Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
2,325
#42
But hasn't the liberal movement always been there?

Its taken on a new, more radical shape now where in my opinion it has become regressive, not progressive and more authoritarian and intolerant. In effect becoming the sort of thing it would've opposed decades ago.

Naturally the right has come on pretty hard as a counter-balance and we now live in the world we do where everything is viewed in extremes.
Not quite always, but since around 1850 in the UK. With ups and downs ever since.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
2,325
#43
haha! "Prole" ... love it, never heard that word before.
It's amazing how literally just a few years ago Fox was indeed a sh**tshow, now it's literally the only mainstream place where common sense is king... o_O
It is just a typically modern bit of idleness, like 'App'. Proletarian in full.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
40,012
#44
As far as possible take the Kavanaugh out of it. Mr Kaplan took leave and went on his personal time and capacity to support a long time friend, now it’s become an issue and they are having a company town hall meeting regarding it. Really? And they don’t see the problem with this?[/B]
This is just silly, he is entitled to support whoever he wants. Next thing they are going to moan at execs for not supporting the right sports team...
He's VP of Public Policy, though, which is the problem. He's not just a random executive - he's the head and main public face for their public policy relations.

Strange, Zuckerberg/Facebook usually follow the Dem party line.
Incorrect. Their biggest donations and lobbying are to Republican politicians and the RNC.

Also, the outlets and people that consistently have the most widely shared content on Facebook are Republican/conservative.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
40,012
#45
I truly wonder what will happen in the future. There is a massive separation between the two sides - it is like they don't speak the same language. They cannot understand each other, they have almost no common ground.
This is a real problem, I agree. A lot of it comes out of their broken two-party system and the unsustainable ideological undercurrents therein. Their stupid first past the post, zero sum electoral system makes it impossible for more varied and nuanced points of view to find representation, which increases the tribalistic protection of what people deem 'their team/tribe'. A proportional representation system is much better at diffusing diverse political views and stop it from becoming a no-holds-barred powder keg.

So for example, on 'the right' in the US you have a conglomeration of conservatives, libertarians, centre-right social liberals/fiscal conservatives, fiscal liberals/social conservatives, and all sorts of more idiosyncratic ideologies like paleoconservatives, etc., which the Republican party cannot possibly adequately represent. Same for 'the left', where the Dem party cannot possibly adequately represent the left, liberals, centre-left, corporate Dems, conservative Dems, progressives, etc.

An electoral system that allowed all those varied views to have representation would serve as a pressure valve. With only 2 'teams', the stakes to 'win' becomes intolerably high and it incentivises more extreme behaviour. Bad outcomes result.

I don't think the left/right paradigm makes much sense anymore, but that's another topic.

If I could suggest 2 things to check out that explains it very well:

The Polarizers: Postwar Architects of Our Partisan Era by Sam Rosenfeld, which explores how ideologues specifically created this very partisan atmosphere.

And Ezra Klein's podcast with Lilliana Mason, a political science professor. It's very illuminating.

https://art19.com/shows/the-ezra-klein-show/episodes/11453d43-cd9e-4cf6-854f-f745261ad25a

“In Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity, Lilliana Mason traces the construction of our partisan “mega-identities”: identities that fuse party affiliation to ideology, race, religion, gender, sexuality, geography, and more. These mega-identities didn’t exist 50 or even 30 years ago, but now that they’re here, they change the way we see each other, the way we engage in politics, and the way politics absorbs other — previously non-political —spheres of our culture.”

The other thing is I think people who spend a lot of time online tend to have an outsized view of how much of a problem it is in every day life for most people.

Ancalagon said:
I must admit that, if the Left has gone so far that they see nothing wrong with encouraging violence against Republicans, well.... It's hard to defend that. It is hard to say that it is just a different point of view, that is a bigger problem in my eyes.
There are people on 'the left' that encourage or excuse violence, and it's detestable.

Ancalagon said:
On the other hand, people associated with the alt-right do things like harass women online. They give the left ammo to say, "See? Everyone on the right wing is indeed a racist sexist bigot."
It's a lot more than that - they've murdered people.

The far-right was responsible for the majority of America’s extremist killings in 2017

There was a dramatic surge in white supremacist violence in 2017.

White supremacists and other far-right extremists were responsible for 59% of all extremist-related fatalities in the US in 2017.

...

