There is no question that the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, has revolutionized social media. He has created the most popular online networking site in the world, which has managed to connect 1.94 billion people from all over the planet. His Facebook legacy has brought with it great fortune as well; at just age 33, he has amassed a measly net worth of $64.2 billion, making him one of the richest people alive as well as the second youngest billionaire.
With all these accomplishments under his belt, and his whole life still ahead of him, what more does Zuckerberg hope to accomplish? Many are speculating that he has his eyes on the presidency, and perhaps for good reason.
On January 3rd, Zuckerberg made a Facebook post detailing his plan to visit all 50 states in an elaborate road trip, stating “my hope for this challenge is to get out and talk to more people about how they’re living, working and thinking about the future.” Later on in the post however, he says that the reason for him wanting to do this is that “it will help me lead the work at Facebook and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative so we can make the most positive impact as the world enters an important new period.” Sure, he says that it’s for Facebook and him and his wife’s foundation, but he could easily be lying. If he came out tomorrow and officially announced that he IS running for president, no one would be stuck on the fact that he previously lied about it. So even though he has attempted to put this rumor to rest, they are still plausible.
Take for example, Facebook’s new rule, which says that “If Mr. Zuckerberg were to leave us or if his employment with us were to be terminated for “cause,” under the Current Certificate, he would not be required to relinquish majority voting control.” In other words, if he were to temporarily leave Facebook to go work somewhere else, he could still have majority control over his company. According to sources, he pushed hard for this new rule to get passed. Could Zuckerberg have wanted it so he can have control over Facebook while serving as President? Numerous articles think so. But, I highly doubt it. If he were to become President, he would have to relinquish control of Facebook to his wife (which is doubtful) or majority control would by-default be given to his board of directors. It is considered unethical and potentially illegal for the commander in chief to keep commercial ties.
Trump has been under scrutiny over that same issue
But there are some other suspicious things about Zuckerberg’s recent behavior. On February 16th, he made a Facebook post about the need for building global community, urging people from all backgrounds to come together and create a safer, more inclusive and informed future. Sounds presidential if you ask me.
Observers have noted that professional photographers (which he has hired) are tailing him while he’s on the cross-country tour, constantly updating his Facebook page with high-quality photos of his stops. This could signal a great photo op that would significantly boost a presidential campaign.
Then there’s also the fact that Mark has recently hired two heavyweight political operatives; David Plouffe – former Obama campaign manager – and Ken Melhman, former campaign manager for George W. Bush and chairman for the RNC. Officially, David is serving as president of policy and social advocacy of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and Ken is the leading the board of directors. This move has certainly raised eyebrows.
During a recent commencement speech at Harvard University, Zuckerberg stated the need for a new social contract – espousing support for single-payer, universal basic-income, higher taxes for the rich, online voting and a host of issues that almost sound like a campaign platform.
He’s not without his critics though. One article by Ryan Murphy takes a rather unapologetic, hostile tone against the idea of a Zuckerberg presidency. The reason? “The problem lies not with Zuckerberg himself” Murphy writes, “but with the precedent his presidency would set. A Zuckerberg presidency, especially when preceded by a trump presidency, shows the world that we don’t care about who’s in charge of the nation, that American politics should be treated like a soap opera.” Maybe he’s right. I would also add that another billionaire businessman, with no political experience whatsoever, as popular as he could potentially be, might be the final nail in the coffin of American democracy. Because if he does run, and he wins, the common man might just be better off forgetting any chance of representation in government, democracy truly is the game of the ultra-rich.
In this second post of smacking down PragerU arguments, I’m going to go through their video titled ‘Why the Right is Right’ featuring Greg Gutfeld, author of ‘How To Be Right: the Art of Being Persuasively Correct’.
0:19-0:26
“So here is the simple answer as to why you are right [conservatives], it is a more practical, generous, and compassionate way to live. Let me explain.”
Oh, this is gonna be good *grabs popcorn*
0:34-0:59
“The right tends to be risk-averse, more concerned about external threats like tyranny and terror. Conservatives, get this, tend to be conservative. They’re less likely to play with fire in just about every sense: financially, artistically, sexually. They’re cautious about changing traditions, sometimes, to a fault. Which is why they cling to that crazy Constitution they like so much, and to their guns, and to their religion.”
