not heard him yet say he was against racial or gender equality.
This is really getting dangerous in this country, if people start getting blackballed, hired or fired for having expressed mere support for X political party or Y viewpoint.
Re: (Score:3)
This is really getting dangerous in this country, if people start getting blackballed, hired or fired for having expressed mere support for X political party or Y viewpoint.
Its worse than that. The other day I was in a supermarket buying yogurt just as this old guy was walking past. When he saw the brand I was buying he commented loud enough for me to hear "Chobani supports the Muslim Brotherhood". Absolute pure full on conspiracy theory grade bullshit, yet I was virtually accosted in public for it. That is an indicator of the level of political discourse in the US at the moment.
I look forward to the debate tonight because I need a good laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that so hard to swallow? Their are people that will make excuses for Hamas. The Brotherhood is much like Sinn Fein in that it's the political arm of a group willing to blow up sh*t. The IRA had plenty of American sympathizers.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that so hard to swallow?
Because it was a bullshit conspiracy theory that was floated around the beginning of the year about how the CEO of Chobani wanted to import muslims to take away the jobs of americans. And he supported ISIS in the process. Thoroughly debunked a long time ago yet still believed to be true by a lot of people. There is nothing so dangerous as a falsehood that is passionately believed to be true.
It's on the same level as a friend of mine who keeps posting conspiracy theory stories on her FB page. One of the
Re: (Score:3)
"Has your dad ever bought a Jaffa orange?... Right, he’s buying nukes for Israel, bro. He’s a Jew."
i highly recommend Four Lions.
great movie.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US. If that's not an "agenda that is against equality", then what is?
For women, apparently Google's your friend:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/wom... [telegraph.co.uk]
When you endorse a candidate you bind yourself to them warts and all. Don't like it? Rescind it and tell people you regret it... such as..
http://rarehistoricalphotos.co... [rarehistoricalphotos.com]
He does not (Score:5, Informative)
>> He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US.
Will you stop spreading this tired bit of propaganda? He merely wants to stop the flow of people from Muslim countries _with may of which we're de-facto at war_, and then only until appropriate vetting procedures are established. This never was about a blanket "Muslim" ban.
Can you guys and galls get it through your thick skulls that letting in military-age men of an uncertain background from the countries where radical Islam is a dominant ideology is an absolutely idiotic thing to do? What's so bad about figuring out how to make sure you're not letting in an ISIS or Al Quaeda operative?
Re:He does not (Score:5, Informative)
This never was about a blanket "Muslim" ban.
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."
— Donald Trump [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US. If that's not an "agenda that is against equality", then what is?
Indiscriminately bombing and burning hundreds of Islamic men, women, and children alive [theguardian.com]?
Oh, but we've already been at war with Eastasia, right?
Re: (Score:3)
You fucking asshole. What's under contention: "against racial or gender equality"
What you said: "He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US. If that's not an "agenda that is against equality", then what is?"
Islam is not a race or a gender. It's a dangerous political ideology founded by a conquering warlord that does not share Western values. It's the most militant religion on the planet that's stated goals are to subjugate the rest of the world to Islam.
And the stupidest thing about you useful idiots
Re: (Score:3)
Islam is a religion.
It's also a political ideology that seeks to impose [youtube.com] its values on others.
but the Muslims I've known are quite reasonable and hardly ever go on jihaidic shooting sprees
Sure, there are plenty of moderate Muslims. But even then a large number of them do not share Western values.
Most Muslims, like most Christians and most Buddhists, want to live their own reasonably peaceful lives.
Islam at its core is an expansionist and violent religion, unlike Buddhism, and unlike the actual gospels of Christianity (even if there was a period of authoritarian theocracy). That's why Islam has bloody borders [the-americ...terest.com].
They may provide political support for things I find despicable, but that's not a serious problem, given the numbers that are fleeing to the West.
