4 ms·

The reddit megathread [0] does a fine job summarizing. What do you personally make of the remarks about homosexuals, many of which are identified and linked in

by p4wnc6 10y ago

The reddit megathread [0] does a fine job summarizing. What do you personally make of the remarks about homosexuals, many of which are identified and linked in the reddit thread? You say it is nothing that would be "out of place in any big company or organization" -- it's hard for me to read that without gathering that you tacitly imply it's OK for big company or organizational leadership to banter about their own bigoted beliefs over email, and that since this is commonplace among companies, no one should feel outraged by it. How does that follow? As far as I'm concerned, the fact that it's commonplace only makes it all the more outrageous. A lot of people doing an indisputably anti-human behavior doesn't somehow make it more human. [0] < https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4u5ztv/dnc_email_leak_megathread/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4u5ztv/dnc_email_... >

nl 10y ago
I haven't seen any remarks about homosexuals until I searched that thread. I found one email[1]. I presume it means that the person they are discussing literally swims with/for the DC Gay and Lesbian Swimming Squad[2]. The reply was which was kinda creepy, but didn't seem to show any particular discriminatory behaviour. Is there something else I should be looking at? You say it is nothing that would be "out of place in any big company or organization" -- it's hard for me to read that without gathering that you tacitly imply it's OK for big company or organizational leadership to banter about their own bigoted beliefs over email, and that since this is commonplace among companies, no one should feel outraged by it. I just aren't seeing anything that is bigoted. I'm very, very open to being persuaded otherwise. People use email when they are gossiping. They shouldn't, and lots of what they talk about it dumb or rude. But isn't that just the nature of gossip? To be clear - I'm not defending the DNC. They shouldn't have talked like this over email. But show me some email that has something that is an actual, interesting, newsworthy story in itself, but "creepy" isn't really going to make the front page of the NY Times. So far people do these big link dumps, I read a few, and my opinion gets more solidified - the Vox assessment of "no smoking gun" seems appropriate. Like I said - very happy to be shown to be wrong about this. I think this story is flagged of the front page, so there aren't even imaginary internet points at stake. [1] https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/498 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/498 [2] http://www.swimdcac.org/about.php http://www.swimdcac.org/about.php
- p4wnc6 10y ago
  > I just aren't seeing anything that is bigoted. I'm very, very open to being persuaded otherwise. See, I am starting to realize that you're not actually open, or at least you're not as open as you think you are and you're not acknowledging the way you're going out of the way to ignore or write off blatantly bigoted behavior. Here's just one example [0] < https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4u5ztv/dnc_email_leak_megathread/d5n5e6r https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4u5ztv/dnc_email_... >. Since it seems like we have a disagreement even in kind, it might be best to just see what your thoughts are about that lone example. If we can't agree that it is egregiously, lose-your-job-on-the-spot bigoted, then it's doubtful we can agree on anything else.
  - nl 10y ago
    I didn't see that example, sorry. (I did Ctrl-F and found the swim team example first.) It's pretty bad stereotyping, I agree. But for the LGBT Finance Director to say that - why do you think it is egregiously, lose-your-job-on-the-spot bigoted? The linked Reddit discussion has a pretty wide range of views, but even there I don't see anyone calling him bigoted. The closest is "It's an vicious joke. I don't care whether the joker is gay. He's a duplicitous prick.", and the author of that comment is getting quite a lot of push-back on it. They later qualified their comment to say: You missed my point which I approached a bit too indirectly, perhaps. I don't take offense to jokes. My point: the question of whether the joker is gay is irrelevant to the ethical status of making a joke about being gay It's relevant for PC bots, sure, but I'm not bound to their code. Edit: but, yeah, the guy is still a duplicitous prick I don't really understand this explanation, but it doesn't really sound like an accusation of bigotry. "Bigot" means "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions". How do you get that from that particular comment? I'd be disappointed if we couldn't find a position we can both understand. I completely respect your anger over these emails - they are nasty and unprofessional, and I'm not endorsing that or the behaviour they represent in any way. But I'm not surprised they aren't "under 24/7 emphatic media coverage" - like someone said in that Reddit thread - it's like a bunch of office gossip.
    - 10y ago

by p4wnc6 10y ago

nl 10y ago

I haven't seen any remarks about homosexuals until I searched that thread. I found one email[1]. I presume it means that the person they are discussing literally swims with/for the DC Gay and Lesbian Swimming Squad[2]. The reply was which was kinda creepy, but didn't seem to show any particular discriminatory behaviour. Is there something else I should be looking at? You say it is nothing that would be "out of place in any big company or organization" -- it's hard for me to read that without gathering that you tacitly imply it's OK for big company or organizational leadership to banter about their own bigoted beliefs over email, and that since this is commonplace among companies, no one should feel outraged by it. I just aren't seeing anything that is bigoted. I'm very, very open to being persuaded otherwise. People use email when they are gossiping. They shouldn't, and lots of what they talk about it dumb or rude. But isn't that just the nature of gossip? To be clear - I'm not defending the DNC. They shouldn't have talked like this over email. But show me some email that has something that is an actual, interesting, newsworthy story in itself, but "creepy" isn't really going to make the front page of the NY Times. So far people do these big link dumps, I read a few, and my opinion gets more solidified - the Vox assessment of "no smoking gun" seems appropriate. Like I said - very happy to be shown to be wrong about this. I think this story is flagged of the front page, so there aren't even imaginary internet points at stake. [1] https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/498 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/498 [2] http://www.swimdcac.org/about.php http://www.swimdcac.org/about.php

p4wnc6 10y ago
> I just aren't seeing anything that is bigoted. I'm very, very open to being persuaded otherwise. See, I am starting to realize that you're not actually open, or at least you're not as open as you think you are and you're not acknowledging the way you're going out of the way to ignore or write off blatantly bigoted behavior. Here's just one example [0] < https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4u5ztv/dnc_email_leak_megathread/d5n5e6r https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4u5ztv/dnc_email_... >. Since it seems like we have a disagreement even in kind, it might be best to just see what your thoughts are about that lone example. If we can't agree that it is egregiously, lose-your-job-on-the-spot bigoted, then it's doubtful we can agree on anything else.
- nl 10y ago
  I didn't see that example, sorry. (I did Ctrl-F and found the swim team example first.) It's pretty bad stereotyping, I agree. But for the LGBT Finance Director to say that - why do you think it is egregiously, lose-your-job-on-the-spot bigoted? The linked Reddit discussion has a pretty wide range of views, but even there I don't see anyone calling him bigoted. The closest is "It's an vicious joke. I don't care whether the joker is gay. He's a duplicitous prick.", and the author of that comment is getting quite a lot of push-back on it. They later qualified their comment to say: You missed my point which I approached a bit too indirectly, perhaps. I don't take offense to jokes. My point: the question of whether the joker is gay is irrelevant to the ethical status of making a joke about being gay It's relevant for PC bots, sure, but I'm not bound to their code. Edit: but, yeah, the guy is still a duplicitous prick I don't really understand this explanation, but it doesn't really sound like an accusation of bigotry. "Bigot" means "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions". How do you get that from that particular comment? I'd be disappointed if we couldn't find a position we can both understand. I completely respect your anger over these emails - they are nasty and unprofessional, and I'm not endorsing that or the behaviour they represent in any way. But I'm not surprised they aren't "under 24/7 emphatic media coverage" - like someone said in that Reddit thread - it's like a bunch of office gossip.
  - 10y ago