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

NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

greenwald.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 368 posts

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#321

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

mint2 wrote: post #295
Person5478 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea is that a slur is a much stronger insult typically aimed at one's ethnicity. What's being said here is that the word retard is an insult, but does not rise to the level/strength of a slur.

Wait I’m misunderstand you, right? Reading your comment it almost seems like yours saying that the r word isn’t a slur or isn’t that bad of one?! It’s a word that takes a whole class of people and uses them as an insult when talking about other people. Are you seriously going to try to pull some narrow technical originalist definition to argue that in this specific edition of this specific dictionary it defines “slur…

If retarded is a slur, then so is moron, idiot, imbecile, cretin and other past accepted medical terminology for the cognitively disabled that were adopted by the public as slurs. If you look up the history, "mentally retarded" was itself coined to escape the negative connotations of those previous terms. It's unfortunate but inevitable that referents to the cognitively disabled will continue to be abused, no matter what they are.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#322

Post by mint2 »

Person5478 wrote: post #318
mint2 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait I’m misunderstand you, right? Reading your comment it almost seems like yours saying that the r word isn’t a slur or isn’t that bad of one?! It’s a word that takes a whole class of people and uses them as an insult when talking about other people. Are you seriously going to try to pull some narrow technical originalist definition to argue that in this specific edition of this specific dictionary it defines “slur…

Under your definition the word cripple would also be a slur. When we get to that point, we've lost the forest for the trees.

You could say the same for any pejorative, imagine if xyz was a treated as a slur, we’d have lost the forest for the trees.

And yes, if you said “don’t be a cripple” to your friend and a guy physical disability overheard it, how do you think that would make them feel? Why would you want to arbitrarily hurt someone, twisting a verbal knife, just to razz your friend.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#323

Post by mint2 »

prepend wrote: post #310
mint2 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait I’m misunderstand you, right? Reading your comment it almost seems like yours saying that the r word isn’t a slur or isn’t that bad of one?! It’s a word that takes a whole class of people and uses them as an insult when talking about other people. Are you seriously going to try to pull some narrow technical originalist definition to argue that in this specific edition of this specific dictionary it defines “slur…

I think it lessons other, more hurtful, words that are used as slurs. Look, we should be polite and not use offensive words, but be consistent. The referenced word is rude and offensive but in no way the same room as words that have resulted in lynching, genocide, systematic oppression. If we want to go all polite and ban all “slurs” then we’ll be getting butthurt over calling someone “stupid” or “idiot.” And of cour…

Here’s the thing, it’s not less bad than whatever others you’re thinking of. You’re just confusing your own familiarity with acceptability.

Just because you’ve heard the word and are used to it, and maybe used it without your bubble caring, doesn’t mean it’s less hurtful than other words. As the other words fell out of general acceptance, many people who were familiar with the words said many of the same arguments you’re making now. Are you sure you’re not acting like a 50’s white person complaining about how you can’t say certain words anymore?

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#324

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

randomfool wrote: post #79
eitland wrote: post #6

>the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks to warn that the Bad People had migrated to Signal and Telegram. This week they asked: “Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?” One reporter “confess[ed] that I am worried about Telegram. Other than private messaging, people love to use Telegram for group chats — up to 200,000 people can meet inside a Telegram ch…

One side of it is deplatforming, but the other side is protecting more vulnerable family and community members. The fact is that there are pied-pipers of disinformation on these platforms leading vulnerable members of our communities down rabbit-holes to who-knows-where. Normally we would address this with in-person confrontation but I think people are struggling to find the tools to protect their friends and familie…

> "People are being preyed upon and the victims may not be the ideal rational individuals that we aspire to."

The subtext being that "we" are wiser and know better then those "people" and have the right and duty to protect "people" from themselves? I reject that; that way lies madness.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#325

Post by zepto »

whakim wrote: post #138
ryanSrich wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of substance, journalists should have enough integrity to not title an article "Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?". "Misinformation" is among the list of grossly overused words in online discourse. It has no meaning, other than to exist as the boogyman. "Hot Spot". Another sensationalist phrase used to scare readers into thinking anyone that even slightly disagrees with their poi…

At most news orgs the reporters aren't the ones writing the article titles. I agree that the headline is alarmist, but it's probably just written to be clickbait-y, as far too many headlines now are. I disagree that "articles like this are written specifically to inadvertently call for the censorship of more voices." The article takes on a subject that has been discussed a lot recently, and, on balance, probably push…

“I agree that the headline is alarmist, but it's probably just written to be clickbait-y, as far too many headlines now are.”