Given all the problems caused by just a tiny percentage, why do you think it's a good idea to increase it? Islam is
Great Point! Evidence lacking (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump was labeled anti-Hispanic because he wants to close the border with Mexico and correct the illegal immigration issue (uh oh, I used the bad phrase). He discussed the issues of bringing in even more immigrants and refugees from the Middle East which got him labeled Islamophobic and xenophobic. He talked about Obama's birth certificate which somehow landed him as a racist but ignores the Hillary camp who ran the same story before Trump. Hillary still hangs out with Bloomenthal so he has to be an open racist.
The woman thing is a bit more complex because Trump has high beauty standards, says so, and was a Celebrity in a position where lots of offers came his way, and had an interesting audio leak(1). Sorry kids, but some women know that sex appeal is a way of getting ahead in the world and are not afraid to use it. I think that makes him a bit shallow, but not different than most men who have beauty standards too. They just happen to be less vocal about it and lack the soap box.
(1) Audio starts with him telling Bush that he tried hard to get with someone and was turned down. That is not sexual assault, that's called dating. We know that this happened in the past because he says "now she has those fake boobs and such". Middle of the audio is talking about a particular type of woman, so stop the crap generalizations. If you have not at least heard people talk about legs, butts, boobs, bulges, etc.. and you are past puberty you are 100% hearing impaired. I'll bet that you actually talked about those things more than once when you thought you were in close company. The end of the audio and video, Trump comes out and is a complete gentlemen. Bush tells HER to give HIM a hug, and within 2 seconds Trump volunteered to her that he was spoken for. That is not a sexual predator.
The whole narrative at this point is contrived and abused to point of being senseless. I got bored listening to speeches and reading transcripts to disprove the media narrative so now I get maybe 1 in 3. The media keeps rehashing the few "Gotcha" lines they caught weeks and months ago as if that was all Trump said. It's crap, not journalism.
Posting anonymously because the Leftist's aversion to people reading the truth will get this moderated to hell in short order. Stefan Molyneux has a great series called the Truth about Trump which breaks down all of these facts and more regarding the narrative of the left to install a candidate.
Re:Minefield (Score:5, Informative)
Has Thiel himself come out for these views against equality? If so, I missed that.
Thiel has stated that the 19th amendment to the United States constitution (granting female suffrage) has "rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.” [time.com]
Agreed. Personally, liberal condescension offends (Score:3, Insightful)
In my opinion, Trump is a loudmouth not unlike Howard Stern, and definitely should not be president. When it comes to RACIST remarks, these are some of the comments I've come across:
Calling employees "n*gger" (Hillary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Calling people "f*cking Jew bastard" (Hillary, confirmed by three witnesses)
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
Hillary said publicly that her mentor is Robert Byrd, former KKK leader.
That idiot trump *has* talked about building a wall; Hillary actually voted to
PS "grep | wc" says Dems 25X more racist (Score:3)
On a separate but related note, although the liberals' implied, assumed racism in most of their policies is the most infuriating to me, there's another kind that also bugs me greatly, one that is easy to quantify objectively and see the difference.
In my opinion, the constant focus on race and gender is stupid and highly counter-productive. I think we should be talking about the QUALIFICATIONS of Supreme Court nominees, not going on and on about where their great-great-grandfather was born, nor the contents
Re: PS "grep | wc" says Dems 25X more racist (Score:4, Insightful)
> > In my opinion, the constant focus on race and gender is stupid and highly counter-productive. I think we should be talking about the QUALIFICATIONS of Supreme Court nominees, not going on and on about where their great-great-grandfather was born, nor the contents of their underwear.
> Let me introduce you to Merrick Garland.
Sure, let's talk about Merrick Garland. Judicial experts considered him to be one of the most qualified candidates in 2009. Clinton chose a less-qualified candidate with a vagina and darker skin.
In 2010, there was another vacancy. Commentators again pointed to Garland. Obama appointed a less-qualified person with a vagina and darker skin.
In 2016, with no more political elections ahead of him, Obama nominated Garland. Certain Republicans decided they'd rather a 50%-50% chance of getting a justice who follows the Constitution as written, appointed by the next president. They think Merrick Garland's type of judicial reasoning is fundamentally wrong. Liberals, on the other hand, criticized the pick why? Because of his lack of experience? No, he had experience. They complained that Obama should have picked someone with a darker complexion.
