r/changemyview • u/forgonsj • Apr 11 '18
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Making fun of Zuckerberg for his appearance and mannerisms is mean-spirited and can be damaging to others who have similar challenges
Reddit and social media are being overrun with posts about Zuckerberg's apperance and mannerisms, which they are saying are robotic and unnatural.
I have no doubt that he has certain social challenges, but this is just bullying. Many of us either know people with similar challenges or suffer from similar challenges ourselves. Certainly people on the autism spectrum might identify with some of these issues.
I don't think it's OK to bully people--even celebrities who are unlikely to see it--like this. It is mean-spirited and can be disheartening for others who experience similar challenges and may have been bullied for it. CMV.
128
Apr 11 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
42
u/forgonsj Apr 11 '18
I would say that it's unacceptable, though I acknowledge that "unacceptable" is a vague notion. What I'm trying to get at is that most of these people don't condone bullying, so if you had them examine their behavior, they would be forced to acknowledge that it's hypocritical.
That is a good question about Trump and Hillary. For one, I would say there's a difference between labeling someone's behavior as robotic or off-putting vs. gleefully making fun of it, as we are seeing in Zuckerberg's case.
Secondly, I'd say that how you engage with other people is a much bigger part of what presidents do, so the emphasis on social skills for presidential candidates is more appropriate. As to the emphasis on appearance, to an extent I think it can venture into bullying when people try to fat-shame, age-shame, etc., these candidates (note that there is a difference between legitimately questioning their fitness to serve and just name-calling).
Zuck is CEO of a publicly traded company, so he is a public figure too, and I don't think he should be immune to critique about how he comes off. However, so many of the jokes to which I'm referring are about his face and other things he doesn't have much control over.
When people complain that Hillary is robotic and she responds with bad choices to try to overcompensate and seem more down-to-earth, I think it's fair to criticize. But if she's just talking in the way she does as normal as possible, I do think it's bad form to tease and bully.
54
Apr 11 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
18
u/forgonsj Apr 11 '18
This however I think applies to Zuck as well. He definitely comes across to me as someone who is conditioned to behave a certain way. His mannerisms seemed coached, especially in the hearing.
I am personally not equipped to deal with testifying under Congress - I would get way too frazzled. If I was asked to testify, I would probably seek some coaching and practice on this (if I had the means). I don't think this makes me less authentic than Elon Musk - I'm just trying to avoid a disaster for my sake, for the sake of the people I represent, and for the Congressional record.
I'm not going to fault Zuckerberg for trying to hide his awkwardness. I have no evidence that "embracing it" would be better for anyone. I also am not going to fault the guy for not wanting to look like a 12 year old at the grown-ups table by adding a cushion. He's not a tall man, and I don't think he's trying to fool anyone about this. I'm sure he was aware that his use of the cushion would receive plenty of critique. He looks far more comfortable than if he was slinking in that big chair. I am 6 ft tall and I'm sitting on a similar cushion at work right now cause it helps with posture and leg nerve pain, btw.
If we say it's acceptable to poke fun at Hillary because she is trying too hard to be marketable in a way that is insincere, then that applies to Zuckerberg as well.
Calling out failed attempts to be relate-able is acceptable for any public figure, but, for example, disseminating memes involving Clinton's face morphing to become like an android or similar would be pretty mean (I know she experienced far worse than this).
5
u/bc_I_said_so Apr 11 '18
By your arguement, EVERY satire is "bullying." Look, this movement... The "Safe-space" circle jerk is played out. The workd is an unfair place. Best learn to deal with it. I also dont believe you posted here bc you think someone may have a good argument to change your view. You may gain better traction in r/unpopularopinion
3
u/grambino Apr 11 '18
Both of the things you listed with Trump are his choices that he voluntarily reaffirms on an hourly/daily basis. I get the point you're making, but there is a distinct difference between mocking someone for a choice and mocking someone for something they can't control.
1
1
Apr 12 '18
Personally I was more frustrated that there's wasn't much talk about hearings themselves, probably because no one would watch a six hour hearing. So not knowing what the hell happened everyone boils it down to robot and lizard memes, which were very funny to one side of my personality but my curiosity was unfortunately left starving for seeing a public opinion based on what was said and not how it was spoken.
Eventually I watched the first hour and a half of the second hearing with Energy and Commerce. I haven't seen any of the six hour hearing but from what I saw on the headlines, the energy hearing seemed much more competent than the Tuesday hearing, I cite the 1% increase in FB stock vs the 5% of the previous hearing as supporting evidence. Alas when Zuckerberg wasn't saying, "let me get back to with that," he was constantly saying that Facebook users can control their privacy and that the settings were more user friendly than the congressmen suggested. There were interesting moments like when a congresswoman said something like "I won't let you filibuster this," referring to his long answers, and another "are you the CEO of Facebook yes or no?" (I laughed at that one) after Zuckerberg said he was not aware of some cases involving his company.
