Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg Defends Peter Thiel's Trump Ties In Internal Memo (theverge.com)
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.
This SJW stuff is a minefield for companies that are trying to actually accomplish stuff. I suggest staying away and not answering their calls.
When Brendan Eich was ousted from Mozilla, it was for his private backing of California Proposition 8, 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.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
> 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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Michael Jordan once said, "Republicans buy shoes too." He has political views, but didn't want his brand associated with only 50% of shoppers. Some companies want to be part of culture wars. Chick-fil-a doesnt believe in equal rights for gays, Target makes a big deal about letting transgender people pee. That's part of their image and identity that they want their brand to be. Shoppers can make their own choices.
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...
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?...
Calling people "f*cking Jew bastard" (Hillary, confirmed by three witnesses)
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
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 do so.
What bothers me much, much more, though, is the condescension of Hillary and friends towards my family. It *really* bothers me that they tell my daughter, in effect, "we'll give you an extra ten points on this test since you're black, and obviously black people like you are too stupid to actually learn the material like we white people can do". The hidden, implied racism and bigotry that runs deep in all of their policies is infuriating to me. When my daughter hears Hillary call someone a "n*gger" or a "f*cking Jew bastard", I explain to my daughter that Hillary is wrong, very wrong. Some people are stupid and say stupid things; that's simple enough to understand and accept. But when the entire school system, through college, is predicated on the assumption that my daughters complexion makes her less capable, it's harder to convincingly explain that EVERYONE setting school policy are ALL morons. I'm sure she will at times wonder if they are right; and that saddens and angers me tremendously.
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?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
> > 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.