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

Some things need to change

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 209 posts

Re: Some things need to change

#51

Post by Luc »

colinake wrote: post #47
hk wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? You think that spitting on someone should be illegal !? I don't understand what you mean, anyway. You don't like his business, you don't like his writing, but you have all sorts of cares for him ? Er .. why? What would he have to do to make you finally relinquish your sympathy? In my book, a man is but the sum of his actions. I can't stand Arrington's actions, therefore I can't stand him, ergo I have no sympathy…

I think technically that spitting in someone's face would be considered assault. Not 100% sure on that, though.

Nah, not assault. At least, in my country neighbouring Germany (Belgium) spitting in someone's face is considered a 'verbal insult' for legal reasons.

Re: Some things need to change

#53

Post by trickjarrett »

Arrington gets a lot of shit. I mean honestly he's a journalist. The core problem is that when someone's livelihood is on the line, people change. When someone is out of work looking for a job, there are usually two responses to a rejection: depression or anger.

TechCrunch (and Arrington to a lesser extent these days) get hundreds of tips or requests for coverage from companies and when TC passes them over, these people who are relying on press to get their name out there, can sometimes get angry. And when TC does cover a company in the same market, or sector, but not their company, it can be interpreted as an insult.

Arrington is the face of TechCrunch. As much as Erick and the others write for the site, Arrington is still seen as the embodiment of it.

I don't care for him, as he does come off as unlikable, and he is also prone to sensationalism for the sake of traffic I feel sometimes, but I hate to read this post. No one deserves that sort of treatment.

Re: Some things need to change

#55

Post by hk »

palish wrote: post #50
hk wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? You think that spitting on someone should be illegal !? I don't understand what you mean, anyway. You don't like his business, you don't like his writing, but you have all sorts of cares for him ? Er .. why? What would he have to do to make you finally relinquish your sympathy? In my book, a man is but the sum of his actions. I can't stand Arrington's actions, therefore I can't stand him, ergo I have no sympathy…

You think that spitting on someone should be illegal!? Yes, spitting on someone is illegal. Fun game: stand on a busy street corner and spit on everyone who walks by. If you're arrested before you're crippled, you win.

How about that, it is illegal, at least in the US and some other places. I had no idea. I disagree, too; it's highly distasteful but shouldn't actually be criminal - but that's getting off topic.

Anyway I stand corrected.

Re: Some things need to change

#56

Post by fauigerzigerk »

hk wrote: post #41
dcminter wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dislike techcrunch and I dislike his writing, but I'm full of sympathy for the man . He should take the matter to the police and with any luck the contemptible coward who spat in his face will get a criminal record for their trouble.

Huh? You think that spitting on someone should be illegal !? I don't understand what you mean, anyway. You don't like his business, you don't like his writing, but you have all sorts of cares for him ? Er .. why? What would he have to do to make you finally relinquish your sympathy? In my book, a man is but the sum of his actions. I can't stand Arrington's actions, therefore I can't stand him, ergo I have no sympathy…

Violence is not a matter of sympathy.

Re: Some things need to change

#57

Post by jraines »

Luc wrote: post #51
colinake wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think technically that spitting in someone's face would be considered assault. Not 100% sure on that, though.

Nah, not assault. At least, in my country neighbouring Germany (Belgium) spitting in someone's face is considered a 'verbal insult' for legal reasons.

In the U.S. it is assault.

Re: Some things need to change

#58

Post by colinake »

Luc wrote: post #51
colinake wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think technically that spitting in someone's face would be considered assault. Not 100% sure on that, though.

Nah, not assault. At least, in my country neighbouring Germany (Belgium) spitting in someone's face is considered a 'verbal insult' for legal reasons.

Yeah, as jraines said, I only know about here in the US. Have no knowledge of other countries.

Re: Some things need to change

#59

Post by Xichekolas »

shiranaihito wrote: post #39
hk wrote: post #15

Spitting in his face is going a bit far, but it's pretty difficult for me to feel sympathy for the guy. I struggle to think of a more dislikable, arrogant jerk. This belated plea for human-to-human sympathy falls on deaf ears, for me at least. In my group, Arrington symbolises everything we hate about the "Web 2.0" greed culture. He's relentlessly promoted himself as the gatekeeper to this bullshit world of easy VC m…

I remember a thread on HN where PG asked us whether articles from TC should be banned. Maybe we should re-evaluate that. Many, if not most of the TC articles posted here do seem to be sensationalist in nature, so it's easy to believe Arrington's just after ad-money (as some people say).

pg asked about valleywag.com. Some other user asked about banning techcrunch.

From a business standpoint, it would be silly for pg to ban a site that helps promote YC startups, not to mention TC is nowhere near as wonky/gossipy as valleywag.

Re: Some things need to change

#60

Post by jsdalton »

hk wrote: post #15

Spitting in his face is going a bit far, but it's pretty difficult for me to feel sympathy for the guy. I struggle to think of a more dislikable, arrogant jerk. This belated plea for human-to-human sympathy falls on deaf ears, for me at least. In my group, Arrington symbolises everything we hate about the "Web 2.0" greed culture. He's relentlessly promoted himself as the gatekeeper to this bullshit world of easy VC m…

Why do you have so much animosity toward him? You say he represents everything you hate about Web 2.0 greed culture, but is that a valid reason to delight in someone receiving a nice cream pie in the face?

I think you need to stop and reconsider whether this is the appropriate attitude to take toward someone who really does nothing more than write articles and speak at conferences.

I'd also argue that a culture of tolerance, civility and diversity of views does far more to foster the open exchange of ideas than the silencing of those with whom we disagree.

I do agree somewhat with some of the criticisms that you and others have put forth about Techcrunch as a publication, in particular that it was prone to hype. But otherwise I think he performed a valuable service to our industry, and I think his willingness to speak his mind is both rare and laudable.

It saddens me that the animosity and intolerance that have shadowed Techcrunch have boiled over to something as despicable as this.

Post reply on HN