10 ms·
Mark Zuckerburg comments on Peter Thiel controversy regarding Trump donation
- djsumdog 10y agoSuch well written words. It's beautiful bullshit, just like everything that comes out of either candidates mouths. They're both psychopaths. The vote in America is the peasants suggestion box. You're better off putting you ballot in a box, shitting in that box, setting it on fire and burring it in the woods. It's really the perfect Zuckerburg statement, because it's total bullshit, just like everything Facebook stands for. Remember, you're their product. So be sure to share and like for their customers so FB can make ad revenue off you.
- brazzledazzle 10y agoEven if his views were espoused for the wrong reasons there's something to be said about respectful disagreement.
- kafkaesq 10y agoQuick summary: (1) Dodges the main issue of Trump's being not just a controversial candidate, but as we now know, an apparently unapologetic, serial sexual assaulter; along with (2) Thiel's blatant indifference to this fact; (3) to which Mark says, basically "Whatever about this sexual assault stuff -- of course FB can't afford to alienate any significant sized constituency, such as the pro-Trump electorate".
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Mao_Zedang 10y ago*Alleged serial sexual assaulter
- x0x0 10y agoWe're not a court of law. By the time there's 9+ accusers, many of whom shared their stories contemporarily (viz people writer who told 6 people), you're verging on Crosby territory to deny what plainly happened.
- Mao_Zedang 10y agoI hope someone in your family is convicted in the court of public opinion, maybe your son or father.
- mewse 10y ago*"Alleged" serial sexual assaulter who has bragged on tape about his pattern of engaging in sexual assault. Let's not leave that out. What he is being accused of is no more or less than what he has actually bragged about doing. Bragged about on videotape.
- random_upvoter 10y agoWhat I hear strikes me as par for the course in the high life of an era that is now bygone. Honestly, what do you think went on there? I wonder what kind of saint would be able to resist the trappings of wealth and fame in the 80-90s. Judging from the condemnations all around, we're surrounded by such saints.
- JakeAl 10y agoI believe what he said is "they let me do it because I am a star". I've seen perfectly reasonable women let guys with money and status do things they would say were unacceptable and outrageous if it was anyone else. I've also seen intelligent women go bonkers for low knuckle dragging men that treated them like crap and cheated on them and they knew it. Who am I to judge, relationships are personal business. And here's the thing -- we all have equal protection under the law. If Trump ever did anything that a female acquaintance considers assault she has recourse under the law and should have gone to the police and not a newspaper 30 years later. Police will investigate the validity of your claims and whether or not your story has holes or inconsistencies. It's their job. If you move on without pursuing legal action then it cannot be said it was not acceptable because you accepted it.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- internaut 10y agoThe last paragraph introduces a question interesting to me. Is opening up communication channels responsible for social conflict? Is Mark right or wrong in his last paragraph. I've always assumed he was wrong but the premise should be examined explicitly. Naturally I don't claim that the radio or newspapers invented the social conflict. I am saying they could be responsible for the actual incidence of conflict itself. If you picture each person as a collection of memes, then; > The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. - H.P Lovecraft The potential for conflict in the individual is not resolved with conflict for the most part. We do know the more intellectual among us tend to be more neurotic, perhaps another hint at the essential lovecraftian truth. That means barefaced conflict is only possible when an individual meets another and communicates. It is then latent contradictions become evident. Far from the notion that communication acts as a meditator and leads to peace, the truth might be the opposite. tldr; if we don't talk to each other, everything will be fine!
- DasIch 10y agoThese kind of statements remind me of the "Not everything was bad about Hitler" faction. "Sure he killed millions but think of the highways he built!" Trump is one person, you can't separate his position on policy X from all the other things. You may want to support him because of some specific policy but if you do, you will support all of his policies, there is no way around it.
- Mao_Zedang 10y agoIf trump wins, and doesnt actually do anything remotely as bad as hitler will you feel bad for taking this extremely radical point of view?
- DasIch 10y agoI'm fairly certain Trump isn't going to do anything remotely as bad because he wouldn't have the ability to. In any case the parallels are shocking and I'm far from the only one who has noticed, so I don't think the idea is all that radical to begin with.
- cyphar 10y agoI think you see the "X is Hitler" trope quite a lot in politics. And yes, the similarities are uncanny but there's a very simple reason for that: All moderately successful and ambitious politicians will, to a first-order approximation, be similar to Hitler. Why? Because Hitler was a successful, ambitious and quite influential politician who fought against the hardships in his life. This is not to say that Hitler was in any way good, but the "similarities" you refer to are quite natural considering that you're comparing classes of people that must (by necessity) have similar character traits. A timid, unambitious person wouldn't be a serious contender for President of the US. All of this being said, I'm not American so I literally have no ball in this game (though on the record, Trump's policies on climate change are more than enough for me to not wish him to be the next President of the US).
