4 ms·

While we're being condescending, it seems like some people have Zuckerberg derangement syndrome. Guess Aaron Sorkin's quasi-fictional biopic was effective. I do

While we're being condescending, it seems like some people have Zuckerberg derangement syndrome. Guess Aaron Sorkin's quasi-fictional biopic was effective. I don't see how anyone who reads this article will think Zuckerberg is hurting anybody. A bunch of people who previously owned useless fractional shares are going to get some cash.

fweespeech 10y ago
The "fair price" is what the current owner is willing to sell it for and not the price set an auction where only Zuckerberg and the original owner would be willing to bid. This is basically employing eminent domain to strength Zuckerberg's little fiefdom.
TaylorAlexander 10y ago
It's a perfectly rational thing for Zuckerberg to do. It is also absolutely a case of an ultra elite (basically a "king" of today) white man is availing himself of state (ultimately, military) support to force native Hawaiian people off their lands. You made an error in your comment. You said their shares were useless. Clearly, they have a use to the individuals in question - both the natives and Zuckerberg.
- kodfodrasz 10y ago
  This is far mode complicated than the privilieged white man narrateive you used here. I don't like this topic, but when someone talks about this I'd like to know their opinion on this: - what is his/her ethnicity - what ethnicity does he/she think jews have. Why I raise these questions? Becase if someone talks about this topic this is pretty sensite, and also pretty context sensitive. Do "privilieged white" people consider jewish people also "privilieged white" people, or of a different ethnicity? Do jewish people consider themselves "privilieged white" people? Do other ethnicities consider them as the same? What ethnicity does Mr Zuckerberg consider himself? His is of jewish herritage, as far as I know. This "white people" narrative is pretty destructive, but also is an overgeneralization, and just as destructive as overdifferentiation. I beleive both are a form of destructive, retrogade racism which has crept into Public language lately and is plaguing the thinking of people and destroying the progress of the last half cetury. I don't blame you for using it, and I don't beleive you wanted to say anything nasty, nor do I want to do so, just formulated some questions the topic raises in me.
  - throwaway7986 10y ago
    I'm glad you've brought this topic up, I've been meaning to ask about it on HN before. I'm not American, nor white, and I have trouble understanding the nuances of American race/religious/ethnic relations. It seems from my perspective that when some negative or unpopular action is taken by a person of Jewish heritage, many times that is spoken of not as a Jewish problem but as a white people problem. Case in point, Mr Zuckerberg is clearly Jewish, but the GP comment didn't say "ultra elite (basically a "king" of today) Jewish man", they said "ultra elite (basically a "king" of today) white man. Why is this? As another example, I've been hearing more and more how Hollywood has a lack of diversity and this is sometimes phrased as a white people problem in part because so many studio executives are white/Jewish. Now I agree that I would like to see more diversity in Hollywood, and in particular less stereotyping, but it seems to me that Jewish people are vastly overrepresented within the film industry. Yet I never hear the mainstream media say there are too many Jewish people in Hollywood, but I do hear that there are too many white people. This all gets very confusing to someone trying to understanding American society.
  - throwaway7986 10y ago
    I'm curious why my comment was marked as dead with 1-2 minutes of posting it. I don't believe I have said anything inflammatory, have I?
- sulam 10y ago
  Really? Some of these people, as reported in the article, didn't even know about the land they have a share in, and that share is minuscule to the point of uselessness. I'm no Zuckerberg apologist, but it's clear from the article that there are varying situations represented here and at least some reasonable fraction of them are totally happy to sell him whatever percentage they own. The one person interviewed who actually had a connection to the land is supportive of the sale, because he probably can't pay taxes on it, at which point it goes to the government.
- explainthisth 10y ago
  >support to force native Hawaiian people off their lands. In what way are the native Hawaiian people in question on these lands?

fweespeech 10y ago

The "fair price" is what the current owner is willing to sell it for and not the price set an auction where only Zuckerberg and the original owner would be willing to bid. This is basically employing eminent domain to strength Zuckerberg's little fiefdom.

TaylorAlexander 10y ago

It's a perfectly rational thing for Zuckerberg to do. It is also absolutely a case of an ultra elite (basically a "king" of today) white man is availing himself of state (ultimately, military) support to force native Hawaiian people off their lands. You made an error in your comment. You said their shares were useless. Clearly, they have a use to the individuals in question - both the natives and Zuckerberg.

kodfodrasz 10y ago
This is far mode complicated than the privilieged white man narrateive you used here. I don't like this topic, but when someone talks about this I'd like to know their opinion on this: - what is his/her ethnicity - what ethnicity does he/she think jews have. Why I raise these questions? Becase if someone talks about this topic this is pretty sensite, and also pretty context sensitive. Do "privilieged white" people consider jewish people also "privilieged white" people, or of a different ethnicity? Do jewish people consider themselves "privilieged white" people? Do other ethnicities consider them as the same? What ethnicity does Mr Zuckerberg consider himself? His is of jewish herritage, as far as I know. This "white people" narrative is pretty destructive, but also is an overgeneralization, and just as destructive as overdifferentiation. I beleive both are a form of destructive, retrogade racism which has crept into Public language lately and is plaguing the thinking of people and destroying the progress of the last half cetury. I don't blame you for using it, and I don't beleive you wanted to say anything nasty, nor do I want to do so, just formulated some questions the topic raises in me.
- throwaway7986 10y ago
  I'm glad you've brought this topic up, I've been meaning to ask about it on HN before. I'm not American, nor white, and I have trouble understanding the nuances of American race/religious/ethnic relations. It seems from my perspective that when some negative or unpopular action is taken by a person of Jewish heritage, many times that is spoken of not as a Jewish problem but as a white people problem. Case in point, Mr Zuckerberg is clearly Jewish, but the GP comment didn't say "ultra elite (basically a "king" of today) Jewish man", they said "ultra elite (basically a "king" of today) white man. Why is this? As another example, I've been hearing more and more how Hollywood has a lack of diversity and this is sometimes phrased as a white people problem in part because so many studio executives are white/Jewish. Now I agree that I would like to see more diversity in Hollywood, and in particular less stereotyping, but it seems to me that Jewish people are vastly overrepresented within the film industry. Yet I never hear the mainstream media say there are too many Jewish people in Hollywood, but I do hear that there are too many white people. This all gets very confusing to someone trying to understanding American society.
- throwaway7986 10y ago
  I'm curious why my comment was marked as dead with 1-2 minutes of posting it. I don't believe I have said anything inflammatory, have I?
sulam 10y ago
Really? Some of these people, as reported in the article, didn't even know about the land they have a share in, and that share is minuscule to the point of uselessness. I'm no Zuckerberg apologist, but it's clear from the article that there are varying situations represented here and at least some reasonable fraction of them are totally happy to sell him whatever percentage they own. The one person interviewed who actually had a connection to the land is supportive of the sale, because he probably can't pay taxes on it, at which point it goes to the government.
explainthisth 10y ago
>support to force native Hawaiian people off their lands. In what way are the native Hawaiian people in question on these lands?