I think the time for this excuse is long past. There is research showing that headlines matter.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#326

Post by zepto »

newacct583 wrote: post #102
vorpalhex wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Greenwald points out, these journalists work at major outlets and have huge followings which they can use - and have used - to shut down speech. Cancel culture is real and we must not allow it to be tolerated. I've been told that I'm "problematic" and should reconsider blogging... because I recommended a $40 pair of hair shears. Greenwald is being a bit melodramatic, but his substance isn't wrong. A reporter lied…

> A reporter lied and attempted to slam a public figure That... seems kinda spun. The source material isn't so damning. Taylor Lorenz was on the call, and tweeted: "@pmarca just openly using the r-slur on Clubhouse tonight and not one other person in the room called him on it or saying anything" Then later when she was corrected that it wasn't Andreessen but someone else, replied: "Thanks for clarifying that it was F…

“ "Thanks for clarifying that it was Felicia saying that word, rather than Marc as many in the room heard it. I hope you can understand how some people in the room felt hearing it"

You do realize that this is not an acknowledgement of the mistake. It’s an attempt to deny the mistake and gaslight the person reporting it.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#327

Post by throwaway894345 »

tootie wrote: post #314
throwaway894345 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstand what citizen surveillance refers to. It’s not literal espionage.

Neither is listening in on Clubhouse. That convo was invite-only, but not private. And to my other point, what about Donald Sterling? He had a one-on-one private phone call leaked by his mistress that resulted in him being banned for life from the NBA for expressing his personal opinions. Consider that the apotheosis of "Cancel Culture". Now ask yourself if, knowing what we know about his true feelings, if we should…

Again, I think you're misunderstanding "citizen surveillance". It refers to peers policing each other for ideological transgressions, not the surveillance of citizens.

> And to my other point, what about Donald Sterling? He had a one-on-one private phone call leaked by his mistress that resulted in him being banned for life from the NBA for expressing his personal opinions. Consider that the apotheosis of "Cancel Culture".

Broken clocks are right twice a day, but that's hardly a reason to prefer them.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#328

Post by jancsika »

mdoms wrote: post #300
jancsika wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of reporters feel as passionate about the subjects they cover as he does, but they aren't forthright about it. First-rate journalism highlights the subject's corruption or bad behavior with such persuasive and overwhelming evidence that the audience generally judges the person or organization under discussion to be a mendacious object of derision. That is an accurate characterization of the journalism on the…

Sorry but you're not the arbiter of "first rate journalism" and you never will be.

That's true. But it doesn't matter in this context because Greenwald's writing pattern strongly supports my argument. Look at his Pulitzer-winning stories in the Guardian, or his stories based on leaks in Brazil that revealed government corruption written at the Intercept. He didn't casually string insults throughout those stories-- he let the revelations speak for themselves.

And honestly, why would any sane investigative journalist would want to distract from a breaking story with a bunch of facile name-calling? If for some reason Greenwald wants to write like that in a future on some similarly groundbreaking exclusive as the Snowden leaks were, I guess I'll have to reassess.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#329

Post by throwaway894345 »

tootie wrote: post #315
throwaway894345 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it sufficed to say that overt defamation is abhorrent, at least when one is a journalist at the newspaper of record.

Defamation implies intent.

I find it impossible to believe that it's a simple coincidence that a professional journalist mistakenly accused Andreesen of using a slur (couldn't be bothered to do the most basic fact checking?) to her 200K followers after she ranted on Twitter for months about him blocking her. I think you're missing a lot of context with respect to her behavior on Twitter prior to her making her account private.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#330

Post by dogman144 »

newfatkidony wrote: post #242
dogman144 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I am with you on your first sentence being a way forward. Substack is pretty interesting in that regard. I run into some issues with your use of Taibbi as a good anecdote though for unbiased reporting, and I won't touch your MSM comment. I think Taibbi is a competent, honest, and candid reporter. That said, I was around during his coverage of GS in the Rolling Stone in '08-'09. Is he good at speaking truth to…

I agree Taibbi is biased, what makes him a good example for a new model of journalism is that his bias is a) clear and b) not hegemonic. Let a thousand Taibbis bloom each with their own worldview, hangups and bugbears. That seems like a much healthier landscape than the boring, hegemonic left-y (but not Bernie lefty, because his fans are sooo mean online) milieu that we have now.

That's a good take on it, I agree.
Post reply on HN