Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 112 posts

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

#61

Post by jki275 »

jsjohnst wrote: post #60
jki275 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a whole lot of words in that article that don't prove the assertion in the headline. You literally cannot in any way prove anything he said was a lie.

Did you read the article? At the very minimum you can prove the “four denials ” or “ refutal ” as being a lie. While it might seem minor to a lay person, a judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice should understand there’s a stark legal difference between “denying/refuting something happened” vs “I don’t recall that happening”. And that’s just one thing you can prove, the article goes at length with good sourcing to…

I read it all. You can't prove any of that as false. The article is a biased hit piece making allegations that are not provable. In fact, it makes assertions that have been refuted already by other people who were in K's circle of friends and some who were not (devil's triangle).

BTW, I'm not asserting that it is impossible that reasonable people might listen to his testimony and think he was lying. Calling something "proof" is a very different thing.

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

#62

Post by malvosenior »

sjg007 wrote: post #58
malvosenior wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you said could also be said about the Democrats, except the safe to come out as a Democrat because they control all of the media, tech companies, and generally hold power in the West.

Like Fox News???

Yes, CNN even NYT at this point is clearly partisan.

I say this as neither a Republican or Democrat. Both sides are equally foolish.

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

#63

Post by malvosenior »

scrollaway wrote: post #55
malvosenior wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you said could also be said about the Democrats, except the safe to come out as a Democrat because they control all of the media, tech companies, and generally hold power in the West.

Even as you sit with an extreme-right president and near-state-sanctioned hard-right media, you claim that "Democrats are in control". And why exactly do you claim that? How is it relevant? I'm answering a completely different question, about "coming out" as republican.

> Even as you sit with an extreme-right president and near-state-sanctioned hard-right media, you claim that "Democrats are in control".

The press and Trump are basically at war with one another. I can't see how you can claim they're both hard right. All the mainstream press (aside from Fox) endorsed Clinton.

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

#64

Post by angry_octet »

malvosenior wrote: post #43
angry_octet wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a persecuted minority you don't get time out from being persecuted. If your school's teachers need food stamps to survive you don't have a 'refuge from politics'. If you get sick and can't afford health care you don't have the luxury of 'avoiding politics'. People's politics have consequences, and they should own them.

No. Living a content life and focusing on your own problems is not political. "The personal is political" is a hyper partisan statement and anyone not on the extreme left would reject this idea wholesale. What this concept implicitly states is that if you're happy and 100% of the human population is not living at your socioeconomic level, then you're making a political statement. It's pure BS.

"No", it is you who are tacking additional straw man arguments and then being outraged.

By your argument a content slave owner could by proud of his thriving cotton economy, and justifiably believe his political support for this system should have no consequences.

If you know you're supporting people that actively try to suppress the rights of your fellow citizens, how can you complain when you are judged for it?

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

#65

Post by malvosenior »

angry_octet wrote: post #64
malvosenior wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Living a content life and focusing on your own problems is not political. "The personal is political" is a hyper partisan statement and anyone not on the extreme left would reject this idea wholesale. What this concept implicitly states is that if you're happy and 100% of the human population is not living at your socioeconomic level, then you're making a political statement. It's pure BS.

"No", it is you who are tacking additional straw man arguments and then being outraged. By your argument a content slave owner could by proud of his thriving cotton economy, and justifiably believe his political support for this system should have no consequences. If you know you're supporting people that actively try to suppress the rights of your fellow citizens, how can you complain when you are judged for it?

> By your argument a content slave owner could by proud of his thriving cotton economy, and justifiably believe his political support for this system should have no consequences.

This is the strawman. I said nothing about slave owners. I'm talking about your average, middle class citizen (since that's who's being accused of taking a political stance through inaction).

> If you know you're supporting people that actively try to suppress the rights of your fellow citizens, how can you complain when you are judged for it?

I and many other people don't "know" that we're supporting people who actively suppress rights. In fact I'll say that I definitely do not.

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

#66

Post by angry_octet »

jcadam wrote: post #33
g8oz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.

> But this is a job interview This makes me angry every time I read it. A failed job interview usually means you can just go back to whatever it was you were doing before you applied, none the worse for wear. A job interview shouldn't require you to defend yourself against scurrilous personal attacks which result in you becoming an unemployable social pariah if you fail.

Ugh, he'll still be a Federal judge with a lifetime appointment.

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

#67

Post by viggity »

dickinson99 wrote: post #46
viggity wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

>Ford's testimony appeared credible Did you even watch it?

yes. the entire thing.

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

#68

Post by viggity »

sjg007 wrote: post #48
viggity wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

https://rewire.news/ablc/2018/10/04/contrary-to-conservative...

contemporaneous corroboration. Again, nobody has addressed all the holes as addressed by Rachel Mitchell.

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

#69

Post by krapp »

firic wrote: post #44
eigenstuff wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you don't rape someone, generally that's not something you need to worry about.

Did Kavanaugh rape someone? I don't know. Are you 100% sure that he did? If not, lets assume that he didn't. Your statement is now wrong since he is worrying about that.

>If not, lets assume that he didn't. Your statement is now wrong since he is worrying about that.

"generally that's not something you need to worry about" is not a statement claiming that it's never something anyone, ever needs to worry about. It is still true that in general if you don't rape someone, you don't need to worry about being accused of having raped someone, because false rape accusations are statistically unlikely.

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

#70

Post by koolba »

gassed wrote: post #14
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.

> I don't think anybody in the tech industry has the balls to come out as a Republican. The backlash would be awful.

Indeed it's quite rare. Look at how the few Republican supporting tech leaders get crucified (ex: Thiel). Most people don't want do deal with that and even fewer have the financial resources to risk being blackballed.

> Thank God votes are secret, still.

Damn straight. Though it does make it awkward trying to explain the concept of a silent majority in the midst of raving leftists.

Post reply on HN