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

How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 596 posts

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#371

Post by spb »

jakejake wrote: post #333
gnopgnip wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would society really be any better off if people aren't held accountable for what they say?

I kinda agree, a PR person of all people should be held accountable for making a terrible joke that comes off as racist. The problem is just the reaction of a mob of arm chair vigilantes thinking they are each delivering some unique tiny bit of justice with their comments, emails or calls. It's a death by a thousand cuts, not to mention the nut-cases who send horrible threats of violence and worse. It's obviously som…

[McMurphy:] "Is this the usual pro-cedure for these Group Ther'py shindigs? Bunch of chickens at a peckin' party?"

[…]

[Harding:]"A 'pecking party'? I fear your quaint down-home speech is wasted on me, my friend. I have not the slightest inclination what you're talking about."

"Why then, I'll just explain it to you." McMurphy raises his voice; though he doesn't look at the other Acutes listening behind him, it's them he's talking to. "The flock gets sight of a spot of blood on some chicken and they all go to peckin' at it, see, till they rip the chicken to shreds, blood and bones and feathers. But usually a couple of the flock gets spotted in the fracas, then it's their turn. And a few more gets spots and gets pecked to death, and more and more. Oh, a peckin' party can wipe out the whole flock in a matter of a few hours, buddy, I seen it. A mighty awesome sight. The only way to prevent it-with chickens-is to clip blinders on them. So's they can't see."

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#372

Post by celticninja »

geofft wrote: post #227
celticninja wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but really what we see with these crusades by SJW's is just an opportunity for bullying, usually by people who were once bullied and now want to get their own back. A lot of it is bandwagon jumping by the majority of people, who may or may not have a dog int he fight, but just want to cause a fuss. It is these people that call the employers, DDOS employers websites etc and then everyone lumps them all together as SJW…

That would be extremely nice, if it worked. Then the entire question about distasteful means wouldn't come up, which would be better for everyone, because distasteful means are still distasteful. Unfortunately, that's not how changing minds works, in practice. http://www.contralbum.com/blog/2015/2/5/political-correctnes... See the section starting "The second great flaw...." (And yes, I get the irony of trying to con…

So your go to alternative is bullying. Well I would prefer to effect no change than to have to force it through with threats and intimidation.

SJW is more of a pejorative term these days, I don't know anyone who uses it in a positive way and you are perhaps the first person I have seen that indicates they themselves are an SJW. My experience of those who the term applies to is generally negative and I cannot think of one positive action that has come from these SJW's.

I won't even wish you luck as I think it is a retarded idea that they preach. Yes I disagree with sexism, racism, homophones etc, I consider myself a bleeding heart liberal but there seems to be no redeeming qualities to the SJW movement it is juts bullying, hatred and damaging their own agenda (on the rare occasions when that agenda can be loosely agreed upon).

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#373

Post by nostrademons »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #258
Joeboy wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have some sympathy for a company whose Senior Director of Corporate Communications instigates a massive PR disaster by joking about Africans having AIDS on Twitter.

This makes me wonder if PR is actually effective, and not a massive money sink. Would that company really lose any noticeable amount of customers over that Twitter shitstorm? If so, how come that no one apparently got hurt over ACTA/SOPA and Snowdengate? I don't see companies losing significant business over trying to destroy the Internet itself.

Because they have good PR departments. A good PR department makes you forget that there ever was an issue, or if you remember the issue, you forget that the company was ever involved.

PR is an interesting job function in that if they do their job correctly, you forget that they exist. It's much like security in that regard. If you have a bad PR department, you'll know, because you'll be constantly under-siege in the media. (Uber comes to mind.)

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#374

Post by gearoidoc »

21echoes wrote: post #352
gearoidoc wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her explanation does sound like it was crafted by a political PR group - which makes sense considering her profession - but I'm still happy to take her word for it. However, it's pretty easy to see how it could be considered a racist and bigoted tweet and I'd expect her to have realised this before sending it. EDIT: I totally agree that scuttling someones life on career off the back of one tweet is unfair - I 100% ag…

if the joke had come out of Louis CK's mouth, its intention would have been obvious. given that, as she said in the article, "only an insane person would think that white people can't get AIDS", and the phrasing is obviously comic (dour opening, sudden & glib reversal, edgy punchline), I literally cannot read the tweet as bigoted or racist. Is the joke off-color? yes. Is it obviously self-deprecating, and aware of th…

if the joke had come out of Louis CK's mouth, its intention would have been obvious.

