11 ms·

> A reporter lied and attempted to slam a public figure That... seems kinda spun. The source material isn't so damning. Taylor Lorenz was on the call, and tw

> A reporter lied and attempted to slam a public figure That... seems kinda spun. The source material isn't so damning. Taylor Lorenz was on the call, and tweeted: "@pmarca just openly using the r-slur on Clubhouse tonight and not one other person in the room called him on it or saying anything" Then later when she was corrected that it wasn't Andreessen but someone else, replied: "Thanks for clarifying that it was Felicia saying that word, rather than Marc as many in the room heard it. I hope you can understand how some people in the room felt hearing it" I mean, as I (someone who reads and values Lorenz's work) read it, she was offended (more, it seems, at the casual use of "retarded" going unchallenged than at the specific speaker), and tweeted about it, but made a mistake in attribution which she recognized (while pointing out that her original offense was that the word wasn't challenged). And Greenwald wrote like 1000 words to go after her. And his essay, not her tweet, is at the top of HN right now. So... who's cancelling who here?

da_big_ghey 6y ago
Retarded is not a slur. Never was. People keep picking arbitrary words and saying they're "offensive", but there's no reason why. I have heard kids call each other "mentally challenged" and "developmentally delayed", I kid you not. Younger kids have trouble pronouncing those, so maybe that's something? Anyway, I refuse to partake in the euphemism treadmill.
- arpa 6y ago
  I found it ironic that in screenshot it says both "r-word" and "DeepFuckingValue". Zeitgeist, i guess.
- kenjackson 6y ago
  Retarded can definitely be used as a slur. And, in general, you don’t need to be offended for a word to be offensive to others.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    I was at some point describing a friend and used the word "gypsy". Another friend got very upset at me and went on a long rant about how the word is offensive and wrong and I should be ashamed for using it. I used gypsy because it's the title the person I was describing used. It's how they asked to be referred to, and as it's their literal blood heritage, I'm going to refer to them however they want to be referred to. This happens today with words like "transsexual" - there are people very offended by that phrase and there are people who self-label using that phrase and want to be called that. If we as a species are going to continue down a path of globalization where we have a lot of different cultures and communities around us, we're going to have to understand a word is not verboten universally. There's a difference between someone not wanting to be called retarded and taking offense anytime the word itself is used - even in non-derogatory contexts.
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  My Midwestern upbringing was certainly peppered with people using ‘retard’ as a slur, so... mileage may vary?
  - Person5478 6y ago
    I think the idea is that a slur is a much stronger insult typically aimed at one's ethnicity. What's being said here is that the word retard is an insult, but does not rise to the level/strength of a slur.
    - germinalphrase 6y ago
      Feels like you’re cutting that a bit thin. In any case, my experience (and - probably - the context of my cultural upbringing) was that the word was used to both denigrate people with developmental disabilities and to degrade those who did not. This wasn’t calling someone a “loser”. This was using an immutable characteristic of someone’s personhood against them and attacking others by asserting a resemblance.
      - Person5478 6y ago
        In the US calling someone a retard is considered very tame compared to calling them a nigger or spic, etc. Yes, calling someone a retard isn't polite, but it's nowhere near the level of offense of the other words. Not all insults are created equal and that was the point the other poster was making. Putting it in the same category as the other words is a bit much. It's like comparing Harvey Weinstein with that drunk asshole who slapped the waitress on the ass. Neither are good, but they also don't deserve to be described as equivalent.
    - mint2 6y ago
      Wait I’m misunderstand you, right? Reading your comment it almost seems like yours saying that the r word isn’t a slur or isn’t that bad of one?! It’s a word that takes a whole class of people and uses them as an insult when talking about other people. Are you seriously going to try to pull some narrow technical originalist definition to argue that in this specific edition of this specific dictionary it defines “slur” as being about ethnicity and thus that word can’t be a “slur” bc it effects a class of people that isn’t a specific ethnicity?
- newacct583 6y ago
  The original context, FWIW, is that the /r/wallstreetbets community calls themselves "retards" ironically. That is absolutely a slur; calling someone "retarded" in that sense is calling them stupid by likening them to people with developmental disabilities. And that is offensive to a lot of people in the modern world. And, to be perfectly frank, that offense is exactly the reason why the WSB community adopted it in the first place. They wanted to be edgy, if it wasn't a slur they would have chosen a different term that was.
  - nate_meurer 6y ago
    And according to Taylor Lorenz, by using the word "retard" in your reply, you are perpetuating this slander and showing yourself to be insensitive and ableist. If your defense of Ms Lorenz upthread was at all sincere, you should apologize for your use of this word and then delete your account. I'm being obviously sarcastic, but I'm guessing the irony will be lost on you.
  - ric2b 6y ago