- Steko 10y ago
- Tempest1981 10y agoWhat he writes sounds reasonable. Although I'm equally disturbed by Facebook News Memes like Tomi Lahren: http://deadspin.com/tomi-lahren-is-a-facebook-meme-come-to-life-and-america-1786062538 http://deadspin.com/tomi-lahren-is-a-facebook-meme-come-to-l...
- akras14 10y agoI agree 100%. Haters gonna hate.
- codezero 10y agoIs there a link to this? That photo doesn't appear to match Zuck's profile.
- kilotaras 10y agoThat post is "Facebook only." Note the "f" in privacy.
- TheBranca18 10y agoDoes such a setting actually exist? I cannot find any information about that. There hasn't been any other source for this post either.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- k__ 10y agoWhat is it with you US-people and 2 candidates?!?! I mean this is ridiculous. He's all like "oh don't hate on Thiel just because he supports Trump. Half of the US does it so it's a valid opinion" Why not support other republicans who aren't chauvinists? They talk like "Oh we just have Trump and Hilary and Hilary is corrupt, so what should we do? Vote Trump of cause!" I mean if you're a chauvinist and like what Trumps says, just vote for him, it's your right to do so. But talking about diversity and then supporting people against it is bullshit. "Hey yes, you can work at FB, we think you got mad skills, but we will invest the money you make in people who make your life worse!"
- peatmoss 10y ago> What is it with you US-people and 2 candidates?!?! It's the natural consequence of a plurality voting system. Conservatives remember H. Ross Perot spoiling the election for George H.W. Bush, and throwing the election to Bill Clinton. Progressives remember Ralph Nader making the contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush close enough that G.W. was given the election by a Supreme Court stocked with his dad's buddies. Voting for third parties is a terrible political strategy in the United States. The spoiler effect is real. I'd go so far as to say that our plurality system all but guarantees bad candidates--it's not the fittest that survive the primary election process, it's the most memorable, the one who we feel will best appeal to our neighbors. Going further, I'd suggest that having a strong majority political belief is a major liability in U.S. elections. When Bill Clinton was elected, the nation was largely happy with the center-right GOP of the time. As a result, the further right bloc had the confidence and diversity of small differences of opinion to split and lose the whole thing. (Never minding the fact that Bill Clinton was far to the right of traditional Democrats). The same was true with Nader and Gore in 2000. Bill Clinton's policies had been so popular that people largely wanted another Clinton, but perhaps a little more progressive. Disagreement ensued as to how much more progressive, and thus we had Nader and Gore losing to the much more hawkish right-wing George W. Bush. So, in the U.S., you're best off being part of a popular political leaning, but pray your political leanings don't grow so popular as to result in a split. My personal feeling is that this country desperately needs to move past plurality voting. The easiest path to this is for states to apportion their electors based on ranked choice voting. It doesn't solve all our problems, but it does remove the spoiler effect. With luck, that would allow us to have less shrill, more substantive candidates--even if the major parties continue to dominate.
- joshuahaglund 10y agoWhen people say "half the country supports X candidate" I like to point out polls only count registered voters who are likely to vote, which is closer to half the eligible voting population (which of course doesn't include any of the non-adults). It's more like each candidate has support from less than a quarter of the population and most people don't support either. Somehow I find that reassuring.
- nullcodes 10y agoDon't be daft. The non-voters are the ones who don't care. They don't care about xenophobia doing its thing. They don't care that Hillary may be corrupt. They don't care about the fact that Trump wants to carry out extrajudicial killings of people who might be related to terrorists. They don't care he wants more extreme forms of torture than waterboarding. Get real the people who aren't voting probably would make the country worse.
- ItendToDisagree 10y agoOr they have given up on voting for a shit sandwich vs a dirty douche. Either way you vote you lose. This covers a vast group of people in the united states. As George Carlin (loosely) said: If you voted for the people in power, you have no right to complain when they do things you dont like. You voted them in. I on the other hand... Did not vote for them and have every right to complain about the mess you made and I had nothing to do with.
- strangebrew 10y agoLove Carlin, but you can't make keeping your hands clean the main priority in life. I raise you one Emerson: "The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them. But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then? A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.--'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.'--Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood."
