5 ms·
> For Mark it was a potential PR opportunity to show he is doing something, while keeping business model intact The whole point of the newspiece is that Zucker
by rumanator 6y ago
> For Mark it was a potential PR opportunity to show he is doing something, while keeping business model intact
The whole point of the newspiece is that Zuckerberg is adamant in doing absolutely nothing, even when repeatedly and directly promoted by civil rights leaders.
> Bloomberg reporting the plant not doing enough to satisfy vegan lobby.
There is no "lobby" that requests, say, that racism is bad and that citizens of a specific ratial background should be repeatedly subjected to violence, or that racism should grow rampant in mass media. This is no special favour that a niche interest group seeks special privileges. Once we recognize that all men are created equally, racial violence ceases to be a debatable subject where it's reasonable to support it in any way or form.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y agoIt is possible I am misreading your post. Correct me as needed. US absolutely has had overt lobbying efforts to ensure that slaves remain slaves. There are interest groups in US today that directly benefit from fanning the flames of racism. I will stop here.
- etherael 6y ago> Once we recognize that all men are created equally, racial violence ceases to be a debatable subject where it's reasonable to support it in any way or form. Except this assumes that's what both sides of the argument are actually about. Just checking but do you realise this is an artificial construct that exists entirely in your own head? Zuckerberg in this particular instance, and the free speech absolutist argument in general does not imply acceptance that it's reasonable to support racial violence. Equating the two shows either an intent to deceive or quite intense confusion on the subject.