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

91–100 of 112 posts

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

#91

Post by scrollaway »

jki275 wrote: post #88
scrollaway wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Democrats care about what they say this week because they align with their political ideology What Brett Kavanaugh's former classmates, or a bunch of law professors, have to say on the matter is indeed irrelevant for most things. But it is relevant here. Just like you would want to listen to computer security experts when talking about computer security laws. I mean, I see what you're saying, and yes I agree with y…

The ABA actually endorsed him, and that carries a great deal more weight than what a bunch of law professors say. Again, partisans being partisan. Maybe you've never been accused of something like what Judge Kavanaugh was accused of. In general, his defense was relatively rational and composed for what it was. And the comments about the democrats and the Clintons was probably correct -- he knows where all the bodies…

> The ABA actually endorsed him

All I can find on the ABA's position on Kavanaugh is that they called for an investigation, and that they're reevaluating their position on him given his temperament.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/5/american-bar...

And also this from before: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-b...

> I'm not a democrat or a republican by the way

I got that, and neither am I. But that's neither here nor there. What matters is what type of media you allow in your day to day life. You seem to have allowed some pretty wonky stuff in, if you're calling this "a democrat hatchet job from the day he was nominated". There was little pushback on him until the allegations came up, other than the usual political card "hey, midterms soon, we should wait".

It's .. the way you talk. It's unsettling. Cultish. I don't know how to phrase this without sounding condescending, sorry... just imagine the way you feel when someone tells you about how great their cult is, and how everyone else has it wrong. Think like, Multi Level Marketing sort of unsettling.

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

#92

Post by lillesvin »

kamaal wrote: post #39
lillesvin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Expecting a person A to change their way of life, for an inconsequential act, because other person B completely irrelevant to A or A action's feels 'uncomfortable', then B has way over stepped in feeling entitled to what they want from life and society. You don't get to dictate what religion som…

You conveniently left out the part just after what you quoted that said: "If the CEO wants to change anything because of that is entirely up to him/her [...]"

I didn't say—nor did I mean to imply—that anyone should "change their way of life", "dictate what religion some one[sic] should practice" or "wanting to control other people's life". I said, and I very literally meant, "they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions". That's how we discuss things and gain insight into how other people think and feel about stuff.

If my boss does something that goes against every moral fiber in my body (especially if he does it in his capacity as a public face of the company) I think it's fair that I voice my opinion—even more so in companies where employees are told that "we are the company"—and if he wants to listen and have a dialog about it, cool, and if not, well... If it's bad enough, maybe I'll have to start looking for another job, or I'll just have to learn to live with it.

Saying that no one is allowed to challenge someone else's opinion is both counter-productive and dangerous.

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

#93

Post by jki275 »

scrollaway wrote: post #91
jki275 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ABA actually endorsed him, and that carries a great deal more weight than what a bunch of law professors say. Again, partisans being partisan. Maybe you've never been accused of something like what Judge Kavanaugh was accused of. In general, his defense was relatively rational and composed for what it was. And the comments about the democrats and the Clintons was probably correct -- he knows where all the bodies…

> The ABA actually endorsed him All I can find on the ABA's position on Kavanaugh is that they called for an investigation, and that they're reevaluating their position on him given his temperament. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/5/american-bar... And also this from before: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-b... > I'm not a democrat or a republican by the way I got that, and ne…

The ABA repudiated that letter, which was written in his personal capacity by the president of the ABA.

There was a great deal of pushback on him even before he was nominated. The knives were out for whoever it was going to be -- it wouldn't have mattered who it was, they already had their strategies for all of the ones on the list.

And I'm not sure what "cult" you think I'm representing. I like the Constitution and I prefer that Justices appointed to the Supreme Court actually follow it. That's my ideology.

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

#94

Post by lillesvin »

g8oz wrote: post #18
lillesvin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I only used the "eat meat" example because the guy I replied to did. A better one, IMO, would be "arguing against companies having to pay taxes because the employees already pay income taxes". My CEO has said something akin to that on multiple occasions and I'll keep challenging him on it because I strongly disagree. That doesn't mean I expect him to change but I do expect him to defend his standpoint.

There's nothing wrong with challenging people on different topics, lots of healthy and fruitful discussions can come of that, it's just the "don't be obnoxious and entitled about it" part that seems to not resonate with some people but I think that's an entirely different issue.

