Some things need to change • Hacker News Board

Re: Some things need to change

#101

Post by manmanic » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 4:27 PM UTC

froo wrote: post #80

manmanic wrote: post #66

Disgusting as it clearly is, I feel the spitting incident is a bit of a red herring. If this had happened 2 years ago during the rapid growth in Web 2.0 investment, I think Mike would have soldiered on. Instead, he has a nasty experience while his business and kingdom are shrinking. Deep down, I suspect he wanted out already. In his situation I would.

I completely disagree with what you're saying. I'm not sure if you've stood back and had a look at just how much flack Michael actually cops from day to day. Sure, he may simply ignore a lot of it - but eventually if you're getting attacked from all sides, there will be a point that you break. This was his.

It's impossible to know the answer, since it's hidden somewhere deep inside Mike's subconscious. My intuition says that he'd be more willing to put up with something like that if his company was still growing rapidly.

Re: Some things need to change

#102

Post by darkhorse » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 4:28 PM UTC

let this be a reminder that actions have consequences, and none of us lives in our own isolated bubble.

treat others as you'd like to be treated - and that applies both to Arrington and to the spitter.

Re: Some things need to change

#103

Post by staunch » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 4:33 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #68

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…

Spitting in someone's face and then standing your ground to accept the consequences takes balls. Running away is, almost by definition, cowardice.

I think spitting in someone's face is by definition cowardice.

Re: Some things need to change

#104

Post by tptacek » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 4:36 PM UTC

Maybe there wouldn't be so much Arrington animus if TechCrunch would stop doing things like republishing the Twitter streams of disgruntled data entry employees as retaliation for a management team that refused to comment about that employee.

Maybe there wouldn't have been so much animus if Arrington hadn't done things like single out the lead dev for his favorite web service and run story after story about his purported incompetance.

Nobody should spit on Arrington --- at least, nonconsensually --- but it's not like this is Bill Moyers we're talking about here.

Re: Some things need to change

#105

Post by tptacek » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 4:38 PM UTC

sounddust wrote: post #94

hk wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone with an infectious disease knowingly infects another, whether it be by unprotected sex without disclosure or by spitting, then that is malicious intent to harm and is already well covered by law.

And what if they didn't know they had a disease? It doesn't matter - forcing someone to share your bodily fluids in such an aggressive manner should be a crime. And of course the punishment should fit the crime, but at a minimum, spitting is equal to minor physical assault.

I've started some dumb comment threads here, but I'm humbled by this one.

Re: Some things need to change

#106

Post by braindead_in » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 4:43 PM UTC

Why not fight back? If people are saying negative things about him, spreading rumors then he should be countering them. Maybe start a personal blog. Rebut them. Make your point be heard loud and clear. Not tough for a person who's in media already.

Re: Some things need to change

#107

Post by gravitycop » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 4:51 PM UTC

hk wrote: post #83

tallanvor wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's assault, plain and simple. --How can you justify doing that to someone?

Assault is punished by law according to physical consequence. If you break someone's jaw, you go to jail. If you break their heart by verbal assault, you don't. There are no physical consequences to being spat on by a healthy person (if they are sick and do so knowingly to infect you, that is completely different). It is an insult, a grotesque one, but an insult none the less, and should be treated as such by law.

If you break someone's jaw, you go to jail. If you break their heart by verbal assault, you don't.

That is not necessarily true. Commission of verbal assault can land a person in jail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words_doctrine#United_...

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

Re: Some things need to change

#108

Post by mattmaroon » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 4:56 PM UTC

"Before TechCrunch I assumed most people were essentially good, and assumed that an individual was trustworthy until proven otherwise. Today, its exactly the opposite."

Most people are trustworthy until there's a large amount of money on the line, as in startups. Then you really never know who is. You think "oh, we've been friends/coworkers/brothers for years, he'd never screw me". Then 6 or 7 figures become and you find out what people are really made of.

Re: Some things need to change

#109

Post by wallflower » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 5:00 PM UTC

mattmaroon wrote: post #108

"Before TechCrunch I assumed most people were essentially good, and assumed that an individual was trustworthy until proven otherwise. Today, its exactly the opposite." Most people are trustworthy until there's a large amount of money on the line, as in startups. Then you really never know who is. You think "oh, we've been friends/coworkers/brothers for years, he'd never screw me". Then 6 or 7 figures become and you…

> Then 6 or 7 figures become and you find out what people are really made of.

Like alcohol can sometimes do temporarily, extreme money will magnify your personality and who you really are.

Re: Some things need to change

#110

Post by adrianwaj » Wed, Jan 28, 2009, 5:04 PM UTC

pclark wrote: post #100

adrianwaj wrote: post #99

Arrington has spat in the face of many startups and blogs, metaphorically speaking, and the most successful business people in general are ruthless. This doesn't excuse the literal spitting behaviour, but Techcrunch is a blog with way too much power, for better or worse depending on the way you look at it.

why does everyone think startups are doomed if they get a bad TC review? There's a perfect example of this THIS WEEK! Arrington has been ripping into Cha Cha for years, and they just got a massive funding round.

"why does everyone think startups are doomed if they get a bad TC review?"

Who says they're not!

When's the last time TC linked to another blog in a post. Hat tips etc.?