Over the last decade, 71% of domestic extremist related killings in the US were linked to right-wing extremists
 
Last edited:

Techne

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
9,752
#47
It is time that the Oros man breaks up goolag, twatter and facecrap. They, like the MSM are turning out to be literally enemies of the people.
 

Eniigma

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
1,205
#48
He's VP of Public Policy, though, which is the problem. He's not just a random executive - he's the head and main public face for their public policy relations.
This is where i think there is no hope for you...

This is a real problem, I agree. A lot of it comes out of their broken two-party system and the unsustainable ideological undercurrents therein. Their stupid first past the post, zero sum electoral system makes it impossible for more varied and nuanced points of view to find representation, which increases the tribalistic protection of what people deem 'their team/tribe'. A proportional representation system is much better at diffusing diverse political views and stop it from becoming a no-holds-barred powder keg.

So for example, on 'the right' in the US you have a conglomeration of conservatives, libertarians, centre-right social liberals/fiscal conservatives, fiscal liberals/social conservatives, and all sorts of more idiosyncratic ideologies like paleoconservatives, etc., which the Republican party cannot possibly adequately represent. Same for 'the left', where the Dem party cannot possibly adequately represent the left, liberals, centre-left, corporate Dems, conservative Dems, progressives, etc.

An electoral system that allowed all those varied views to have representation would serve as a pressure valve. With only 2 'teams', the stakes to 'win' becomes intolerably high and it incentivises more extreme behaviour. Bad outcomes result.

I don't think the left/right paradigm makes much sense anymore, but that's another topic.
And then you pull it out the fire.

100% agree with that bolded bit.

I think most people are actually a mix of all. I lean strongly to the right, but there are a number of issues where I'm far left and many I'm more in the centre.



But OD, you seem to agree with the facebook staff that Kaplan's appearance in his personal capacity was a problem. Is this due your need at some level to support the liberal view point or do you really beleive that people above a certain level suddenly can't show any politicial views? And by that matter if it was a problem, would Sandberg's (COO) appearance there supporting Ford have been equally problematic?
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
17,576
#50
This is a real problem, I agree. A lot of it comes out of their broken two-party system and the unsustainable ideological undercurrents therein. Their stupid first past the post, zero sum electoral system makes it impossible for more varied and nuanced points of view to find representation, which increases the tribalistic protection of what people deem 'their team/tribe'. A proportional representation system is much better at diffusing diverse political views and stop it from becoming a no-holds-barred powder keg.

So for example, on 'the right' in the US you have a conglomeration of conservatives, libertarians, centre-right social liberals/fiscal conservatives, fiscal liberals/social conservatives, and all sorts of more idiosyncratic ideologies like paleoconservatives, etc., which the Republican party cannot possibly adequately represent. Same for 'the left', where the Dem party cannot possibly adequately represent the left, liberals, centre-left, corporate Dems, conservative Dems, progressives, etc.

An electoral system that allowed all those varied views to have representation would serve as a pressure valve. With only 2 'teams', the stakes to 'win' becomes intolerably high and it incentivises more extreme behaviour. Bad outcomes result.
Look at South Africa and its proportional representation and tell me that ruling party won't do extreme behaviour to win.

As is pointed out in the federalist papers, you cannot ever get rid of factionalism among people. It is the inevitable consequence of giving people freedom. What the original intention of the US government was to try and limit the effects of the factionalism through republicanism.

Read this when you get some time, it is a fascinating read.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp
 

Eniigma

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
1,205
#52
Well just don't join, like myself. Easy really. Any harm to members is self inflicted.
Unfortunately it is not that cut and dry and clean and easy. There are time when it's unavoidable if you want to engage in things you enjoy. For example one of the clubs I'm a member of only communicates through a facebook group and page. Why should they spend money and time creating a website and forums etc, when they can just use a free private FB group?

Sure Twatter can be avoided. Google though is everywhere.

Also a lot of this stuff you need to looking for and the more you look the more extreme the stuff you are fed, especially with the likes of youtube.
 