I’ll refrain from commenting on this yet, but pay special attention to the part that’s italicized, I’ll come back to it later on.
1:00-1:17
“Conservatives also focus on what we can fix and accept what we cannot, which is one of the many reasons we’re not obsessed with global warming. With radical Islam we know what the threat is, and that it’s a lot worse than a few missing polar bears. I know that makes me sound mean, sorry polar bears.”
Greg claims that conservatives don’t care about climate change because they accept that they can’t change it. First of all, this claim is highly misleading. According to a pew poll, only 15% of conservative Republicansbelieve that humans are fueling climate change. Since a vast number conservatives still do not accept the scientific consensus on climate change, it’s dishonest to assume that if they did accept and understand the science, that they would be indifferent to it.
Second of all, it is incredibly myopic and lazy to suggest that people should not do anything about climate change because we “can’t fix it.” There are a laundry list of ways in which individuals and policymakers can mitigate and slowly reverse the effects of climate change. If conservatives were this short-sighted on anything else, say on reversing ‘big government’, they’d be completely useless. Every conservative should reject this false claim, because he’s not giving you any credit.
Thirdly, yes – terrorism is one of our foremost national security issues. However, can we please be realistic here and put things into perspective? Statistically speaking, Americans have much greater odds dying in a car accident, chocking on food, being killed by a police officer, or even bicycling than from dying in a terrorist attack; in other words, the odds are very low. But if you’re concerned about terrorism, your concern of climate change should go hand in hand. The reason why is because the effects of climate change are expected to bring about food insecurity, water insecurity and extreme weather conditions, particularly droughts in already unstable regions in the Middle East, which the military has identified as a “threat multiplier”, meaning that there will be growing social instability. This will result in a number of ‘climate refugees’, which can provide a cover for extremist groups to further pour over into other countries by disguising themselves as refugees.
1:19-1:30
“Liberals, the research tells us, are generally more outgoing, more likely to try new stuff – and they’re open to new ideas, though not school choice, or flat taxes or a market-based healthcare reform…”
Liberals outside of Washington are not close-minded about school choice. In fact, a poll conducted earlier this year indicated that school choice has support among 55% of Democrats. So, more than half of Democrats support school choice, and I suspect that it would be much higher if Democrats were more informed about the issue. In virtually all other Western countries like Sweden, parents can choose any school for their children, it’s paid for via public funds.
Liberals are against flat tax because of one tiny little problem: it is a regressive tax system that shifts the tax burden onto the middle and lower class while giving immense tax breaks to the upper class. Considering the negative impacts, and the time period of unprecedented wealth inequality we live in, the last thing we should be advocating for is to widen that divide.
A market-based healthcare system is a great idea, as long as you love extremely wasteful, unnecessary bureaucracy and really high drug prices. Plus, I know that conservatives are really open-minded about single-payer *sarcasm detected*
1:42-1:55
“In short liberals, are pretty liberal. They feel free to take risks that the risk averse usually end up paying for, over and over. Which explains the necessity for conservatism, we are, the clean-up crew.”
Wow, somebody is entering hardcore self-righteous territory right now. I can’t really debate this because it’s bordering on ad-hominem, but let’s see how far he takes it.
1:56-2:21
“Liberals may seem to have more fun – and many do – but according to polls, they aren’t as happy as conservatives. And with all the fun they’re having, I’ve never quite figured out why the angriest people I’ve encountered in my life have been liberals. Maybe it’s because short-term fun doesn’t translate into long-term happiness. Marriage, families and religion do that – and those are the things conservatives most value. Liberals tend to live for now, conservatives for later.”
Sooo liberals know how to party, and conservatives don’t?
“Liberals are the angriest people” Idk man, if you’re going around telling people that those who simply disagree with you are basically unhappy children – you’re not exactly going to make a lot of liberal friends lmao.
Polls have also shown that liberals have higher IQs than conservatives, but I’m not going to be a dick about it and actually use it to make generalizations or stereotypes about conservatives. It’s a cheap shot, its ad-hominem, and quite frankly if you’re trying to have a political debate, or make honest political videos – its bullshit.
