13 ms·

I'm a little bit aghast at all the comments saying this is normal or no big deal. Maybe it is normal (or at least common), but it shouldn't be. If you believe i

I'm a little bit aghast at all the comments saying this is normal or no big deal. Maybe it is normal (or at least common), but it shouldn't be. If you believe it's no big deal, I can't agree. I can see this kind of behaviour from adolescents, but adults should understand that words are meaningful and have consequences, and that even if you disagree with someone, they're still a human being who deserves some modicum of respect, or at least decency. Wishing a slow death on someone, even rhetorically, shows neither, to put it mildly.

tedk-42 3y ago
He's paraphrased 2pac is his alcohol fuelled moment "Fuck Mobb Deep, fuck Biggie Fuck Bad Boy as a staff, record label and as a motherfuckin' crew And if you want to be down with Bad Bo, then fuck you too Chino XL, fuck you too All you motherfuckers, fuck you too (take money, take money) All of y'all motherfuckers, fuck you, die slow, motherfucker" It's immature and poor judgement but he's apologised for it so I don't think it's fair to drag him down.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > It's immature and poor judgement Which is enough to make him unfit for the position at YC and justifies his resignation. Walmart cashiers are being fired everyday for things like immaturity and poor judgment, why should YC CEO be held under lower behavior standards than blue collar workers?!
  - dspillett 3y ago
    To put it in a bit more context: this was out-of-hours, and those Walmart cashiers shouldn't be sacked for immaturity and poor judgement in their personal lives if their work is life is up to scratch. I know it is more complicated than that when your actions have wider reach, especially for someone as high up as a CEO, but for all of us these days with ubiquitous social media potentially giving us all more reach, as what you do in your off-time can negatively impact the company, and your position can lead to your stupid moments having far more impact on people generally. Even a grade A class 1 drunken cockup, in personal time, shouldn't result in a firing unless it is part of a larger or repeating pattern. IMO: he has taken ownership of his actions, accepted that they were stupid, apologies for causing office (and not in the “sorry you found it offensive” non-apology sort of way), etc, so : ridicule him by all means, but sacking seems OTT at this point. And if he does it, or something else similarly foolish, again, then we break out the pitchforks.
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      > this was out-of-hours There's no out-of-hours for CEO. He was using is official Twitter account to make a public statement, that's a work-related mistake. (It's not like he used some anonymous account to troll on some subreddit) > Walmart cashiers shouldn't be sacked for immaturity and poor judgement in their personal lives if their work is life is up to scratch. I don't know if they should, but they definitely are. Musk's obsession with his employees drug use out of work is an example (and also an example of double standards between CEOs and blue collar workers).
      - cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
        I agree that this guy is a tosser. I’m always first in line to give a fatcat tech bro what for. But you’re completely barking up the wrong tree with this tribalist argument. You’re holding him to a standard that you at least in part don’t believe in, but are simply saying “an eye for an eye!” when he wasn’t even the one responsible for taking the first eye. Chill.
        foldr 3y ago
        They may think that it's reasonable to hold tech CEOs to higher standards in this respect than Walmart cashiers. So I don't think there's necessarily any inconsistency here.
        johnnyanmac 3y ago
        >You’re holding him to a standard that you at least in part don’t believe in In part. but CEOs have a lot more money and PR on the line than some WalMart worker who may not even be recognized by regular shoppers at that store. And yes, some of it is spite. We're in a period of time where the economy is crashing and such C level execs will drop thousands of jobs at the drop of a hat, for people who did nothing wrong and probably made the company millions, billions. I don't really sympathize when suddenly they screw up on their own volition and may be given the sack themselves.
