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.
Those who have forgotten the origin story of Facebook had also forgotten that you are a self-centered prick with no morals. Thanks for hitting refresh on that turd icon.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Not buying the idea that you need to have a Trump supporter on your board to show any commitment to diversity. Fact is, all Zuck cares about is money.
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
Yes it does mean that. Because connecting the world means connecting everyone. INCLUDING those you do not agree with. You might hear something you do not agree with. Those people are probably going to do things you think are straight up stupid.
This scarlet letter shit should stop. It helps no one other than the egos of those who make the letters to hand out.
Fair point. There's total and utter stupidity too.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
support for an erratic, racist demagogue
What an idiot. Trump 2016
I did some various drugs in my life, but none that would cause the off-the-rails delusional conspiracy theories that we see from author of this Verge article. If their premise is that any time a person offends some group or another they are automatically categorized as intolerant of that group, what does that say about these regressive liberals who make a career of inventing new ways to insult and attack anybody who doesn't toe their party line?
"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."
Neither Thiel NOR Trump promote opposition to gender or racial equality. Thiel and Trump do support nationalism over globalism but that's not the same thing.
But yet these same self-righteous assholes who want "diversity" and to "connect the world" will AND ARE happily censoring any opposition to their stated political candidates while running a counter ops campaign. In effect, controlling the speech to further utopia but only as they see it. The very worst ideology.
Perhaps they should take the board out of their eyes before complaining about the splinter in others.
"There are many reasons a person might support Trump that do not involve racism, sexism, xenophobia, or accepting sexual assault."
Gotta love those one-issue voters. "He's advocating genocide, wants to cancel all school funding, and force all women across the country to only bear HIS children? That's a-ok cause he's gonna lower my taxes!"
It helps if they are also xenophobic and a nationalistic fearmonger. Who could argue against such diversity?
Of course we can create a culture that excludes people based on their support of a political candidate. And we *should* do this when that political candidate clearly favors racism, sexism, bigotry, and hatred. Supporting Trump is a clear statement in-favor of his appalling attitudes. Should good men simply remain silent while evil prospers? (Full disclosure; I don't think either Trump or Hillary deserves a single vote; they are both appalling, but one is appalling and supporting hatred and evil. The other is appalling and supporting the status-quo (more or less). Since our political system is a totally fucked-up the two-party system, we are pretty much stuck.)
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!"
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Translation:
"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."
"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, but those that do are racist, sexist, xenophobic, and accept sexual assault."
After her speech, I have to wonder how she would react if her husband was caught getting a blowjob in the Oval Office from a girl about the age of Michelle's daughter. She seems to think it's okay for Hillary to ignore it.
treat everyone else. Sued into oblivion for perceived insults, and ignored when it is inconvenient. Problem for Trump is he doesn't know how to help anyone else.
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.
Both are unscrupulous manipulative privacy-for-me-but-not-for-thee cunts.
If you actually believe in free speech, you have to be willing to defend the right of someone to speak, even if what they are say is abhorrent to you.
The fictional Presidental Shepard in "American President" had a good speech on the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9JAbyROUWk
"the company has a moral obligation to consider a variety of viewpoints, no matter how abhorrent." No, you fucking don't.
Cue dumbass "free speech" defenders that don't actually understand "free speech".
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.
Hey Puppets, you actually can vote 3rd party. Abraham Lincoln was a 3rd party candidate.
They love diversity so much they'd buddy up to Pol Pot, if he was still alive.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
The logic of saying that people might support Trump for reasons other than his bigotry is flawed. By supporting Trump you essentially condone racism, misogyny, xenophobia, etc. We must demand better from our leaders.
The left have never been able to be civil with dissenting opinions. The left in the US is fascist.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
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.
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?"
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
It was because he hadn't just contributed to a campaign, he'd contributed to such a degree that it had to be recorded as public record. Furthermore, given the fluffy gay pro-SJW attitude that Mozilla was fostering then and especially now, his views ran directly counter to the image the company wanted to present. THAT is why Eich was ousted. The problem with both high ranking corporate and political appointment positions is: every thing you've ever done may be scrutinized to oust you from the position especially if you are underperforming. Also we could blame him for Javascript, so ousting him on something relatively minor in comparison is par for the course.
But there it is. Want to exclude Trump his legal entities, knock yourself out. Excluding everyone who backed him is evil.
Thad [unknown] said, "You don't have to like a person to support their First Amendment rights. If the First Amendment only applied to people we like, there'd be no need for a First Amendment at all."
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...
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.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Your country has been hi-jacked by criminal elements - What are YOU going to do about it?
