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

341–350 of 368 posts

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

#341

Post by zepto »

whakim wrote: post #339
zepto wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

I don't disagree that headlines matter. I don't think it's a good headline. But I was simply stating that I don't believe the headline was written in service of an alarmist agenda to use "misinformation" as boogeyman to push for moderation of private messaging platforms (as the GP stated). I believe it was just written to get more clicks. Even if the result is the same, the intent matters because we need to understan…

Why would you assume the headline wasn’t written in service of pushing an agenda?

It can both be intended to get more clicks, and to push an agenda. In fact it’s reasonable to assume every headline is like this, since they must generally conform to the agendas of the publication and must be interesting.

Headlines are generally written by editors, not the authors. However at this point, why does that change anything?

These are two people working together on a single published piece.

If you goal is to de-incentivize a behavior, it seems odd to arbitrarily discount the motivation for that very behavior.

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

#342

Post by Person5478 »

mint2 wrote: post #335
Person5478 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could just as easily claim only a pedophile could hold the opinion you hold, but that would probably be a tad unfair. So how about you refrain from it as well, eh?

Your analogy makes no sense. I don’t know what else to say. It flat out makes no sense.

it's not an analogy.

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

#343

Post by prepend »

mint2 wrote: post #323
prepend wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

> 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.

This is not accurate about how much I’ve heard and am familiar, or used it, or my bubble. It’s kind of astoundingly wrong to the point that it makes me wonder why you would assume that about a stranger.

Also weird how you think to know how hurtful some words are vs others like you have some clue into how to quantify the pain caused by words.

I wish I could achieve such knowledge and confidence as you express here, with some certainty that I wasn’t an idiot.

Also, I wasn’t around in the 50s so not sure how 50s white (or non-white as well I suppose) complained about not being able to say certain words. It seems to me that people in the 50s didn’t limit their speech too much and one of the improvements we’ve made is that there’s less callous and hurtful speech spoken.

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

#344

Post by whakim »

zepto wrote: post #341
whakim wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree that headlines matter. I don't think it's a good headline. But I was simply stating that I don't believe the headline was written in service of an alarmist agenda to use "misinformation" as boogeyman to push for moderation of private messaging platforms (as the GP stated). I believe it was just written to get more clicks. Even if the result is the same, the intent matters because we need to understan…

Why would you assume the headline wasn’t written in service of pushing an agenda? It can both be intended to get more clicks, and to push an agenda. In fact it’s reasonable to assume every headline is like this, since they must generally conform to the agendas of the publication and must be interesting. Headlines are generally written by editors, not the authors. However at this point, why does that change anything?…

Why would you believe that? Copy editors don't spend a lot of time on each headline. Publication style guides for headlines aren't particularly ideological. Copy editors aren't like reporters, who narrowly focus on a single subject - whoever wrote this headline probably writes hundreds of headlines for articles across a vast array of subjects. To me, having worked at a newspaper (not the NYT of course) and having seen the way headlines get drafted, this is a case where the burden of proof is on you to show that whoever titled this piece wanted to imbue it with an anti-private-messaging agenda, rather than rattling off something that they thought was catchy using a few buzzwords that would draw the reader in.

> These are two people working together on a single published piece.

Copy editors (who write headlines at large news orgs) don't work with reporters on the content of the piece, only the style and grammar.

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

#345

Post by [deleted] »

mint2 wrote: post #334
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You had to make a throwaway to post that? Stand behind your words if you believe in them.

[deleted]

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

#346

Post by mint2 »

Person5478 wrote: post #342
mint2 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy makes no sense. I don’t know what else to say. It flat out makes no sense.

it's not an analogy.

Well it’s clear whatever point you were making was completely opaque, at least to the person you posted it to. Since it’s opaque, why are you surprised I called it something different than you had in mind? instead of clarifying what I very clearly stated did not make any sense, you posted a terse reply that provided no explanation as to what you actually meant.

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

#347

Post by mint2 »

prepend wrote: post #343
mint2 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

> 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. This is not accurate about how much I’ve heard and am familiar, or used it, or my bubble. It’s kind of astoundingly wrong to the point that it makes me wonder why you would assume that about a stranger. Also weird how you think to know how hurtful some words are vs ot…

> This is not accurate about how much I’ve heard and am familiar, or used it, or my bubble. It’s kind of astoundingly wrong to the point that it makes me wonder why you would assume that about a stranger.

Because your posts are saying/implying the r word is less hurtful or offensive than other now taboo words. That is the reason I infer you are more familiar and comfortable with the word than the other taboo words. Is that really a strange conclusion?

And you say “also weird how you think think you know how some words are vs others”. Isn’t that the core of your argument as well? So you get to judge whether the word is offensive, but I don’t?

And one doesn’t have to be alive during the civil rights movement to know many average Americans found it objectionable they couldn’t use whatever language they grew up using, as if that prior use made terminologies that should never have been acceptable, acceptable

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

#348

Post by Person5478 »

mint2 wrote: post #346
Person5478 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not an analogy.

Well it’s clear whatever point you were making was completely opaque, at least to the person you posted it to. Since it’s opaque, why are you surprised I called it something different than you had in mind? instead of clarifying what I very clearly stated did not make any sense, you posted a terse reply that provided no explanation as to what you actually meant.

oh gosh, the OTHER person who disagrees with you also has character flaws?!?!

I'm shocked... SHOCKED I tell you...

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

#349

Post by da_big_ghey »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #321
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…

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…

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make; thanks for articulating it well. Idiot was a clinical designation for those with IQs between 0 and 25; imbecile, 26 to 50; and moron, 51 to 70. Stupid originated to refer to retarded people, too. And yet, these words are benign enough for kids to use. Why are these somehow "less offensive" than retard? I use it the same way I would any of the former, and have ever since I was a schoolboy. It doesn't carry any more sting than those others, and is most definitely not a slur.

'mint2: I can't reply to your post, but despite the 'ThrowawayR2 account name, his account is five years old with four thousand points. Ironically, the only way in which he could pacify you is to create a new account and post from that instead.

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

#350

Post by da_big_ghey »

mint2 wrote: post #347
prepend wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is not accurate about how much I’ve heard and am familiar, or used it, or my bubble. It’s kind of astoundingly wrong to the point that it makes me wonder why you would assume that about a stranger. Also weird how you think to know how hurtful some words are vs ot…

> This is not accurate about how much I’ve heard and am familiar, or used it, or my bubble. It’s kind of astoundingly wrong to the point that it makes me wonder why you would assume that about a stranger. Because your posts are saying/implying the r word is less hurtful or offensive than other now taboo words. That is the reason I infer you are more familiar and comfortable with the word than the other taboo words. I…

Since when is retard taboo? Stupid, idiot, etc. reference the same thing and aren't taboo. Are those offensive? And if so, how does one insult others by implying that his mental faculties are lesser? I refuse to relegate my vocabulary to such a pathetic, anodyne, bowdlerized version that I cannot insult someone.
Post reply on HN