Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook on Hate Speech: 'You Have No Place on Our Platform'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
unless its about white people
Attachments
In 1984 racist “hate speech” is ok if it is against those white people. You just need to doublethink better.
[doublepost=1544038929][/doublepost]
It looks like hate speech does have a place on Tim’s platform.
Last edited:
Wages are the some of the worst they’ve ever been under Trump. Fact. Obama’s deficit came from The massive amount of government spending bailing out massive industries like wall street and the automotive industry. Fact. He should have let them both crash and burn imo. How does the economy start to improve under Obama and somehow stagnate for his entire 8 year presidency? That doesn’t make any sense. And yet again you can’t prove that Trump cutting the so called regulatory tape somehow created an economic boom right after Obama. It’s a ridiculous claim. PROVE ME WRONG. Nothing he has done has magically improved the economy. The federal deficit is at a 6 year high. Fact. The federal deficit is expected to be even worse than Obama’s because of the horrible tax plan that benefits only the rich and his careless government spending. That’s quite an achievement when he doesn’t even have a recession to deal with. Take your MAGA hat off and look at the bigger picture. All your doing is regurgitating replublican propaganda.
I also look forward to you accusing me of the same thing while not proving me wrong.
And your claim that the deficit doubled under Obama? That’s a lie. He picked up a skyrocketing deficit from Bush. Not surprised by your claims honestly.
[doublepost=1544039820][/doublepost]
Last edited:
What is modern western society? the past day? if you want to cherry pick times so you can exclude every negative thing that the majority has done to minorities, you probably could exclude any horrible events.
[doublepost=1544042155][/doublepost]
I would choose a different religion if I was a slave to what one person believed.
Is it misogynistic rant? No. Is it an anti-feminist rant? In present day 2018, yes, which is a good thing. He didn't infer or say that women have been given too much power at all, but I'll talk more about this down in this post.
I'm sorry but you can genuinely say this about anyone who is careful with their articulations...and it doesn't fly with me.
At which timestamp in the "interview" did Peterson state that almost all women are suffering from a new power dynamic? He stated "a substantial minority" This, by the way, has nothing to do with feminism yet...he is talking about the present day reality when it comes to relationships between men and women and how clinical literature has shown that women prefer a competent partner. I mean, you simply cannot contend with that. It's a well established fact. He then goes on to talk about some women who have had impaired relationships with men tend to resort to weaker future partners so they can dominate them. What about that does not make sense?
How does he reframe the argument? He merely expands on his original reasoning. He says, that women who are in relationships with weak incompetent partners, are not as happy. Cathy then proceeds to put words into Jordan's mouth by saying that Jordan said that women are not happy dominating men. Which he never said, which he rectifies by bringing the timeframe into it. i.e short term domination is very much liked, long term domination of men, not so much. There is no backtracking. Only expansion of his arguments.
What does it mean when you say "it's good for men to dominate women"? When Peterson says that women are unhappy dominating men long-term, he is saying that it makes the women unhappy as well as the men they are with. I am not familiar with the clinical literature, but I would assume that it makes sense, biologically speaking, for the man to be the dominant figure in the relationship. (So Jordan might actually be implying that). Women generally speaking, want men that can protect them and provide them with the best possible genes to procreate. I couldn't tell you for sure if that is what Jordan was implying, all I will say is that it could be.
Ah comon... you're really going to go down that road? You know as well as I do that that is not the reason why Jordan said that. He clearly said it because that's his job, he deals with hundreds if not thousands of clients in his clinical practice. So he must have built up quite the repertoire of accounts of personal female relationship experiences. He knows fully well what the appeal to authority fallacy is and he is not going to use such a childish tactic in an attempt to strengthen his argument.
Like I said before, he is clarifying that he never said that women do not like dominating men. He is saying that women generally do not like dominating men long term. He even makes this clear when he mentions that women dominate men all the time, but in short time frames, because it's enjoyable. Where in this do you see Peterson backtrack in any way, shape or form?
He talked about timeframe to clarify that he did not say that women do not like dominating men. He said that they generally do not like dominating men long-term. Very simple to follow if you listen closely to what's being said.
Just a bunch of ad hominem nonsense.
I always try to read things with an open mind. I did the same with this. (especially this, considering your choice of video couldn't have been more of mind %#@^ moment since that video became the golden standard on how not to conduct an interview. In fact the vast majority of people actually supported Peterson in this video and it's hard to see why you wouldn't support Peterson in this particular video, hence I found your video selection so odd).
[doublepost=1544048408][/doublepost]
Bertrand Russell is rolling in his grave reading comments like these.
In case you don't understand why I said that, I'll give you an explanation:
When people have informal conversations, such as the ones being held here, people are not making any absolutist claims unless explicitly stated so. Using terminology such as "always" in an informal conversation is synonymous with "a lot", "the majority of the time" or "almost always". People can gauge this type of language fairly well, at least from my experience. My original message would have more than likely had the exact same reception as it has now if I added in the word "almost".
If I were to lodge a formal complaint and I'm in the process of formulating my arguments on paper, I am not going to use absolutist claims like the one you suggested I made earlier. I am more than familiar with both inductive and deductive reasoning thank you very much.
I guess I am perplexed to have been lectured on logic by an evidently far-left leaning individual.