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

#95

Post by scrollaway »

jki275 wrote: post #93
scrollaway wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ABA actually endorsed him All I can find on the ABA's position on Kavanaugh is that they called for an investigation, and that they're reevaluating their position on him given his temperament. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/5/american-bar... And also this from before: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-b... > I'm not a democrat or a republican by the way I got that, and ne…

The ABA repudiated that letter, which was written in his personal capacity by the president of the ABA. There was a great deal of pushback on him even before he was nominated. The knives were out for whoever it was going to be -- it wouldn't have mattered who it was, they already had their strategies for all of the ones on the list. And I'm not sure what "cult" you think I'm representing. I like the Constitution and…

Of course there was going to be pushback. Politics is politics and the partisan divide is great right now. But this isn't just pushback. As I said, Gorsuch didn't have anywhere near the level of pushback Kavanaugh has. And Gorsuch was taking a seat which people felt was stolen by stalling tactics.

What's craziest to me is that, with some rare exceptions, Supreme Court appointments used to be pretty nonpartisan (https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nomi...). And now we're talking about a confirmation that will fail/pass by most likely one vote. And this... doesn't raise any eyebrows. It's fine if he gets confirmed, it's fine that the GOP got rid of the 60-vote rule for Gorsuch, everything is fine and dandy. He'll "follow the constitution".

> And I'm not sure what "cult" you think I'm representing.

I'm saying the way you talk, in other posts, is very cultish. Make of that what you will. Someone told that to me once and it made me seriously rethink the way I talked to people, and what kind of media I was ingesting.

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

#96

Post by pandaman »

scrollaway wrote: post #95
jki275 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ABA repudiated that letter, which was written in his personal capacity by the president of the ABA. There was a great deal of pushback on him even before he was nominated. The knives were out for whoever it was going to be -- it wouldn't have mattered who it was, they already had their strategies for all of the ones on the list. And I'm not sure what "cult" you think I'm representing. I like the Constitution and…

Of course there was going to be pushback. Politics is politics and the partisan divide is great right now. But this isn't just pushback. As I said, Gorsuch didn't have anywhere near the level of pushback Kavanaugh has. And Gorsuch was taking a seat which people felt was stolen by stalling tactics. What's craziest to me is that, with some rare exceptions, Supreme Court appointments used to be pretty nonpartisan ( http…

There had been zero chance to deny Gorsuch since he has been appointed right after elections. The current situation is different: elections are coming and if the confirmation had been delayed past elections and if Democrats took Senate (and they believe they have a chance) then they could have denied Kavanough's confirmation.

If these two had been swapped, the same thing would have been happening to Gorsuch now and you would have been wondering how come Kavanough had been confirmed before and why there is no better candidate now?

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

#97

Post by fareesh »

archagon wrote: post #87
fareesh wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand he is accused of some crime 30 years ago, after being a very public person for decades, with no corroborating evidence. In my personal worldview and culture that makes him an innocent man, and he should not be disrespected in this manner. My values are certainly not in need of the ACLU's approval. I don't put stock in the opinions of institutions, just in the facts as they relate to the allegat…

What I’m hearing is that your values are ultimately driven by your feelings, as opposed to numerous first-hand accounts testifying to this person’s character, or even the words coming from his own mouth. Sexual assault allegations aside, Kavanaugh acted—and has acted—like a partisan hack and an entitled frat boy, and has almost certainly lied under oath. He is plainly unfit for the Supreme Court, innocent or not.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - I don't live in America so my facts may be incomplete.

100+ women have come forward for Judge Kavanaugh's character. The sum total of everyone he has worked with during his time as a judge (which is much more relevant than what he did while at parties), have given him glowing endorsements. My opinion is based on evidence, and the presumption of innocence. Those are not feelings or emotions. Those are facts and principles.

Justice Ginsberg said she and her husband would move to New Zealand if the Republican candidate became President. That is coming from the reigning liberal champion on the court. Honestly, I think she has set the bar as far as irresponsible partisan remarks are concerned.