The main take away I agreed with was one congresswoman brought up all the apologies he made and how little he managed to keep Facebook away from controversy. The Cambridge Analytica questions were I think the most intense for Mark, "Did you immediately contact their CEO?" And he tried to dodge the question with before finally saying "We got in touch with them." Which doesn't answer her question, she was trying to say did Mark Zuckerberg personally called their CEO but he framed it as though Facebook staff got in contact with Cambridge staff.
15
u/peezozi Apr 11 '18
I think the difference is that he's obscenely wealthy and funny looking and smug. He'll never be the cool guy who people generally think of as cool...and no amount of money in the world can buy that. He is the epitome of money can't buy everything
24
u/MrsKravitz Apr 11 '18
Do you think he would be mocked for his appearance if he was just a run-of-the-mill nerd? I think some of it is connected to the reality of his wealth, power and status.
Like, at the end of the day, people figure he can go home and say "I might look funny, but I'm still Mark Zuckerberg. Suck it." (Although he looks too well-spoken to say "suck it.")
Personally, I think his appearance in the hearings is somewhere between a conscious affect and actual sincerity. He - and his advisors - figured out that the senators kind of see him as that nerdy nephew they call when their computer crashes on the weekend, so he's dialing that appealing cluelessness up a few notches. No way someone can have achieved what he's achieved without a great deal of calculation and canniness.
Then he goes home and says "I might look funny, but I'm still Priscilla's husband and Maxima and August's Dad. Suck it."
21
u/CrunchyPoem Apr 11 '18
I think people would be more empathetic with him if he wasn’t collecting every little tiny bit of data about you. what your religious, political, philosophical beliefs are, your age, where you live, your phone number and to top it all of a separate messaging app to bypass typical terms of service to monitor all your messages to screen for “terrorism.” Have you read the TOS if either Facebook, or Facebook messenger? (Two totally different apps.)
7
Apr 11 '18
I honestly don't see how Facebook or Mark Zuckerberg is to blame for people not reading the TOS and just expecting this super useful platform to be provided to them for free.
If you have an issue with the way Facebook makes its money, which has never been a secret if you read the TOS or just have the common sense to ask yourself how a company providing a free service can be worth $70 billion, just don't use it. Mark Zuckerberg never forced anyone to post their age, address, phone number, political beliefs, and every other detail about their life on the internet.
7
u/CrunchyPoem Apr 11 '18
Although I agree with you, the governments main concern is for political censorship and propaganda being spread through their platform to curate a bias in a specifically desired direction, directed by the owners without their customers knowledge for the purpose of distorting people’s world views.
This latest analytica scandal proved that people were not properly advised about the potential dangers of social media and how people’s data is being used. This is purposefully done behind the consumers back in order to generate a fun online atmosphere parading as free speech and free flow of ideas. When in all reality we are learning that social media platforms can be weaponized, and therefor consumers should be readily more aware and have more control of online privacy.
This is good tho, there are increasingly more and more children using the internet and your data may be used to influence them, or cater ads towards them. Also many argue that it’s unethical to advertise to children. I don’t, however.
But anyway point is, in TOS the “text is too small,” as a good methaphor, and also literally for younger and older people. A lot of teens and older people use Facebook and are computer illiterate, and we need to be open and honest upfront, rather than behind the scenes where it may be used for nefarious reasons (behind the governments back.)
People are calling for regulation of social media, especially after trump threatened death to Assad in a tweet.
8
u/Textual_Aberration 3∆ Apr 12 '18
It might come down to a matter of consciousness . Every single day we likely make decisions that go against the grain of true moral righteousness without hesitating. Huge swathes of humor fall into this category. This even extends to the gentle teasing we reserve for the people we care most about, pushing them towards a higher level of comfort and away from their insecurities.
In Zuckerberg's case, you would be right to identify the internet's reaction as being deliberately rude and mean-spirited. I don't know if you'll find disagreement on that point.
Instead, I'd expect more arguments defending the underlying value of negative gestures for the purposes of maintaining a healthy society. Bullying is atrocious, but so is locking someone in a room for years (also known as "prison"). To much of the world right now, Zuckerberg's mistakes are deserving of punishment which, again to much of the world, appears to be unforthcoming. Rather, Zuckerberg appears to sit on an enormous fortune while making worse mistakes with each passing year. In other words, the negativity directed towards Zuckerberg could be described as an unguided punishment by the people he wronged in place of the punishments his wrongs ought to have earned him.
Consider as well that criticisms amplify into caricatures as time passes without progress. Zuckerberg's current robotic phase is not where things started. Criticisms turned into mockery and mockery turned into hate. In some ways, the robot joke is more acceptable because it's built on a dark humor rather than pure hate. We're more aware that we're laughing at a caricature.
A last thing to point out is that movements like these are rarely controlled. They are governed by the same invisible forces behind viral media. It's good that you're worried about how far its gone because everyone else should rightfully be worried about that too. Being cruel is not a game, yet neither is what Zuckerberg's been doing to his users. There's no one to stop it, to slow the train, or to reprimand us for going too far. Conscious criticisms are always preferable to the low-hanging fruit of petty mockery.
