3 ms·

This reminds me of the saying way back in 2016 American elections: “If you vote for Trump, it doesn’t mean that you’re not a good person, but it does mean that

by jakear 8y ago

This reminds me of the saying way back in 2016 American elections: “If you vote for Trump, it doesn’t mean that you’re not a good person, but it does mean that someone being a bad person isn’t a deal breaker for your support” I think that sentence could start off with “If you work for Zuck...” just as well.

gyaniv 8y ago
Definitely agree. I know good people working for Facebook, but it does make me think "After everything you know about Facebook, the fact you would still work there, makes me respect you a lot less"
notacoward 8y ago
This is true, but doesn't mean what most think it does because it doesn't address knowledge/belief about whether someone's bad. Someone could vote for Trump because they're an idiot. To an extent that's true of working for Zuck as well, except that Facebook has a much more rigorous interview process than the White House. While it's not good to be an idiot, it's not the same as being amoral and I think that's what most people read in the original statement. Consider these alternatives. "If you vote for Trump and know he's bad..." "...it does mean that the possibility of someone being a bad person..." Not quite the same, eh?
coldtea 8y ago
Or the person is not 15 years old, and doesn't believe there are "good persons" in politics, or that the alternatives (in GOP or Dems) were better people. Or the person goes even further, and doesn't believe the puritan tenet that "good person == good politician". There were excellent politicians that were bad in their behavior, and vice versa. E.g. the person might care more about not encouraging a hawkish member of the establishment, that continued to beat the drum of American supremacy and threatened even more wars and tension coming on (e.g. with Iran) -- compared to merely voting someone who is e.g. sexist (as if that matters for the kind of decisions a President takes).
- jakear 8y ago
  Being sexist doesn’t matter for the kinds of decisions a president makes? Excuse me? Supreme Court justice nominations, for instance? In fact, the Supreme Court invalidates your entrie argument, because guess what: I want people I think are “good people” to be in charge of interpreting the constitution. I think everybody can agree with that.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Being sexist doesn’t matter for the kinds of decisions a president makes? Excuse me? Supreme Court justice nominations, for instance? Yeah, it doesn't matter. Worse case you get more male justices. What do you really expect will happen? Some justice will be unpointed which will undo women's voting rights or equality laws? >In fact, the Supreme Court invalidates your entrie argument, because guess what: I want people I think are “good people” to be in charge of interpreting the constitution. I think everybody can agree with that. Well, I don't agree with that. I would not care less if one of my "constitutional interpreters" drinks, takes cocaine, or has extra marital affairs for example. I only care that the direction they take the law is good. There have been legendary lawmakers and politicians that had all kinds of personal vices. Then again, I'm not American, so I don't have the puritan trait. You guys managed to have a problem with the personal life of MLK too. Nobody in Europe would even think to ask such a BS question: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-honor-Dr-Martin-Luther-King-Jr-in-such-a-glorious-way-when-as-a-married-man-he-had-multiple-extramarital-affairs https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-honor-Dr-Martin-Luther-King-...
    - jakear 8y ago
      Given that’s exactly what has happened, yes I do think that’s what would happen. I’m sure even as a non-American you’re aware of Brett Kavanaugh and his potential effect on abortion law. And I don’t care what they do in their personal life either. I care about how those things will effect they laws the pass: if someone drinks and does cocaine and has extramarital affairs, but doesn’t fuck over women/minorities, I’m all for them. If someone does the opposite, I’m against them.
- 8y ago

by jakear 8y ago

gyaniv 8y ago

Definitely agree. I know good people working for Facebook, but it does make me think "After everything you know about Facebook, the fact you would still work there, makes me respect you a lot less"

notacoward 8y ago

This is true, but doesn't mean what most think it does because it doesn't address knowledge/belief about whether someone's bad. Someone could vote for Trump because they're an idiot. To an extent that's true of working for Zuck as well, except that Facebook has a much more rigorous interview process than the White House. While it's not good to be an idiot, it's not the same as being amoral and I think that's what most people read in the original statement. Consider these alternatives. "If you vote for Trump and know he's bad..." "...it does mean that the possibility of someone being a bad person..." Not quite the same, eh?

coldtea 8y ago

Or the person is not 15 years old, and doesn't believe there are "good persons" in politics, or that the alternatives (in GOP or Dems) were better people. Or the person goes even further, and doesn't believe the puritan tenet that "good person == good politician". There were excellent politicians that were bad in their behavior, and vice versa. E.g. the person might care more about not encouraging a hawkish member of the establishment, that continued to beat the drum of American supremacy and threatened even more wars and tension coming on (e.g. with Iran) -- compared to merely voting someone who is e.g. sexist (as if that matters for the kind of decisions a President takes).

jakear 8y ago
Being sexist doesn’t matter for the kinds of decisions a president makes? Excuse me? Supreme Court justice nominations, for instance? In fact, the Supreme Court invalidates your entrie argument, because guess what: I want people I think are “good people” to be in charge of interpreting the constitution. I think everybody can agree with that.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Being sexist doesn’t matter for the kinds of decisions a president makes? Excuse me? Supreme Court justice nominations, for instance? Yeah, it doesn't matter. Worse case you get more male justices. What do you really expect will happen? Some justice will be unpointed which will undo women's voting rights or equality laws? >In fact, the Supreme Court invalidates your entrie argument, because guess what: I want people I think are “good people” to be in charge of interpreting the constitution. I think everybody can agree with that. Well, I don't agree with that. I would not care less if one of my "constitutional interpreters" drinks, takes cocaine, or has extra marital affairs for example. I only care that the direction they take the law is good. There have been legendary lawmakers and politicians that had all kinds of personal vices. Then again, I'm not American, so I don't have the puritan trait. You guys managed to have a problem with the personal life of MLK too. Nobody in Europe would even think to ask such a BS question: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-honor-Dr-Martin-Luther-King-Jr-in-such-a-glorious-way-when-as-a-married-man-he-had-multiple-extramarital-affairs https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-honor-Dr-Martin-Luther-King-...
  - jakear 8y ago
    Given that’s exactly what has happened, yes I do think that’s what would happen. I’m sure even as a non-American you’re aware of Brett Kavanaugh and his potential effect on abortion law. And I don’t care what they do in their personal life either. I care about how those things will effect they laws the pass: if someone drinks and does cocaine and has extramarital affairs, but doesn’t fuck over women/minorities, I’m all for them. If someone does the opposite, I’m against them.
8y ago