Apple CEO Tim Cook spews his own brand of hate Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 12/05/2018 9:14:08 AM PST by lowbridge
Ha ha ha. Cook is only for removing conservatives.
And exactly who gets to decide what is “hate speech”?
And is it ALL “hate speech” or only disapproved “hate speech” by particular people or specific political affiliations, etc. I mean, let’s take antisemitism speech...will Apple be deleting all of Calypso Louie’s speeches? Or how about Rev. Jesse “Hymietown” Jacka$$...Apple going to ban him and his speeches?
The whole idea behind designating something “hate speech,” is that those who do the designating get to make the rules for those who must live with the results.
The better answer is to let it all go freely and those speaking trash will ultimately be ignored by most people!
Only haters ban.
Given that Tim Cook made this comment in receiving an award from the LEFTist Anti Defamation League (ADL), my memory-cells got tickled and I did a quick lookup for recent history.
Remember the MSM characterization of the Charlottesville riot (August 2017) as exclusively being the fault of conservatives and other extremist of the right? Then President Trump, while speaking on the single death AND the other violence at that riot, put blame on both sides of the political spectrum?
Remember how the LEFTist MSM went BALLISTIC on Trump's blaming of both sides? Well it was then that Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, announced that Apple would donate $1 million each to the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and do a 2-for-1 match of employee donations and enable iTune users to make charity donations to the same through dedicated apps.
SPLC has become well known for two things recently, they simply and eagerly publish any anti-LEFT, antisemitic, anti-black, anti-gay, anti-minority (etc.) account of attacks BUT do an absolute minimum of validation or removal of fallacious reports, AND the corporation has sequestered large money accounts outside the United States! The ADL has, in turn, been quite quiet about antisemitism found on the LEFT, but has trumpeted all rumors and alarms that they see on the right!
So to answer YOUR QUESTION, Tim Cook obviously has voted with his shareholder's money (also taxpayer money as corporate charitable deductions) to make the SPLC and the ADL the arbitrators of 'hate speech'!
Hey, Tim, why don’t you take your platform and stuff it up your rearhole.
Isn’t the correct term nowadays backhole?:)
Rush said because of this comment he is pretty much done with Apple
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Google is indicating that it is rear hole.
I can’t keep up with this hyper technical Millennial psychobabble anywho.
I didn’t specify even-handed and balanced, did he?
No, it is prohibited by contract in Apple’s supply chain.
Apple has actually pulled a two billion dollar contract from a supplier who ignored that provision in their contract and awarded it to a higher bidder when the violator was caught employing underage workers.
If underage employees are discovered, the company found employing them is required under Apple’s contract to pay for a college education through graduation or age 26, which ever occurs later, including room and board.
That’s a pretty drastic penalty for trying to save money by hiring underage workers. . . and Apple places its own employees as monitors in every supplier to assure compliance. In 2015, an audit of the past ten years showed there had been only 216 underage employees out of over 1.5 million employees in Apple’s supply chain. . . most of which were employed in that company which had its contract pulled for the violation.
Simple. Hate speech is any speech that leftists hate.
I can’t keep up with this hyper technical Millennial psychobabble any who.
Me too. It seems to change daily.:)
Rush said no such thing. He excoriated Tim Cook as the CEO of Apple but said nothing, not one thing about dumping Apple or any of their products. I just listened to the update again to be sure. He said the word Apple one time when he quoted Cook's remarks as the CEO of Apple.
You know me, I have be an Apple supporter for over a decade.
This may be the last straw.
The other straws were no new Mac Pro, removing ports from the MacBook line, and the corporate embracing of all things liberal.
I am not happy and will likely be selling my stock.
I hate his speech. Can he be banned?
The Apple CEO had a message for anyone trying to push hate, division or violence:
Because Big Tech hates competition, looking for an android phone now, I hate this Iphone 7s
Do you think they understand that they are the ones full of Hate and Division which is self evident in their actions and rhetoric??
The famous 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 SCOTUS decision made it nearly impossible for a Democrat or Republican politician to sue for slander/libel. If you read that 9-0 decision you will see a pean of praise for the idea that diversity of published viewpoints must be protected vigorously. As written, it is difficult to disagree with - and 3 justices wanted to go even further than Sullivan did.But Sullivan is a poor precedent, because of what was not on the table. What was not on the table, because nobody was thinking about it back then, was the reality of modern journalism. Which is, and has been for a very long time, that journalism is not a cacophony of politically diverse perspectives, but quite the contrary.
As Adam Smith wrote in Wealth of Nations, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” People of the trade of journalism continually meet, virtually, over the wire services - and wire services began before the Civil War.
So much for the question of “opportunity” for journalists to collude. What about motive?
The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .In furtherance of their desire to influence people, journalists claim to be objective. But being objective, tho a laudable goal, is difficult to the point of impossibility, and is unnatural. Naturally, we all believe our own opinions are right - or they wouldn’t be our opinions. Yet any good-faith effort at being objective must start with serious scrutiny of the possibility that in fact where we stand is influenced by where we sit. And nobody likes to do that. Unexamined subjectivity is everyone’s default position.The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
But if journalists can conspire together, they have the opportunity to evade that difficulty. All they need do is form a mutual admiration society of journalists in good standing. Instead of trying, uncomfortably, to be objective, they then can be called objective as long as they reciprocate and call all other journalists objective. That, and join a mob of others to “stone” the career of anyone claims to be a journalist but does not go along and get along with the club by agreeing that all journalists are objective.
All that is hiding in plain sight - and was, truth be told, in 1964. But nobody much was on the case of “bias in the media” back then. Well, not in any serious, systematic way. For sure the journalists weren’t talking about it; they still aren’t. There has to be a case brought against “the media” for AntiTrust violations.
The First Amendment was right, but not enough. 1A is protection of the reading public from de jure restriction of what they get an opportunity to read. AntiTrust enforcement is necessary to protect the reading public from de facto restriction of what they get (a realistic chance) to read. And above all, the government (see, the FCC and FEC in particular) must not put its imprimatur on anyone’s opinions, whether expressed or implied.
He said it in his morning short. He said he was done, but not about dumping Apple - more like lost faith kind of done. I didn’t hear his full show. I was working.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.