~ a foreigner....
In an election year that pushes the American sad tradition of voting against candidates instead of for candidates, to a new low, where each party hates their own candidate almost as much as they hate the opposing candidate, we can blame Jon Stewart for whatever happens during the next 4-8 years.
If he and Colbert decided to run they would sweep as America is sick of its diseased system and actually likes the two of them.
Sure some people will say "OMG he has no experience (taking bribes/campaign contributions/6 figure free speech). Jon could never be a good POTUS!
Those people of course forget that the average American is voting for a prom king and that qualification or corporate ownership of their candidate has never mattered. They just have to be likable.
So we get Hilary who was promised the presidency before she got her first political position ("sure I'll stick by you Bill, I just want one thing in return...").. or Trump who didn't want the presidency and just wanted to make the Wall the talking point, so he could throw his support behind the leading republican in exchange for a no bid contract to build the wall (and possibly become the world's first trillionaire on the tax payer's dime doing it).. Sadly Donald over estimated the intelligence of the average American and became the republican leading candidate and now his only consolation prize may be to pet his ego with a POTUS title and some sexy interns.
America loses either way and Jon Stewart/Colbert could have easily prevented it, if they were willing to take a pay cut for a few years.
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.
Big words from a little guy who makes his entire fortune selling other people's privacy and their identity. What a crook.
Frau Hitlary demands to be treated with respect and will allow no opposition.
If you challenge Her Authority, she will have her Minitruth create a shitstorm of controversy around you.
If you still won't stop or have dirt on yer, she will have her secret agents kill you, or simply drone you.
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 of their underwear. I raise my daughter to see individual people for who they are, not to start by categorizing them as black, latino, white, male and female. 99% of the time, those categories are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. So I think we should cut back about 99% on how much time we spend categorizing people like that; don't teach the next generation to be always looking at race and gender, all the time. On that note:
About 18 months ago I grabbed a random sampling of 8 Democrat speeches and about 8 Republican speeches. Democrats brought up race 26 times more often than Republicans.
"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!!!
The fact is as much as I dislike zuckerberg hes at least fair
You can't be inclusive if you don't include all viewpoints including rhe ones you disagree with
Well now we know why Zuckerberg and Luckey Palmer got along so well: both alt.righters.
>> 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?
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.
Nope, he backed a public effort, it wasn't a private affair at all(no financial support for a political campaign is private), and it only 'won' the support of 7 million out of California's 17 million voters.
That's barely over 40% of voters. Oh wait, you forgot to consider turnout.
But the problem with a boycott was that California was already beimg boycotted for being too liberal, so you probably got confused. Don't worry though, I won't tell anyone you went to a movie theater.
Some chapters in this book apply: "Death by HR," https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LXF6HB2/
That Thiel knows enough sh*t about him to be able to venture fund a series of lawsuit to take FBook down if he wanted to. I'm sure Zuck has someone watching for any shorting on at least an hourly basis.
It will be interesting when Trump is sworn in to office In January... I wonder what all of these leftist-supporting tech giants will say then.
If wanting jobs to go to Americans is racist, then I'm a racist.
If not letting the whole third world come to the USA and take jobs away from Americans is racist, then I'm a racist.
It's called being a country. This leftist dream of no national borders is a pipe-dream. The 1st world cannot absorb the 3rd world without itself going down in flames.
Wait, wait, not only do you think Michigan is full of Democrats, you think Chik-fil-a has good fried chicken?
In-and-out Burger has better chicken.
So Hillary is the real racist, while Donald's public racist statements can be simply dismissed. Ok, got it.
Certainly there are reasons, but that's not the point and not why Project Include won't work with Y Combinator. Support of Trump involves considering sexual assault, racism, sexism and xenophobia to be acceptable. That holds regardless of the reasons you have for supporting him. Project Include is saying "No, those things that Trump loudly and proudly stands for are not acceptable, period. We don't care why you think they're acceptable because we don't believe there's any reason you could give us that could make them acceptable.". And this isn't just the candidate's supporters espousing those positions, it's the candidate himself making his enthusiastic support of those positions the centerpiece of his speeches and campaign.
Why is a CEO talking to his staff about politics? Isn't this rather inappropriate? Maybe it's an American thing...
Supporting Trump's election campaign is entirely in line with hedge fund managers' and billionaires' lack of moral compass. Don't forget that Google and Microsoft have enthusiastically supported the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) which are responsible for actual laws and policies that are just as abhorrent as Trump's on- and off-screen behaviour. We shouldn't pretend that there are any "ethical billionaires." They'll all murder your grandmother if the price is right.
