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

Where’s _why?

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 191 posts

Re: Where’s _why?

#141

Post by newman314 »

redthrowaway wrote: post #120
thomaslangston wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think he was harsh enough. I think you're too forgiving of some really awful behavior. Writing a beautiful article or being motivated to get the story doesn't excuse it. The fact that most of the readers of the article won't care doesn't either. She did cross the line. I would be furious if someone I didn't want to talk to (and who knew it) did what she did. The fact she published his private information lead…

What you decry is standard journalistic fare. Tracking down a central figure in your article is a mark of investigative journalism. The individual's desires for privacy do not, by that fact alone, afford them the right to never have anyone try and contact them. We respect his privacy both because of his contributions, and because his feelings are clear. That does not mean everyone else on Earth is obliged to.

Tracking someone down because you suspect wrongdoing is not the same as someone who as far as I can tell has done nothing but contribute to the Ruby community.

It's all about context.

Re: Where’s _why?

#142

Post by al2 »

AnnieLowrey wrote: post #117
thaumaturgy wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be a journalist's job to probe, but it is a fellow human's job to have empathy. raganwald is perfectly correct in distinguishing between _why as a public figure, and the man behind _why as a private one. The man behind _why clearly wished to remain private; why are his wishes not being respected? I think that you are being dismissive when you say, "a few phone calls". From the article, the author tried: asking…

Hi thaumaturgy, Annie here. I'm completely receptive to the criticism of my treatment of the public persona / private person question -- as I wrote before, I expected it and appreciate everyone's insightful comments here. But I'd just like to push back on the idea that my reporting somehow constituted harassment, rather than straightforward reporting on a public figure – and one who had unfortunately already been out…

It is harassment because it's not up to YOU to decide if a) he is a public figure and b) if he cares for such information to be shared.

You can couch it in different terms but I view this as much more self-serving than any else.

Re: Where’s _why?

#143

Post by al2 »

ArtB wrote: post #32
raganwald wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a journalist, I think it would have been irresponsible not to inform _why of the article and not to try to interview him. Your repeated emails and messages left for him obviously informed him. We’ll have to agree to disagree about what constitutes responsible journalism with respect to “trying to interview him.” Once he’s aware that you want to interview him and chooses not to respond, I’d say you tried. Your acti…

>"I think reporting about _why is fair game, _why was a public figure. I think hunting down the man who created _why is intrusive and is at the level of a paparazzo, invading the privacy of a person who from the outset was clear about separating the two." Sorry, but I find that rediculous. If Brian Warner kills someone, or James Osterburg overdoses that is not appropriate for public news because they did it under the…

First off, it's spelled "ridiculous".

Next, it's not for you to decide if someone wants to have multiple personas. It's also going to vary over time.

Here's an example taken to the extreme: because you have posted publicly (at least several times on HN), is it okay for me to decide that that fits my personal definition of a public figure because you have now a reputation of being kind of a tool and then proceed to investigate and post personal details about you?

I didn't think so.

Re: Where’s _why?

#144

Post by Steko »

raganwald wrote: post #5

Let’s see now. The article spends pages talking about _why and the author’s relationship with _why’s work. Great. It spends a page talking about _why’s desire for anonymity and reclusive nature. Good. It talks about _why’s “infosuicide” and notes that it happened shortly after he was “outed.” Fine. And then we get paragraphs detailing how this journalist stalked him trying to get him to comment about the article. Sen…

"And then we get paragraphs detailing how this journalist stalked him...

Being a journalist does not give you a right to stalk people. "

Nobody got stalked here, who upvotes this bullshit?

You can disapprove all you want but flat out accusing someone of "stalking" which has a legal definition borders on libel.

Re: Where’s _why?

#145

Post by tokenadult »

sutro wrote: post #53

The question that has nagged me more than "Where's _why?" is "Where's nickb?" Did anyone ever find out?

The question that has nagged me more than "Where's _why?" is "Where's nickb?" Did anyone ever find out?

Work your way up this thread

http://hackerne.ws/item?id=152388

from child comment to parent comment and see what you think.

See also

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=152428

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=292858

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=249499

and other threads I found just by Googling the two usernames in question. I don't claim to know the "official" correct answer to the question of what happened to nickb, with whom I interacted mostly as co-founder of the former New Mogul site, a website with HN's interface for business news.

Re: Where’s _why?

#146

Post by sanderjd »

philwelch wrote: post #130
i386 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so?

For one, most Randroids won't shut up about it. For another, _why was just too whimsical, postmodern, and nonlinear to be a Rand devotee.

You're painting pretty broadly with that stereotype brush. Books influence people but are not the only influence on people. You have no idea which books _why appreciates or the extent to which they have influenced his personality, so stop guessing.

I hate words like "Randroid", "Republitard", "Democrap", etc. regardless of whether I agree or disagree with their connotation. They are the adult, but no more mature, equivalent of the childhood poopypants slur - you are other so you are bad.

Re: Where’s _why?

#147

Post by a15i »

raganwald wrote: post #5

Let’s see now. The article spends pages talking about _why and the author’s relationship with _why’s work. Great. It spends a page talking about _why’s desire for anonymity and reclusive nature. Good. It talks about _why’s “infosuicide” and notes that it happened shortly after he was “outed.” Fine. And then we get paragraphs detailing how this journalist stalked him trying to get him to comment about the article. Sen…

fuck the hype.

grow the fuck up people.

Re: Where’s _why?

#148

Post by wpietri »

MaysonL wrote: post #138
AnnieLowrey wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi thaumaturgy, Annie here. I'm completely receptive to the criticism of my treatment of the public persona / private person question -- as I wrote before, I expected it and appreciate everyone's insightful comments here. But I'd just like to push back on the idea that my reporting somehow constituted harassment, rather than straightforward reporting on a public figure – and one who had unfortunately already been out…

Suppose you were writing about a rape? Would naming the victim, their current employee, partner's name, along with a picture, constitute harassment? You have no idea why _why needs privacy: destroying it was a somewhat evil act.

So just running with your analogy, you're saying that _why is like the victim of a shocking, horrible crime. One that thrust him unfairly in the public eye. And that evildoer was who? Apparently it was _why: he's the one who chose to create a very public persona.

It really dumbfounds me when people make idiotic rape analogies. Rape is a violent crime that can leave victims emotionally scarred (and sometimes physically scarred) for life. And it's incredibly common; odds are that some woman in your not-too-distant family was raped.

Please put your rape analogies on the same shelf with Hitler analogies. Rape victims, like holocaust victims, deserve more respect than being used as part of your polemical point-scoring.

Re: Where’s _why?

#150

Post by muyuu »

AnnieLowrey wrote: post #117
thaumaturgy wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be a journalist's job to probe, but it is a fellow human's job to have empathy. raganwald is perfectly correct in distinguishing between _why as a public figure, and the man behind _why as a private one. The man behind _why clearly wished to remain private; why are his wishes not being respected? I think that you are being dismissive when you say, "a few phone calls". From the article, the author tried: asking…

Hi thaumaturgy, Annie here. I'm completely receptive to the criticism of my treatment of the public persona / private person question -- as I wrote before, I expected it and appreciate everyone's insightful comments here. But I'd just like to push back on the idea that my reporting somehow constituted harassment, rather than straightforward reporting on a public figure – and one who had unfortunately already been out…

You outed him, there is no two ways about it.

You can be appreciative of the comments, receptive to criticism blah-dee-blah but you outed him and you know why.

As far as I'm concerned that defines you as a person above anything else.

Post reply on HN