Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After Storm Over Tweets, The Times and a New Hire Part Ways

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–86 of 86 posts

Re: After Storm Over Tweets, The Times and a New Hire Part Ways

#81

Post by zimpenfish »

azangru wrote: post #69
zimpenfish wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are people so willing to define themselves by their stance on any of these particular topics, to the point of being openly hostile to people with other positions on any of those subjects? I can't speak for anyone else but for me, at pretty much the top of the privilege ladder, if I don't push back on the people who want to hurt others for their own gain, I'm just as bad as them. Which does make me openly hostil…

> if I don't push back on the people who want to hurt others for their own gain, I'm just as bad as them Now, I don't mean any offense, and I am sure you are a wonderful person, but doesn't the phrase above translate into you wanting to hurt (~ push back on) certain people for your own gain (i.e. for your peace of mind)?

> doesn't the phrase above translate into you wanting to hurt (~ push back on) certain people for your own gain (i.e. for your peace of mind)?

Sure, you can read it like that but then you'd be equating e.g. "denial of basic human rights" on their part with "me vocally and publically disagreeing with them". Which seems like a really daft stance to take.

Re: After Storm Over Tweets, The Times and a New Hire Part Ways

#82

Post by Grue3 »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #47

Post some inflammatory things on your twitter account and it can come back to bite you. But it is funny that it disqualifies her from writing opinion pieces for a newspaper, while other people tweet far more outrageous things nearly daily and can be President. I'm not sure why some people get teflon and others don't.

Hint: she just so happened to be a woman. Interesting how that happens every time one of these Internet mobs heats up. See also Justine Sacco, and many others.

Re: After Storm Over Tweets, The Times and a New Hire Part Ways

#83

Post by zerb »

nitwit005 wrote: post #77
zerb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly. 2016 is evidence of what happens when you don't listen to people you disagree with. Lower class whites are disproportionally-likely to have "deplorable" views. Yet even as we as a society move to bring education to more and more people, still this demographic has become the last remaining group of people that it's "OK" to hate. So they've reacted. Disclaimers: Obviously, not everyone who's a lower-income w…

The reason people were surprised is because they did listen to the voters. Look at all the conservative religious voters voted for Trump, despite him being nothing like what they describe as an ideal candidate, and often believing he's been unfaithful to his wife or lying about his religious beliefs. People often don't know what they want, or have reasons to lie about it. Talking to people about what they want is oft…

I can think of more than one religion that's pro-life _and_ advocates for refugees, the poor, strong marriages. Individual people always have their own flaws.

My problem with voters is that they're not willing to take enough risks. The "Throwing away your vote" meme was election tampering just as much as the Russian Facebook ads.

Re: After Storm Over Tweets, The Times and a New Hire Part Ways

#84

Post by beaconstudios »

CPLX wrote: post #55
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to me that she was mostly using words which are offensive, but frequently used outside of their intended meaning. Definitely language I wouldn't use myself. But for example, "that's gay" has been relatively often used as an insult/derogatory, inadvertently by people not intending to be homophobic. I'd definitely call out it's use today, but I'm not sure I'd hunt someone down and try to ruin their career ov…

Nobody has had their career ruined. She's just had a job offer at one of the most prestigious and influential sources of opinion writing change their mind about hiring her. It seems to me poor and distasteful use of language is a pretty reasonable reason to not want someone in that position. There are plenty of outlets for idiot 4chan style insults in the world, I'm not sure we really need people from that community…

I wouldn't be surprised if I learned that a fair share of high ranking tech people spent time on 4chan.

Re: After Storm Over Tweets, The Times and a New Hire Part Ways

#85

Post by azangru »

zimpenfish wrote: post #81
azangru wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if I don't push back on the people who want to hurt others for their own gain, I'm just as bad as them Now, I don't mean any offense, and I am sure you are a wonderful person, but doesn't the phrase above translate into you wanting to hurt (~ push back on) certain people for your own gain (i.e. for your peace of mind)?

> doesn't the phrase above translate into you wanting to hurt (~ push back on) certain people for your own gain (i.e. for your peace of mind)? Sure, you can read it like that but then you'd be equating e.g. "denial of basic human rights" on their part with "me vocally and publically disagreeing with them". Which seems like a really daft stance to take.

What does "denial of basic human rights" mean though? Do these people have the power to grant or deny any rights to anyone, or do they just talk rubbish and behave eccentrically?

Re: After Storm Over Tweets, The Times and a New Hire Part Ways

#86

Post by zimpenfish »

azangru wrote: post #85
zimpenfish wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> doesn't the phrase above translate into you wanting to hurt (~ push back on) certain people for your own gain (i.e. for your peace of mind)? Sure, you can read it like that but then you'd be equating e.g. "denial of basic human rights" on their part with "me vocally and publically disagreeing with them". Which seems like a really daft stance to take.

What does "denial of basic human rights" mean though? Do these people have the power to grant or deny any rights to anyone, or do they just talk rubbish and behave eccentrically?

> What does "denial of basic human rights" mean though?

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Specifically #2, #3, #6, #7, #9.

> Do these people have the power to grant or deny any rights to anyone

They advocate that these rights should be removed from people. In some countries, where you have similarly aligned people in charge (like the US), these denials of rights eventually get made into law.

Post reply on HN