10 ms·

Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

28 points by hnburnsy 8y ago

fareesh 8y ago
Why is there so much political activism inside tech companies? Shouldn't this person actually do something wrong at his job before the mob goes after him? How long before you can't be an executive if you hunt, or eat meat?
- chrisco255 8y ago
  Why is there so much rising extremism, period?
  - tomcam 8y ago
    Is it extremist to support Kavanaugh?
    - Double_a_92 8y ago
      Women must always be believed! Everything else is an extremist sexist view, enforced my old white cis males in powerful positions! /s
      - dang 8y ago
        Please don't do this here.
        Double_a_92 8y ago
        That's appearently the opinion of most high-tech companies. Why can't I criticize that here in a sarcastic manner? I thought this was about discussions... Or are you just talking about the sarcasm part? Can we not use basic rhetoric styles here?
    - chrisco255 8y ago
      No, it's a mainstream view for the conservative half of the United States.
      - RickS 8y ago
        Respectfully, and with the hope that we can keep it civil here, I put forth that these two things are not mutually exclusive.
    - RickS 8y ago
      Maybe. I would argue after watching the hearing that anyone who so blatantly ignores the obvious intent of questions asked of them, rather than attempting to pursue and convey the truth in earnest, regardless of their guilt, is unqualified to enforce justice at the highest level in America. I struggle to imagine a credible reason to look past this conduct, and would be interested in hearing a take on it. To be clear, I don't have a take on whether he's guilty, and I don't think it particularly matters. I'm operating based solely on his bad-faith responses to interview questions. It could be argued that the questions asked of him were themselves in bad faith, but that doesn't seem like it should change anything, since it's critical for a judge to be resilient to bad faith questioning, rather than sinking to that level and rolling in the mud. If a person has a different take that involves him being levelheaded, truthful, nonpartisan in the face of immense partisanship, and dedicated to the pursuit of justice, then no, it is not extremist to support him. If a person can recognize him as being at all deficient in any of those categories and yet supports his nomination out of partisan dedication, despite intellectual qualities that should disqualify him, I would classify that as extreme.
      - chrisco255 8y ago
        We have to presume Kavanaugh's innocence because no witness has come forward to corroborate any claims. In the meantime, the Democrats skewered a man for every inside joke he made in his High school yearbook with his buddies. They were picking apart his actions as a child. They weren't asking questions related to the allegations. They were trying to assassinate his character. That's fucked up I don't care who you are. Who would like to sit on trial for things you said 40 years ago? And have a mass media misinterpret everything out of context? It's fucking primitive. Who wouldn't lose their composure? Only a cool, level headed liar like Bill Clinton could pull that off.
        RickS 8y ago
        My comment was specific and deliberate in presuming his innocence, which, to reiterate, I do. I was also deliberate in my pointing-out that many of the questions asked of him could be perceived as being in bad faith. Whether that's so is quite subjective. Your "inside joke" is other people's "description of a sex act". For the same reason we can't truly know Kav's innocence or guilt, we can't know whether the jokes are harmful or not. I want to point out a distinction that I made, that I'm not sure you're making: I don't discredit Kavanaugh because he "lost his cool". I too would most certainly be crying in that situation, without a doubt. But when Leahy pressed him, repeatedly over a span of excruciatingly long minutes, to explicitly request and comply with an investigation, and Kavanaugh dodged and bent over backwards to avoid doing such a thing, I found it difficult to understand how a person interested in the truth could behave in that way. A SCOTUS judge should be wiling to be investigated, and expected to survive such a thing.
    - exmicrosoldier 8y ago
      In the context of most supreme court nominees, combined with the amount of contoversy surrounding his appointment yes. Every tier one tech company I ever worked for would not hire someone that caused that much ill will, from a culture perspective. The brand of the supreme court is seen as a wise, impartial, authorative, servant of the people. An imperious, rabidly partisan, agressive, evasive, offended, entitled boy damages that brand. A nonpartisan, considered, empathetic, distinguished man does not.
      - chrisco255 8y ago
        Who caused the ill will? The man accused of something he didn't do? Or the Democrats who manufactured a mock trial with all the optics of one and with none of the evidence and due process of one.
