3 ms·

Greenwalds tactics aside, do we really consider someone saying the word "retard" in a private discussion newsworthy? More importantly it wasnt even reported cor

by S_A_P 6y ago

Greenwalds tactics aside, do we really consider someone saying the word "retard" in a private discussion newsworthy? More importantly it wasnt even reported correctly and appears to be the result of Taylor Lorenz having an axe to grind with Marc Andreessen.

kgog 6y ago
To me, the bigger story (like the one NYT actually published) is around content moderation. Clubhouse has risen fast - in terms of users and valuation - but has done very little vis-a-vis moderation. Every single social platform started out where they started and eventually had to moderate bad actors and bad actions. Greenwald used to do good journalism. And now sells subscriptions to dog-whistles.
kenjackson 6y ago
AS far as I can tell, it wasn’t even a news story. It was a tweet. And then later clarified after brought to her attention. I find it hard to believe that it justifies this long blog. This is the first thing I’ve seen him wrote in years. And it is horrible.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- S_A_P 6y ago
  You are correct in that, but I don't know that there is much difference any more. Tweets are in TV news/News websites all the time. The fact that it is a pretty well known journalist will likely hold much more weight with some folks.
- gnicholas 6y ago
  > it wasn’t even a news story. It was a tweet. If this had turned out to be true, it surely would have sparked several news stories. The reason that such a long post by Greenwald was warranted is that the journalist was clearly trying to create a story with the tweet.
  - kenjackson 6y ago
    Given the fact that she is a journalist, couldn’t she just write the story? And she later noted the clarification that it wasn’t him. I don’t hold tweets at the same bar as a reputable news publication. Tweets are often point in time, not verified, often on whim. Grenwald’s blog seemed more appropriate for yellow cake taking us to war than this tweet.
LatteLazy 6y ago
I think you're asking the wrong question: I might not care if someone says the word, but if their employer, or their employees or college or investors or political party or anyone else cares then that's a problem for that person. And it keeps going: their employer might not care, but the employer needs to wonder if their clients, friends, partners, or dog cares. And whether they will care in 10 or 20 years time. That's the reason this is so insidious. It forces people not just to comply with current social standards. But to comply with the highest possible standard that might just be applied in their lifetime. 10 years ago, it was OK to say "retard". Today we're not quite sure are we. How would you feel if you got gotcha'd in 10 years time with this comment? Now, as everyone is racing towards to most banal and inoffensive positions, you find that today's social attitudes are changing purely out of fear of tomorrow's. People hesitate to say retard, others notice and hesitate too, as fewer people say it it becomes offensive not because it is but because no one else is saying it. I think Greenwald leaves a lot to be desired. But I think with this issue he (and others) are well ahead of the curve: a significant minority are hell bent on dumping freedom of speech and they have the leverage to do it.
- S_A_P 6y ago
  You raise some good points here, and this is a slippery slope were standing upon. I found it to be a little be gross to see the tweets where Taylor L was taunting Marc A to try and block her out of the chat since she got a burner account. Is that what we are trying to do? The press ABSOLUTELY should be able to find corruption and keep it in check, but this doesnt feel like that. It was a personal abuse of a platform by that journalist. Im familiar with Greenwald because of Snowden, but I agree that he is a bit jaded/angry now. Im not really 100% clear on why he lives abroad now, but Im sure that transition was not easy and may have something to do with it.

by S_A_P 6y ago

kgog 6y ago

To me, the bigger story (like the one NYT actually published) is around content moderation. Clubhouse has risen fast - in terms of users and valuation - but has done very little vis-a-vis moderation. Every single social platform started out where they started and eventually had to moderate bad actors and bad actions. Greenwald used to do good journalism. And now sells subscriptions to dog-whistles.

kenjackson 6y ago

AS far as I can tell, it wasn’t even a news story. It was a tweet. And then later clarified after brought to her attention. I find it hard to believe that it justifies this long blog. This is the first thing I’ve seen him wrote in years. And it is horrible.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
S_A_P 6y ago
You are correct in that, but I don't know that there is much difference any more. Tweets are in TV news/News websites all the time. The fact that it is a pretty well known journalist will likely hold much more weight with some folks.
gnicholas 6y ago
> it wasn’t even a news story. It was a tweet. If this had turned out to be true, it surely would have sparked several news stories. The reason that such a long post by Greenwald was warranted is that the journalist was clearly trying to create a story with the tweet.
- kenjackson 6y ago
  Given the fact that she is a journalist, couldn’t she just write the story? And she later noted the clarification that it wasn’t him. I don’t hold tweets at the same bar as a reputable news publication. Tweets are often point in time, not verified, often on whim. Grenwald’s blog seemed more appropriate for yellow cake taking us to war than this tweet.

LatteLazy 6y ago

I think you're asking the wrong question: I might not care if someone says the word, but if their employer, or their employees or college or investors or political party or anyone else cares then that's a problem for that person. And it keeps going: their employer might not care, but the employer needs to wonder if their clients, friends, partners, or dog cares. And whether they will care in 10 or 20 years time. That's the reason this is so insidious. It forces people not just to comply with current social standards. But to comply with the highest possible standard that might just be applied in their lifetime. 10 years ago, it was OK to say "retard". Today we're not quite sure are we. How would you feel if you got gotcha'd in 10 years time with this comment? Now, as everyone is racing towards to most banal and inoffensive positions, you find that today's social attitudes are changing purely out of fear of tomorrow's. People hesitate to say retard, others notice and hesitate too, as fewer people say it it becomes offensive not because it is but because no one else is saying it. I think Greenwald leaves a lot to be desired. But I think with this issue he (and others) are well ahead of the curve: a significant minority are hell bent on dumping freedom of speech and they have the leverage to do it.

S_A_P 6y ago
You raise some good points here, and this is a slippery slope were standing upon. I found it to be a little be gross to see the tweets where Taylor L was taunting Marc A to try and block her out of the chat since she got a burner account. Is that what we are trying to do? The press ABSOLUTELY should be able to find corruption and keep it in check, but this doesnt feel like that. It was a personal abuse of a platform by that journalist. Im familiar with Greenwald because of Snowden, but I agree that he is a bit jaded/angry now. Im not really 100% clear on why he lives abroad now, but Im sure that transition was not easy and may have something to do with it.