^Agreed but Louis CK is a world famous comedian. When he speaks I know to take most of what he says in jest. Theres a context I can apply when he speaks.

A counterpoint to this would be that she had a small following on Twitter, most of whom she may know in real life, who likely know that she was joking. They can apply a similar context because of their relationship with her.

However, I would expect her to know that people will be able to read a tweet without that context - thus taking it out of context - and reacting accordingly.

I literally cannot read the tweet as bigoted or racist

^And that's okay. I see it differently. We all take different understandings of things. The tweeter should have considered this when posting the tweet.

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#375

Post by engendered »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #245
kristofferR wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"MRA is short for Men's Rights Activist. MRAs argue that, as human beings, men should have human rights, due process in legal matters, and should not be subject to "reverse discrimination" in favor of other groups. MRAs typically point to men's lower life expectancy in almost every country, higher rates of incarceration, more severe penalties for similar offenses, lower rates of health care spending and health resear…

So how does any of that make you a loser? What's going on in this thread? As far as I can tell it's nothing more than a similar type of bullying the article is itself is talking about, which I didn't ever expect to see on HN, let alone tolerated. At what point can you no longer express controversial opinions without being called a loser?

>As far as I can tell it's nothing more than a similar type of bullying

It absolutely is. "MRA" is a short cut to dismiss an entire spectrum of arguments and perspectives. Just as farcical, but on the opposite side, are people who declare anyone who has a problem with something like, say, "GamerGate", a "SJW".

These are shorthand for idiots. It lets you pretend that you're in a tribe and everything is black and white.

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#376

Post by celticninja »

gearoidoc wrote: post #345
650REDHAIR wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gross unprofessionalism? She wasn't on the job. It wasn't an official account.

I'd like to live to a world where your actions outside of the workplace in a physical or online sense don't affect how you're perceived but it's just not true.

Not true because of people like you who force the link, who call,email and tweet employers about the behaviour of their off duty staff.

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#377

Post by [deleted] »

gearoidoc wrote: post #345
650REDHAIR wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gross unprofessionalism? She wasn't on the job. It wasn't an official account.

I'd like to live to a world where your actions outside of the workplace in a physical or online sense don't affect how you're perceived but it's just not true.

[deleted]

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#378

Post by waylandsmithers »

mc32 wrote: post #26

Two things: Don't be too clever. People trip over themselves to feel offended. Two, you really don't have freedom of speech when you can get mugged by being obnoxious online. Not being malicious -just obnoxious. Yes all the tweets quoted in the article were obnoxious and leveraged stereotypes but I don't think people should be flogged for being like that. I remember all the obnoxious Polish jokes growing up. They wer…

"When men are friends they have no need of justice"

Aristotle

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#379

Post by gearoidoc »

andybak wrote: post #368
gearoidoc wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're terrified by the idea that someone should be fired for gross unprofessionalism? To repeat: she did not deserve ANY bullying or harassment whatsoever. Did you experience consequences of the stupid actions you've taken?

> To repeat: she did not deserve ANY bullying or harassment whatsoever. That wasn't clear. You said the "outcome was fair" - the outcome was that her life was ruined.

I also said: No one deserves to be bullied or harassed but consequences need to exist to actions.

I meant the outcome from a professional standpoint was fair. I don't believe how her life has been "ruined" as I've explained elsewhere.

Re: How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

#380

Post by logfromblammo »

rebootthesystem wrote: post #192

Legal liability would put an end to this. Imagine this: Someone says something unfortunate or offensive at a crowded street corner. Another person hears it and launches into a righteous indignation frenzy. I'll call him the Lead Bully. He stirrs up others. Very soon this turns into a physical attack and the speaker ends up in the hospital with serious injuries. In this case anyone would easily conclude that the Lead…

The proportional response to offensive speech is a rebuttal.

It is not stripping away the other's anonymity. It is not convincing their employer to fire them. It is not ostracizing them and all their immediate associates from civil society.

If someone tells a horribly offensive joke, there are several acceptable responses. One is "We are not amused." Another is "The Aristocrats!" Grabbing torch and pitchfork, and marching to the castle to demand that the monster be let go--and without even a letter of recommendation--is not.

Think before you act, yes. Think before you speak? That seems a rather lofty expectation, even in 2015. There is no ill-considered thought so swift that it cannot be hunted down with a remorseful apology.

Post reply on HN