      - dspillett 3y ago
        > There's no out-of-hours for CEO. Unless his contract specifically says that, bull. If his contract foes specifically say that, then I doubt it is legally enforceable anyway. > He was using is official Twitter account to make a public statement, that's a work-related mistake. If he used an official work account, then yes that paints a different picture and is a more clear-cut case of abusing resources and directly bringing the company into disrepute. But @GarryTan doesn't sound like a company account to me (I'm assuming the 陈嘉兴 in the account display name “Garry Tan 陈嘉兴” is also personal name information, not company affiliation, please correct me if I'm wrong). > I don't know if they should, but they definitely are. Calling for the bad side of a double-standard to apply to all is not the way I'd choose to fix the situation. -- Of course the people threatened by the ill-advised quotes, which might indicate overly string views, are well within their rights to pursue legal action against as they see fit, but at this point I'd say it isn't a sacking matter for the company.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Note: This is a general comment and not intended forgive or incriminate anyone. Perhaps. The thing is, if we only look for leaders who have never erred (read: never fallen and gotten up) we end up with (for example) our "representatives" in Washington DC. That is, generally spineless, middle of the road, etc. The word beige comes to mind. That is, we end up with "leaders" without the toolbox of experiences necessary for effective leadership. Humans? Humans *by definition* make mistakes. Sure some are worse than others. Some demand some mistakes be paid for (in a number of socially acceptable ways). That said, one (rant) is not a pattern. The question is: What are our collective priorities? Human leaders capable of leading humans? Or perfection which effectively translates to no edges, risk adverse, and ultimately flacid and unfollowable?
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - chiefalchemist 3y ago
        [flagged]
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      >What are our collective priorities? Human leaders capable of leading humans? Or perfection which effectively translates to no edges, risk adverse, and ultimately flacid and unfollowable? Sure, I'd take humans leading humans. Probably is we're in an era of humans trying to exploit other humans to appeal to semi-human stock market dynamics (likely funded by rich humans who have much better financial security). I want empathy, and representation of the people's needs. Not some infeasible goal to keep growing profits even amidst a potential recession. I don't know Tan that well, but nothing in the conversation I've read over the past few days has even mentioned him being like that. I don't necessarily have any vested interests here, but I definitely don't have sympathy.
  - refurb 3y ago
    If being immature and showing poor judgement means you can run a VC fund 100% of VC funds would be firing their CEOs. Thats a ridiculous position to say he’s unfit. But I get it. He’s threading the political establishment so they’ll make hay with this to tear down an opponent. It’s politics.
    - MomoXenosaga 3y ago
      Yes it's politics and working with computers and man-children all day is poor training. Stick to your lane tech billionaires you couldn't win an election if you were the last person alive.
    - chomskyole 3y ago
      From grandparent: > Walmart cashiers are being fired everyday for things like immaturity and poor judgment, why should YC CEO be held under lower behavior standards than blue collar workers?! Parent: >> If being immature and showing poor judgement means you can run a VC fund 100% of VC funds would be firing their CEOs. USA, USA????
- hef19898 3y ago
  The higher up you are, and the more you represent an organisation, the less immature behavior or poor judgement you cannafford orbare entitled to. USN nuclear sub commanders get replaced for DUIs, because poor judgement is not acceptable. Creating public outrage with drunk rantabon social media falling back on an employer is nothing a normal employee woild get waway woth, let alone a CEO. But in a world where everyone seems to think they are Elon Musk, and not Steve Jobs anymore, it is no surprise this behavior is shickingly common. No, CEO and other public figures from a company should be held to even higher standards than the rank and file.
  - hindsightbias 3y ago
    Think about the industry and the people you'd want to be managing an AGI. These people aren't Chuck Forbin.
- jwmoz 3y ago
  Heinous cringe.
  - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    The cringe is the real crime here.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  > but he's apologised for it so I don't think it's fair to drag him down. So, the way this works is, he can say whatever he likes, but people shouldn't say mean things about him? How does this work? I'm genuinely curious; this, on the face of it, makes no sense to me at all. Is it because he's rich? I don't get it.
  - refurb 3y ago
    Yes, when people apologize for things we generally move on since the person acknowledge their error. Let’s be honest, it’s blowing up because the California political machine is threatened by this guy, and tearing him down for a small transgression means they’ll hold onto the reins of power even longer.
    - chomskyole 3y ago
      A death threat by one of the richest persons = A small transgression when they apologise after the fact Seriously?
      - refurb 3y ago
        Nobody would seriously take that as a death threat. No one. But if you’re a politician, it makes sense to claim you “fear for your life”. Like I said, they want to get rid of this guy since he’s a political opponent.
      - framapotari 3y ago
        If I say to you "die slow", would you read it as me threatening to murder you?