        exmicrosoldier 8y ago
        Kavanaugh has been a controversial person his entire career. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-judicial-jihad-against-the-regulatory-state/2012/10/12/d9eb080c-13ca-11e2-bf18-a8a596df4bee_story.html?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.0bc6d7af386c https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-judicial-jihad-a... https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/25/amy-klobuchar/trump-brett-kavanaugh-scotus-cfpb-unconstitutional/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/20/oral-sex-what-brett-kavanaugh-wanted-ask-bill-clinton/1042861002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/20/oral...
- lillesvin 8y ago
  People being good at their jobs isn't the only thing that matters if you're working under their direction. Especially if they're also a large part of the company's public image. If people are uncomfortable with their CEO eating meat then they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions. If the CEO wants to change anything because of that is entirely up to him/her, just like how people are free to resign if they feel strongly enough about it.
  - g8oz 8y ago
    >>If people are uncomfortable with their CEO eating meat then they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions. But really, who would be that obnoxious?
    - Dancecity 8y ago
      Is this sarcasm or have you never met vegans?
      - throwawaymanbot 8y ago
        what an over generalization...
    - lillesvin 8y ago
      I only used the "eat meat" example because the guy I replied to did. A better one, IMO, would be "arguing against companies having to pay taxes because the employees already pay income taxes". My CEO has said something akin to that on multiple occasions and I'll keep challenging him on it because I strongly disagree. That doesn't mean I expect him to change but I do expect him to defend his standpoint. There's nothing wrong with challenging people on different topics, lots of healthy and fruitful discussions can come of that, it's just the "don't be obnoxious and entitled about it" part that seems to not resonate with some people but I think that's an entirely different issue.
  - kamaal 8y ago
    >>If people are uncomfortable with their CEO eating meat then they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions. Expecting a person A to change their way of life, for an inconsequential act, because other person B completely irrelevant to A or A action's feels 'uncomfortable', then B has way over stepped in feeling entitled to what they want from life and society. You don't get to dictate what religion some one should practice, or what kind of clothes they should wear, or economic system they should believe or what kind of politics they like. Unless they force you to do as they like, they are free to hold whatever opinions they like. Just like you do. This whole thing about people wanting to control other people's life. And then claiming to victims of 'offence' and 'discomfort', when the other person doesn't comply to their dictation is the root cause of political problems today. Nobody owes you anything, others are welcome to live their life as they like, just as you do.
- archagon 8y ago
  You must be thinking: this is a typical conservative appointment, so there shouldn't be this much furor over it. Bullshit. Kavanaugh has been decried by the ACLU, a number of bar associations, several law schools, countless other judges, and even his own roommates. The Republicans in power don't care in the slightest. And this has been the modus operandi of the entire party since the second half of Obama's term (and probably earlier). Meanwhile, all this is getting rapidly normalized in the public eye by the relentless parroting of the "both sides" fallacy. It's good that people are protesting. I hope they protest even louder. Authoritarians should not feel welcome.
  - fareesh 8y ago
    From what I understand he is accused of some crime 30 years ago, after being a very public person for decades, with no corroborating evidence. In my personal worldview and culture that makes him an innocent man, and he should not be disrespected in this manner. My values are certainly not in need of the ACLU's approval. I don't put stock in the opinions of institutions, just in the facts as they relate to the allegations. No idea what's happening in America right now. I've always assumed my worldview was shaped by English common law, and the great principles it puts forth like presumption of innocence, individual rights, etc.
    - archagon 8y ago
      What I’m hearing is that your values are ultimately driven by your feelings, as opposed to numerous first-hand accounts testifying to this person’s character, or even the words coming from his own mouth. Sexual assault allegations aside, Kavanaugh acted—and has acted—like a partisan hack and an entitled frat boy, and has almost certainly lied under oath. He is plainly unfit for the Supreme Court, innocent or not.
