• sudneo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    So, to get this straight, for you it’s impossible to recognize that a pick for a position is a good pick in the Trump government, by definition, without consideration of the actual pick?

    To me this is religion, not politics or ideology (which I both consider very good things). To be even more clear, I consider Andy’s position completely rational and legitimate in this case. I believe it’s absolutely legitimate to be happy Trump picked someone good for a position and at the same time not support the rest 98%. At most, the interesting debate is why that pick is not good, which is 100% opinable and worthy of a discussion.

    But saying that any statement, in any context, whatever narrow and specific equal full support is completely insane to me.

      • sudneo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s not context, that’s a superficial observation. Zuck kissed the ring by changing Facebook policy to align with trump/musk posture on “free speech”, Andy said he likes the antitrust pick. They are completely different things.

          • sudneo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            This tweet happened right after trump picked for the antitrust position. The “time” is completely logical, the “place” is a tweet and the manner is a short statement supporting that pick. Also proton is a US company, so it doesn’t have the same reason to “bend the knee” as other US big tech are doing.

            So it’s not that I am ignoring context, I genuinely don’t see relation. He praised something that he pushes for years, he did not suddenly switch to “free speech” like Zuck.