Liberals live for now, conservatives for later? I guess, liberals, who are usually more concerned about climate change, who are more likely to change their diets and adjust their lifestyle in the long-term to individually play their part in combating the long-term effects of climate change, are suddenly the ones who are short-sighted.
2:22-2:49
“A risk-adverse conservative is more likely to save money, he is more likely to protect his investments, he is more likely to protect property, advocate for rule of law and preservation of individual protections, and he offers no excuses for looting – instead he empathizes with the Asian, Arab, and Black small businessman whose convenience store, laundry or restaurant goes up in flames during the riot that liberals reflexively endorse as an ‘understandable response to injustice.'”
The hypocrisy here is real – aren’t conservatives always the gun-toting Americans who say that we should have an armed conflict against a ‘tyrannical government’? That doesn’t sound like strict rule of law. No, it sounds like Greg is just using convenient political language to cover the fact that he doesn’t understand, and doesn’t identify with the deep sense of injustice and even tyranny that some minorities have felt stacked against them in the policing and criminal justice systems.
Furthermore, I’m sure that the statement liberals made about an “understandable response to injustice” is taken out of its full context. Basically every liberal I know (myself included), is for nonviolent resistance. But in a lot of cases of rioting and looting events, its not that we excuse it – it’s that we get where they’re coming from, what’s setting them off. Greg actually points this out very well – instead of trying to understand, so that the right approach can be taken to finding solutions and preventing future events like these, conservatives prefer to embrace rigid, black and white thinking which, ironically, is extremely short-sighted.
2:50-3:03
“Of course, conservatives aren’t risk-adverse in everything, but they take risks with their own lives, not with the society. Conservatives risk it all to build businesses, that risk, however, is rooted in a fact-based belief – not faith – in the free market.”
Huh. That’s a different tone than: “They’re less likely to play with fire in just about every sense: financially, artistically, sexually.” An obvious contradiction, he tries shrugging it off, but it’s difficult to excuse since he built his entire premise on this idea of conservatives being risk-adverse. And as we all know, starting a business is a massive financial risk. By his logic, aren’t liberals naturally the greater entrepreneurs?
He claims that conservatives take risks with their own lives and not with society – uh, seriously? Maybe he hasn’t thought this through. He claims they don’t take societal risks, and then proceeds to talk about starting businesses… but starting a business is anything but a simple personal risk; your placing risk on your family, the people you’re working with, their families, taxpayers (if you received government money), the market, consumers – it is literally one of the most plain examples of societal risk. The risk of failure might be high or low, but the chance of it happening at all is a relevant and significant societal risk.
See if you don’t see the problem with Greg’s logic. ->says conservatives take risks with their own lives and not society. -> Disregards climate change. Hmm. Also conservative positions: pro-deregulation (see 2008), anti-social programs (cuts to medicare, medicaid, social security), anti-common-sense gun regulations (universal background checks, gun registry, ban purchases for people on no-fly list) etc. But conservatives never risk society.
He stresses this point, but it’s glaringly wrong. The ‘fact-based belief’ in the free market is a bit like belief in religion: it IS faith. That’s because, and I’ve said this before, there is no real-world example of a free market. The free market has never existed in the U.S., or anywhere for that matter. Free market =/= capitalism.
3:14-3:31
“Over time, it’s conservative risk-tasking which creates a civilization, by building families, businesses and nations – all of which creates wealth, wealth which can then be used to help those in need. You need money to make money, but you also need money to give money. Conservatism takes but liberalism takes.”
Ctfuuu :’D
Ok so I have to say that I was wrong earlier when I said that he was being self-righteous, this shit is arrogant and self-righteous ASF!!
But this quote actually speaks volumes. Think about it, if you actually believed this profoundly biased and dishonest view, why would you be inclined to ever consider anything that liberals have to say? Why would you ever consider that you were ever wrong? You wouldn’t! And it is that fundamental arrogance that is fueling the awful political climate we currently find ourselves in. Get a grip!
3:31-3:43
“So for example, for liberals to get their minimum wage hike, first we need conservatives to build businesses, to think like businessmen, to sacrifice their own salaries, in order to pay others – to sleep on floors if necessary – in order to break-even.”
Smugness continues
Btw, being smug =/= substantive argument, so there’s nothing to refute here.