The Democratic party is solely to blame (factually speaking) for what has happened to Judge Kavanaugh's family over these past few months. Senator Feinstein made no effort to keep this process private and protect the personal lives of everyone involved. Dr. Ford testified that she did not share the information that she gave Senator Feinstein with anyone else. Senator Feinstein claims nobody leaked the information. One of them is lying, because it was leaked to the press, which caused a complete media trial and humiliating debacle for both parties involved.

To make matters worse, Bill Clinton's legal team, who is now representing Dr. Ford, conveniently forgot to tell her that her statements could have been taken privately to the judiciary committee. It's incredibly convenient that this too has happened in light of the broad context.

This entire travesty could have been avoided if the Democratic party handled this matter sensitively and appropriately, they are solely to blame. Zero Republicans were responsible for how this fiasco has transpired in the media. Were things the other way around, the Republicans would deserve an angry rant too.

The bottom line is, even if none of this would have happened 0 Democrats would have voted for Justice Kavanaugh. This FBI investigation has changed none of their minds, and the most pathetic thing to come of this, is that after ruining a man's reputation and life from this political charade, the gaul to suggest that he should have watched his tone when he passionately argued his innocence.

I really have no words for how horrible that is. But that's another subject. My original point stands, this man's views should not disqualify him from his job. He is perfectly capable of doing it, and having his own personal views.

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

#98

Post by fareesh »

angry_octet wrote: post #66
jcadam wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's not the sum total of his life. His neighbours won't look at him the same way. His coaching life has come to a complete end - no parents of young girls are going to be comfortable with him coaching them, and Harvard University has already terminated his lectures.

This was not a job interview.

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

#99

Post by jki275 »

scrollaway wrote: post #95
jki275 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ABA repudiated that letter, which was written in his personal capacity by the president of the ABA. There was a great deal of pushback on him even before he was nominated. The knives were out for whoever it was going to be -- it wouldn't have mattered who it was, they already had their strategies for all of the ones on the list. And I'm not sure what "cult" you think I'm representing. I like the Constitution and…

Of course there was going to be pushback. Politics is politics and the partisan divide is great right now. But this isn't just pushback. As I said, Gorsuch didn't have anywhere near the level of pushback Kavanaugh has. And Gorsuch was taking a seat which people felt was stolen by stalling tactics. What's craziest to me is that, with some rare exceptions, Supreme Court appointments used to be pretty nonpartisan ( http…

No, Gorsuch was a conservative jurist replacing the most conservative jurist who has been on the court in recent history with the possible exception of Clarence Thomas.

Supreme Court Nominations used to be non partisan, and one might note that there is one party that made them not so.

The 60 vote rule was removed by Reid when the democrats had control -- for all other federal appointments. The republicans merely adopted the rule he put in place for SCOTUS appointments as well.

I don't have much of a post history here, so not sure where you're coming from.

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

#100

Post by archagon »

fareesh wrote: post #97
archagon wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I’m hearing is that your values are ultimately driven by your feelings, as opposed to numerous first-hand accounts testifying to this person’s character, or even the words coming from his own mouth. Sexual assault allegations aside, Kavanaugh acted—and has acted—like a partisan hack and an entitled frat boy, and has almost certainly lied under oath. He is plainly unfit for the Supreme Court, innocent or not.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - I don't live in America so my facts may be incomplete. 100+ women have come forward for Judge Kavanaugh's character. The sum total of everyone he has worked with during his time as a judge (which is much more relevant than what he did while at parties), have given him glowing endorsements. My opinion is based on evidence, and the presumption of innocence. Those are not fe…

> Justice Ginsberg said she and her husband would move to New Zealand if the Republican candidate became President. That is coming from the reigning liberal champion on the court. Honestly, I think she has set the bar as far as irresponsible partisan remarks are concerned.

Earlier today, it was reported that Trump thought that a news clip of an old missile launch was a preemptive nuclear strike by North Korea, and that Lindsey Graham had to dissuade him from taking action.

We all knew that shit like this was going to happen before the election! Trump is not any sort of typical candidate. He is an absolute train wreck of a public figure, probably has dementia, and is completely unsuited for any form of office, let alone the Presidency. There is a non-zero chance that he will lead the country to war or outright ruin during his term, and probably not intentionally. The Republican party has stood behind him, 100%.

This is not a matter of ideology, but of the barest of common sense. To say nothing, or to pretend this is business as usual, is utterly bonkers.

Post reply on HN