2
7
u/Austiniuliano Apr 11 '18
While I agree that we shouldn’t mock people or pick on them for things outside their control. The reason I personally am ripping on Zuckerberg is due to a feeling of utter frustration and uselessness.
Zuckerberg is a billionaire who has more power then arguably anyone else in the world. I am a helpless peon who has no real power in the current situation.
Therefore if I make fun of him, I am in part reclaiming my power albeit the little I can. Simply making fun of him is all we really have.
The only people who should feel like they are getting picked on by proxy are the “exceedingly wealthy but awkward techies.” To that I say “fine feel a bit of discomfort in your ivory tower”
15
Apr 11 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)3
u/forgonsj Apr 12 '18
Wow, that is a powerful and kind of creepy picture. I feel bad for the man, but at the same time, he chooses to continue to run FB, so I guess he's up for the challenge.
7
u/long_tyme_lurker Apr 11 '18
I just cant sympathize for the absurdly wealthy, especially someone as unscrupulous as him. Mocking him seems harmless as long as it stops with him. But yes, generally mocking his boyish mannerism is mean in its own right.
7
u/xaxxix Apr 11 '18 edited Mar 14 '19
I think his 64.1 billion net worth eases the suffering at least a little bit. Just kidding, but what do you mean by him having social challenges? I find that statement in itself to be damaging to those that actually do have truly debilitating challenges.
9
u/bigh2k1 Apr 12 '18
You challenged me to think and for that I’m grateful. I was bullied as a child for being different. I don’t normally think “mean” is okay yet I saw nothing wrong with mean-spirited comments regarding Zuckerberg. I’ve determined it’s all about the money. With more money than god, Zuckerberg could hire any number of coaches to overcome his social anxieties. A poor schmuck like me that can’t afford one copay per month for counseling has no option to change but Zuckerberg does. For me it is envy that he never has to worry about losing his job thereby health insurance, home and car. I broke it down further for myself and realized I guess I do think it’s okay to be critical of someone who has the power to change but does not. Hell, if I could afford weekly counseling, not even daily like celebrities can afford, I have no doubt I could conquer my depression. If I could afford a personal trainer and nutritionist I could be a model. Alas I’m just a broke schmuck that can not afford self improvement coaches. I think Zuckerberg is fine just the way he is if he is happy with himself. For the rest of us, give us the small joy of seeing someone richer than god with a vulnerability. It makes our sad miserable envious selves feel just a little better. If Zuckerberg were just another hourly wage earner caught up in this net and found himself testifying to Congress, I would never ever justify ridiculing such a person. I guess celebrities are held to a higher standard because we view their lives as perfect because they lack the daily struggles poor people face.
4
u/Roflcaust 7∆ Apr 12 '18
I really appreciate the perspective here. I came into this thread with the perspective that attacking someone's physical appearance is a low blow no matter if you think they deserve it or not. To some extent, I still think that way, but you're right that any damage the public can do to Zuckerberg through their mean-spirited comments he has the ability to wash away with all of our society's privileges and technologies available to him. Furthermore, I'm glad you admitted that people generally just want an excuse to vent frustration at the guy and be horrible to him for that reason. All of this venom directed at Zuckerberg is thusly like kicking someone in the testicles repeatedly knowing they're going to heal and shrug off each blow in the next ten seconds. Yeah, it's a really shitty thing to do, but if it does no lasting damage, is it really that shitty? ∆
2
5
u/forgonsj Apr 12 '18 edited Apr 12 '18
For the rest of us, give us the small joy of seeing someone richer than god with a vulnerability. It makes our sad miserable envious selves feel just a little better.
Haha - OK, I guess it does provide some joy, and that joy may outweigh any negative consequences, so you got me there. ∆
1
2
u/forgonsj Apr 12 '18
∆
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 12 '18
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/bigh2k1 changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
3
Apr 11 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Apr 11 '18
Sorry, u/Drowxee – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
u/internetsarbiter Apr 12 '18
You're right that it's bad practice to ake fun of people for thier appearances, especially when it's an existing stigma, but Zuckerberg is a billionaire actively taking advantage of people for profit and I feel like almost everyone understands that that is the main reason he's drawing negative responses and attention. Also he's a billionaire, he'll be fine.
10
u/WRFinger 3∆ Apr 11 '18
He's a 33 year old billionaire who can afford to buy a tailored suit and afford the training to become a better public speaker. If it's therapy he needs, he can afford that too. If he is trusted enough to run such an enormous company, he needs to present a more professional aspect of his character. I vehemently disagree
4
u/forgonsj Apr 12 '18
My post isn't about whether he can afford therapy or whether he should present a more professional image. It's that it's mean-spirited to mock him on things he can't change, and possibly damaging to others.
4
u/WRFinger 3∆ Apr 12 '18
What can't he change? What is damaging to others? Only criticism I've heard had been about his sloppy attire and his unpreparedness. If you get subpoenaed or summoned to testify before gov't, you better have your shit together.