I don't think his talk about women is quite as innocous as you say. However, I feel that it's something of a distraction from the 25 other things that suggest he would make a terrible commander-in-chief.
Fucking right-wing idiot who always blames 'the left' despite the fact that BOTH sides are corrupt as fuck. You're part of the problem, asshat.
You want to get to truth, then ditch the 'left' and 'right' bullshit and just call a shitter a shitter.
Also: You're forgetting about Trump wanting to throw out people in the judiciary who might have immigrant parents. Or when he set up his company to not rent to blacks. Or when he does the birther bullshit. Or how he characterizes a whole group of people in one swath (you know those hispanics/muslims/native americans).. false generalization ). Or when he condoned the beating of a prostester.
Oh, so total for equality?
Fucking ignorant motherfucker. Now, to decide if I'm talking about Trump, Hillary, You, or all of the above.
You mean the anchor baby (uh oh, another bad phrase) judge who would rule on a case against a person who is against illegal immigration and holds that as their main platform? Amazing how facts lined up with your bullshit make your bullshit obvious.
Look douchebag, if you want to bitch about Trump there is ample opportunity with his failed business practices. Thats about the only valid target though, because Trump has NEVER held a public office and DID NOT make hundreds of millions of dollars while holding the office of PUBLIC SERVANT!
Now please go to step 2 in your shill playbook. "But Hillary didn't really do it."
To see that, all you have to do is try to find any dirt on Hillary Clinton in any of their "news" articles. It's up to about HuffPo's level of partisan propaganda there lately.
Did you forget to read that Politifact page before linking to it? It says all the same things I said about Merrick Garland. The very page you chose to link to says he's "known as a liberal", which isn't what Republicans want, and says liberals criticized the pick for EXACTLY the reasons I said they did, "Democracy for America expressed disappointment that Obama selected a white man rather than a woman of color".
You might as well have linked to my own post as your "refutation". Except of course Politifact is a more credible source, saying exactly the same things I saidb
The verge can suck it
Did you? This is about the Republicans, whose words and actions you strangely seem to be ignoring. Did you see the parts about them refusing to hold any kind of vote, or declaring him entirely qualified? No, you'd rather blind your eyes to that, and focus on trivialities.
Well, not so strange. After all, it is the Republicans way to blame anyone else. That's why none of the Senators in the GOP will take responsibility for their decision. Even you won't do it. You can't face it.
You have to wring your hands over an unimportant group of people...who you don't seem to realize that Obama ignored when he nominated Merrick Garland.
Who is either qualified or who isn't. Why won't you demand a vote?
Just call your Senators and tell them to do their constitutional duty. It's the right thing to do. If you have integrity. Can't do it though, because the vote would turn on Garland's not being a partisan pick who will vote in lockstep with the interests of the GOP. And that would lool bad for their image.
So you pick non-issues to whine about.
"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."
Yes absolutely they should. When did it happen that everyone that doesn't agree with you should be punished. Vote for who you want, but as a private citizen you should be able to have views and still be able to hold a job. Even a leadership job. All the work that people have put into free speech is being discarded because now all some people care about is everyone thinking the same way.
More to the point, Thiel didn't just turn into a bad man this year. He's been a piece of crap a long time now. At what point are they finally willing to cut ties with someone? Does he have to be caught in bed with a dead boy first? (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards)
This statement: "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."
Complete crap and hyperbole. The person who did this write up "thinks" that Trump promotes those things. That doesn't mean he actually DOES support those things.
Way to go Zuckerberg - I was beginning to think reasonable people didn't exist on the left anymore.
Thiel is a piece of shit just like Trump, and now so is Zuckerberg. Drop Facebook! It is the Devil!
Pot meet kettle. Too bat pots and kettles aren't too bright.
Let me give some context:
September 2015:
Hillary Clinton: U.S. Should Accept 65,000 Syrian Refugees
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/20/hillary-clinton-u-s-should-accept-65000-syrian-refugees/
November 2015:
Paris massacre: At least 128 killed in gunfire and blasts, French officials say
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/world/paris-shooting/
December 2015:
2015 San Bernardino attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack
December 2015
Donald Trump calls for ‘total’ ban on Muslims entering United States
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2015/12/07/e56266f6-9d2b-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html
You seem to have a rather strange obsession here. Let me try saying it one more time for you, in all capital letters maybe so you can see it:
REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT ANOTHER LIBERAL JUSTICE.
DUH. NO SHIT SHERLOCK.
