Live data from Hacker News

Tucker’s Message Fiasco Is the Wakeup Call You Need to Auto-Delete Your Messages

blakeashleyjr.com

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: Tucker’s Message Fiasco Is the Wakeup Call You Need to Auto-Delete Your Messages

#61

> Think twice before sending a message, even over Signal. You will likely not be able to predict when you will be sued, investigated, or otherwise thrown into the lime-light. Or, radical new idea here, how about conduct yourself in a reasonable way where if everyone in the world read your text messages you wouldn't be fired or go to jail?

So “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”? Would you tell that to abortion rights activists in Mississippi, journalists reviewing the Panama Papers, or dissidents in China? Radical new idea here, but maybe you shouldn’t believe that everyone in authority from now till you die will only fire and jail people for the ideas that you personally don’t have or like, or suggest data privacy rules for others…

Not exactly what he's saying.

To be fair, he's expressing himself poorly. Because, yes, "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

He wants to say something more like "Conduct yourself in a way where if everyone read your messages they won't realize what a fucking miserable, intolerant asshole you are".

And let's be completely fair here. Tucker Carlson wasn't fired for holding any of the opinions that he holds. He wasn't fired for voicing those opinions. He wasn't even fired because people knew he had those opinions. He wasn't even fired because there was now evidence of all of that.

He was fired because it looks like doing something. And he made it really fucking easy for them to do it. He was a huge asshole in private messages and he could be sacrificed easily.

It's a similar thing that happened to Jon Gruden a few years back. While investigating Dan Snyder for several things, some emails Jon Gruden wrote during his time at ESPN saying some pretty stupidly racist stuff got "leaked". Then the conversation shifted from Snyder's trafficking of Washington's cheerleaders to Gruden's racism. Gruden resigned as coach of the Las Vegas Raiders as a result of all the hoopla.

All of those emails were sent to someone. They knew about it. Plenty of people worked with and for Gruden. They knew who he was. What kind of language he employs. Mike Tomlin, Sean McVay, Kyle Shanahan, and others all knew who the man was. The league knew. ESPN, knew. Not a single thing that got leaked was a surprise to anyone with any input or influence on Gruden's career. He was fired simply to distract from the Washington issue. However, like Carlson, he made it really easy for them to do so by being a miserable asshole.

I don't send a single work email or work message that I would have to defend in the court of public opinion. Even when I step outside the bounds of purely work related issues, I don't express negative opinions about groups of people based on characteristics they have no choice over. The worst you could hit me with would be that I'm not as funny as I try to be. You won't find me being a miserable asshole when* our organization's emails becomes a matter of public record.

*I say when because I work for an organization where this is a very real possibility.

Re: Tucker’s Message Fiasco Is the Wakeup Call You Need to Auto-Delete Your Messages

#62
post #42
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You inferred a lot of stuff that quote doesn't actually say.

"Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight." Is this not implying that white men don't fight dishonorably? Is not the implication that follows from that, that fighting dishonorably is a trait that belongs to non-white races? If not, why mention "white men" specifically? Why not claim this is not how honorable people fight? What did I infer that wasn't there? I stand by my interpr…

If someone said, "That's not how Samurai fight", would you then assume that any non-Samurai is being disparaged? Probably not despite the rampant xenophobia in Japan.

At best, you have him gatekeeping all the white races and applying a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. If he'd mentioned a non-white race at all, I suspect you'd be making the same case then as well. People read into these things whatever they want to read based on whichever team they're cheerleading for.

Re: Tucker’s Message Fiasco Is the Wakeup Call You Need to Auto-Delete Your Messages

#63

> Think twice before sending a message, even over Signal. You will likely not be able to predict when you will be sued, investigated, or otherwise thrown into the lime-light. Or, radical new idea here, how about conduct yourself in a reasonable way where if everyone in the world read your text messages you wouldn't be fired or go to jail?

>Or, radical new idea here, how about conduct yourself in a reasonable way where if everyone in the world read your text messages you wouldn't be fired or go to jail? This is ridiculous. There are so many things you can do that are ethical and illegal. Or ethical and legal and would still piss a lot of people off. Or, how about just wanting to rant off the record with friends? This idea the default should be "act lik…

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him"

see https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu for context.

