Following the model set by the likes of Jim Carrey, Robert De Niro, etc.
It's high time we do recognize this as unacceptable speech.
'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant
491–500 of 558 posts
Re: 'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant
#492Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that's the dividing line. Specific example that I linked: >Rallies organized by Likud and other right-wing groups featured depictions of Rabin in the crosshairs of a gun. In July 1995, Netanyahu led a mock funeral procession featuring a coffin and hangman's noose at an anti-Rabin rally where protesters chanted, "Death to Rabin". > Netanyahu denied any intention to incite violence Rabin was subsequently shot dead…
>>However, if XXX of party YYY subsequently starts getting death threats or other harrassment as a result of this statement being made, there is a problem. How can you control that, though? Are people responsible for the mental state of all their followers? Or do they have to ensure that every utterance is so milquetoast that no action would ever come of it? I'd have less of an issue if these rules were to be applied…
>How can you control that, though? Are people responsible for the mental state of all their followers?
No. There is an extent, however, to which leaders are responsible for the actions of their followers.
They know what audience they're speaking to.
>Or do they have to ensure that every utterance is so milquetoast that no action would ever come of it?
False dichotomy.
They have to not encourage their followers to commit violence against others.
The entire point of someone engaging in this would be plausible deniability; the ambiguity is a part of it.
>I'd have less of an issue if these rules
Which rules? It's not like we're discussing legislation here.
We're discussing a concept.
>a politically neutral fashion
Oh, how curious. Do you seem to imply that certain political groups are more likely to be accused of inciting violence against individuals or groups?
Perhaps with a documented track record of spikes in violence following public statements?
Hmmm.
Re: 'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant
#493I had no idea who Dan Preston was until Tan complained about him, but given > In 2022, Preston proposed a ballot measure to tax vacant housing in San Francisco. I think I might just love the guy. Thanks for the awareness campaign Garry!
Dan Preston is a NIMBY dressed in wolves clothes. Like most progressive agendas in SF they do very little to actually secure more housing. They make for great tag lines to pull support in and NOTHING changes.
> Dan Preston is a NIMBY dressed in wolves clothes.
Citation?
> They make for great tag lines to pull support in and NOTHING changes.
Two questions, independent
* Is that the fault of those advocating for change? Are they failing to introduce legislation or is their legislation not making out of committee or whatever due to opposition? Sincere question
* Is there a candidate which would walk the walk better on actually implementing the popular policies which Dan advocates for?
Re: 'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant
#494Earlier quoted context omitted.
The firestorm is entirely because Tan is rich and Asian. There’s always been a taboo on “punching down,” but in recent years in certain circles politicians have moved positions in the hierarchy.
I thought the firestorm was because some who is ostensibly smart did something objectively not smart.
I mean, that's part of it, but if look at the quality of some of the analogies being made on this thread, "objectively not smart" on its own is clearly not sufficient to cause a firestorm.
Re: 'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant
#495Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I could never endorse violent rhetoric in politics In literally the next sentence: > the level of avoidable human misery caused by the dysfunction of politics [...] sickening [...] utterly enraged [...] there's a piece of your soul missing So you'll deploy extreme emotional hyperbole, but not "violent rhetoric"? Seems like those are two rather nearby points on the same spectrum, no? Tan just slipped a bit off the e…
> Seems like those are two rather nearby points on the same spectrum, no? I don't think so, no. Those two things are miles apart.
Only according to external rules about what you're supposed to say. The emotional content of the rhetoric seems pretty identical. No one thinks Garry Tan was actually wishing death on anyone, he was expressing anger and doing that by invalidating the target's existence. "You should die" and "you have a piece of your soul missing" are coming from the same place, they both mean "you're worthless".
It's just that Tan forgot the rules in the heat of the moment. And so would the grandparent poster after a few drinks, I suspect.
To wit: cool the fuck down, everyone. Shitposting on the internet is a slippery slope to an accidental death threat.
Re: 'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant
#496I'm a little bit aghast at all the comments saying this is normal or no big deal. Maybe it is normal (or at least common), but it shouldn't be. If you believe it's no big deal, I can't agree. I can see this kind of behaviour from adolescents, but adults should understand that words are meaningful and have consequences, and that even if you disagree with someone, they're still a human being who deserves some modicum o…
We can debate about whether it should be normal, but clearly it is, right? For example we have the Darwin Award, where we mock people who actually died (not just rhetorically). I’m not the least bit edgy as far as millennials go, and I’ve made the joke that “the best thing Trump could do for the GOP is to get assassinated.” It always gets a laugh.
Wishing death on a political opponent in a venue where they're sure to see it and might view it as a threat. Joking about someone who foolishly brought about their own death. They're exactly the same thing!
Re: 'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant
#497Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t pretend it’s anywhere near a free market as is. It’s nigh impossible to build new or denser inventory there.
Yeah that’s not true there’s plenty of half empty apartments all over soma and mission bay
And lots of people want to move to the bay, yet the rents are high enough to prevent them from doing that. Weird, huh?
Re: 'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant
#498Earlier quoted context omitted.
My general rule is sort of a variant of Godwin’s Law: “The first person to tell their opponent ‘you shouldn’t be so sensitive’ forfeits the debate.” There are of course exceptions. But obnoxious people think that every time they say something offensive or awful, the onus is on others to make allowances.
I have a similar rule: "The first person to tell their opponent 'your ideas are offensive' forfeits the debate". I believe my rule prevents more bad arguments.
That rule is great in a monoculture but fails when good-faith participants are coming from widely differing perspectives and values. If it’s not a good faith discussion, nothing helps.
But I’m not actually trying to engineer a debate ruleset, I’m mostly pointing out how people try to get away with being assholes.
Re: 'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant
#499This is fine.
Re: 'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant
#500This is fine. Not great, but it is fine.