      - fareesh 8y ago
        Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - I don't live in America so my facts may be incomplete. 100+ women have come forward for Judge Kavanaugh's character. The sum total of everyone he has worked with during his time as a judge (which is much more relevant than what he did while at parties), have given him glowing endorsements. My opinion is based on evidence, and the presumption of innocence. Those are not feelings or emotions. Those are facts and principles. Justice Ginsberg said she and her husband would move to New Zealand if the Republican candidate became President. That is coming from the reigning liberal champion on the court. Honestly, I think she has set the bar as far as irresponsible partisan remarks are concerned. The Democratic party is solely to blame (factually speaking) for what has happened to Judge Kavanaugh's family over these past few months. Senator Feinstein made no effort to keep this process private and protect the personal lives of everyone involved. Dr. Ford testified that she did not share the information that she gave Senator Feinstein with anyone else. Senator Feinstein claims nobody leaked the information. One of them is lying, because it was leaked to the press, which caused a complete media trial and humiliating debacle for both parties involved. To make matters worse, Bill Clinton's legal team, who is now representing Dr. Ford, conveniently forgot to tell her that her statements could have been taken privately to the judiciary committee. It's incredibly convenient that this too has happened in light of the broad context. This entire travesty could have been avoided if the Democratic party handled this matter sensitively and appropriately, they are solely to blame. Zero Republicans were responsible for how this fiasco has transpired in the media. Were things the other way around, the Republicans would deserve an angry rant too. The bottom line is, even if none of this would have happened 0 Democrats would have voted for Justice Kavanaugh. This FBI investigation has changed none of their minds, and the most pathetic thing to come of this, is that after ruining a man's reputation and life from this political charade, the gaul to suggest that he should have watched his tone when he passionately argued his innocence. I really have no words for how horrible that is. But that's another subject. My original point stands, this man's views should not disqualify him from his job. He is perfectly capable of doing it, and having his own personal views.
yostrovs 8y ago
The outrage also mostly comes from people in their 20s and 30s at these companies. These people have a binary approach to politics: you're either a moral saint or a Nazi. Since Kav. is a Nazi, all his friends are too. I blame our schools and universities that have taught people to hate other people while managing to pretend it's all about tolerance.
mjfl 8y ago
There are probably a good number of Republican voters hired at Facebook. Most of those employees will be supporting Kavanaugh's nomination. There are obviously many Democrat voters employed at Facebook who won't be supporting Kavanaugh. Anyone who finds either of these two facts unacceptable should immediately walk away from their jobs or be terminated. The only alternative is to accept that there is effectively a civil war happening, one side must be cleared out, and pick a side. To me that is just insanity.
- gassed 8y ago
  I don't think anybody in the tech industry has the balls to come out as a Republican. The backlash would be awful. Thank God votes are secret, still.
  - collyw 8y ago
    That's pretty scary when you think about it.
  - niij 8y ago
    > in the tech industry In the liberal bubble that is the Bay area. There's tech industry outside of that bubble, throughout the Midwest, in cities like Austin. SF isn't the only place people are writing software.
  - scrollaway 8y ago
    Speaking as a non-american: People don't want to come out as Republican because of how corrupt Republican representation has become. Republicans used to be respectable. There's still a few respectable figures in Congress and the Senate but even they have to follow the abhorrently partisanship, otherwise they aren't getting reelected. The republican base has turned on its head and has been massively radicalized. So if you "come out" as a republican, today, in this climate, then you're outright saying you agree with this radicalization. (Regardless of whether you do agree) I know a lot of republicans who don't agree with it and, right now, there isn't really a party for them. So they still call themselves republicans and either lie to themselves to deal with their choice (or ignore the bad news), or they fall into the constant propaganda. I've seen several end up converting to Democrats (or at least strongly consider it). Theory: I suspect the US, after all these decades, is finally correcting back towards a less right-shifted spectrum. As the current GOP moves to the extreme-right, non-extremists shift left and, if they end up democrats, there will probably be a split of the "Liberal" party and the "Democratic" party. This would mirror the more European models.