Re: (Score:2)
But with all that Trump has said or promoted, I've not seen yet where he came out to promote the agenda that is against equality in matters of gender and race.
You've apparently never heard him judge women overwhelmingly based on their looks and sex appeal.
Or say that a Mexican judge wasn't fit to judge him explicitly because of his race.
Or repeatedly imply that all black people lived in the ghettos.
Or promise to keep ban Muslim immigration (race and religion are well correlated).
Or you know, campaign at all, including all of the subtler stuff he implies, but I won't mention because there's no point in arguing subtle implications with people who can't even admit h
Re: (Score:3)
Who gives a fuck about any of this shit? Trump's insensitive. Hillary's never met a war she doesn't LOVE. Not just like. LOVE. I don't think there has ever been a more bloodthirsty politician than Hillary Clinton. In Syria alone she's got 400k dead. Migrant crisis that's destabilizing all of Europe. Make her president and we'll get a few million more slaughtered in pursuit of some geopolitical scheme for cash or another, but hey, at least she won't have said mean things (in public).
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has said a lot of stupid shit, but I've not heard him yet say he was against racial or gender equality.
Actions speak louder than words...
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas Clinton has openly and unabashedly worked and voted to take away people's civil rights, specifically those detailed in the 2nd Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean, start getting blackballed? Too young to remember the wholesale blackballing of actors because of their supposed views [wikipedia.org]?
This doesn't even begin to touch the surface of the obvious and hidden blacklisting which goes on every day. Numerous studies have shown your name alone [cnn.com] can get you blacklisted from a job.
States have had to pass laws [nolo.com] to prevent all kind
Re: (Score:3)
We need diversity of opinions in this country. We need diversity of opinions in tech. We need diversity of opinions everywhere. While I dislike Trump and can't really view what he says as "opinions" but rather as verbal hiccups, we're stuck in a difficult political decision trying to figure out who the lesser evil is and quite a lot of your family, friends, and neighbors will be choosing someone other than your preference. This does not mean that they're morons or evil.
Think about the long term. If it'
Re: (Score:2)
I agree 101%.
Diversity Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
It is clear that the SJWs only believe in one kind of Diversity...of Race
They are not interested in Diversity of Opinion
They are not interested in Diversity of Thought
They are not interested in the Diversity of Goals
If you think differently than them, have different opinions, or don't share their SJW goals, you are Other and are to be despised.
Don't bother arguing otherwise.
Radio host Marshall Gilbert was fired for voting for Prop 8
A coffee shop, El Coyote, became a target of protest after the manager’s name was put on a blacklist for giving $100 to support Proposition 8. Mobs of protesters harassed El Coyote’s customers, shouting “shame on you,” until police in riot gear settled the crowd.
Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich
Google for more.
Re: (Score:3)
It is clear that the SJWs only believe in one kind of Diversity...of Race
They're not even interested in diversity of race. Do you honestly think that SJW's are going to push for more "diversity" at black-owned companies that only hire black people? Methinks the Cubs will win the World Series before that ever happens.
Re:Diversity Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Jeeze. Try learning to read.
Nobody SAID it was the government.
But the modern SJW "culture" has become deeply and pervasively TOXIC.
Now, it's not just enough to disagree with them or even ridicule them.
No, they must be DESPISED. then disenfranchised and ultimately destroyed. By any means necessary.
This isn't just "voting with your dollars" and "refusing the patronize". This is ACTIVELY trying to damage a business by harassing its customers and physically interfering with people trying to do business with them.
Why? Because they're trying to sell a narrative that WORDS are the equivalent of VIOLENCE. Thus, they can feel justified using REAL violence in response to "wrong" opinions.
I'm sorry, that shit just AIN'T okay!
If you don't like what someone has to say, fine. Debate them.
Don't want to debate them? Ignore them. Don't patronize where they work.