    But they called _themselves_ retards, they're not insulting others. It's because they're aware that most of what they do is dumb gambling (with some occasional actual research thrown in) but they do it anyway.
- quantified 6y ago
  Most definitely a slur, on the spectrum with “fag”. Special ed teachers are “tard wranglers”. Got that from one of my little ones. I suspect “you retard” is stronger than “that’s retarded”. Unlike various other slurs, the word has various valid uses apart from mental development so it’s not going away.
genericone 6y ago
Are you kidding? 1 public figure, a freaking journalist, reads something and immediately decides they need to do a hot-take-cancel-op on a public figure they didn't like, libeling him in the process. Greenwald takes a much more measured approach, he writes a blog, like 1000 words, explaining his thoughts. There's a non-thinking person on one side and an articulate person on the other, and you want to denounce the articulate one?
- hobs 6y ago
  Is it articulate to immediately compare your opponents to the stasi? Not really, its pretty bland and typical for internet name calling - writing more words doesn't make something high art.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It really doesn't seem accurate to characterize this blogpost as a measured approach. A few quotes that jumped out at me from just the first section: > the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks > The little crew of tattletale millennials assembled by NBC — who refer to their twerpy work with the self-glorifying title of “working in the disinformation space” > they clearly get aroused — find otherwise-elusive purpose — by destroying people’s reputations and lives
  - ric2b 6y ago
    Those are clearly opinions at most, he's not claiming they're actual facts. No one reads that and thinks "wow, these people are members of the actual Stasi? holy crap!"
betwixthewires 6y ago
You're giving way more than the benefit of the doubt here, if I had to guess I'd say you are doing it willfully. At least you acknowledge your bias so credit where credit is due I guess. Accusing someone of saying something they didn't say is called "libel" or "slander" depending on the medium with which it is done. To call that out, publish it, and for people to enjoy that published work, that is a far cry away from having a stated mission to go after, expose and deplatform people sharing ideas you do not like. You use the word "cancelling" much more liberally than it's contemporary definition applies, I'd say you're stretching it beyond its elasticity in order to make an argument that doesn't exist to defend an indefensible act.
FDSGSG 6y ago
Her previous tweet "Try and block me now pmarca" makes it much harder to dismiss this as just an unfortunate mistake in attribution. In context it very much appears like as if she was looking for anything she could spin to portray Marc in a negative light.
djrogers 6y ago
She was completely wrong about who used the word (their voices aren't even similar), and left out critical details about the context in which it was used (it was not used casually - the person who said it was quoting /r/wallstreetbets). And when confronted on it, she said 'thanks for clarifying' and doubled down on the lack of context. No 'whoops, I was wrong', no apology, no retraction. What part of that sounds like good journalism to you?
- newacct583 6y ago
  ... it's a tweet. I mean, the whole thing is screaming over detail that you wanted to hear in 280 characters when she was just being pissed off about something and talking about it in public. Isn't exactly what you're doing -- which is to say condemning something for what in normal circumstances would be a mild transgression or simple misunderstanding, and drawing wild conclusions about the speaker that don't seem to be present in the original text -- exactly what the problem with "cancel culture" is supposed to be in the first place? I mean, if you demand that Taylor Lorenz give Marc Andreessen the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith on his part, why are you not willing to grant the same to her?
  - nate_meurer 6y ago
    I really think you need to read the article before you comment any further. Mr Andreesen doesn't need anyone's benefit of doubt, because he didn't say what Ms Lorenz claimed. And even if he did, the use of the word "retard" was entirely appropriate in its descriptive context in that discussion. There is no reason to assume anything besides good faith on the part of the lady who actually did use the word. Taylor Lorenz, on the other hand, was caught in a lie. Not a little lie, mind you, but a loud, public slander. When caught, she responded not with an apology, but rather another lie, some sanctimonious excuses, and then she ran and hid. Ms. Lorenz has given us no reason to assume good faith on her part here.
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    > ... it's a tweet. I mean, the whole thing is screaming over detail that you wanted to hear in 280 characters when she was just being pissed off about something and talking about it in public. This is a lax standard that might be okay to hold for a 15-year-old child, but not for an adult Times journalist.
nate_meurer 6y ago
No, she didn't make a mistake. Taylor Lorenz lied in order to smear the guy, and her response to being caught was itself a lie, blaming another mysterious "male voice", when it was in fact a female. As Greenwald pointed out, her recent reporting seems to indicate some sort of vendetta against Andreesen.
zepto 6y ago
“ "Thanks for clarifying that it was Felicia saying that word, rather than Marc as many in the room heard it. I hope you can understand how some people in the room felt hearing it" You do realize that this is not an acknowledgement of the mistake. It’s an attempt to deny the mistake and gaslight the person reporting it.