keiferski 8y ago
It’s interesting to see that today’s business culture is essentially the opposite of “professional”, in the sense of “not-personal.” These kinds of conflicts are inevitable when you start mixing personal and professional value systems. I would not be surprised to see a return to a strict professional/ personal divide in the near future.
- dexen 8y ago
  I agree with your assessment and prognosis, and look forward to employers and employees being held to somewhat higher standard of mutual tolerance (even if begrudging) and cooperation, and generally keeping it business-first while on the clock. If one wishes to protest or take other political action, sure, take a day off and head to D.C. or other visible public space. A throw-away thought: business attire used to be a clear distinction between the time in official capacity, and the private time. With that mostly gone in tech, and given the 24/7 cellphone, email & IM connection, the distinction between workplace and personal doesn't feel all that clear. That being said, there exists an idea that "the personal is political"[1]; politics supposedly permeate all of one's life. It is further expanded to claim that anybody who is able to avoid mixing politics with daily activities, or able to avoid strongly siding with a political, is benefiting from the current power structure (aka "the system"), and further reinforces said system by staying passive. I think there's a small grain of truth to it, but when becomes an overriding concern and disruptive to teamwork[2] or family & social life[3], something went very wrong. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_personal_is_political https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_personal_is_political [2] as in people asking for firing of others, or refusing to work with with or mentor others [3] recently a "Divorce your Republican husbands." tweet made rounds. Not linking it as it feels too incendiary for HN.
  - bvadams 8y ago
    If the personal is political then we have no refuge from politics. And the only people that say this are the type that want only their specific brands of politics to dominate public and private life.
    - 8y ago
marsrover 8y ago
I don’t know much about Kaplan but after this I have respect for him. It couldn’t have been easy to support his friend knowing full well all of Facebook’s employees are going to try to crucify him after.
- 72156746 8y ago
  Someone gets crucified every week there, nbd. Hopefully for Kaplan, they will be distracted by a similarly inane incident soon.
- angry_octet 8y ago
  Gee, must be hard to be a lobbyist while best mates with a future Justice, and on good terms with the extremist Republicans at the Federal Society. I think he'll cope just fine. Another 2-6 years of Trump after all.
throwawaymanbot 8y ago
it is incredible....
thecleaner 8y ago
I don't understand this. Kavanaugh hasnt been proven to be guilty. There are credible allegations which demand a further investigation as is being conducted by the FBI. Beyond that apart from his clumsiness at the testimony there isnt much going on against him. If these people are so data driven how come they choose to believe things for which we have no evidence. You may mock him for losing his cool but thats just about it. Anything beyond that is questionable and shouldnt be taken as the truth.
- viggity 8y ago
  Ford's testimony appeared credible. However, there is no contemporaneous corroboration, even from her long-time friend who not only didn't corroborate it, she refuted that she had even met Kavanaugh. Ramirez, Swetnik allegations are not credible. They too have no corroboration. While I've seen plenty of people decry Rachel Mitchell's letter to the Republican Senators as "political", I have yet to see anyone refute the content of that letter. (https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosecutor-memo-2c3233cc-1d42-416b-af04-02700aa9a711.html https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosec...) There isn't an honest prosecutor who could get an indictment, let alone a conviction.
  - dickinson99 8y ago
    >Ford's testimony appeared credible Did you even watch it?
    - jki275 8y ago
      I did, and I think she made up the entire thing. For a while I thought maybe she was assaulted in some way and was completely confused about when it happened and who was involved, but after the polygraph comments were refuted by her ex-boyfriend that sealed the deal for me -- it's almost axiomatic that because of her field of study she would be well informed on the subject, her denials to Ms. Mitchell seemed odd, but it appears clear now that she in fact did lie about it. That's not a minor detail, it's a very big deal.
    - 8y ago