3:45-4:11
“And then, when they make a profit, and things are going great, when the calm sets in, liberalism can appear and say: ‘how dare you not pay these people a living wage’. Once the tables are full of diners, and bills are being paid, and you’re thinking about opening a second joint – liberalism arrives to demand its cut. Think of it as a protection racket, think of it as the Gambino family, except without the loyalty, family, job prospects, and track suits.”
Hahahahaha
Yes, how dare those darned liberals believe that if you’re working a full-time job you shouldn’t have to ask the government for help to keep you from living in the streets! Oh the horror!! Just terrible
Greg’s example here seems to be focused exclusively on small-business owners, because no one believes for a second that McDonald’s or Burger King can’t afford to pay their workers a higher minimum wage. But what Greg didn’t tell you – get ready for the smackdown right here- is that a growing number of entrepreneurs and prospective small-business owners support raising the federal minimum wage. In fact, 47% support increasing it, and only 40% oppose it. More support raising it.
In this illustration, Greg attempts to demonize an increase of the minimum wage and the liberals associated with it, but his illustration shows a basic economic error. Consumers are absolutely crucial to creating jobs and growing the economy. More money in the hands of low-wage workers, who are getting by paycheck to paycheck, translates to more in-pocket money for going out and spending freely with. Business activity therefore benefits greatly from consumers having more money to spend, which is reason number one why raising the minimum wage is good economics, not an attack on small businesses.
4:11-4:26
“Conservatism doesn’t compete with liberalism, it sustains it. Without conservatism, there is no liberalism. And so when a liberal asks you “why are you a conservative? simply say: so that you, can be a liberal””.
Yes conservatives, this advice is A1, you should actively seek to come off as a self-righteous prick in political discussion! That’ll show ’em 😀
In conclusion, Greg Gutfeld has single-handedly proven to us all that just because you wrote a book about being right, you can still be fucking wrong about a lot of things. I give this video a solid bullshit rating.
In this post, we’ll focus on PragerU’s ‘why you love capitalism’ video and go through it, refuting its central arguments.
Disclaimer: Due to the fact that a lot of millennials view socialism favorably, I feel compelled to say that I personally don’t support socialism, so that’s not where I’m coming from in this rebuttal!
0:00-0:10
“You love capitalism. Really, you do. And you can’t stand big government. Really, you can’t.”
Hahahahaha
Ok, so right off the bat I have a comment here. It’s not the message that I find funny, it’s just the way this guy talks! The expression on his face seems really uncomfortable, like he’s forcing his way into a semi-grin while holding back tears from the stick up his ass. And that monotone in his voice is going to make the video that much harder to watch. So cringe.
Camera-shy?
Next (on to substance)
0:11-0:43
“Don’t believe me? Then I’ll just have to prove it to you. Do you use an iPhone, Android, Macbook, PC, Read on a kindle, Watch TV and movies on Netflix, videos on YouTube, shop on Amazon, listen to Spotify, search on Google, send money on Venmo, grab a ride with Uber, drive with Waze, book a room with Airbnb, are you on Facebook, or Instagram, or Snapchat? You probably use many if not all of these things.”
Is it bad he just described the livelihood of 95% of millennials?
0:49-0:58
“Where do you think they came from? From entrepreneurs with great ideas and the freedom to test them in the marketplace. That is what is known as: capitalism.”
Literally all of the services mentioned rely on one crucial element: the internet.
Technically, the internet was invented by a project funded by the U.S. Department of Defense in the 1960s…however, the internet in the form we use it today was invented by a CERN employee, Tim Berners-Lee in the early 1990s. And again, CERN is a fully state-funded organization.
Also, Sir Tim refused to capitalize on his genius breakthrough, he explicitly did it for the sole purpose of creating a “universal space” and wanted it to be free and accessible to all. For Jared to suggest that things we all benefit from only come from having a profit motive is intellectually dishonest.
Oh, btw, the guy with the stick up his ass’s name is Jared
5. There is not a magical process where an idea just leaps into the marketplace for free testing.
6. Entrepreneurs take a massive risk when they work to get their products/services into the marketplace. Usually, as especially is the case with Google, or Apple, lots of R&D (research and development) has to be done in order to create a viable product or service that can be tested in the marketplace.