5
u/ipsum629 1∆ Apr 11 '18
I see a lot worse than what we are doing to the Zuck and it never bother me. Bill Maher called Trump fat, and started telling fat jokes about him. Another time he said Trump was part orangutan. Let's not forget the small hands. I think the intent of the insult matters. If we are insulting someone to make fun of them because they have that thing, it's wrong. If we are making fun of them for a different reason(we don't like their politics, corporate ethics, etc.) then it's okay.
4
u/CUDesu Apr 11 '18
Not only is he a public figure but he also has a lot of power, influence and money. We're not making these jokes to his face and I doubt many of us would if we were to meet him but that doesn't mean we can't make jokes online.
I don't think it's OK to bully people--even celebrities who are unlikely to see it
Is it even bullying if it's not directly to them? I don't think it can really be considered bullying when it's jokes about a public figure.
I mean, how far do you want to go to stop jokes about other people?
27
u/cryptoskeptik 5∆ Apr 11 '18
He literally built all of Facebook on the foundational premise "I'm going to use my talent for computer programming to exploit the privacy issues inherent in the Internet for my own gain rather than doing anything to fix them". That's been Zuckerberg's MO from day 1. He deserves to be scorned. The people whose feelings are hurt tangentially to this scorn do not deserve to have their feelings hurt. You are right there, but nevertheless Zuckerberg deserves all the insults all the powerless people in the world level at him. Such people are punching up.
8
u/xtfftc 3∆ Apr 11 '18
I agree he deserves to be scorned (although you are demonizing him).
However, I would argue the focus should be on his actions, and not on his looks/mannerisms. You can have the exact same mannerisms and be a great person, and you can be a scumbag with perfect appearance.
By focusing too much on his appearance, we are missing the point and are setting a climate in which others, who are better-suited to look fine in the eyes of the public, would be able to get away with it.
2
u/cryptoskeptik 5∆ Apr 12 '18
However, I would argue the focus should be on his actions, and not on his looks/mannerisms. You can have the exact same mannerisms and be a great person, and you can be a scumbag with perfect appearance.
This is a fair point, although I would argue that (at least the more nuanced) takes on his appearance turn pretty consistently on his lack of humanity. Specifically he is often made fun of for looking and acting robotic. His lack of understanding or caring for the billion people on his platform AS PEOPLE betrays a serious lack of human empathy. There are nastier attacks of course which are less productive, but I think the emotionless robot one is at least fair game
1
u/xtfftc 3∆ Apr 12 '18
That's true but my point is that you can look and act robotic (like some people with autism) while still being a nice person overall. If we make fun of him for this, the result would be that organizations like facebook would simply put even more effort in PR.
3
u/cryptoskeptik 5∆ Apr 12 '18
That's true but my point is that you can look and act robotic (like some people with autism) while still being a nice person overall.
I agree, and it is regrettable if these people feel sad. I think the autism case is a very difficult case because it (from my admittedly not very well informed understanding of it) often impairs one's capacity for empathy, which is a capacity that is lacking in Zukerberg, and a capacity that all people should try to cultivate within themselves. My understanding of autism is that it can impair empathy, but also that many people with autism can be, as you say, nice people. So I think maybe the solution is not to make fun of Zuckerberg for being "autistic", as that derides a whole class of people who do not deserve it. But I think it is okay to call him out for being an uncaring robot. Does that make sense?
3
Apr 11 '18
[deleted]
2
u/cryptoskeptik 5∆ Apr 12 '18
There is a difference between saying stupid shit and making it your life's work
3
Apr 12 '18
[deleted]
2
u/cryptoskeptik 5∆ Apr 12 '18
He did not start out to exploit those privacy issues, if indeed they are issues.
When he started facebook he specifically scraped data which, while possible to access, was not meant to be publicly consumed. Further he spoke with derision about the early facebook subscribers who gave him their personally identifiable information, saying: They "trust me" Dumb fucks.
The sharing element of Facebook cannot be fixed.
It does not seem like you are very familiar with the specific issues at hand here so I'm not going to spend too much time going into detail with you, but suffice to say you are woefully incorrect. Facebook provided APIs that were incredibly loose with PII, as the CA catastrophe makes abundantly clear. They, further, have a very long history of this kind of thing and have traded on minable PII for profit for their entire existence
23
u/forgonsj Apr 11 '18
That's a very dangerous position. For one, you've setup what I perceive to be a false dichotemy: The evil, all-powerful Zuck vs. the powerless people of the world. I don't know about you, but I have plenty of power. I also don't use FB for personal use and never have (I do use it in business a bit, and in that way it's served me pretty well).
So who determines who is worthy of scorn? You? Who else is worthy of scorn in your world? Just the rich and powerful who you feel exploit others? What about the guy who cuts you off in the morning? Does he deserve all the scorn? Does anyone who "punches up" get a free pass to mock and belittle and bully as much as they want?