28 points by hnburnsy 8y ago

Why is there so much political activism inside tech companies? Shouldn't this person actually do something wrong at his job before the mob goes after him? How long before you can't be an executive if you hunt, or eat meat?

chrisco255 8y ago
Why is there so much rising extremism, period?
- tomcam 8y ago
  Is it extremist to support Kavanaugh?
  - Double_a_92 8y ago
    Women must always be believed! Everything else is an extremist sexist view, enforced my old white cis males in powerful positions! /s
    - dang 8y ago
      Please don't do this here.
      - Double_a_92 8y ago
        That's appearently the opinion of most high-tech companies. Why can't I criticize that here in a sarcastic manner? I thought this was about discussions... Or are you just talking about the sarcasm part? Can we not use basic rhetoric styles here?
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    No, it's a mainstream view for the conservative half of the United States.
    - RickS 8y ago
      Respectfully, and with the hope that we can keep it civil here, I put forth that these two things are not mutually exclusive.
  - RickS 8y ago
    Maybe. I would argue after watching the hearing that anyone who so blatantly ignores the obvious intent of questions asked of them, rather than attempting to pursue and convey the truth in earnest, regardless of their guilt, is unqualified to enforce justice at the highest level in America. I struggle to imagine a credible reason to look past this conduct, and would be interested in hearing a take on it. To be clear, I don't have a take on whether he's guilty, and I don't think it particularly matters. I'm operating based solely on his bad-faith responses to interview questions. It could be argued that the questions asked of him were themselves in bad faith, but that doesn't seem like it should change anything, since it's critical for a judge to be resilient to bad faith questioning, rather than sinking to that level and rolling in the mud. If a person has a different take that involves him being levelheaded, truthful, nonpartisan in the face of immense partisanship, and dedicated to the pursuit of justice, then no, it is not extremist to support him. If a person can recognize him as being at all deficient in any of those categories and yet supports his nomination out of partisan dedication, despite intellectual qualities that should disqualify him, I would classify that as extreme.
    - chrisco255 8y ago
      We have to presume Kavanaugh's innocence because no witness has come forward to corroborate any claims. In the meantime, the Democrats skewered a man for every inside joke he made in his High school yearbook with his buddies. They were picking apart his actions as a child. They weren't asking questions related to the allegations. They were trying to assassinate his character. That's fucked up I don't care who you are. Who would like to sit on trial for things you said 40 years ago? And have a mass media misinterpret everything out of context? It's fucking primitive. Who wouldn't lose their composure? Only a cool, level headed liar like Bill Clinton could pull that off.
      - RickS 8y ago
        My comment was specific and deliberate in presuming his innocence, which, to reiterate, I do. I was also deliberate in my pointing-out that many of the questions asked of him could be perceived as being in bad faith. Whether that's so is quite subjective. Your "inside joke" is other people's "description of a sex act". For the same reason we can't truly know Kav's innocence or guilt, we can't know whether the jokes are harmful or not. I want to point out a distinction that I made, that I'm not sure you're making: I don't discredit Kavanaugh because he "lost his cool". I too would most certainly be crying in that situation, without a doubt. But when Leahy pressed him, repeatedly over a span of excruciatingly long minutes, to explicitly request and comply with an investigation, and Kavanaugh dodged and bent over backwards to avoid doing such a thing, I found it difficult to understand how a person interested in the truth could behave in that way. A SCOTUS judge should be wiling to be investigated, and expected to survive such a thing.
  - exmicrosoldier 8y ago
    In the context of most supreme court nominees, combined with the amount of contoversy surrounding his appointment yes. Every tier one tech company I ever worked for would not hire someone that caused that much ill will, from a culture perspective. The brand of the supreme court is seen as a wise, impartial, authorative, servant of the people. An imperious, rabidly partisan, agressive, evasive, offended, entitled boy damages that brand. A nonpartisan, considered, empathetic, distinguished man does not.
    - chrisco255 8y ago
      Who caused the ill will? The man accused of something he didn't do? Or the Democrats who manufactured a mock trial with all the optics of one and with none of the evidence and due process of one.
      - exmicrosoldier 8y ago
        Kavanaugh has been a controversial person his entire career. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-judicial-jihad-against-the-regulatory-state/2012/10/12/d9eb080c-13ca-11e2-bf18-a8a596df4bee_story.html?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.0bc6d7af386c https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-judicial-jihad-a... https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/25/amy-klobuchar/trump-brett-kavanaugh-scotus-cfpb-unconstitutional/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/20/oral-sex-what-brett-kavanaugh-wanted-ask-bill-clinton/1042861002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/20/oral...
lillesvin 8y ago
People being good at their jobs isn't the only thing that matters if you're working under their direction. Especially if they're also a large part of the company's public image. If people are uncomfortable with their CEO eating meat then they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions. If the CEO wants to change anything because of that is entirely up to him/her, just like how people are free to resign if they feel strongly enough about it.
- g8oz 8y ago