da_big_ghey 6y ago

Retarded is not a slur. Never was. People keep picking arbitrary words and saying they're "offensive", but there's no reason why. I have heard kids call each other "mentally challenged" and "developmentally delayed", I kid you not. Younger kids have trouble pronouncing those, so maybe that's something? Anyway, I refuse to partake in the euphemism treadmill.

arpa 6y ago
I found it ironic that in screenshot it says both "r-word" and "DeepFuckingValue". Zeitgeist, i guess.
kenjackson 6y ago
Retarded can definitely be used as a slur. And, in general, you don’t need to be offended for a word to be offensive to others.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  I was at some point describing a friend and used the word "gypsy". Another friend got very upset at me and went on a long rant about how the word is offensive and wrong and I should be ashamed for using it. I used gypsy because it's the title the person I was describing used. It's how they asked to be referred to, and as it's their literal blood heritage, I'm going to refer to them however they want to be referred to. This happens today with words like "transsexual" - there are people very offended by that phrase and there are people who self-label using that phrase and want to be called that. If we as a species are going to continue down a path of globalization where we have a lot of different cultures and communities around us, we're going to have to understand a word is not verboten universally. There's a difference between someone not wanting to be called retarded and taking offense anytime the word itself is used - even in non-derogatory contexts.
germinalphrase 6y ago
My Midwestern upbringing was certainly peppered with people using ‘retard’ as a slur, so... mileage may vary?
- Person5478 6y ago
  I think the idea is that a slur is a much stronger insult typically aimed at one's ethnicity. What's being said here is that the word retard is an insult, but does not rise to the level/strength of a slur.
  - germinalphrase 6y ago
    Feels like you’re cutting that a bit thin. In any case, my experience (and - probably - the context of my cultural upbringing) was that the word was used to both denigrate people with developmental disabilities and to degrade those who did not. This wasn’t calling someone a “loser”. This was using an immutable characteristic of someone’s personhood against them and attacking others by asserting a resemblance.
    - Person5478 6y ago
      In the US calling someone a retard is considered very tame compared to calling them a nigger or spic, etc. Yes, calling someone a retard isn't polite, but it's nowhere near the level of offense of the other words. Not all insults are created equal and that was the point the other poster was making. Putting it in the same category as the other words is a bit much. It's like comparing Harvey Weinstein with that drunk asshole who slapped the waitress on the ass. Neither are good, but they also don't deserve to be described as equivalent.
  - mint2 6y ago
    Wait I’m misunderstand you, right? Reading your comment it almost seems like yours saying that the r word isn’t a slur or isn’t that bad of one?! It’s a word that takes a whole class of people and uses them as an insult when talking about other people. Are you seriously going to try to pull some narrow technical originalist definition to argue that in this specific edition of this specific dictionary it defines “slur” as being about ethnicity and thus that word can’t be a “slur” bc it effects a class of people that isn’t a specific ethnicity?
newacct583 6y ago
The original context, FWIW, is that the /r/wallstreetbets community calls themselves "retards" ironically. That is absolutely a slur; calling someone "retarded" in that sense is calling them stupid by likening them to people with developmental disabilities. And that is offensive to a lot of people in the modern world. And, to be perfectly frank, that offense is exactly the reason why the WSB community adopted it in the first place. They wanted to be edgy, if it wasn't a slur they would have chosen a different term that was.
- nate_meurer 6y ago
  And according to Taylor Lorenz, by using the word "retard" in your reply, you are perpetuating this slander and showing yourself to be insensitive and ableist. If your defense of Ms Lorenz upthread was at all sincere, you should apologize for your use of this word and then delete your account. I'm being obviously sarcastic, but I'm guessing the irony will be lost on you.
- ric2b 6y ago
  But they called _themselves_ retards, they're not insulting others. It's because they're aware that most of what they do is dumb gambling (with some occasional actual research thrown in) but they do it anyway.
quantified 6y ago
Most definitely a slur, on the spectrum with “fag”. Special ed teachers are “tard wranglers”. Got that from one of my little ones. I suspect “you retard” is stronger than “that’s retarded”. Unlike various other slurs, the word has various valid uses apart from mental development so it’s not going away.