Temujin

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,279
#53
This is the reason so many people who were once liberals are now moving conservative. The Liberals are currently their own worst enemy. It's like saying Executives should not be fired for supporting Zuma till the end :ROFL:. People have freedom of association, the liberals who are staunch supporters of this are now using their own views against themselves. You can't make this shyte up ...
Personally, I still see myself as a liberal... as I think most people they now classify as conservative. I'm not the problem, its those ****ing insane libtards crying and convulsing over everything that are the problem, they make everyone look bad, would rather be labelled as far right nazi than be seen as associated with those warped brainwashed fools... think I've said it before somewhere here, conservatives are currently more liberal than the liberals;)
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
58,987
#54
Personally, I still see myself as a liberal... as I think most people they now classify as conservative. I'm not the problem, its those ****ing insane libtards crying and convulsing over everything that are the problem, they make everyone look bad, would rather be labelled as far right nazi than be seen as associated with those warped brainwashed fools... think I've said it before somewhere here, conservatives are currently more liberal than the liberals;)
Exactly this. They are turning into exactly what they stand against. It's hilarious and I love seeing them being responsible for their own demise :D
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
2,325
#55
Unfortunately it is not that cut and dry and clean and easy. There are time when it's unavoidable if you want to engage in things you enjoy. For example one of the clubs I'm a member of only communicates through a facebook group and page. Why should they spend money and time creating a website and forums etc, when they can just use a free private FB group?

Sure Twatter can be avoided. Google though is everywhere.

Also a lot of this stuff you need to looking for and the more you look the more extreme the stuff you are fed, especially with the likes of youtube.
Use 'duckduckgo' instead of Google.
As to the cost of a website etc, if your club carries on using Facebook you will get what you deserve in the long run. You and all like yourselves need to hit FB where it hurts: in the pocket.
 
Last edited:

Sollie

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
1,598
#56
I am curious to others opinions on this and those who don’t see it as a problem, why they don’t.
My take. This is not unique to the USA ...

American is trying to seek balance. Typically he who is the least tolerant, wins. A good read on this: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most...ctatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15

When the internet became popular, it gave power to certain players like the media and even the average Joe with a loud voice. Intolerance flourished. This started creating extremist groups to the left and the right. There is an old Afrikaans saying, "Enigiets met 'n te vooraan, is nie goed nie" - translated meaning "anything with a too prefixed is bad.".

The USA had Obama, a too-liberal for the well balanced. That caused the edges to move a bit to the conservative side. The liberal media did not notice it, the majority were living their lives in certain parts of the USA and took their cues from it. They ignored the heartland, the rednecks, hillbillies (and your tag here for the not acceptable), doing what the extreme liberal SJW do best, discounting and labeling. This while running programs that did little to help the ordinary folk. This polarized and created resentment. It also fueled more radicalism as a response to the right. The ordinary moderates were stuck in the middle. Let' s be honest - many Amecians are extremely opinionated. The perfect storm.

American ended up the vote with two extreme candidates - Mrs Not Right and Mr Wrong - Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Big data predicated a landslide victory for Hillary. The USA was stuffed before they even started ...

Look at the locations where Donald and Hillary would win later. https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-presidential-election-of-2016
(Compare it to where money is)

Of course, never prove an extremist wrong. This started many a smear campaign and exposure of dirty tricks typically associated with extremists groups. It's also no small irony the OP opened this thread with Facebook (Cambridge Analytica).

What is Hillary would have won? I believe we'd still be posting here, perhaps another article/story, but there would be one.

The USA is swinging from extreme to extreme. Unless the fringe groups start facing up to reality, the swinging will get worse as the USA tries their correcting act.

My 2c opinion.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
40,012
#57
This is where i think there is no hope for you...


And then you pull it out the fire.

100% agree with that bolded bit.

I think most people are actually a mix of all. I lean strongly to the right, but there are a number of issues where I'm far left and many I'm more in the centre.
What's interesting about the 'centre', is how research shows that for most people, they don't necessarily have views that are in the middle of the 2 poles, but rather people have cross-views - so they take stuff from both ends of the spectrum, rather than some kind of middle ground. But it all gets counted in 'the middle'.

Eniigma said:
But OD, you seem to agree with the facebook staff that Kaplan's appearance in his personal capacity was a problem. Is this due your need at some level to support the liberal view point or do you really beleive that people above a certain level suddenly can't show any politicial views? And by that matter if it was a problem, would Sandberg's (COO) appearance there supporting Ford have been equally problematic?
No, you misunderstand what I was saying. I don't care what Kaplan himself does. He's clearly a conservative dude with specific political affiliations he cherishes. That's fine, he can do what he likes, support who he likes etc. I'm saying it's not good for Facebook's VP of Public Policy to do this, whoever that person is.

And yes, that would apply to someone like Sandberg, too.

Let's say Facebook had a different VP of Public Policy that leaned left, and they threw celebration parties for Democrat nominees and supported them at confirmation hearings. Do you really think they wouldn't be accused by right-leaning folks (on here and elsewhere) of evidence that Facebook is 'picking sides'? This is what happened here, after all.