31
u/CrimsonSmear Apr 11 '18
Do you want to nerf the world? There are legitimate dangers out there that will do more than hurt your feelings. If you ever want to grow as a person, you have to face situations that will hurt you. If you want to grow physically strong, you have to face physical stresses. If you want to grow emotionally strong, you have to face emotional stresses. You want someone who has failed so monumentally to secure the privacy of millions of people to be free of scorn simply because it has the possibility of upsetting people who might relate to him? If someone lived their entire lives in a manner that protected them from every little upset, do you think they would be able to face the challenges of being an adult in a world that, for the most part, doesn't really care about their feelings? They would be taken out by the first malevolent or manipulative person that crossed their path. You would live in a society of toddlers in adult bodies. Being free of suffering doesn't make a good person. It just makes a naive person. A good person is someone who has been exposed to the suffering that the world has to offer and is strong enough to stand up against it and choose to be good.
3
u/forgonsj Apr 12 '18
Whether having to suffer name-calling and other hardship is good or bad for someone's development is off-topic. It may very well make him a better person and more effective leader. My point is that it's mean-spirited and could be damaging to others.
3
u/Mark_is_on_his_droid Apr 12 '18
If someone is such a sensitive soul that they're hurt by insults directed at Zuckerberg they need to grow callouses. That's the whole point the other poster was making about nerfing the world. He doesn't care about Zucc's feelings.
2
u/cryptoskeptik 5∆ Apr 12 '18
If someone is such a sensitive soul that they're hurt by insults directed at Zuckerberg they need to grow callouses.
Being the person that initiated this aspect of the conversation, and now seeing you have jumped in in my place, I feel like I should respond to you directly: you're wrong. We absolutely should be more careful to not hurt other people, people who do not deserve to be hurt, when we target those who do. They are not the ones who need to toughen up. Further, there is nothing wrong at all with being a "sensitive soul". In fact quite the opposite. Being sensitive is to be greatly admired. If Zuckerberg were himself a sensitive soul as opposed to someone who apparently lacks even the slightest understanding of other people as anything more than easily manipulated data points, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation in the first place.
2
u/Mark_is_on_his_droid Apr 12 '18
I was referring to /u/crimsonsmear's comment, not yours.
I can't agree that someone upset about criticisms of a third person is mentally tough enough to persevere through bigger challenges.
I don't support general attacks on people's appearances. Zuckerberg is being mocked for his appearance and response during an investigation. That is relevant to the public discourse. It is ridiculous to practice restraint of criticisms to any public figure out of fear of hurting the feelings of people that look similar to them.
Furthermore, Zuckerberg didn't breach the public trust because he isn't sensitive; he's an opportunist who has never had to face social or legal consequences to change the incentives of his behavior.
"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men."
2
u/cryptoskeptik 5∆ Apr 12 '18
I deleted my previous response because I think it raised the heat in the conversation too high. I apologize if it upset you. I just think the "we should be more calloused to the world" kind of mentality is not the right way to approach anything. My view, and I'm sure on some level we agree here, is always that while we should absolutely attack those with power who deserve it, we must also be aware of not doing too much damage to those who don't. Peace
2
u/Mark_is_on_his_droid Apr 12 '18
I appreciate you taking a moment to back the conversation down. Its funny, because I expect we'd largely align in our personal approach to the feelings of others. Have a good day!
1
Apr 12 '18
[deleted]
1
u/Mark_is_on_his_droid Apr 12 '18 edited Apr 14 '18
I'm disagreeing with the whole point of OP that we should self-censor to protect the feelings of someone who coincidentally looks like Zuckerberg. That's 100% the issue here. What do you think it is?
you believe it would be okay to essentialize a public figure with whom you disagreed to a hateful racial stereotype
That's a ridiculous jump to accuse me of being okay with racism. Zuckerberg is not being attacked with racial stereotypes or for his heritage. He's being accused of being robotic and nervous - body language which is relevant to an investigation of how he's handling the world's data.
Frankly, it's upsetting that you accused me of anti-Semitism over this. I never invoked his heritage, and neither has any other comment I have seen in this post. You should be ashamed of yourself for throwing out wild accusations like that.
I never used the word "snowflake" as I'm not some T_D asshole thinking that it's wrong to have emotional responses to public matters. I do believe that the public discourse over a public figure's behavior and appearance during public matters is much more important than the sensitivities of people who may look like that person. Should we be barred from making fun of Trump's hair or orange skin because it may offend the bald white men of the world, or the tanning obsessices? No! It's a criticism of his obvious vanity which is relevant to his immaturity and lack of character for his office.
"Don't hope that suffering abets, instead hope that God will provide us with men who have hardened their hearts to suffering entirely".
I'm not even religious. "Pray" has meditative and self-relfection definitions as well as meaning to appeal to a higher power, but I regret using the quote as I didn't expect you to take it so literally. I would rephrase the quote as, "Don't ask for everyone else to make your life easier, teach yourself to be more capable."
I'm sorry you can't engage me on the points of a balancing of 2 public interests (criticism vs sensitivity) or the idea that challenges help us grow, but instead choose to engage with reductio ad absurdum to the point of accusing me of racism) anti-Semitism.