genericone 6y ago

Are you kidding? 1 public figure, a freaking journalist, reads something and immediately decides they need to do a hot-take-cancel-op on a public figure they didn't like, libeling him in the process. Greenwald takes a much more measured approach, he writes a blog, like 1000 words, explaining his thoughts. There's a non-thinking person on one side and an articulate person on the other, and you want to denounce the articulate one?

hobs 6y ago
Is it articulate to immediately compare your opponents to the stasi? Not really, its pretty bland and typical for internet name calling - writing more words doesn't make something high art.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It really doesn't seem accurate to characterize this blogpost as a measured approach. A few quotes that jumped out at me from just the first section: > the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks > The little crew of tattletale millennials assembled by NBC — who refer to their twerpy work with the self-glorifying title of “working in the disinformation space” > they clearly get aroused — find otherwise-elusive purpose — by destroying people’s reputations and lives
- ric2b 6y ago
  Those are clearly opinions at most, he's not claiming they're actual facts. No one reads that and thinks "wow, these people are members of the actual Stasi? holy crap!"

betwixthewires 6y ago

You're giving way more than the benefit of the doubt here, if I had to guess I'd say you are doing it willfully. At least you acknowledge your bias so credit where credit is due I guess. Accusing someone of saying something they didn't say is called "libel" or "slander" depending on the medium with which it is done. To call that out, publish it, and for people to enjoy that published work, that is a far cry away from having a stated mission to go after, expose and deplatform people sharing ideas you do not like. You use the word "cancelling" much more liberally than it's contemporary definition applies, I'd say you're stretching it beyond its elasticity in order to make an argument that doesn't exist to defend an indefensible act.

FDSGSG 6y ago

Her previous tweet "Try and block me now pmarca" makes it much harder to dismiss this as just an unfortunate mistake in attribution. In context it very much appears like as if she was looking for anything she could spin to portray Marc in a negative light.

djrogers 6y ago

She was completely wrong about who used the word (their voices aren't even similar), and left out critical details about the context in which it was used (it was not used casually - the person who said it was quoting /r/wallstreetbets). And when confronted on it, she said 'thanks for clarifying' and doubled down on the lack of context. No 'whoops, I was wrong', no apology, no retraction. What part of that sounds like good journalism to you?

newacct583 6y ago
... it's a tweet. I mean, the whole thing is screaming over detail that you wanted to hear in 280 characters when she was just being pissed off about something and talking about it in public. Isn't exactly what you're doing -- which is to say condemning something for what in normal circumstances would be a mild transgression or simple misunderstanding, and drawing wild conclusions about the speaker that don't seem to be present in the original text -- exactly what the problem with "cancel culture" is supposed to be in the first place? I mean, if you demand that Taylor Lorenz give Marc Andreessen the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith on his part, why are you not willing to grant the same to her?
- nate_meurer 6y ago
  I really think you need to read the article before you comment any further. Mr Andreesen doesn't need anyone's benefit of doubt, because he didn't say what Ms Lorenz claimed. And even if he did, the use of the word "retard" was entirely appropriate in its descriptive context in that discussion. There is no reason to assume anything besides good faith on the part of the lady who actually did use the word. Taylor Lorenz, on the other hand, was caught in a lie. Not a little lie, mind you, but a loud, public slander. When caught, she responded not with an apology, but rather another lie, some sanctimonious excuses, and then she ran and hid. Ms. Lorenz has given us no reason to assume good faith on her part here.
- cgriswald 6y ago
  > ... it's a tweet. I mean, the whole thing is screaming over detail that you wanted to hear in 280 characters when she was just being pissed off about something and talking about it in public. This is a lax standard that might be okay to hold for a 15-year-old child, but not for an adult Times journalist.

nate_meurer 6y ago

No, she didn't make a mistake. Taylor Lorenz lied in order to smear the guy, and her response to being caught was itself a lie, blaming another mysterious "male voice", when it was in fact a female. As Greenwald pointed out, her recent reporting seems to indicate some sort of vendetta against Andreesen.

zepto 6y ago

“ "Thanks for clarifying that it was Felicia saying that word, rather than Marc as many in the room heard it. I hope you can understand how some people in the room felt hearing it" You do realize that this is not an acknowledgement of the mistake. It’s an attempt to deny the mistake and gaslight the person reporting it.