- judah 10y agoSome surprising wisdom in this private note: If everyone looks different but thinks the same, that's not real diversity.
- williesleg 10y agoReally? WTF Zuckerberg, trying to polarize everybody. I'll tell you what, for someone who makes his entire fortune off of selling people's freedom, identity and private information, you should be ashamed of yourself. The dems used to be the party of inclusion. Somehow they've been hijacked to the party of the elites. And there's zero tolerance for anyone who thinks different. Glad I'm not a face bagger, and glad I don't work for such a company that excludes half or more of their people. Shame on you Zuckerberger.
- mpinar 10y agoTrump is an embarrassment for United States of America but we can't impose our judgment those who want to support and vote for him. Nor do I agree with Mark Zuckerberg that half the country Support this man.
- Phil_Latio 10y agoIs that a royal we?
- deefuckyouup 10y agoYou are a fucking idiot
- deefuckyouup 10y agoJust be a rational fucking jerk.. oh forgot u like Trump like to fuck over people
- sctb 10y agoWe've banned this account.
- ndaign 10y agoSexual assault is not an idea. How about having the courage to stand up against a major player from your circle because it's the right thing to do.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ArleneMiddleton 10y agoZuckerburg should elevate the conversation. Accusations are not proven leave the sexism out. Knowing Hillary's Campaign staffs comments about Catholics, gays, blacks, hispanics and etc. demeaning comments provides a springboard for free and fair political speech. Zuckerburg is proving himself to be low minded and poorly educated pertaining to our constitutional rights provided centuries past from high minded genius founding fathers.
- ArleneMiddleton 10y agoZuckerburg should elevate the conversation. Accusations are not proven leave the sexism out. Knowing Hillary's Campaign staffs comments about Catholics, gays, blacks, hispanics and etc. demeaning comments provides a springboard for free and fair political speech. Zuckerburg is proving himself to be low minded and poorly educated pertaining to our constitutional rights provided centuries past from high minded genius founding fathers.
- metageekdesign 10y agoZuckerberg should look at his own aegist, chauvinist company and get rid of discrimination in his own company before critiquing others who he feels are not imbracing diversity.
- gragas 10y agoSource?
- paulnelligan 10y agoIt seems to be a typical postmodern viewpoint that every idea is equally valid. But even if you're not "racist, sexist, xenophobic, or accepting sexual assault", if you, as a reasonably minded individual, back Trump, you're condoning all of these things, which is really just as bad ... Not everybody's idea is valid!
- PunchTornado 10y agothat's just your opinion and I feel bad that I'm voting for the same candidate as someone like you who doesn't tolerate other people's political choices.
- grzm 10y agoThis election season has been very difficult. We effectively have two choices for president. I imagine there are very few people whose values align perfectly with the candidate they're voting for. I hope we can all keep this in mind, both now and after the election. Each voter has to figure out where to best cast their vote, compromising some of their values for others they prioritize. One hopeful way to view this is that they're likely a lot of values we hold in common. These are things we can hopefully work on together. * This is really a very general statement I've tried to keep in mind in reading all of these comments, not just this thread. It's placement isn't a reflection of my opinion of the immediately preceding comment or the one prior. It just had to be placed somewhere. In the hopes of better communication, if you'd like to down vote this comment, will you also take the time to add a brief reply? I appreciate it.
- zenocon 10y agoI feel equally as bad that this person has been fed a narrative and hasn't gone out to debunk the propaganda and find out what is really going on behind the curtain. We can have a disagreement, sure, but when the argument is just shouting "sexist, racist, homophobe, xenophobe", etc. it's clear there's no real political discourse to be had, which is sad because there's a boatload of disgusting politics and corruption being exposed right now.
- paulnelligan 10y ago
- sbose78 10y agoIf Mark is unsure about what makes Peter throw his weight behind Trump, why not ask him? Not that he is answerable but if he has good reasons I'm sure he wouldn't mind talking about them.
- swindham58 10y agoIF YOU CARED ABOUT DIVERSITY...YOU WOULDN'T "PUNISH" FB'ERS BY IMPEDING THEIR FIGHT TO LIKE OR DISLIKE A POST..OR CLAIM LANGUAGE IS OFFENSIVE AND YET PRINTING "MADONNA PROMISES BLOW JOBS!"..OR OBUMMER ROCKS A WOODY ON FB...ETC ETC....YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE!!!
- suryaj 10y agoI get it that you can't fire someone over his support of a political candidate but what about his public views on rape and racism: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/21/peter-thiel-support-donald-trump-date-rape-book?CMP=share_btn_tw https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/21/peter-thi...