  >>If people are uncomfortable with their CEO eating meat then they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions. But really, who would be that obnoxious?
  - Dancecity 8y ago
    Is this sarcasm or have you never met vegans?
    - throwawaymanbot 8y ago
      what an over generalization...
  - lillesvin 8y ago
    I only used the "eat meat" example because the guy I replied to did. A better one, IMO, would be "arguing against companies having to pay taxes because the employees already pay income taxes". My CEO has said something akin to that on multiple occasions and I'll keep challenging him on it because I strongly disagree. That doesn't mean I expect him to change but I do expect him to defend his standpoint. There's nothing wrong with challenging people on different topics, lots of healthy and fruitful discussions can come of that, it's just the "don't be obnoxious and entitled about it" part that seems to not resonate with some people but I think that's an entirely different issue.
- kamaal 8y ago
  >>If people are uncomfortable with their CEO eating meat then they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions. Expecting a person A to change their way of life, for an inconsequential act, because other person B completely irrelevant to A or A action's feels 'uncomfortable', then B has way over stepped in feeling entitled to what they want from life and society. You don't get to dictate what religion some one should practice, or what kind of clothes they should wear, or economic system they should believe or what kind of politics they like. Unless they force you to do as they like, they are free to hold whatever opinions they like. Just like you do. This whole thing about people wanting to control other people's life. And then claiming to victims of 'offence' and 'discomfort', when the other person doesn't comply to their dictation is the root cause of political problems today. Nobody owes you anything, others are welcome to live their life as they like, just as you do.
archagon 8y ago
You must be thinking: this is a typical conservative appointment, so there shouldn't be this much furor over it. Bullshit. Kavanaugh has been decried by the ACLU, a number of bar associations, several law schools, countless other judges, and even his own roommates. The Republicans in power don't care in the slightest. And this has been the modus operandi of the entire party since the second half of Obama's term (and probably earlier). Meanwhile, all this is getting rapidly normalized in the public eye by the relentless parroting of the "both sides" fallacy. It's good that people are protesting. I hope they protest even louder. Authoritarians should not feel welcome.
- fareesh 8y ago
  From what I understand he is accused of some crime 30 years ago, after being a very public person for decades, with no corroborating evidence. In my personal worldview and culture that makes him an innocent man, and he should not be disrespected in this manner. My values are certainly not in need of the ACLU's approval. I don't put stock in the opinions of institutions, just in the facts as they relate to the allegations. No idea what's happening in America right now. I've always assumed my worldview was shaped by English common law, and the great principles it puts forth like presumption of innocence, individual rights, etc.
  - archagon 8y ago
    What I’m hearing is that your values are ultimately driven by your feelings, as opposed to numerous first-hand accounts testifying to this person’s character, or even the words coming from his own mouth. Sexual assault allegations aside, Kavanaugh acted—and has acted—like a partisan hack and an entitled frat boy, and has almost certainly lied under oath. He is plainly unfit for the Supreme Court, innocent or not.
    - fareesh 8y ago
      Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - I don't live in America so my facts may be incomplete. 100+ women have come forward for Judge Kavanaugh's character. The sum total of everyone he has worked with during his time as a judge (which is much more relevant than what he did while at parties), have given him glowing endorsements. My opinion is based on evidence, and the presumption of innocence. Those are not feelings or emotions. Those are facts and principles. Justice Ginsberg said she and her husband would move to New Zealand if the Republican candidate became President. That is coming from the reigning liberal champion on the court. Honestly, I think she has set the bar as far as irresponsible partisan remarks are concerned. The Democratic party is solely to blame (factually speaking) for what has happened to Judge Kavanaugh's family over these past few months. Senator Feinstein made no effort to keep this process private and protect the personal lives of everyone involved. Dr. Ford testified that she did not share the information that she gave Senator Feinstein with anyone else. Senator Feinstein claims nobody leaked the information. One of them is lying, because it was leaked to the press, which caused a complete media trial and humiliating debacle for both parties involved. To make matters worse, Bill Clinton's legal team, who is now representing Dr. Ford, conveniently forgot to tell her that her statements could have been taken privately to the judiciary committee. It's incredibly convenient that this too has happened in light of the broad context. This entire travesty could have been avoided if the Democratic party handled this matter sensitively and appropriately, they are solely to blame. Zero Republicans were responsible for how this fiasco has transpired in the media. Were things the other way around, the Republicans would deserve an angry rant too. The bottom line is, even if none of this would have happened 0 Democrats would have voted for Justice Kavanaugh. This FBI investigation has changed none of their minds, and the most pathetic thing to come of this, is that after ruining a man's reputation and life from this political charade, the gaul to suggest that he should have watched his tone when he passionately argued his innocence. I really have no words for how horrible that is. But that's another subject. My original point stands, this man's views should not disqualify him from his job. He is perfectly capable of doing it, and having his own personal views.

