- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
And no amount of corporate jargon or performative masculinity can make that stain go away.
And no amount of corporate jargon or performative masculinity can make that stain go away.
WTF? No he isn’t – or at least, not for this reason!
In order to be a “coward,” Zuckerberg would have to be capitulating to Trump involuntarily, acting against his better nature. That’s not what’s going on here! Zuckerberg does not have a better nature, and is probably quietly thrilled that Trump is giving him political cover to do what he undoubtedly always wanted to do in the first place.
Sure, a headline calling Zuckerberg a “coward” sounds pretty unflattering at first, and it is, but it’s a fuck-ton less unflattering than a frank description of Zuckerberg as the fascist, sociopathic, complete monster devoid of humanity that he actually is.
Frankly, I am sick and tired of articles like this trying to paint billionaire plutocrats as some kind of victims of Trump’s fascism instead of the enthusiastic accomplices that they actually are. I consider them to be absolutely misguided at best, if not deliberate limited hangouts and therefore pro-plutocrat propaganda.
Stop giving these scum credit that they absolutely do not deserve!
Excellent point
I think your definition of coward is more narrow than what people are talking about here. It’s more of Stoic “coward” - person who is too afraid to do the right thing, learn and give back to the universe. Not person who’s afraid of pushing for their goals.
I thinks that’s much more powerful than calling someone some made up labels you’ve just listen 10 of.