4 ms·

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ny-times-quinn-norton-neonazis_us_5a837db8e4b0cf06751f8fbe https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ny-times-quinn-norton-n...

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
This seems to me that she was mostly using words which are offensive, but frequently used outside of their intended meaning. Definitely language I wouldn't use myself. But for example, "that's gay" has been relatively often used as an insult/derogatory, inadvertently by people not intending to be homophobic. I'd definitely call out it's use today, but I'm not sure I'd hunt someone down and try to ruin their career over them using language they shouldn't have five years ago.
- fred_is_fred 9y ago
  Edit: removed since apparaently it was a RT
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Wasn't that was a retweet (the good ole-fashioned retweet, starting with "RT")? It looks like it was a retweet from John Barlow, the founder of the EFF. And it was definitely sarcastic, in nature. If you remove the loaded language, it's a bit easier to parse, I think: "If a black man was meant to talk to our schoolchildren, God would've made one President. Oh, wait, he did." Ergo, a black man was, indeed, meant to talk to our schoolchildren.
    - meri_dian 9y ago
      That's exactly how I interpreted it as well. It is unwise to use slurs regardless of intent, because people are sensitive to them and rightly so. But her intent in using them was not to hurt or belittle.
  - berberous 9y ago
    In her own words via Twitter: “I retweeted @JPBarlow using offensive language in a sarcastic tweet that was meant to slap back at racists after Obama's first election. Eh, not my best retweet, even if the intentions, both mine and Barlow's, were in the right place.” Reading the RT itself, I think it’s clear she is AGAINST racism.
  - junkcollector 9y ago
    You shouldn't remove it because it was a retweet, you should have removed it because it clearly meant the opposite of what you were implying it meant. Plenty often people get lampooned for statements that are later divorced from content but you are taking a single word and divorcing it from the content of the sentence it's in.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ghaff 9y ago
  I mostly agree but it's also understandable on the part of the NYT. She wasn't really even on board yet so this probably counts as one of those battles that isn't worth fighting even if they they wanted to. Not that it really pertains in this case, but personally, I'm pretty glad that there was no social media prior to my being an established adult professional in a role that made me very aware anything I wrote was out there for all to see and interpret.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Indeed. I don't think Norton is a racist/homephobe, I do think she made poor choices with her social media presence for her career. And while I don't think she should lose her job because of five year old tweets that aren't the greatest, I understand where NYTimes would be at: Their first and foremost responsibility is to their brand and reputation.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      >Their first and foremost responsibility is to their brand and reputation Right. People with no skin in the game often want companies to do the right/heroic/etc. thing. Even leaving aside what the appropriate action in this particular case is, the reality is that when there's a mob or the likelihood of one that wants your head, your employer is probably going to think about it for about 10 seconds and then toss you off the deck. "It's just business" as Bill Belichick would put it. We can all think of plenty other examples over the past few years.
    - MarkMMullin 9y ago
      The NYT shows an ever more feeble understanding of brand and reputation in this age - Quinn's writing and public commentary really shouldn't come as a surprise to them, any more than going to a talk by Brenda Laurel and having her call out questions with 'Yo' and shoot down bad questions with 'That's a stupid * question' - I don't always agree with her, but I have always seen her as authentic (both of those fine women, actually)
      - ghaff 9y ago
- CPLX 9y ago
  Nobody has had their career ruined. She's just had a job offer at one of the most prestigious and influential sources of opinion writing change their mind about hiring her. It seems to me poor and distasteful use of language is a pretty reasonable reason to not want someone in that position. There are plenty of outlets for idiot 4chan style insults in the world, I'm not sure we really need people from that community holding one of the top positions in tech journalism and opinion writing.
  - beaconstudios 9y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if I learned that a fair share of high ranking tech people spent time on 4chan.
noisefridge 9y ago
Some context here on "fag" / "faggot" In some cases Quinn seems to be bantering with her gay friends. Quinn is queer herself. In other cases she is calling out some 4chan person, for unknown reasons since they deleted their account. Norton is using the common lingo on that site. Especially at the time, on 4chan, everyone was a fag. Being a "fag" on 4chan or certain IRC channels was a complex identity. It was acknowledgement of being a high school social outcast who got called a "fag", and also part of a community that's turned that hate inwards, and is merciless towards outsiders and even each other. And yes, it's also a slur against gay people and it causes many people pain to read it. These aspects of internet culture are hideous and awful. It's also the culture that Norton fell into, and grew out of. I suspect many people here are the same. Where she is right now? Was she a good pick for the NYTimes? She's complicated. In her personal life she can be very, very difficult to deal with, and her associations are questionable. (Like probably all of your favorite writers from other eras!) But there isn't anyone else writing with her compassion and understanding about what's happening with young men online in odd technical corners of the internet. And her prescription, that compassion and understanding are the way out – some may find it naive, but I see no other plausible response to the rise of fascism in developed countries today. I encourage everyone to read her works.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  Very well said. Can you link to some things she's written you'd recommend in particular?
  - MarkMMullin 9y ago
    Oh dear god yes -- https://medium.com/message/everything-is-broken-81e5f33a24e1 https://medium.com/message/everything-is-broken-81e5f33a24e1 Brilliant piece, spot on