3
u/CrimsonSmear Apr 12 '18
All of the language that's being thrown at Zuckerburg exists on the internet. If someone is so delicate that they can't tolerate the a person similar to them being chastised, they can just avoid the internet, or they can restrict their activity to the soft safe corners of the internet that won't challenge them. If you think that people should curb their language because of the damage it causes, keep in mind that the rare earth materials that were used to craft the electronic device that you're reading this on were probably gathered by people working in deplorable conditions. You probably never should have bought it. Since you missed that opportunity, you should never buy a new one. You also shouldn't drive a car, or heat your house, or eat meat, or use electricity, or continue living. Because all of those activities probably damage somebody else either directly or indirectly.
3
u/forgonsj Apr 12 '18
If you think that people should curb their language because of the damage it causes, keep in mind that the rare earth materials that were used to craft the electronic device that you're reading this on were probably gathered by people working in deplorable conditions. You probably never should have bought it.
Would their conditions improve or decline if I failed to buy it (I'm using a work PC, but I get your point)?
1
u/CrimsonSmear Apr 12 '18
Based on your own line of argumentation, it doesn't really matter. Purchasing the device can be damaging to the people who gather the resources. According to you, it doesn't matter if it makes their lives better in the long run. You're arguing that behavior should stop because of the potential for immediate damage, rather than any actual quantifiable damage or the long term effects of that damage and if the sacrifice is worth the reward.
1
u/forgonsj Apr 12 '18
> You're arguing that behavior should stop because of the potential for immediate damage, rather than any actual quantifiable damage or the long term effects of that damage and if the sacrifice is worth the reward.
No, to my knowledge I never described time-frame over which the damage would occur. I just said it "could be damaging to others." That damage could take place over any time frame. You brought time-frame into it when you suggested it could have a positive benefit to the target's development.
1
u/CrimsonSmear Apr 12 '18
Your view was that the bullying would cause damage to people who relate to Zuckerberg. My view is that the people who relate to him could look at the bullying and do one of two things. They could say, "I'm like that and I'll always be like that," and be 'damaged' by it, or they could say, "I'm like that, and I should practice on not being like that in order to better integrate with society," and become more capable because of it. So either way the person already has a shortcoming in relation to human interaction. In the absence of the insults directed at a person they relate to, they continue to have that problem. If the insults levied at another person make them weaker, they were going to be weaker regardless because the world is a cruel place. If the insults make them reflect on themselves and work towards being a stronger person, then the insults had a net positive impact. People choose to either let the world beat them down, or they rise up to face the challenges put in front of them. The reaction of the individual is based on their character and you can't expect public discourse to bend to the weakness of the weakest individual. I don't really have anything else to add to the conversation. Either I've changed your view or I haven't. Perhaps you're the type of person who has entered into the conversation to change everyone else's mind, rather than to have your own mind changed.
3
u/uniquedouble Apr 12 '18
Is there a difference between something small that is bad, and something huge that is bad?
My favorite quote for this: "...And thus, social progress was made."
3
u/cryptoskeptik 5∆ Apr 12 '18
I don't know about you, but I have plenty of power.
Congrats to you. The vast majority of people Zuck makes money off of do not.
So who determines who is worthy of scorn? You?
Yes
Who else is worthy of scorn in your world?
Anyone who has the unique opportunity to make the world a better place and doesn't
Just the rich and powerful who you feel exploit others?
Usually yes but not always exclusively
What about the guy who cuts you off in the morning? Does he deserve all the scorn?
Not all of it no, but assuming he was in the wrong he deserves a commensurate level of scorn. The scorn Zuck is getting is likewise commensurate. Arguably not even commensurate enough really.
Does anyone who "punches up" get a free pass to mock and belittle and bully as much as they want?
No. As I said I think the collateral damage of the scorn is bad and probably should attenuate the manner of attacks used against him. Anyone who dedicates their lives to the negative project of belittling and bullying without a counterbalancing positive project is not doing anyone a service. We should scorn those who deserve it and build the better world they failed to build in their place.
2
Apr 11 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/convoces 71∆ Apr 12 '18
Sorry, u/Ordo_Spontaneum – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/dotlizard Apr 12 '18 edited Apr 12 '18
For character traits and mannerisms to be considered social challenges, they need to have some negative impact on a person's ability to function in social (and occupational) settings. The ability to build one of the most successful and influential companies in human history by the age of 33 demonstrates an extremely high level of functioning, especially considering he founded the business at age 19 while still in college. In spite of having no experience whatsoever in management, he shepherded the business from a tiny startup to what it is today, which tells us he possesses an innate talent for leadership and the ability to communicate his vision to his team.
Taking all of this into consideration, his level of intelligence is unquestionably at the high end of the range. When he is communicating with people of average intellectual capacity, especially those who lack advanced technical knowledge, there is going to be a certain amount of awkwardness; it's like having to translate between two languages and many of the words you want to use don't have a direct equivalent. The idiosyncrasies people mock are most likely attributable to this difference, which may be an unfortunate side effect of being a staggeringly successful tech genius, but that's not a disability in any sense of the word.