But going out of your way to destroy someone's life? How fucking petty and pathetic is that?
Re: (Score:2)
Go read the constitution. This doesn't involve the government.
Is it any less of censorship if thugs in brown shirts do it instead of officially designated organizations?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why Hillary is so cosy with Wall Street.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be a business case for diversity but the people that typically champion diversity aren't doing so based on the business case for it. They do so based on demographics and quotas.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and I thought (hoped) we'd LONG gotten past that in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah well, I prefer a sexist racist pig over a warmonger like Hillary. Both are bad, but I think Hillary is worse.
Re:Minefield (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean Trump likes the ladies? Is that forbidden now? Has it now gotten to the point where I am more likely to be lynched for being like Hugh Hefner than Bruce Jenner?
Re:Minefield (Score:4, Insightful)
Sarcasm aside, it does seem that these days a presidential candidate can't be someone who openly likes the ladies, or admits to that in a private conversation, or did inhale during his college days, or had alcohol before he turned 21, or is an atheïst, or did something dumb when he was young, or had premarital sex, or a DUI, or used the N word at a drunken blowout, or or or. Well, maybe you can find a candidate with a spotless record, who will remain standing under the closest scrutiny, no skeletons in the closet. Would such a person make a good president? Hell, the idea of someone like that telling the rest of us what to do scares me more than a little...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Trump likes the ladies? Is that forbidden now?
It* sure as fuck is if they don't like him
*it being the groping and peeping obviously
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Trump likes the ladies? Is that forbidden now?
Depends if you sexually assault them or not...
Re: (Score:3)
You mean Trump likes the ladies? Is that forbidden now?
Again, are you being wilfully obtuse?
Tell me, do you like the ladies? I'm going to assume yes.
Would you bust into a changing room just to get an eyeful, even if you knew you wouldn't be arrested?
Would you find a lady you liked and just start forcing kisses on her?
Would you grab someone by the pussy merely because they let you (e.g. because you could ruin their career if they didn't[*])?
Because I, and many of my friends, as you put it "like the ladies",
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure 13 yr olds can't give consent to a 59 yr old.
I'm pretty sure that Donald Trump has never been convicted of this crime.
I'm pretty sure that 22 years has elapsed since it allegedly took place, which would make it difficult to present an affirmative alibi. (Do you know what you were doing on an evening 22 years ago? Be specific, and provide corroborating witnesses.)
I'm pretty sure that were there some supporting evidence at all, there would be plenty of lawyers willing to represent the plaintiff, either pro bono or for a contingency, and at least one
Re: (Score:3)
I guess we'll see in December when it goes to trial.
Re: (Score:2)
So, Trump's a piece of rapist shit, but Bill did it too is your argument?
Did that work well in middle school?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because it's not like he hasn't already admitted sexually assaulting women.
So, you don't believe Hillary, and you don't believe Trump.
Why are you commenting?
Re: (Score:3)
If Democrats didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much what everyone else has said.
Plus, there's the fact that this election is a complete and utter shit-show.
If you're a Trump supporter and drop him over a single issue you happen to disagree with or a single scandal, what then?
Move over to Hillary? Why? Because her political plank issues don't match you in any way, BUT AT LEAST SHE SUPPOSEDLY HASN'T EVER TOLD A SEX JOKE!
Because one of the third party candidates that didn't match you on plank issues STILL doesn't match you on plank issues?
Basicall
Re:Minefield (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're a Trump supporter and drop him over a single issue you happen to disagree with or a single scandal, what then?
Move over to Hillary? Why? Because her political plank issues don't match you in any way, BUT AT LEAST SHE SUPPOSEDLY HASN'T EVER TOLD A SEX JOKE!
The thing I find really amusing about the PussyLeaks issue is that the left demands I drop Trump because of pussy grabbing, when they're not dropping Hillary because of the rape victim intimidation. But lefties, this is YOUR ISSUE. As a right winger, I'm already an evil sexist. So how is this argument possibly persuasive? Trump is SO EVIL because he admits that women will let stars grab their pussies that I must abandon my policy goals (the wall, law & order, deporting illegals, killing the TPP, etc)...and then vote for Hillary? Who threatens her husband's rape victims? How is that better?