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

This seems to me that she was mostly using words which are offensive, but frequently used outside of their intended meaning. Definitely language I wouldn't use myself. But for example, "that's gay" has been relatively often used as an insult/derogatory, inadvertently by people not intending to be homophobic. I'd definitely call out it's use today, but I'm not sure I'd hunt someone down and try to ruin their career over them using language they shouldn't have five years ago.

fred_is_fred 9y ago
Edit: removed since apparaently it was a RT
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Wasn't that was a retweet (the good ole-fashioned retweet, starting with "RT")? It looks like it was a retweet from John Barlow, the founder of the EFF. And it was definitely sarcastic, in nature. If you remove the loaded language, it's a bit easier to parse, I think: "If a black man was meant to talk to our schoolchildren, God would've made one President. Oh, wait, he did." Ergo, a black man was, indeed, meant to talk to our schoolchildren.
  - meri_dian 9y ago
    That's exactly how I interpreted it as well. It is unwise to use slurs regardless of intent, because people are sensitive to them and rightly so. But her intent in using them was not to hurt or belittle.
- berberous 9y ago
  In her own words via Twitter: “I retweeted @JPBarlow using offensive language in a sarcastic tweet that was meant to slap back at racists after Obama's first election. Eh, not my best retweet, even if the intentions, both mine and Barlow's, were in the right place.” Reading the RT itself, I think it’s clear she is AGAINST racism.
- junkcollector 9y ago
  You shouldn't remove it because it was a retweet, you should have removed it because it clearly meant the opposite of what you were implying it meant. Plenty often people get lampooned for statements that are later divorced from content but you are taking a single word and divorcing it from the content of the sentence it's in.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ghaff 9y ago
I mostly agree but it's also understandable on the part of the NYT. She wasn't really even on board yet so this probably counts as one of those battles that isn't worth fighting even if they they wanted to. Not that it really pertains in this case, but personally, I'm pretty glad that there was no social media prior to my being an established adult professional in a role that made me very aware anything I wrote was out there for all to see and interpret.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Indeed. I don't think Norton is a racist/homephobe, I do think she made poor choices with her social media presence for her career. And while I don't think she should lose her job because of five year old tweets that aren't the greatest, I understand where NYTimes would be at: Their first and foremost responsibility is to their brand and reputation.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    >Their first and foremost responsibility is to their brand and reputation Right. People with no skin in the game often want companies to do the right/heroic/etc. thing. Even leaving aside what the appropriate action in this particular case is, the reality is that when there's a mob or the likelihood of one that wants your head, your employer is probably going to think about it for about 10 seconds and then toss you off the deck. "It's just business" as Bill Belichick would put it. We can all think of plenty other examples over the past few years.
  - MarkMMullin 9y ago
    The NYT shows an ever more feeble understanding of brand and reputation in this age - Quinn's writing and public commentary really shouldn't come as a surprise to them, any more than going to a talk by Brenda Laurel and having her call out questions with 'Yo' and shoot down bad questions with 'That's a stupid * question' - I don't always agree with her, but I have always seen her as authentic (both of those fine women, actually)
    - ghaff 9y ago
CPLX 9y ago
Nobody has had their career ruined. She's just had a job offer at one of the most prestigious and influential sources of opinion writing change their mind about hiring her. It seems to me poor and distasteful use of language is a pretty reasonable reason to not want someone in that position. There are plenty of outlets for idiot 4chan style insults in the world, I'm not sure we really need people from that community holding one of the top positions in tech journalism and opinion writing.
- beaconstudios 9y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if I learned that a fair share of high ranking tech people spent time on 4chan.

noisefridge 9y ago

Some context here on "fag" / "faggot" In some cases Quinn seems to be bantering with her gay friends. Quinn is queer herself. In other cases she is calling out some 4chan person, for unknown reasons since they deleted their account. Norton is using the common lingo on that site. Especially at the time, on 4chan, everyone was a fag. Being a "fag" on 4chan or certain IRC channels was a complex identity. It was acknowledgement of being a high school social outcast who got called a "fag", and also part of a community that's turned that hate inwards, and is merciless towards outsiders and even each other. And yes, it's also a slur against gay people and it causes many people pain to read it. These aspects of internet culture are hideous and awful. It's also the culture that Norton fell into, and grew out of. I suspect many people here are the same. Where she is right now? Was she a good pick for the NYTimes? She's complicated. In her personal life she can be very, very difficult to deal with, and her associations are questionable. (Like probably all of your favorite writers from other eras!) But there isn't anyone else writing with her compassion and understanding about what's happening with young men online in odd technical corners of the internet. And her prescription, that compassion and understanding are the way out – some may find it naive, but I see no other plausible response to the rise of fascism in developed countries today. I encourage everyone to read her works.

meri_dian 9y ago
Very well said. Can you link to some things she's written you'd recommend in particular?
- MarkMMullin 9y ago
  Oh dear god yes -- https://medium.com/message/everything-is-broken-81e5f33a24e1 https://medium.com/message/everything-is-broken-81e5f33a24e1 Brilliant piece, spot on