Re: Tucker’s Message Fiasco Is the Wakeup Call You Need to Auto-Delete Your Messages

#64
post #26

[flagged]

The tenor of the complete message is the OPPOSITE of what your misquote implies. > A couple of weeks ago, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself root…

How does admitting it is wrong to want someone hurt for their political beliefs counter him saying "that's not how white people fight" which is the actual derogatory thing people don't like that he said?

IE, where in the full quote does he then say "I was prejudiced to think only non-white people gang up on others"

Re: Tucker’s Message Fiasco Is the Wakeup Call You Need to Auto-Delete Your Messages

#65
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tenor of the complete message is the OPPOSITE of what your misquote implies. > A couple of weeks ago, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself root…

How does admitting it is wrong to want someone hurt for their political beliefs counter him saying "that's not how white people fight" which is the actual derogatory thing people don't like that he said? IE, where in the full quote does he then say "I was prejudiced to think only non-white people gang up on others"

He was commenting on his own race. You are the one inferring it implies anything about other races, but if he did critique other races, then you'd also call him a racist.

I suspect the only case where he could mention the white race would be in the context of disparaging all white races as evil colonizers.

You couldn't convict him of what you claim in any impartial court because your claims (based on this statement) have no evidence to support them.

Re: Tucker’s Message Fiasco Is the Wakeup Call You Need to Auto-Delete Your Messages

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is? His "self reflection" is an attempt to feel self righteous and better than the stranger getting beaten for political reasons that he does not know.

People that reject the use of political violence are better than those that don't and I'm not going to pretend they aren't.

People that say they reject the use of political violence, yet continue to encourage it on national television and anywhere else they can, are worse than those that don't and I'm not going to pretend they aren't.

Re: Tucker’s Message Fiasco Is the Wakeup Call You Need to Auto-Delete Your Messages

#67
post #26

[flagged]

The tenor of the complete message is the OPPOSITE of what your misquote implies. > A couple of weeks ago, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself root…

I'm not sure this really improves "it's not how white men fight" at all.

Re: Tucker’s Message Fiasco Is the Wakeup Call You Need to Auto-Delete Your Messages

#68
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”? Would you tell that to abortion rights activists in Mississippi, journalists reviewing the Panama Papers, or dissidents in China? Radical new idea here, but maybe you shouldn’t believe that everyone in authority from now till you die will only fire and jail people for the ideas that you personally don’t have or like, or suggest data privacy rules for others…

Not exactly what he's saying. To be fair, he's expressing himself poorly. Because, yes, "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." He wants to say something more like "Conduct yourself in a way where if everyone read your messages they won't realize what a fucking miserable, intolerant asshole you are". And let's be completely fair here. Tucker Carlson wasn't fired for hold…

That's clearly what I meant, but people will read what they want.

Re: Tucker’s Message Fiasco Is the Wakeup Call You Need to Auto-Delete Your Messages

#70
post #62
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight." Is this not implying that white men don't fight dishonorably? Is not the implication that follows from that, that fighting dishonorably is a trait that belongs to non-white races? If not, why mention "white men" specifically? Why not claim this is not how honorable people fight? What did I infer that wasn't there? I stand by my interpr…

If someone said, "That's not how Samurai fight", would you then assume that any non-Samurai is being disparaged? Probably not despite the rampant xenophobia in Japan. At best, you have him gatekeeping all the white races and applying a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. If he'd mentioned a non-white race at all, I suspect you'd be making the same case then as well. People read into these things whatever they want to read base…

>If someone said, "That's not how Samurai fight", would you then assume that any non-Samurai is being disparaged? Probably not despite the rampant xenophobia in Japan.

Yes. That would be the obvious reading. If someone looked at a group of Samurai fighting and said that isn't how Samurai fight, by implication a comparison is being made between "Samurai" and "not Samurai."

If someone sees a group of white people fighting and says that isn't how white people fight, by implication a comparison is being made between "white people" and "not white" people.

>At best, you have him gatekeeping all the white races and applying a no-true-Scotsman fallacy.

Yes, and that's racist.

>If he'd mentioned a non-white race at all, I suspect you'd be making the same case then as well.

Yes, it would still be racist, for the same reasons.

>People read into these things whatever they want to read based on whichever team they're cheerleading for.

Case in point.

Post reply on HN