3 ms·

That has nothing to do with what I said though? You can write all the articles you want about him taking a public photo with MBS, that's all fair game. That sti

That has nothing to do with what I said though? You can write all the articles you want about him taking a public photo with MBS, that's all fair game. That still doesn't make it right to write articles about his sexual preference. This is pure Whataboutism.

harry8 6y ago
He can object to having his private sexuality publicised. That's reasonable. He can refuse to object to others of the same sexuality not so much having it publicised but having their heads cut off with a sword. That's his choice. If he choses both at the same time, everyone will draw the obivous inference about his principles or lack of them. It's not "whataboutism" it is literally the same man being judged against one principle that he applies with strength to himself, using the power he weilds as a senior manager of other people's assets and simultaneously he applies not at all to others who are having a much worse time of it. I call that unprincipled. You can draw your own conclusions. That's completely fine.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  Either way, the MBS thing happened a decade after the Gawker incident so either way it still isn't relevant to what was being discussed, which is why Gawker made the decision to breach his privacy like that.
  - harry8 6y ago
    This is literally a discussion about an article about the CEO of apple exercising his power as a manager of other peoples' assets to kill a tv show about Gawker who punished him for being homosexual by exposing it when he wanted it kept secret. An action he has just taken. Just now. The "MBS thing" is ongoing. The decapitations continue. Heads are being cut off with swords. Yes it does makes me sick to acknowledge the reality of that. So yes, he continues to apply a principle in the strongest possible fashion to his own benefit while completely ignoring decapitations of others by exercising his power controlling the assets belonging to other people. There's no "decade between" there's no "whataboutism" this is who he is and how he applies principles. I'm sorry if that upsets you. I don't want to believe it either. At some point I feel the need to nod to the reality of how things are rather than how I would like them to be. I don't think the media should publicise the consenting actions of adults taken in private unless they are a public figure and those actions show their publicly stated principles are lies or simply hypocritcal. (As an examle, think the politican who says adulterers should go to jail while having 1 or more adulterous affairs - this is enough for publicising the private act to be justified). I also don't think homosexuals, performing consentual acts among adults in private should be decapitated for doing so. I think that is wrong and evil and to be opposed always. In most parts of the world this is an entirely uncontraversial view most would deny disagreeing with. I find those two stances to be a consistent application of principle. You might well feel the same way yourself.

harry8 6y ago

He can object to having his private sexuality publicised. That's reasonable. He can refuse to object to others of the same sexuality not so much having it publicised but having their heads cut off with a sword. That's his choice. If he choses both at the same time, everyone will draw the obivous inference about his principles or lack of them. It's not "whataboutism" it is literally the same man being judged against one principle that he applies with strength to himself, using the power he weilds as a senior manager of other people's assets and simultaneously he applies not at all to others who are having a much worse time of it. I call that unprincipled. You can draw your own conclusions. That's completely fine.

ehsankia 6y ago
Either way, the MBS thing happened a decade after the Gawker incident so either way it still isn't relevant to what was being discussed, which is why Gawker made the decision to breach his privacy like that.
- harry8 6y ago
  This is literally a discussion about an article about the CEO of apple exercising his power as a manager of other peoples' assets to kill a tv show about Gawker who punished him for being homosexual by exposing it when he wanted it kept secret. An action he has just taken. Just now. The "MBS thing" is ongoing. The decapitations continue. Heads are being cut off with swords. Yes it does makes me sick to acknowledge the reality of that. So yes, he continues to apply a principle in the strongest possible fashion to his own benefit while completely ignoring decapitations of others by exercising his power controlling the assets belonging to other people. There's no "decade between" there's no "whataboutism" this is who he is and how he applies principles. I'm sorry if that upsets you. I don't want to believe it either. At some point I feel the need to nod to the reality of how things are rather than how I would like them to be. I don't think the media should publicise the consenting actions of adults taken in private unless they are a public figure and those actions show their publicly stated principles are lies or simply hypocritcal. (As an examle, think the politican who says adulterers should go to jail while having 1 or more adulterous affairs - this is enough for publicising the private act to be justified). I also don't think homosexuals, performing consentual acts among adults in private should be decapitated for doing so. I think that is wrong and evil and to be opposed always. In most parts of the world this is an entirely uncontraversial view most would deny disagreeing with. I find those two stances to be a consistent application of principle. You might well feel the same way yourself.