"Republicans won't admit it"you say - in the very article you linked to, it quoted the Senate majority leader saying they would wait until after the election, that they weren't going to confirm the kind of justice Obama would appoint.
You seem to have a strange obsession with this idea of yours that senators selected by the voters should abdicate their Constitutional duty to ensure a justice is fit for the job (based on what the majority of voters consider fit), and instead confirm whoever Obama chooses. I don't know where you get that idea. Oddly, it seems you'd also rather them play around and pretend to hold hearings about the guy, knowing they aren't going to confirm him if Trump wins. Why would you *want* them to waste time playing games? The people didn't vote control of the Senate to the Democrats, they voted the Republicans in, in many cases one reason they voted republican was to check Obama's appointments of liberal judges who re-write the Constitution to their preference.
So he has some Trump ties. So they're made overseas. At least they don't feature a glow in the dark nude like you'd expect Trump to put on them.
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)
Trump was labeled anti-Hispanic because he said that the people coming from Mexico were rapists and murderers, and maybe a few of them were ok. He was also labeled anti-Hispanic because he said that a US citizen of Hispanic descent couldn't possibly be impartial.
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 never ran with that story. Not at all.
The story was created by a former Clinton volunteer who sent a chain email when Obama overtook Hillary in the primaries, and we have no evidence that Hillary ever ran with it or repeated it. Only another of Trump's baseless, factless assertions. You could say that since it came from someone who used to volunteer for Hillary that Clinton is responsible, but that then opens you up to every candidate being responsible for everything that any staffer or any volunteer or worker or supporter ever says, even after they leave the campaign.
I won't even bother with your attempt of trying to paper over clear cases of sexual assault. That's just disgusting, and everyone on the conservative side was right to distance themselves from him.
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.
What the fuck? So now, defending someone for not publicly renouncing Trump is "promoting opposition to gender and racial equality?" Anyone that full of themselves to write such a sentence could give Zuckerberg a run for his money in the race for "most pompous self-righteous arrogant ass."
>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.
This is totally false claim that has been thoroughly debunked.
Looking at all the "5, Insightful" comments - did I miss something? Has /. been taken over by 4chan redpillers lately?
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it . (And NO, it's not from Voltaire even thought it highlights his ideology) This is freedom of speech 101. You might desagree with them, but they have a right to express their ideas.
I at least partly agree with Mark Zuckerberg to the extent in that nobody should lose their job over their political beliefs -- at least if they don't interfere with the ability to do the job. That caveat gets trickier when the person is in a leadership position.
There is another issue in play here: In my opinion: Believing anything Donald Trump says shows a serious lack of judgement.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
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?...
This link doesn't work.
Calling people "f*cking Jew bastard" (Hillary, confirmed by three witnesses)
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
'Confirmed' by the couple who originally reported the incident, and a campaign worker who later turned out wasn't even in the room and claims to have overheard through a door.
Hillary said publicly that her mentor is Robert Byrd, former KKK leader.
You apparently don't realize that Byrd publicly denounced and apologized for his former ties to the KKK and went on to support the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts. Jesus, even the NAACP released a statement after his death praising his work later in life to advance civil liberties.
Before you decide to believe the worst of someone, it's worth checking your facts.
> You apparently don't realize that Byrd publicly denounced and apologized for his former ties to the KKK and went on to support the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.
Support (verb): to aid or assist.
Byrd FILIBUSTERED the Civil Rights for 60 days. Many years later, after he had completely and utterly lost in his attempts to 'keep the n*ggers in their place", he may have realized it was politically expedient to say he *likes* the Civil Rights Act, but he most certainly did not support it, he did not aid and support in it's passage. To the contrary, he put more effort into blocking the Civil Rights Act than any other act in his entire career.
Fascism did indeed originate in Italy, BUT it was created by Italian SOCIALIST leader Benito Mussolini as an improvement on generic socialism. The goals are the same. The means are mostly the same.
Where typical socialists want to control the means of production directly, which always leads to terrible waste and inefficiency, fascists want to control the means of production indirectly through government-business "partnerships". As long as the businesses run things the way the government wants, they get the illusion of being in control and government gets the economic benefits of production more-efficient than in a generic socialist economy.The National Socialist German Workers Party copied the optimized form of socialism from Mussolini, and the fascists of both countries ended up needing the same jack-booted garbage to support the scheme.
The simple fact is that when you try to take too much from productive people to redistribute, you eventually need to have an army of amoral goosestepping thugs to do all the dirty work. Eventually, you need to take EVERYTHING from lots of people including their hair and dental fillings and every last bit of labor you can wring out of them before they die. To do this, you need THUGS and violence.