Is Mark Zuckerberg a racist bully, just a racist, or just a bully?


Apparently he’s decided to use the courts to force native Hawaiians to give up land that has been in their family for generations:

Close to a dozen small parcels within Zuckerberg’s Kauai estate are owned by kamaaina families who have rights to traverse the billionaire’s otherwise private domain. Now the Facebook CEO is trying to enhance the seclusion of his property by filing several lawsuits aimed at forcing these families to sell their land at a public court auction to the highest bidder.

Mark Zuckerberg sues over 100 Hawaiians to force them to sell them their ancestral land

I don’t have a firm enough opinion on absolute salary or wealth caps to make a helpful statement about them, but I firmly believe that there should be a limit to how much of the world a person can own.


Is Mark Zuckerberg a racist bully, just a racist, or just a bully?

There is only one answer to this question, and we all know it:


I’d say option 3 - just a bully.




I’d say he was closer to pathologically selfish than a bully. He has always acted purely in his own interest, not giving a shit if anyone might feel differently about his actions. But I don’t think he gets jollies from the pain of his victims the way a bully like Trump does.


About 300-400 years.


Under late stage capitalism, we’re all natives.


Wait a sec. Maybe I missed something. What part of this story implies racism? Bullying with dollars absolutely.


As irritating as it is, I quite like the fact that the Crown in the UK basically has fundamental property rights over every piece of land.


The story doesn’t make it clear if anyone is actually living on those bits of land–just one guy who tends a property. Tracking down descendants with a fractional claim, sometimes that they didn’t know about, isn’t exactly like evicting them with bailiffs.


There are still colonies, though.


Yeah, that’s true. Sigh.


I’d say, even in the strictest of definitions, Britain and France were still decolonizing in the 1970s… And if you really are feeling cynical about the world, you can argue that the US created the current neoliberal global economy that is driving inequality and the authoritarian backlash is a form of colonialism (economic and cultural, rather than physical). But you get lots of push back when you say that.


Let’s not forget the “Falklands” War…in 1982.




To answer your central question. A bully is a bully no matter if they pick their target on money, inability to hit back, some kind of ‘other’ category, or just plain because they can.

Fuck the Zuck


I’m not even sure anybody can say this is even bullying. He’s trying to track down the owners of the land to buy them out. What part of the process so far would qualify as bullying?

If I read the article correctly, the parcels of land that have no owner go up for auction. Only when the ownership claims are contested do things get nasty. That hasn’t happened with Zuckerberg, has it?


Even if Zuck is just trying to track the owners down to make an offer? Facebook’s security settings constantly changing, most of the shit coming out of his mouth, and just plain how bullshit Facebook is in general is what has me annoyed at the CEO. If the buck stops here then all of Facebook’s shortcomings are at his feet.



The attempt to grab the land from the indigenous people? Or do we not count that as racism anymore?

Rather, the parcels of land where ownership is murky according to laws imposed by the occupiers go up for auction.

The (illegal) overthrow of the monarchy by US sugar interests was first and foremost a cynical land grab, and discussions of how to address the consequences are ongoing here.