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

541–550 of 596 posts

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

#541

Post by mc32 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #539
mc32 wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that. If you take that approach to an extreme one e fs up a hermit or worse a selfreinfocing mentality. I mean no restaurants where a cook, server disagrees politically, no working for companies who have people who disagree with me, no listening to music from musicians who disagree with me.... Go ahead try and see how far people get. Not very.

I'm sure that if you really stretch your mind around the issue, you'll understand and agree that the rules are a bit different at the CEO level.

I don't think so. So long as they don't seek me out personally, I'm okay with the CxO, etc., being diametrically opposed to me.

I'll put up with an F'ed up president/prime minister with whom I disagree to the utmost, but I'm not going to move out of the country. I'd do what any civilized person would do and avail myself the tools at hand, vote, in the case of president/PM/Chancellor. But I'm not going to get in a tizzy over it.

I think there's a point you come to in life where you realize that no matter how righteous you think your personal cause is, it's your framework which makes it so. Live in another era, in greek times or babylonian times, their idea of what was right and wrong were different due to their frameworks. People who believe that when they are old and frail should go out to pasture to be consumed by nature are no less right than the person who believes in life prolonging drugs, euthanasia or hospice care.

I'm also not saying we're insignificant beings and nothing really matters in the face of the universe. Just that with few exceptions, like murder, etc. we can't say 'this is the righteous way', the enlightened way.

When I work for someone, when I buy something, there is no further symbolism -it's unconditional. I make a transaction for service or product. You pay me, I work for you do do x. I pay you and I get service or product x in return. I don't expect any conditions like, oh, you must say sweet things to your partner, don't think nasty thoughts in your dreams, else this breaks some implicit agreement, etc.

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

#542

Post by bcantrill »

geofft wrote: post #480
bcantrill wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny you should mention that, as that episode from nearly 20 years ago (!!) has come up much more in the last year than it did in the two decades prior. Of course, the reason is not an accident; it's a direct result of those who vehemently disagree with my handling of the Noordhuis pronoun incident. Anyway, your request is entirely fair, and let me be clear that I (obviously?) regret the have-you-ever-kissed-a-…

Haha, hi, thanks for showing up on the thread. Not that I have any real justification in having opinions on something you said to someone else while I was in third grade (... although I think I was using Solaris then), but as a random member of the open-source community, I do appreciate you saying this clearly. :) I did see it brought up first by some obvious single-purpose-troll account on Twitter in the midst of th…

I was actually glad you brought it up. When I saw the New York Times story, I naturally thought back to my own episode(s) -- and it's been on my mind anyway because it came up on HN as recently as yesterday.[1]

Part of the peril of social media is that everyone becomes a public figure -- whether they want to be one or not. Those who are more traditional public figures (e.g., politicians, actors, athletes, business leaders) often have the personality attributes that make it easier to deal with scathing public criticism (though I don't think anyone particularly likes being excoriated) -- but most normal people actually don't. As a culture, I hope that we will be both more tolerant of mistakes made on social media -- but also more aware that (at some level) we all need to act as public figures when in public. Certainly, it's a thorny, complicated issue -- and one that is decidedly (if not canonically) modern.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9028497

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

#543

Post by bahamat »

bcantrill wrote: post #423
geofft wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He acknowledges that in the replies, but this particular "idiocy" is not one of tone, behavior, or offense. It is about bad technical policy in the pursuit of ego, which is something that Linus has done several times since. (And he's a brilliant enough kernel hacker that he can work around his own bad policy and still come up with a system that works well, but that doesn't mean it's not bad technical policy. I feel b…

It's funny you should mention that, as that episode from nearly 20 years ago (!!) has come up much more in the last year than it did in the two decades prior. Of course, the reason is not an accident; it's a direct result of those who vehemently disagree with my handling of the Noordhuis pronoun incident. Anyway, your request is entirely fair, and let me be clear that I (obviously?) regret the have-you-ever-kissed-a-…

FWIW, here's the SNL reference.

Video: https://screen.yahoo.com/star-trek-convention-000000768.html

Script: http://snltranscripts.jt.org/86/86hgetalife.phtml

Someone might have posted a link in the original thread but the episode was 10 years old and YouTube was 10 years away.

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

#544

Post by mcphage »

coldpie wrote: post #485
mcphage wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for no reason other than your own personal animosity If that's your understanding of people who vote against gay marriage, then you really have no idea what's going on in this country.

Please enlighten me.

Most people on this planet have religious beliefs, that claim some behaviors are good, and some behaviors are bad. A lot of them don't make much sense. Maybe you think that God doesn't want you eating bacon. Why? I don't know. But you follow them because you believe that's what God wants you to do. A lot of people—millions and millions of people in the US—believe that their God disapproves of gay marriage. And so these people, who are trying to understand the world and their place in it, try to live out the expectations they believe that their God has for them.

Maybe you think that sucks. Well, in fairly short order, gay marriage is being legalized over their objections. That's a good thing. But to believe that it's being fueled by sociopathic animosity—to turn millions of Americans into movie villains because they haven't yet learned what you already have—is an act of arrogant blindness. And it's a harm to you as well—by not understanding why they believe what they do, by turning them into fictional caricatures, you lose all hope of changing their mind, and helping them learn what you learned.

I have no doubt that, over time, quite a lot of them will see the errors of their ways, and support gay marriage. But it will be despite you, not thanks to you.

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

#545

Post by latestrevision »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #517
stolio wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because somebody's idea of diversity is different from yours doesn't make them hateful, it just makes them different. It's ironic that this is lost on people who argue the most loudly for inclusiveness.