7. Chances are that most entrepreneurs aren’t multi-millionaires so they can’t fund their own R&D. Entrepreneurs normally turn to two things: investors and the government.
8. In the two major cases presented by Jared, Google and Apple, heavy government funding aided with their R&D. In reality though, government funding helped almost all of those companies he listed!
9. It is important to highlight the crucial role that government has in helping entrepreneurs get to the point where they can test their ideas in the marketplace.
1:02-1:28
“Now consider some other things you probably use. Have you been to the DMV? Gone through airport security? mailed a package at the post office, called the IRS customer service line, called any government office for that matter? What’s different? Why is going to the Apple store so fun, but going to the DMV so painful? because one has nothing to do with government, and one is the government. One needs customers to survive and grow; one doesn’t”
This is laughable. Jared’s point is that anything government related is bureaucratic and has awful customer service. Private companies have no customer service issues?
Hey, maybe Jared hasn’t gotten the memo, but private companies get customer service messed up all the time. Bad customer service is more often than not associated with private companies.
customer service
Have you ever dealt with insurance company customer service lines? Especially for health insurance? They are notoriously awful, which by the way, is the result of a fragmented, bureaucratic for-profit healthcare system. But that’s a debate for another time.
I’m not trying to say that there is no bad customer service in the government. Of course there is. My point is that bad customer service isn’t just a government problem. It goes both ways. But clearly, Jared’s agenda isn’t to be objective, it’s ideologically driven; he just wants to make government look bad.
Jared in a nutshell
7. Have I been to the DMV? Yes, it sucks. No disagreement there. But don’t you agree that this is a moot argument? Think about it; nobody else has the authority to issue licenses and things of that sort. That is the job of government. So why is Jared stuck on this? Nobody can skip out on getting their license unless they want to risk hefty fines and jail time, so of course DMV’s are always packed – everyone has to go! Whether it is government or a private company – nobody is really equipped to make this ‘painless’, it’s just a reality we have to do deal with. On the bright side, we can expect that as more things are done online, that physically going to the DMV will become obsolete – saving everyone time and pain.
8. Also I don’t know about you, but I’ve never had issues with the post office. I’ve had to go plenty of times, it’s always been quick and easy. According to research, the post office ranks among the “better” companies for customer satisfaction.
9. I wonder what he thinks about UPS? I usually ship with UPS. Customer satisfaction so far in 2017 for UPS is 81% positive, compared to FedEx which is 82% positive this year. The industry average for consumer shipping this year is 81% positive. So, UPS is right on the money and FedEx is 1% above average. Historically, UPS and FedEx are neck-in-neck, with UPS performing well above the industry average at times.
10. In fact, if I am honest, the best customer service line I’ve ever experienced was from MilitaryOneSource, a Dept. of Defense program that helps military and military families with every aspect of military life. You can check them out on their website. I would say call them for yourself and see, but if you are not in the military or a dependent, I think it would be disrespectful to urge you to do it simply to prove a point, because it is specifically a service for those involved in military life. However, if you are in the military or have a family member in the military, I would recommend calling them with an inquiry, and sharing your note of the excellent service.
11. Also, it’s not true that Apple has “nothing to do with government”, but that was addressed already.
1:34-1:40
“But if you thought about it for a few moments, you’d realize you don’t want the government involved in just about anything private business can do.”
This argument is the fallacy of alleged certainty, and the reason it is so is because Jared assumes he knows the conclusion of your thinking. You would probably agree with him if you don’t question the video, because every second leading up to this point he has done nothing but stack the deck.
On the contrary, with evidence, one might actually argue that more people would want government involvement in things that private businesses would do instead. For example, single-payer healthcare. Citing the successes and benefits in other industrialized nations, one can argue with evidence and solid support that private businesses should not be in control of healthcare.
1:42-1:50
“That’s because profit-motivated individuals have to work to satisfy their customers – you. Government agencies don’t have to please anyone.”
This is true in theory, but again, I’ve proven that the profit-motive doesn’t eliminate bad customer service, and especially in the case of healthcare, it actually encourages it!
Generally speaking, government agencies are held accountable to the public, it’s not true that they “don’t have to please anyone.” I’ve given examples already but I’ll give more. Veterans Affairs needs to satisfy the needs of Veterans, the NOAA needs to satisfy the needs of the public who are looking for weather information, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission needs to satisfy the needs of public safety, etc.