I don't care about wymynz rights crap. They do! If Hillary threatening rape victims isn't bad enough to get them to drop their politics, why on earth should Trump being a pussy hound be bad enough for me to drop mine?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
His flagship policy is to build a wall to keep Mexicans out.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Minefield (Score:5, Informative)
His flagship policy is a wall to keep illegal immigrants out.
Re:Minefield (Score:5, Insightful)
No..to keep the ILLEGALLY border crossing Mexicans (and anyone else using that border) out.
There's a big difference.
I don't think many Americans have problems with LEGAL immigrants.
We just want them to sign the fucking guest book on the way in, you know?
Re: Minefield (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, Hillary and Obama voted for the "Secure Fence Act of 2006". See this list [govtrack.us] of who voted for it. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton all voted for it.
Also, Mrs. Clinton gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations on October 31, 2016. A transcript of the speech, and Q&A after the speech, are here [votesmart.org]. (You can do a search on that web page for the word "Mexico".)
A video of part of the speech is here. From 2:17 to 2:29: "What we need to simultaneously - you know, secure our borders with technology, personnel, physical barriers if necessary in some places - and we need to have tougher employer sanctions ..."
Re: (Score:3)
Not only does Trump not have such an agenda, 99% of his followers have nothing to do with racism, sexism, xenophobia, or accepting sexual assault.
How do you think political agendas work? I'll give you a hint, they're very rarely written down in black and white.
eg Can you point to the where Hitler said he intends to gas the Jews?
Re: (Score:3)
I think Hitler made it pretty damn clear how he felt about the Jews. I don't recall him ever hugging Jews on stage, kissing Jew babies, or having pictures of him disseminated eating matzo balls with the caption "I love Jews!" and telling everyone how he just had a problem with illegal Jews but loved legal Jews and the Jewish people.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only does Trump not have such an agenda, 99% of his followers have nothing to do with racism, sexism, xenophobia, or accepting sexual assault.
Sure they don't. And there was no classified emails on Clinton's server either.
Re: (Score:3)
I beg to differ with your "ignorant" statement. Trump is much smarter than people believed which is why he's doing much better than people ever conceived of. Not only has he had to contend with the Democratic machine (and Project Veritas gives us a glimpse into that corrupt cesspool), but a colluding media, and career politicians on the right who see him as a threat to their gravy train.
Not telling you how to vote, just telling you that the narrative you hear has little factual basis. Consume all the fac
Re: (Score:2)
Not telling you how to vote, just telling you that the narrative you hear has little factual basis. Consume all the facts you can from various sources before making a decision.
I agree with this statement, could you point to somewhere where I can get independent verified facts about Trump? Because so far he seems to want everyone to take him on his word, which as you point out, isn't a very reliable source.
Re: (Score:3)
I would normally tell you to read transcripts and watch tapes. Since time is rather short and there is much to learn, let me point you to a Philosophy [youtube.com] show who also dabbles in the journalism so lacking in media today.
Just a word of caution: Since the media is so biased it may seem shocking to the system to get a different view. Taking the red pill as it were. Always, check sources if you are in doubt. Stefan provides them all, but may be found easier on his web site compared to Youtube.
Re: (Score:2)
If he were smart, he would have been much more careful with what he said while wearing a mic.
Re: (Score:3)
Why there is a culture war explains the whole SJW movement: http://www.hoover.org/research... [hoover.org]
I think the best defense Zuck could have given is that we need to include the traditional patriarchy and its hegemonic value system in our corporate dialog.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry for replying to my own post, but I just came up with THE PERFECT paragraph justifying Thiel's board seat.