No, it doesn't make them "different," it makes them hateful. You're carrying water for some people that will go down in history next to the KKK. Stop it.

I'm really sorry to have to be so direct about this, but it's perspectives like this that are part of the problem.

By saying that they're "next to the KKK", you're marking your opposition as not only immoral, but beyond reprieve. If you're willing to simplify the moral landscape to a single line onto which you've placed yourself squarely at the "good" end, you're taking a gravely irresponsible logical shortcut.

EDIT: I foolishly used 'retribution' in place of 'reprieve', thus making my above comment confusing and nonsensical.

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

#546

Post by Natsu »

zaroth wrote: post #442
nzealand wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say 80% of people on here have shown a little lack of awareness and judgement at least once on HN. Have you ever posted a joke that might offend? Have you ever linked to one or more past projects? Are you aware that you can not delete your account or your posts?

Maybe I'm missing the ToS where copyright is assigned to HN, but I'm going to guess that a simple DMCA notice to HN would have all your comments deleted quite expediently.

That's a bit questionable if you fight it as they may be considered to have an implied license due to the fact that you posted it here to begin with. It was never really contemplated in terms of removing content placed there by its author.

You might also get put into a Chilling Effects database, assuming HN contributes to that (I honestly don't know, but it seems plausible). These are significantly less public than they were prior to the Google removal, though.

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

#547

Post by Natsu »

gnopgnip wrote: post #302
paulhauggis wrote: post #219

This is the reality of social media. If you offend the wrong person, you will most likely get fired from your job and or get unwanted attention in other parts of your life..all for just expressing an opinion. It's essentially online bullying by people that want to silence you for having an opinion that is different than their own. The ex-Mozilla CEO knows this well. An online bullying campaign was launched against hi…

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

There's a spectrum of 'accountable' between being an unemployable pariah and being totally unaccountable which disorganized mass action cannot be properly calibrated for.

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

#548

Post by A_COMPUTER »

bhayden wrote: post #242
freeasinfree wrote: post #180

Comedians say much worse on a daily basis and rarely catch any flack. Are regular people not allowed to make jokes?

That is my issue with this. Daniel Tosh makes sexist, racist, and rape jokes on a daily basis and people at large aren't up in arms threatening to strike if he visits their workplace. To me this says these psuedo-activists care more about picking on an easy target than actually preventing hurtful speech. Not to mention the hypocrisy of many of those tweets when they call her a bitch, or send her death threats.

It's the same reason that SF gentrification articles come in waves on HN. There is a cause du jour, and it only lasts a little while until the new one.

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

#549

Post by mc32 »

kaonashi wrote: post #537
mc32 wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No not quite. A robust society is one which evolves to know limits. You can have stereotypical jokes, racist jokes, etc. But they are part of a bonding mechanism rather than an alienating mechanism. Societies need to allow the free flow of ideas. We can't be choosy about what we consider proper or not, desirable and not. We have to allow everything. I used to be a dreamer growing up and thought why not make these bad…

> Societies need to allow the free flow of ideas. Then when does "That makes me feel like shit when you say things like that" become taboo?

You should not receive that from a superior. Nor should one be harassed (repeated uninvited antagonism). Else, society at large, there is no guarantee --taboos change over time. They come and go. People become sensitive to things and become desensitized to other things.

My belief is only our own selves have control over our reaction. We as receivers of all kinds of bad things need to learn how to deal with adversity. Nature is not sanitized, we should be taught how to deal with this kind of adversity. It's a cold place, and not everyone's or every thing's nice. Children often are not prepared by adults for these things.

Now, bullying is something different and there are different aspects to it. Sometimes it's peer pressure, other times it's harassment, other times it's a social mechanism to get people to behave a certain way (don't cut in line), be a certain way (slim, not fat, etc.) Bullying is an intimate attack, a malicious attack on a particular person, typically by a group, but also by an individual often accompanied by explicit or implicit violence. It's about control.

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

#550

Post by mc32 »

bcantrill wrote: post #423
geofft wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He acknowledges that in the replies, but this particular "idiocy" is not one of tone, behavior, or offense. It is about bad technical policy in the pursuit of ego, which is something that Linus has done several times since. (And he's a brilliant enough kernel hacker that he can work around his own bad policy and still come up with a system that works well, but that doesn't mean it's not bad technical policy. I feel b…

It's funny you should mention that, as that episode from nearly 20 years ago (!!) has come up much more in the last year than it did in the two decades prior. Of course, the reason is not an accident; it's a direct result of those who vehemently disagree with my handling of the Noordhuis pronoun incident. Anyway, your request is entirely fair, and let me be clear that I (obviously?) regret the have-you-ever-kissed-a-…

I can see an organization having an internal gendered pronoun elimination policy --who cares. But I think one should allow anyone writing any contribution to use whatever pronoun gender they prefer. Encourage women to use feminine grammatical gender and men to use either grammatical gender pronoun.

Leave it up to the writer to decide.

For what it's worth, I prefer the neutral 'they' but I also don't get caught up in grammatical genders. Imagine if English had retained grammatical genders for regular nouns --as german and spanish do. What, so we rewrite the language and change grammatical gender because it gets conflated with biological gender?

Also, when I read text and it has the grammatical gender opposite mine, I don't feel disenfranchised by the text. It's not something I keep conscious of. I'm not pronoun hunting, and I think few people do that. Reading would become incomprehensibly distracting.

It's the same as when you see the pronoun 'you' Do you automatically believe it refers to you personally? I know I don't. Same with he, she, they, they're all a third person abstraction.

Post reply on HN