2:04-2:11
“Just a few years ago, if somebody needed a private driver in a few minutes that would take you where you needed to go was truly a service available only to the wealthiest people…”
Uh…my guy, have you never heard of a cab?
2:20-2:28
“Until Uber came around, if it started to rain, say in Manhattan, and you wanted to grab a cab – good luck.”
Ok cool so he knows what a cab is 😛
By the way, I completely agree with him, Uber is pretty great
3:09
Airbnb is also pretty frickin great
3:24-3:43
“Government never could have done this. What motivation would it have? How would it even know we wanted services like Uber and Airbnb? We didn’t know it, until risk-taking entrepreneurs made it possible, thanks to capitalism, and no thanks to government, which more often than not just gets in the way.”
I 110% agree about the importance of entrepreneurs – my main problem is Jared’s magical thinking. How do entrepreneurs become successful? “Capitalism!” “The free market!” Well, the free market doesn’t exist, and government also accounts for a significant share of their success.
Government can be intrusive and disruptive, but the fact is that government has also been absolutely crucial to the development of capitalism in the U.S. and around the world. We owe much of what we know today to government.
And somewhere in the distance…
3:46-3:51
“The government’s knee-jerk reaction is to regulate and control everything it can regulate and control.”
Too broad of a generalization. You can certainly point to instances government has been overly regulatory and you can point to instances where government has rolled back regulations when it shouldn’t have (Glass-Steagall) or hasn’t done any regulations where it should have (i.e. carbon fee and dividends).
3:58-4:09
“Governments across the world are putting up barriers to slow down or shut down services like Uber and Airbnb. Rule-making may be the only area where the government shows creativity.”
It’s true, a lot of union members are pissed off by the customers that convenient services like Uber and Airbnb are taking away. Needless to say, I agree that government shouldn’t prevent competition here.
Also, I’m just curious, how is slowing or shutting down competition creative? In a lot of places, services like Uber are simply banned. That’s not really creative lol
4:10-4:14
“Economic growth has the best chance to occur in the absence of that rule-making.”
Depends what the rules are. Some laws unfairly benefit one corporation over another, which may help grow the economy – but stifles competition. Other rules may be pesky, but would help maintain fair competition, which would encourage economic growth as well. Although, what constitutes ‘fair’ is arbitrary and I won’t get into the details right now.
Either way, I’m not a fan of implying that economic growth is inherently good just for the sake of it. Economic growth normally doesn’t reflect the state of social problems, or environmental degradation – so if, for example, a law was passed that cut into the profits of the fossil fuel industry but greatly benefited and/or protected our environment, to me it’s self-evident that is a good thing even though it would affect economic growth.
4:17-4:33
“The internet, to use just one important example, was able to develop in a regulatory climate that embraced what he calls ‘permissionless innovation.’ This approach to regulation allows entrepreneurs to meet their customers’ needs, without first seeking government approval.”
Here’s one fundamental problem though: it was also developed in the absence of profit, which means that people were able to innovate regardless of financial incentive. Kind of the opposite of what you are advocating.
Permissionless innovation? LOL. I’m not sure where Jared would draw the line here. Maybe he means that a company trying to make flying cars shouldn’t have to seek government permission and licenses for the development and testing of a new flying car? I really don’t know, but I’m pretty sure that an entrepreneur who wants to create flying cars with rocket launchers attached to them for civilian use should not ‘innovate’ without government’s permission first.
4:36-4:42
“Almost everything you enjoy using is a product of capitalism, almost everything you can’t stand is a product of big government”
The outro to this video should read: “almost everything you enjoy using is a product of government aiding the development of capitalism through the support of entrepreneurs via state funding. Except for the internet, that shit was just the product of big government. Fuck.”
4:42-4:48
“So do you love capitalism? Of course you do, you practice it everyday.”
And I’m sure Jared carries the Wealth of Nations everywhere he goes and is a devout follower of his capitalist faith
In closing, capitalism is good, government is also good, and no matter how hard PragerU tries, they can not and will not separate the historical marriage between the two. I rate this video as misleading, although it’s not total bullshit and it makes good points.