" We incorporate hegemonic values such as pure meritocracy regardless of race, as represented by Thiel, but also the values of inclusion and diversity through our more progressive board members. By including both these perspectives we can selectively choose between these values where appropriate in order to maximize shareholder value effectively, which of course remains our highest and most import
Everybody needs shoes (Score:5, Insightful)
FB seems to be going a third way, and supporting both candidates, which in turn pisses off both sides. So the angry people can then... post rants on Facebook which generates hits and more traffic from political discussions, and more ad revenue. Ah, clever...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, why not just "celebrate diversity"?
Oh... it's only supposed to be SJW's "diversity" and not any other views.
Ya gotta love it.
Is everyone supposed to think the same?
Thanks, asshole (Score:3)
Propaganda (Score:5, Interesting)
Apologize while bashing the hell out of the Political Candidate you dislike. The propaganda is so thick you can taste it.
So can Facebook say "Thanks" to Mark followed by "On behalf of the Corrupt politician, corrupt political party, and corrupt media trying to install her we give our thanks!"
Re: (Score:2)
Hey thanks finally for pointing out the conspiracy theory in this story. I've already scrolled down 3/4 of the page and haven't seen any others yet! Come on /., we need to remind casual readers that the establishment is plotting to steal our precious bodily fluids!
What would Michelle Obama say (Score:3)
two bad choices (Score:4, Informative)
So, support for a corrupt, lying manipulator shouldn't be cause for outrage? Because that's the only realistic alternative in this election. We have two horrible candidates running. If you don't see that and hurl epithets at people who make a different choice from you, the problem is with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Limit your US staff to a legal, branding and PR role only. Have just enough US staff to keep the US gov happy.
Lawyers to ensure complacence and keep political donations flowing. Former US gov workers with clearances to keep PRISM like networks compliant.
PR kept in house to ensure good optics at every public event, the happy, well arranged images for social media.
Move all long term design work well away from the USA to nations that offer merit based academic advancement. Build your real c
But it was Ok to ban most of California voters? (Score:5, Insightful)
When Brendan Eich was ousted from Mozilla [usatoday.com], it was for his private backing of California Proposition 8 [wikipedia.org], which won the backing of over 52% of California voters. By the hateful logic of Mr. Eich's detractors, the entire State of California should've been boycotted by the freedom-loving web-sites until the State purged their thought-criminals.
Where Mr. Zuckerberg stood on that boycott is unclear, but the words he is preaching now, should've been uttered then.
Re: (Score:2)
When Brendan Eich was ousted from Mozilla [usatoday.com], it was for his private backing of California Proposition 8 [wikipedia.org], which won the backing of over 52% of California voters. By the hateful logic of Mr. Eich's detractors, the entire State of California should've been boycotted by the freedom-loving web-sites until the State purged their thought-criminals.
Yeah, but that would come with an actual *cost*. In the same way, they should quit using Eich's work, particularly the javascript language.
Remember, SJWs will do everything as long as it doesn't inconvenience them personally in any way.
Re: (Score:3)
Eich publicly supported Proposition 8, and donated a large sum of money, all to deny certain people the right to marry the ones they loved. He was a bad cultural fit for Mozilla.
How very egalitarian (Score:2)
They love diversity so much they'd buddy up to Pol Pot, if he was still alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Sly (Score:2)
Nice backhanded compliment: "There are many reasons a person might support Trump that do not involve racism, sexism, xenophobia, or accepting sexual assault."
The age-old question: if you claim to be inclusive, do you have to include people who exclude others?
Similar to "what happens to 'alternative' when it becomes mainstream?"
many reasons (Score:2)
"There are many reasons a person might support Trump that do not involve racism, sexism, xenophobia, or accepting sexual assault."
That may be, but those are my personal favorites!!!
SMH (Score:3)
Looking at all the "5, Insightful" comments - did I miss something? Has /. been taken over by 4chan redpillers lately?
Re:Fair point (Score:5, Informative)
You might also consider it the support of the lesser or the two evils being presented to us this time around.
Many are likely voting one way or the other on the potential for the Supreme Court balance alone. That's actually my main issue now, along with gun rights.
