Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 4

[100action]

My sarcasm radar was a bit awry when i replied, 100action

It's all good. You are going to have to forgive and be patient with the posters in here.

His expectations are perhaps naive at best and self-serving at worst.

A simple search through his posting history identifies several views/positions formed without 'direct evidence'.

I use to find the far left pretty condescending, but as someone centrally-left, I've come to appreciate them. Though misguided, I'd give them a hug and tell them I care about them.

 

[Trouto]

It's all good. You are going to have to forgive and be patient with the posters in here.

His expectations are perhaps naive at best and self-serving at worst.

A simple search through his posting history identifies several views/positions formed without 'direct evidence'.

I use to find the far left pretty condescending, but as someone centrally-left, I've come to appreciate them. Though misguided, I'd give them a hug and tell them I care about them.

I rekon people who are polarised either left or right are negativly contributing to the shit****ery that exists in our society at present. Polarising yourself on one side of the fence and instanty discounting everything that comes from the other side is such an arrogent view.

Imagine thinking you already know everything about everything and any different view should be attacked and ridiculed? Humans are varied, we think and feel a wide range of things. Understanding and compromising is pretty rare these days.

 

[100action]

I rekon people who are polarised either left or right are negativly contributing to the shit****ery that exists in our society at present. Polarising yourself on one side of the fence and instanty discounting everything that comes from the other side is such an arrogent view.

Imagine thinking you already know everything about everything and any different view should be attacked and ridiculed? Humans are varied, we think and feel a wide range of things. Understanding and compromising is pretty rare these days.

Fully agreed brother

There's no need to treat politics like a footy side. We don't have to support all the policy positions of the government we elected to support.

Perhaps its just that inner tribalism within humans - it's us or them. It's part of how we operated for tens of thousands of years and may even be how we managed to survive for so long. I suppose it can be difficult overcoming 10,000+ years of operation that's hard coded into DNA now that it is no longer required in the modern era.

The Don Quixote of the twenty-first century will not be a knight in shining armor struggling in vain to restore the grandeur of feudalism but humans only trying to find the truth as a collective.

 

[Gethelred]

This has been stated a few times already: his standing as the CEO of a $1.5t publicly listed company that has a fiduciary duty to maximize its value for its shareholders.

Money's the bolded.

What is meant by Zuck's standing again? Remember, you objected to my statement that his money was the reason he had standing in your eyes. You've objected multiple times to this, but you've then gone and done it again.

So regulations around the recording and release of phone calls don't exist? Regulations around the disclosure of other mediums of information doesn't exist? I guess this must all be a conspiracy to the left.

Not a single part of this is in evidence.

You want to write fanfiction about Mark Zuckerberg, do it in your own time.

lol what are we doing taking a principle conjured up from some journo/author to make himself feel bigger than he is (applying it to an approach that is fairly pedestrian no less), in god knows what context and requiring it to a footy forum. What he is suggesting is really only reasonable in the court of law. We are not putting someone behind bars.

... this is very, very silly.

He applied stated it within the context of a debate, which - in case you've gotten a bit lost here between trying to exhaust people with sheer post length - is what we're doing.

We are debating on an internet forum...

Exactly.

... whether the comments provided by Mark is credible. Applying Hitchen's Law here is absolutely wild. I would like to see this applied to every post on the forum - there'd be no discussion.

Cool. You'd be welcome to try, it would get rather trolly after a while though.

It's also applied rather specifically to a claim made by a person "of standing", as his claim is significantly more important that one made by some muppet on the Richmond forum.

California Penal Code 632

Cool

Do you have any evidence provided to support your claim that Zuckerberg was threatened with eavesdropping laws in order to gag him from public statements?

If you want to go to the Conspiracies subforum, that'd be a good place to try and make your case. Alas, here we're beholden to fact.

One doesn't need 'direct' evidence to form a position on the matter. Hearing it from the active CEO of the company on a podcast to millions is credible enough to form an position.

Again: without evidence, we cannot assess the veracity of the claim made or the reasonableness of said censorship.

Try reading the posts you reply to.

If the Biden administration or Mark himself finds a way to disclose 'direct' evidence to suggest otherwise - sure I'll change my position. Given Mark has made these claims to such a large audience, the silence from the Biden administration is a bit deafening isn't it?

... wat?

Why does a government have to make a press release to respond to Zuckerberg?

This is how most rational humans perform decision making functions:
1. Is there information to inform a decision?
2. Is the information direct?
3. If not, is it from a source of high trust?
4. Do i need to re-evaluate my position if there is better information provided?

No one outside the court of law stops at point 2 if they get a NO. Imagine requiring this for an internet forum.

This is a whine.

This thread is about the hypocrisy of the left. My response was directed in general to your throwaway question implying the right do value freedom of speech. You've then gone a little tangent contrary with the position you implied in your question that's not relevant to the thread. This seems like another mis-direction from the essence of the original post in this chain.

... because you've failed - at length - to satisfy the criteria for this thread.

The following is the standard you would need to meet in order to achieve the thread topic:

For something to demonstrate a hypocrisy of the left in general or specifically, you need the following components:

1. An act, person or thing...
2. ... from someone of a left wing persuasion or bent...
3. ... that contravenes left wing ideals.

... and you have an act(1) that isn't even from people of a left wing persuasion (2) that doesn't touch left wing ideals (3) that mightn't even be true or have happened because - again - there is no evidence.

That you don't like this is no skin off my nose.

I think we can all agree that the government i.e. the Biden Administration should not be censoring opposing views re vaccines on social media from adults. This is bad censorship.

So your comment initially:

Bottom line and undeniable fact is that censorship is abhorrent no matter which way you vote...

... is incorrect, then?

Also enough of this nonsense, here is the evidence straight from the horse's mouth (Biden Administration):

Allegation:

Mark Zuckerberg has accused United States President Joe Biden’s administration of pressuring his team to censor content on the COVID-19 pandemic

Biden Administration response:

“When confronted with a deadly pandemic, this Administration encouraged responsible actions to protect public health and safety.”

A roundabout way of saying, **** yeah, we made them censor those posts.

Did Biden’s White House pressure Mark Zuckerberg to censor COVID content?

In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, the Meta chief said he regretted caving in to government pressure.

www.aljazeera.com

Feels good to be proven right. Going back to the main my main post that started it all, it was in fact very reasonable to hold the view that Mark's insights relating to censorship from the Biden administration is crcredible.

Not a single thing in that article states directly what was or was not censored. It's reporting on the controversy, not the facts.

And - again - you are in theory in support of censorship for the public good. Without knowing specifically what was censored, you cannot make that call.

Let me save em the time for you.

"You've just alleged Zuckerberg said fact checkers were politically motivated."

Hitchen's Law applies here, unless you provide direct evidence including testimony and damning correspondence from the fact checker team, this claim can be dismissed.

One could apply Hitchen's law here, but one could also ask the other person if they have any evidence in support of their argument.

And the claim that fact checkers are politically biased is definitely one you would need to support on this forum if you wanted to run with it.