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        kyleamazza 3y ago
        Are you implying that it's not a threat of any kind? Regardless of how it's enacted? I would certainly rather be threatened with a nice day. Especially in this climate, where the tip of a hat causes anonymous people to pile on and send threats via mail, it wouldn't be as simple as brushing it off. The worst part isn't usually the initial threat, it's the piling on afterwards that can last for months and years afterwards.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  Somehow in all my many alcohol fuelled moments, I never said anything like that. Fuck this odious turd and anyone who would try to excuse him.
  - zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
    "Fuck this odious turd and anyone who would try to excuse him." I think what you mean to say was: Fuck Y Combinator as a staff, message board, and as a mother fucking VC group. And if you want to be down with Y Combinator, then fuck you too. Sam Altman, fuck you too.
    - mindcrime 3y ago
      The birth of a new musical genre - "VC rap" - is happening right in front of our eyes!
- stefantalpalaru 3y ago
  [dead]
- JohnFen 3y ago
  That he was drunk makes it very likely that he was expressing what he really thinks. It's not a matter of "dragging him down" as much as "when someone shows you who they are, believe them." Apologizing is great, but it can't make people unlearn something they learned about the person.
mcv 3y ago
Yeah, apparently it was a pop reference, and that makes it okay? The problem with references is that not everybody gets the reference, and without that (and possibly even with) this is a death threat. And with today's highly polarized and volatile political situation, you need to be really careful with that. I've come to expect this sort of behaviour from random internet trolls, but a CEO really should know better. I think this counts as a disqualifying lapse of judgement.
- alpaca128 3y ago
  It's not uncommon to add a minimal amount of plausible deniability to a toxic comment/threat (by calling it a joke or reference, following it up with "in Minecraft" etc), but imho that's intentional abuse of other people's good will and should be treated as such. Either way knowing how to communicate responsibly is part of a CEO's job, that's one of the reasons they get paid so much.
  - noobermin 3y ago
    >Either way knowing how to communicate responsibly is part of a CEO's job, that's one of the reasons they get paid so much. Dealing with people in management positions disabuses you of this notion.
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - this_steve_j 3y ago
    If his rapper persona had tweeted the lyrics to a diss track but clarified the theatrical kayfabe by breaking the fourth wall, that arguably could be less of a threat but still demonstrate questionable judgment, so I agree with you there. But violent rhetoric certainly increases the likelihood that others will escalate violence against the target, and so the risk (threat) of death and harm very much does increase as seen in many unfortunate cases. That is how asymmetric information warfare has a chilling effect on democracy and infringes others’ fundamental liberties (life, pursuit of happiness), and is different from “free speech”. It doesn’t require sophisticated thinking to discern the difference, but X is where discourse goes to die.
jacobriis 3y ago
Are you also aghast about Tupac? Oh my this rapping is outrageous! Mr. Tupac pull up your pants and clean up your language young man! And Gary isn’t a rap artist anyway! Well isn’t he?
- asahiliker1 3y ago
  > Are you also aghast about Tupac? Tupac was a gangster who'd been convicted of sexual assault. Personally I try to separate the artist from the human because humans are consistently awful creatures, and otherwise we'd never be able to enjoy any art ever. But I wouldn't be in support of Tupac running Y Combinator, or to be the CEO of pretty much any company, ever. I like Freddie Gibbs and Danny Brown. Both release music that is extremely misogynistic. Deeper, Freddie (+ Madlib, ofc) > Slammin', half a thang of heroin in the bathroom > Keep an AK and the backup in the backroom > Cook a meal clean and she suck me like a vacuum If I tweet at a woman I disagree with that she should be in the kitchen cooking me a meal clean and then sucking me like a vacuum, that's okay right? Because I'm just aping my favourite popular rapper?
  - mlrtime 3y ago
    The interesting thing about 2Pac is he grew up intelligent and was taught to respect women. Some of his earliest lyrics were very pro-women. He changed his tone later in life as he was betrayed many times. “Since we all came from a women, got our name from a women, and our game from a women. I wonder why we take from women, why we rape our women, do we hate our women? I think its time we killed for our women, be real to our women, try to heal our women, cus if we dont we'll have a race of babies that will hate the ladies, who make the babies. And since a man can't make one he has no right to tell a women when and where to create one”
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      Wonder how much of that change was personal and how much marketing. He'd be far from the first artist to appeal to the "thug life" despite having a relatively comfortable and conflict-free childhood. But in the 90's the music industry went HARD on selling that image.
s_dev 3y ago
>but adults should understand that words are meaningful and have consequences What consequences should Gary face?
