Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support • Hacker News Board

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#11

Post by RickS » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 10:23 AM UTC

tomcam wrote: post #5

chrisco255 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is there so much rising extremism, period?

Is it extremist to support Kavanaugh?

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.

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#12

Post by RickS » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 10:26 AM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #10

tomcam wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it extremist to support Kavanaugh?

No, it's a mainstream view for the conservative half of the United States.

Respectfully, and with the hope that we can keep it civil here, I put forth that these two things are not mutually exclusive.

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#13

Post by chrisco255 » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 10:31 AM UTC

RickS wrote: post #11

tomcam wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it extremist to support Kavanaugh?

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,…

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.

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#14

Post by gassed » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 10:35 AM UTC

mjfl wrote: post #6

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 ci…

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.

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#15

Post by SiVal » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 10:39 AM UTC

RickS wrote: post #11

tomcam wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it extremist to support Kavanaugh?

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,…

blatantly ignores the obvious intent of questions asked of them

The "obvious intent of the questions" is to block his nomination by any means they can come up with, as was made clear months ago by the protest signs printed with a blank where the name would be inserted just as soon as the name of the nominee was announced.

Anyone who blatantly ignores the obvious intent of these questions has an agenda other than finding the actual facts.

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#16

Post by RickS » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 10:41 AM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #13

RickS wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

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…

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.

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#17

Post by RickS » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 10:50 AM UTC

SiVal wrote: post #15

RickS wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

blatantly ignores the obvious intent of questions asked of them The "obvious intent of the questions" is to block his nomination by any means they can come up with, as was made clear months ago by the protest signs printed with a blank where the name would be inserted just as soon as the name of the nominee was announced. Anyone who blatantly ignores the obvious intent of these questions has an agenda other than find…

I'm going to make a distinction here, between "what they're asking" and "why they're asking".

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're right about "why they're asking:", and he's being asked questions that are intentionally constructed to lead to dark places, trip him up, and paint him in a negative light.

Nevertheless, I think any layperson can detect "what they're asking". A person interviewed for SCOTUS, in my view, must still give a straight answer to a question asked in bad faith. Ill intent on the part of (D) committee members does not justify intentionally incomplete answers that intentionally fail to address "what they're asking". Even if the questions are meant to derail him, that doesn't justify omission or disearnestness.

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#18

Post by g8oz » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 10:55 AM UTC

lillesvin wrote: post #8

fareesh wrote: post #2

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?

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 i…

>>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?

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#19

Post by g8oz » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 10:57 AM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #13

RickS wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

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…

>>We have to presume Kavanaugh's innocence because no witness has come forward to corroborate any claims.

By the standards of criminal proceedings, yes. But this is a job interview, the standards for disqualifying someone are lower.

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#20

Post by exmicrosoldier » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 11:24 AM UTC

tomcam wrote: post #5

chrisco255 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is there so much rising extremism, period?

Is it extremist to support Kavanaugh?

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.