Re: (Score:2)
There are definitely wedge issue voters. But I'd be hesitant to claim that they're even the majority of Trump supporters. From statistics I've seen, the biggest demographic is white males with lower levels of education and fall in pretty bad economic situations.
There was an interview with a guy who feared Hillary to death because he's convinced she will raise his taxes and cut his disability checks. I don't think he ever connected that disability checks comes from taxes nor that if you're on disability, you
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you mean the people who've paid the biggest price for open borders policies are the most motivated to do something about it? Do tell.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, sure. We can all get PhDs and the toilets will clean themselves.
For once, think a little.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I just drove through Michigan - from its touristy border with Canada, down through the rural spaces, through Ann Arbor and around Detroit and off into NY and PA, down through western MD and into the DC burbs. I saw less than 10 "Clinton" signs in front yards, and never one on display at a business. I saw hundreds and hundreds of Trump signs
Re: (Score:2)
Many are likely voting one way or the other on the potential for the Supreme Court balance alone. That's actually my main issue now, along with gun rights.
As a Non-American I find this fixation with guns absurd. I've lived in a a few different countries all with much tighter gun control than the US, yet the normal citizen can still get a gun if they want one. What whacky scenario do you see playing out where all the guns are taken from you? Do you honestly believe this would ever happen?
Re: (Score:3)
What whacky scenario do you see playing out where all the guns are taken from you?
You mean, like Australia? That sort of thing? Or Hillary Clinton's personal favorite back-channel methods: she wants to support punitive taxes on the purchase of ammunition, and make gun manufacturers vulnerable to lawsuits over deaths committed by criminals using their products. In other words, she wants to use executive power to strangle gun makers and owners through regulatory and financial attacks, and get that bit of misery in place while she seats Supreme Court justices that will, as she puts it, "re
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to answer, but I see the ScentCone has beat me to most of my valid points, especially about the Oz example.
So, yes, I fear for my existing gun freedoms.
And as that you are a non-American, it shouldn't really matter one way or another to you, should it?
It's nice that you're interested, but you really needn't bless us with your 'superior' and more 'civilized' outlook on weapons where you live. If you don't like to have full freedoms lik
Re: (Score:2)
John McCain already came clean. They intend to oppose any nominee [npr.org] that Clinton makes.
That makes no sense. What are they going to do, wait another eight years to appoint another justice?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if Clinton put forth a replacement for Scalia like Scalia....a strict constitutionalist and not a legislator from the bench, they'd pass him.
But I"m guessing hell isn't getting that cold any time soon....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton has a list of rape accusers longer than Cosby's.
The scandal you are alluding to there also includes Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the correct call, sir. Neither of the candidates has been found guilty of a crime.
It's like the last two minutes of a basketball game: I say, "let 'em play".
Re: (Score:2)
It's a straw man argument anyway. Trump support is just reason why people dislike Theil.
Re: (Score:2)
The moron wants to impose a no fly zone in a country that the Russians have already entrenched themselves into. That's like a quick trip to World War III.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what's being implied, but you had to made this a partisan thing as well. People who vote on single-issues are pretty looney in general. That's all that was said. But again, you had to come in, Anonymously (cowardly), with the tried-and-true predictable partisan talking point "well the other side!!!".
That being said, some issues are more worthy of being a wedge issue than others. I don't care how good a political candidate's policies are towards economic growth if they advocated, say, genocide.
Re:Of course you can. And you should. (Score:4, Insightful)
> Of course we can create a culture that excludes people based on their support of a political candidate.
The founding fathers are all rolling in their graves right now.
This bullshit is pure Hilter and pure Stalin. Trump has nothing on you people.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course we can create a culture that excludes people based on their support of a political candidate.
Why stop there? Put them into camps and start gassing them already. This should quickly correct all these wrong-thinking people and would allow inclusive, tolerant, and democratic society to finally flourish.
Re: (Score:2)
Then vote for someone other than Trump. That is, after all, what elections are about.
Hating on everyone else because they didn't vote the same as you, just makes YOU the asshole.