You people have to decide. Why is Obama taking credit for the growing economy under Trump and is boasting that it is a direct result of his presidency?
If the economy is bad under Trump, what is Obama claiming credit for exactly?
Watch this program...there is a bit about what was said about having free speech.
I never said Obama himself is currently and vocally claiming credit for the current economy. The data proves it. Prove me wrong. If Obama indeed came out said it himself, again prove me and him wrong. Trump is merely riding economic growth that Obama is clearly responsible for after a horrible recession caused by republicans during the Bush administration. I stated that Trumps utterly careless spending and tax cuts are sending us down a rabbit hole of record deficits that’s eventually going to reach what Bush had caused in the first place. And wages are still at record lows. No one can seem to prove me wrong on that fact.
I’m still waiting for actual facts and data that show me how Trump is somehow responsible for this so called economic boom that magicially happened in less than 2 years. I feel like it’s pointless for me to continue providing my own data because you’ll just claim fake news. The easy excuse.
Last edited:
I appreciate your effort to post data but all I’m saying is that Obama himself claimed credit publicly for the economy growth under Trump, not that you specifically said so.
Here’s a quick link. But you can look it up yourself too.
So that’s your argument now? A Fox News video? This is clearly a pointless debate. Your mind is already made up without any fact based arguments. Smh.
Let me state this one last time. Trump inherited a growing economy. There was no BOOM or magical explosion of economic growth that Trump somehow created. A video from Fox News isn’t an argument. Trump didn’t tank the economy over night like the left was afraid of, he’s just riding it because there’s no evidence he’s done anything significant to improve it. Congratulations.
Just to be clear. Are you saying that you don’t believe that Obama claimed credit for current economy? Would you like me to google more sources where he said this? The video above was just a quick search I did. If you need more proof you can google it yourself.
I don't care if he said it or not. You're completely missing the points I was making and you have yet to prove it wrong. He said it, great. Now prove him wrong.
Or are you satisfied enough that I'm admitting he's personally taking credit for it? If that's the case, then this discussion was a complete waste of both of our time.
No, honestly it wasn’t my intention to get a satisfaction or anything. Just pointing at the contradiction of the subject. But I respect your input nonetheless.
Last edited:
you guys are out of control. i dont know how obama and trump economics got pulled into a hate speech topic but please can someone tell me, is this hate speech or no
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/f-k-white-people-single/1437821252
because im about to make a song f**k black people and i just dont want to be flagged for hate speech and kicked off the platform. thanks. looks like im ok though.
save your economics opinions for another thread thanks
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/f-k-white-people-single/1437821252
because im about to make a song f**k black people and i just dont want to be flagged for hate speech and kicked off the platform. thanks. looks like im ok though.
save your economics opinions for another thread thanks
Objectively, there is no such thing as “hate speech.” Subjectively, that racist is spewing hate speech.
I’d highly recommend not making that song.
Last edited:
See, you did it again right there at the end. This would be amusing if it weren't so sad. "Evidently far-left leaning individual." First of all, that's actually not true, as my viewpoints on nearly all issues fall roughly between the 20th and 80th percentiles with respect to the American population. (Basis: over a decade in opinion research.)
Second, you've fallen victim to yet another logical fallacy: assuming that if A then B, and if then B then C, that necessarily A --> C.
Third, isn't informal conversation. You have the ability to type and think out your reply and to change what you write before posting. You then have the ability to edit it. You chose not to do so. You exaggerated greatly, multiple times, over the course of just two sentences.
Fourth, what you stated is downright false.
>> Using terminology such as "always" in an informal conversation is synonymous with "a lot", "the majority of the time" or "almost always"
That's absurd. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. It's really not that difficult, even if English isn't your first language.
And fifth, even if you were just being lazy and meant "almost always," your claim was still ideologically based rather than evidence based.
At the end of the day, though, this is all beside the point. Your hate for the "far left" blinds you. It's unfortunate. You should get over your vitriol and maybe spend time talking with—and actively listening to—people whose opinions differ from your own. You might learn something.
For fun, let's highlight once more all the wacky things you managed to squeeze into your two lines:
Given the above, your little profile bio is incredibly ironic.
Last edited:
This is literally just a vague collection of sentences that kind of sound like they're making a point when they're really not.
I mean if you can give me a few real-world examples of scientific progress being halted by refusal to be offensive to people based on their race, sex, sexuality, etc. then we can talk.
The future of politics in one photo
![]()
(Matteo “Italian Trump” Salvini, alone, on a hill, doing one of his daily live facebook addresses to his base, using mildly-hateful-but-not-quite-but-actually-people-get-what-he-means hate speech...how do you counter that?)
(Matteo “Italian Trump” Salvini, alone, on a hill, doing one of his daily live facebook addresses to his base, using mildly-hateful-but-not-quite-but-actually-people-get-what-he-means hate speech...how do you counter that?)
When I follow that link I get this:
In what way is allowing anyone one to spew vileness anywhere without repercussions a solution to hate speech?
Last edited:
You're missing the point. Conservative outlets covered this as a call to outrage. It doesn't matter if Apple does prevent you from getting it as hint they would, it existed at some point in time, so it needs to held against Cook NOW. Outrage man, OUTRAGE!