yostrovs 8y ago

The outrage also mostly comes from people in their 20s and 30s at these companies. These people have a binary approach to politics: you're either a moral saint or a Nazi. Since Kav. is a Nazi, all his friends are too. I blame our schools and universities that have taught people to hate other people while managing to pretend it's all about tolerance.

mjfl 8y ago

There are probably a good number of Republican voters hired at Facebook. Most of those employees will be supporting Kavanaugh's nomination. There are obviously many Democrat voters employed at Facebook who won't be supporting Kavanaugh. Anyone who finds either of these two facts unacceptable should immediately walk away from their jobs or be terminated. The only alternative is to accept that there is effectively a civil war happening, one side must be cleared out, and pick a side. To me that is just insanity.

gassed 8y ago
I don't think anybody in the tech industry has the balls to come out as a Republican. The backlash would be awful. Thank God votes are secret, still.
- collyw 8y ago
  That's pretty scary when you think about it.
- niij 8y ago
  > in the tech industry In the liberal bubble that is the Bay area. There's tech industry outside of that bubble, throughout the Midwest, in cities like Austin. SF isn't the only place people are writing software.
- scrollaway 8y ago
  Speaking as a non-american: People don't want to come out as Republican because of how corrupt Republican representation has become. Republicans used to be respectable. There's still a few respectable figures in Congress and the Senate but even they have to follow the abhorrently partisanship, otherwise they aren't getting reelected. The republican base has turned on its head and has been massively radicalized. So if you "come out" as a republican, today, in this climate, then you're outright saying you agree with this radicalization. (Regardless of whether you do agree) I know a lot of republicans who don't agree with it and, right now, there isn't really a party for them. So they still call themselves republicans and either lie to themselves to deal with their choice (or ignore the bad news), or they fall into the constant propaganda. I've seen several end up converting to Democrats (or at least strongly consider it). Theory: I suspect the US, after all these decades, is finally correcting back towards a less right-shifted spectrum. As the current GOP moves to the extreme-right, non-extremists shift left and, if they end up democrats, there will probably be a split of the "Liberal" party and the "Democratic" party. This would mirror the more European models.

