21–30 of 226 posts
My question is why the NY times is still running a summit where SBF is currently still scheduled to speak.
I obviously can’t speak for everyone, but personally, I am much more interested in what he has to say now than I was pre-collapse.
My question is why the NY times is still running a summit where SBF is currently still scheduled to speak.
He hasn't been convicted let alone charged with a crime (yet). When he is, his actions weren't violent. He's not a radicalizing figure and letting him speak doesn't hurt anyone (as opposed to an Alex Jones type).
If, through my actions, you become financially ruined, I may not have kicked, beaten, or raped you, but is the harm comparable? Is it violence?
My question is why the NY times is still running a summit where SBF is currently still scheduled to speak.
I obviously can’t speak for everyone, but personally, I am much more interested in what he has to say now than I was pre-collapse.
Different story for the average listener, who will be listening to most interactions with an open mind and susceptible to whichever person tends to be more charming or persuasive.
My question is why the NY times is still running a summit where SBF is currently still scheduled to speak.
He hasn't been convicted let alone charged with a crime (yet). When he is, his actions weren't violent. He's not a radicalizing figure and letting him speak doesn't hurt anyone (as opposed to an Alex Jones type).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I obviously can’t speak for everyone, but personally, I am much more interested in what he has to say now than I was pre-collapse.
Yes, same. Sorkin says he won't hold back.
I won't believe this guy is actually going to prison until they slam the iron bars closed behind him.
My question is why the NY times is still running a summit where SBF is currently still scheduled to speak.
He hasn't been convicted let alone charged with a crime (yet). When he is, his actions weren't violent. He's not a radicalizing figure and letting him speak doesn't hurt anyone (as opposed to an Alex Jones type).
My question is why the NY times is still running a summit where SBF is currently still scheduled to speak.
He hasn't been convicted let alone charged with a crime (yet). When he is, his actions weren't violent. He's not a radicalizing figure and letting him speak doesn't hurt anyone (as opposed to an Alex Jones type).
If you steal $10 from a local shop (sorry, $1000 in California now) you'll be in jail before the end of the week. Steal $1,000,000,000 eight times over and you.. get to speak at a NYT conference?
I don't know, I just want some consistency from the justice system. That's not too much to ask for, or expect, really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He hasn't been convicted let alone charged with a crime (yet). When he is, his actions weren't violent. He's not a radicalizing figure and letting him speak doesn't hurt anyone (as opposed to an Alex Jones type).
>When he is, his actions weren't violent If you steal $10 from a local shop (sorry, $1000 in California now) you'll be in jail before the end of the week. Steal $1,000,000,000 eight times over and you.. get to speak at a NYT conference? I don't know, I just want some consistency from the justice system. That's not too much to ask for, or expect, really.
Please tell me what reality you live in and how to get there. Hell, just look across this site to see all the advice that ethics are for those who like staying poor.
My question is why the NY times is still running a summit where SBF is currently still scheduled to speak.
Why would other people agree to share a stage with a guy who has possibly/probably(?) committed a massive fraud?
I mean something is gonna go down, might as well be there for the popcorn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think he's that stupid.
Then again, I've been telling myself the exact same thing since the start of this saga and I have been proven wrong every single time.