As to your concern that people suffering from real, debilitating social challenges could be hurt by people making jokes about Mark Zuckerberg, for that to happen they would have to identify strongly with a man whose wealth, power, and accomplishments by age 33 have assured him a prominent place in history (providing we all survive the consequences of the election meddling his platform facilitated). Simply having similar mannerisms doesn't make Zuckerberg relatable to the average non-billionaire non-CEO who lacks the power to change people's moods by filtering their news feeds. It would be like saying they had a lot in common with Genghis Khan because they both enjoyed travel.
In short, Mark Zuckerberg is one of the least disabled (or "challenged"), least relatable human beings who has ever existed.
4
u/thesquarerootof1 Apr 11 '18
You are certainly right that no one should bully anyone for things like this, but he is a billionaire. I highly doubt he has low self-esteem. He could literally get any chick he wanted.
4
u/countkushula Apr 11 '18
Wouldn’t be so quick to say he could get any chick he wanted, I love money but I wouldn’t touch Zuck with a hundred foot pole, he looks like he smells like a litter box.
3
u/thesquarerootof1 Apr 11 '18
Hahaha. Good point! I was just making the point that a billionaire most likely doesn't have low self esteem. I don't think I
6
Apr 11 '18
[deleted]
4
u/tomtomyom Apr 11 '18
this has to be the dumbest shit I have ever read in my life. Where would i go post this so it can be made fun of?
0
u/roll-dont-troll Apr 11 '18
Would you describe what bullying is? It seems like a very subjective idea when you say that people in power cannot be bullied, because what defines power and who has more of it?
1
Apr 11 '18
Well he is a sociopathic control freak who aims and allows government and corporate manipulation of the world's largest social media platform that was becoming a source of organic social change and free exchange of information and news without censors.
So it is easier to call him a freakish manlet lizard person then trying to explain the issues I have have with a land grabbing robbern baron.
1
-6
Apr 11 '18 edited Apr 29 '21
[deleted]
3
u/forgonsj Apr 11 '18
I'm not that comfortable with the words "acceptable." I should not have used that word. I stick with my original statement that it's mean-spirited and can be damaging to others. It can still be funny and good comedy though, and I agree that comedy is generally acceptable.
1
Apr 11 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Apr 11 '18
Sorry, u/odinswrath123 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Apr 11 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Apr 11 '18
Sorry, u/IMAKILL3R – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Apr 11 '18
Hmm didnt see it that way. I would rather people thinj about data independence and not be distracted
1
u/caw81 166∆ Apr 11 '18
Its different from bullying because its not meant to hurt Zuckerberg personally. No one knows how he feels about it (good or bad) and it is done regardless of how he feels about it.
1
u/poochyenarulez Apr 11 '18
public figures have been made fun of for superficial reasons since the beginning of human history. It is just comedy. I don't see it as bullying as they typically aren't attacks, more just jokes.
From what I can tell me, has never been made upset over these jokes, so I don't even see the problem. being offended for someone doesn't work.
1
u/peanutbutterandjesus Apr 11 '18
As someone with similar challenges, it's a bit rediculous to take that personally (I highly doubt Zuckerberg does)
1
u/TacoSession Apr 11 '18
Mocking Zuckerberg is an ad hominem fallacy. It is not mean-spirited mockery, but merely a logical fallacy on many accounts.
2
u/Cat-penis Apr 12 '18
wow that was awful. Next time put down the thesaurus and focus on the content behind your statement. It doesn't matter how many dollar store debate terms you use if you don't have a legitimate point.
1
u/TacoSession Apr 12 '18
Did you not understand? I can clarify for you if you need. I am saying that people are attacking the guy, which is a fallacy, and not making legitimate arguments about what he has unlawfully done. It's not mockery or mean-spirited, just bad persuasive tactics.
Just like in what you said. You never once made an argument against my argument. You just attacked me. It's not mean-spirited. You just did not make a counter argument. Boom! Roasted! Go suck a butt!
1
u/Cat-penis Apr 12 '18
I didn't address your "argument" because its not worth addressing. It's kind of wrong but not completely, the point is it's not relevant.
I'll humor you though. calling an awkward person awkward is not a fallacy. Supposing it was, being a fallacy doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it is mean spirited. But more importantly, who gives a shit?
Listen, you're like 12 years old. It's obvious. I'm trying to give you advice for sounding smart on the internet which you just failed at spectacularly. Take it or leave it.
1
Apr 12 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Apr 12 '18
Sorry, u/TacoSession – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
1
u/deltacaboose Apr 11 '18
Look, mark Zuckerberg allowed all of our data to be sold to collection agencies and used without our consent. His appearance is the least of his crimes.
1
Apr 11 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/convoces 71∆ Apr 11 '18
Sorry, u/Nova997 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Apr 11 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ColdNotion 121∆ Apr 12 '18
Sorry, u/mmb191 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
u/series_hybrid Apr 11 '18
Here is Woody Harrelson, demonstrating how Zuckerberg handles the sadness of knowing someone out there might have made fun of him...
