4 ms·

edit: I did not scroll far enough in the article to see his second comment. That one is much worse, but firing people for their opinions strikes me as a dangero

edit: I did not scroll far enough in the article to see his second comment. That one is much worse, but firing people for their opinions strikes me as a dangerous precedent.

scarmig 10y ago
To be fair, the post in question: In downtown SF the degenerates gather like hyenas, spit, urinate, taunt you, sell drugs, get rowdy, they act like they own the center of the city…You can preach compassion, equality, and be the biggest lover in the world, but there is an area of town for degenerates and an area of town for the working class. There is nothing positive gained from having them so close to us. It’s a burden and a liability having them so close to us. Believe me, if they added the smallest iota of value I’d consider thinking different, but the crazy toothless lady who kicks everyone that gets too close to her cardboard box hasn’t made anyone’s life better in a while. I hate the contemporary pastime for witch hunts against the bad-think, but that strikes me as a pretty distasteful post. YMMV
- BillinghamJ 10y ago
  To be honest, I fully agree with his post.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- darkengine 10y ago
  Distasteful, perhaps (I would question his use of the word "degenerate"). His phrasing is clearly warped by some long-building anger over a worsening situation. I don't think it's a fire-worthy offense regardless.
  - scarmig 10y ago
    We can agree to disagree about how distasteful it is. So long as we promise not to attempt to get each other fired ;)
- x0x0 10y ago
  pbpaste | fold -s -w 77 | sed "s/^/ /" | pbcopy ^^ makes it way nicer to read The quote in question: In downtown SF the degenerates gather like hyenas, spit, urinate, taunt you, sell drugs, get rowdy, they act like they own the center of the city…You can preach compassion, equality, and be the biggest lover in the world, but there is an area of town for degenerates and an area of town for the working class. There is nothing positive gained from having them so close to us. It’s a burden and a liability having them so close to us. Believe me, if they added the smallest iota of value I’d consider thinking different, but the crazy toothless lady who kicks everyone that gets too close to her cardboard box hasn’t made anyone’s life better in a while.
  - scarmig 10y ago
    Awesome. I was looking through HN formatting options to find something like this.
niftich 10y ago
I was confused too at first; there's two quotes, but only the first one is reproduced in the QZ article. The second one, more tinged with frustration and denigrating language, is not in the QZ article, but is quoted in the TechCrunch article linked form that one. But, might I ask, why are we so intent on firing people immediately when stuff from the past is dug up? Should they not be given a chance to explain themselves, apologize, or perhaps even claim to stand by the sentiment they expressed? I can understand this practice for certain very high-profile figures like celebrity endorsements, models, CEOs; situations where there's usually a clause in their contract that 'negative publicity' they incur that's affects the sponsor by association, but for (relatively) average people, this may just produce a chilling effect -- many claim it already has.

edit: I did not scroll far enough in the article to see his second comment. That one is much worse, but firing people for their opinions strikes me as a dangerous precedent.

scarmig 10y ago

To be fair, the post in question: In downtown SF the degenerates gather like hyenas, spit, urinate, taunt you, sell drugs, get rowdy, they act like they own the center of the city…You can preach compassion, equality, and be the biggest lover in the world, but there is an area of town for degenerates and an area of town for the working class. There is nothing positive gained from having them so close to us. It’s a burden and a liability having them so close to us. Believe me, if they added the smallest iota of value I’d consider thinking different, but the crazy toothless lady who kicks everyone that gets too close to her cardboard box hasn’t made anyone’s life better in a while. I hate the contemporary pastime for witch hunts against the bad-think, but that strikes me as a pretty distasteful post. YMMV

BillinghamJ 10y ago
To be honest, I fully agree with his post.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
darkengine 10y ago
Distasteful, perhaps (I would question his use of the word "degenerate"). His phrasing is clearly warped by some long-building anger over a worsening situation. I don't think it's a fire-worthy offense regardless.
- scarmig 10y ago
  We can agree to disagree about how distasteful it is. So long as we promise not to attempt to get each other fired ;)
x0x0 10y ago
pbpaste | fold -s -w 77 | sed "s/^/ /" | pbcopy ^^ makes it way nicer to read The quote in question: In downtown SF the degenerates gather like hyenas, spit, urinate, taunt you, sell drugs, get rowdy, they act like they own the center of the city…You can preach compassion, equality, and be the biggest lover in the world, but there is an area of town for degenerates and an area of town for the working class. There is nothing positive gained from having them so close to us. It’s a burden and a liability having them so close to us. Believe me, if they added the smallest iota of value I’d consider thinking different, but the crazy toothless lady who kicks everyone that gets too close to her cardboard box hasn’t made anyone’s life better in a while.
- scarmig 10y ago
  Awesome. I was looking through HN formatting options to find something like this.

niftich 10y ago

I was confused too at first; there's two quotes, but only the first one is reproduced in the QZ article. The second one, more tinged with frustration and denigrating language, is not in the QZ article, but is quoted in the TechCrunch article linked form that one. But, might I ask, why are we so intent on firing people immediately when stuff from the past is dug up? Should they not be given a chance to explain themselves, apologize, or perhaps even claim to stand by the sentiment they expressed? I can understand this practice for certain very high-profile figures like celebrity endorsements, models, CEOs; situations where there's usually a clause in their contract that 'negative publicity' they incur that's affects the sponsor by association, but for (relatively) average people, this may just produce a chilling effect -- many claim it already has.