That sums it up perfectly.
He's extreme left, but doesn't agree with freedom of association. That is a founding principle of liberalism. Orbital is just deluded :D
None of this is remotely true. How am I "extreme left"? I'm sorry you don't want to discuss the substance of what I posted, and prefer out-group vitriol. :)

Look at South Africa and its proportional representation and tell me that ruling party won't do extreme behaviour to win.

As is pointed out in the federalist papers, you cannot ever get rid of factionalism among people. It is the inevitable consequence of giving people freedom. What the original intention of the US government was to try and limit the effects of the factionalism through republicanism.

Read this when you get some time, it is a fascinating read.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp
I never said there can't be extreme behaviour within a system of proportional representation. Of course there can be. But I think SA's predicament would be worse if parties like the EFF, VF+, ACDP, COPE, UDM, IFP couldn't exist and represent their constituencies politically. It would leave large segments of the population out of the political process, fomenting at best apathy (which is still bad), at worst violence.

Sollie said:
The USA had Obama, a too-liberal for the well balanced.
Funnily enough, Obama and Clinton would be regarded as centre-right conservatives anywhere else in the Western world. US politics is an interesting little bubble of its own. :)

Sollie said:
They ignored the heartland, the rednecks, hillbillies (and your tag here for the not acceptable), doing what the extreme liberal SJW do best, discounting and labeling.
I mean, is that not kind of doing the same thing? "extreme liberal SJW" is a form of discounting and labelling. And those 'heartlands' are also in their own bubbles, refusing to understand massive portions of their fellow citizens, wouldn't you say?

Sollie said:
Big data predicated a landslide victory for Hillary.
Not really, though. The majority of polls had both of them within the margin of error, and a couple of big polls leading up to the election had Trump winning, including CNN's.

The electoral college is also difficult to incorporate into a polling aggregate, because it doesn't work the same way as Congressional or Senate elections, which is zero-sum, so easier to plot. It did get right that Clinton would win the popular vote, though.
 

Sollie

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
1,598
#58
I mean, is that not kind of doing the same thing? "extreme liberal SJW" is a form of discounting and labelling. And those 'heartlands' are also in their own bubbles, refusing to understand massive portions of their fellow citizens, wouldn't you say?
Indeed, and deliberately so, to show the one side of the extremism, not necessarily referring to anybody specifically. This goes to the heart of my take. It's them making the most noise not tolerating opposition, just as we can't deny the KKK skinhead types on the opposite side doing the same on their side. We can't deny the the existence of extremists on either side of the political spectrum.

Not really, though. The majority of polls had both of them within the margin of error, and a couple of big polls leading up to the election had Trump winning, including CNN's.
I'm not going to "cherry pick" reputable/credible/known ... sources now. I read many at the time. They are out there. Some even used it for marketing their superior stats and analytics at the time.
https://www.churchillfrank.com/blog/donald-trump-big-data-fail/
https://tessella.com/coverage/trump-victory-slap-face-big-data-desperate-cry/
https://bigdata-madesimple.com/have-we-lost-faith-in-big-data/
...
 

Seriously

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
16,586
#59
They wont even watch the video as it would make them feel like foolsTools.
Get ready for a new barrage of BS garbage to follow ....... soon.
Wish they will spend some of their energy on issues here at home. But I guess that would be too much to expect from libtard shills.

PS: I note some already arrived.
 
Last edited:

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
40,012
#60
I'm not going to "cherry pick" reputable/credible/known ... sources now. I read many at the time. They are out there. Some even used it for marketing their superior stats and analytics at the time.
https://www.churchillfrank.com/blog/donald-trump-big-data-fail/
https://tessella.com/coverage/trump-victory-slap-face-big-data-desperate-cry/
https://bigdata-madesimple.com/have-we-lost-faith-in-big-data/
...
Thanks, will give them a read.

Just looking at the first one, though. If you look at the data they used to run their simulations - none of what they used actually applied directly to the race in question, so you're, at best, already one step removed from what we're talking about. Paired up with the usual caveats regarding polling and electoral research, it's not that big of a surprise that it got parts wrong. Many of those states fell within the margin of error, which is kind of the point of having the margin.

I think a lot of people tend to have slightly skewed expectations of what big data (in this case political polling) can provide. Which is partly the point the first piece makes, too.
 
Top