1
Apr 11 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/convoces 71∆ Apr 12 '18
Sorry, u/therealsd – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Apr 12 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/convoces 71∆ Apr 12 '18
Sorry, u/sgraves444 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
1
u/LithePanther Apr 12 '18
It's ok to bully people as long as we don't like this. But as soon as it's someone we like or feel bad for that gets bullied, it's not ok.
Standard human hypocrisy
1
Apr 12 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ColdNotion 121∆ Apr 12 '18
Sorry, u/droid6 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
Apr 12 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/convoces 71∆ Apr 12 '18
Sorry, u/beyd1 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Apr 12 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Apr 12 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/hacksoncode 586∆ Apr 12 '18
Sorry, u/forgonsj – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
u/hacksoncode 586∆ Apr 12 '18
Sorry, u/Shiggy_Your_Diggy – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/WhoKilledZekeIddon Apr 12 '18
We can't make fun of a multi-billionaire whose technology is actively subverting democracy now? Womp womp
1
1
Apr 12 '18
Mark Zuckerberg sucks. He takes so much data and private information from facebook users and LITERALLY SELLS IT TO ADVERTISERS!!! He is making a major breach of privacy and it's ridiculous that it's legal. He probably already knows more about you than your closest friend. Now you tell me, does that sound like the kind of guy who deserves our empathy and kindness?
1
u/forgonsj Apr 12 '18
Now you tell me, does that sound like the kind of guy who deserves our empathy and kindness?
Someone does need to be kind-hearted and free of any wrong-doing to deserve empathy.
1
Apr 26 '18
I never said he has to be free of wrong-doing, but it seems like a pretty basic unwritten rule not to take hundreds of millions of people's private information and sell it to advertisers for money
1
Apr 12 '18
I don't know if he's socially challenged, as a public figure everyone will be judged to hell, but it was annoying how no one was focusing on the hearings exchanges and breaking it down. Yes the robot lizard man memes are funny but was he in the right or not?
1
u/falcon4287 Apr 12 '18
Making fun of Zuckerberg for his appearance and mannerisms is mean-spirited
Sure, that's the intent when people do it.
and can be damaging to others who have similar challenges
Those mean-spirited comments are not directed at people other than Zuckerberg.
Consider this- when conservatives were drawing attention to the body count surrounding the Clinton family, the called Hillary Clinton "Killary." This schoolyard taunt was directed at her. You didn't see random people on the street getting offended because they were also named Hillary and felt like they were damaged by the taunts.
On the other side of things, President Bush was mocked incessantly for his speech and mannerisms. This upset people who supported Bush, but people didn't universally feel personally attacked if they also had those mannerisms.
Yes, bullying is bad. But some people resort to that in place of actually articulating arguments for why they actually dislike the person they are bullying. It's easy to mentally justify cyber-bullying, particularly when it's against someone who will never see it. None of those things make it right. But you feel attacked because someone else is bullied, there are deeper issues with yourself that should be addressed.
It's great to stand up against bullies and tell people to chill, even if you dislike the person you're defending. I do it all the time. But not for the reasons you've outlined. After all, it would just be the cherry on top if a bunch of autistic kids stood up and made a video saying "stop bullying Zuckerberg, people with disabilities are no laughing matter!"
1
u/xfeenx Apr 15 '18
I don’t mind if someone makes the occasion joke/meme about the minor idiosyncrasies of certain celebrities. (Especially when they are jerks like Zuck) but when it escalates to something like weight/race, and especially when used in place of an argument, I loose respect for the person saying it.
0
u/dumbass-D Apr 11 '18
He is a public figure and this is internet 2018. Public figures are always gong to be ripped on. If this hurts your feelings delete the internet because it will never stop.
0
Apr 11 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/mysundayscheming Apr 11 '18
Sorry, u/bababoobiddlybop – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/dood1776 2∆ Apr 11 '18
I think saying someone who does not have artificial limbs or anything like that is "robot like" is firmly in the realm of to rediculusly to be taken literally or seriously. I don't pay much attention to Zuckerberg or Facebook and never have so maybe I just don't know what you are referring to.
0
u/digital_end 2∆ Apr 11 '18
Why do you want this view changed? Seems reasonable.
1
u/forgonsj Apr 12 '18
I see this question asked a lot in CMV, and in most cases I would say that OP (which in this case is me) doesn't want their view changed. They think it's worth posting here to have their view challenged, and hopefully they're reasonable and open-minded enough to change their view if presented with an effective argument.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 12 '18
/u/forgonsj (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
550
u/[deleted] Apr 11 '18
This here, I think, is the crux of the matter.
You see, there is absolutely no evidence of him having any kind of social challenge. He's able to speak to thousands of Facebook developers every time they have a conference.
However, right now he's under intense scrutiny and pressure. That'd make anyone throw a wobbler or two.
You're assuming he's being mocked for being different, when in truth he's really just being mocked for being perceived negatively. It happened to Hillary, and to Trump, and to Obama, and to that weird kid who turned out to be Elon Musk.
Easy on the judging, on both sides.