keiferski 8y ago

It’s interesting to see that today’s business culture is essentially the opposite of “professional”, in the sense of “not-personal.” These kinds of conflicts are inevitable when you start mixing personal and professional value systems. I would not be surprised to see a return to a strict professional/ personal divide in the near future.

dexen 8y ago
I agree with your assessment and prognosis, and look forward to employers and employees being held to somewhat higher standard of mutual tolerance (even if begrudging) and cooperation, and generally keeping it business-first while on the clock. If one wishes to protest or take other political action, sure, take a day off and head to D.C. or other visible public space. A throw-away thought: business attire used to be a clear distinction between the time in official capacity, and the private time. With that mostly gone in tech, and given the 24/7 cellphone, email & IM connection, the distinction between workplace and personal doesn't feel all that clear. That being said, there exists an idea that "the personal is political"[1]; politics supposedly permeate all of one's life. It is further expanded to claim that anybody who is able to avoid mixing politics with daily activities, or able to avoid strongly siding with a political, is benefiting from the current power structure (aka "the system"), and further reinforces said system by staying passive. I think there's a small grain of truth to it, but when becomes an overriding concern and disruptive to teamwork[2] or family & social life[3], something went very wrong. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_personal_is_political https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_personal_is_political [2] as in people asking for firing of others, or refusing to work with with or mentor others [3] recently a "Divorce your Republican husbands." tweet made rounds. Not linking it as it feels too incendiary for HN.
- bvadams 8y ago
  If the personal is political then we have no refuge from politics. And the only people that say this are the type that want only their specific brands of politics to dominate public and private life.
  - 8y ago

marsrover 8y ago

I don’t know much about Kaplan but after this I have respect for him. It couldn’t have been easy to support his friend knowing full well all of Facebook’s employees are going to try to crucify him after.

72156746 8y ago
Someone gets crucified every week there, nbd. Hopefully for Kaplan, they will be distracted by a similarly inane incident soon.
angry_octet 8y ago
Gee, must be hard to be a lobbyist while best mates with a future Justice, and on good terms with the extremist Republicans at the Federal Society. I think he'll cope just fine. Another 2-6 years of Trump after all.

throwawaymanbot 8y ago

it is incredible....

thecleaner 8y ago

I don't understand this. Kavanaugh hasnt been proven to be guilty. There are credible allegations which demand a further investigation as is being conducted by the FBI. Beyond that apart from his clumsiness at the testimony there isnt much going on against him. If these people are so data driven how come they choose to believe things for which we have no evidence. You may mock him for losing his cool but thats just about it. Anything beyond that is questionable and shouldnt be taken as the truth.

viggity 8y ago
Ford's testimony appeared credible. However, there is no contemporaneous corroboration, even from her long-time friend who not only didn't corroborate it, she refuted that she had even met Kavanaugh. Ramirez, Swetnik allegations are not credible. They too have no corroboration. While I've seen plenty of people decry Rachel Mitchell's letter to the Republican Senators as "political", I have yet to see anyone refute the content of that letter. (https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosecutor-memo-2c3233cc-1d42-416b-af04-02700aa9a711.html https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosec...) There isn't an honest prosecutor who could get an indictment, let alone a conviction.
- dickinson99 8y ago
  >Ford's testimony appeared credible Did you even watch it?
  - jki275 8y ago
    I did, and I think she made up the entire thing. For a while I thought maybe she was assaulted in some way and was completely confused about when it happened and who was involved, but after the polygraph comments were refuted by her ex-boyfriend that sealed the deal for me -- it's almost axiomatic that because of her field of study she would be well informed on the subject, her denials to Ms. Mitchell seemed odd, but it appears clear now that she in fact did lie about it. That's not a minor detail, it's a very big deal.
  - 8y ago