- tempestn 3y ago
  The main consequence to him so far has been a lot of people thinking less of him. It was also consequential for the subjects of the tweet, and to a much lesser extent, to all of us who've been exposed to it.
  - s_dev 3y ago
    Okay sounds like he faced those exact consequences and a bunch of people are acting like victims because they chose to take him too literally. I don't think Gary really cares what you or some others think. He's developed a thick skin for this sort of stuff maybe others should too. I think more of him though. Sort of like when a polite old woman tells someone to fuck off and they're literally shook. A lot of people could do with hardening up a bit.
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      > A lot of people could do with hardening up a bit. How often have I heard that from bullies who shit themselves, whine and go running to mommy as soon as they get a little of what they give? You actually mean "shut up, roll over and passively accept abuse." Anyone who hardened-up, as in speaking their honest feeling and the truth about this sort of bully would be banned from here in 5 seconds! We don't have the option to "harden up", because we value civility and intellectual curiosity, and all know it would make this forum a much worse place.
      - s_dev 3y ago
        Pursuing intellectual curiosity involves tolerating ideas or language or phrasing you don't like. The world is messy. Gary hasn't bullied or abused anyone. That is where the line is. The real answer is here is Gary could have phrased his words better and he would have been more effective in communicating his message. That's it.
ChildOfChaos 3y ago
But you would say this kinda thing to friends, people joke around all the time, it’s good to show that strength of emotion about something instead of having to PR speak your entire live.
- willis936 3y ago
  You can be professional and be genuine (distinct from PR speak). Sure, you're not fraternizing with your subordinates as much as you could, but you're doing your job better and your subordinates will be happier.
- tom_ 3y ago
  It maybe isn't on Twitter though! It is a public place, of a sort, which should always be borne in mind.
- chomskyole 3y ago
  Mate, no I don't say this to my friends, but even if I take your point: if I say it to my friends there won't be any impact on anyone's life. Gary's rant absolutely has a potential to impact lives. So you chose your words to the occasion, no?
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > But you would say this kinda thing to friends No, I wouldn't. I have never said anything like that to my friends (nor have my friends ever said anything like that to me), and I can't imagine ever doing so.
  - tempestn 3y ago
    Exactly. And that holds regardless of how drunk I might be, fwiw.
- bashinator 3y ago
  Yikes, talk about normalizing violence in political discourse.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
Reading this article by Rebecca Solnit [0] posted on HN here [1] absolutely helped me make sense of the Garry Tan story, and what is going on in Californian politics. It's well worth reading, but is a long and initially tedious article bemoaning the passing of a gentler, humane culture. Then about halfway through it grew some balls and teeth, and frankly I found it shocking. I had no idea California was this degenerate. And for those too close to it, no, this isn't just how every country's politics is. It reads like Chicago in the 1920/30's, or perhaps more like Mexico or El Salvator, with billionaires instead of drug lords. Read alongside "The Californian Ideology" [2] it's eye opening and paints a great picture of the slow trajectory of San Francisco and California from a left-liberal counter-culture to extremist far-right billionaire technofascism. [0] https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n03/rebecca-solnit/in-the-shadow-of-silicon-valley https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n03/rebecca-solnit/in-th... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39226296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39226296 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  [dead]
- dandanua 3y ago
  > Tech billionaires often seem more interested in surviving the apocalypse than preventing it. - pretty much sums everything we observe today. And it's only getting worse, despite tech advancements. Great article.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I find it interesting that you added "despite tech advancements". I don't see how the level of technological advancement enters into this equation at all.
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      Maybe the connection dandanua is alluding to is that mythology from the beginning of the "Information Age" (circa 1980) that technology would "bring us all together in a giant conversation of humankind". As if. Now, here we are having this conversation on a platform owned and run by those same "bunker men" who probably bought the laws that destroyed the peered Internet that was our hope. We're still stuck in 1980, holding out that "technology will save us".
ignoramous 3y ago
> normal It isn't normal for anyone else, of course. As for Garry, he is heavily invested in SF politics. > no big deal It is a big deal only if Garry was consistently inflammatory. Otherwise, it can be safely relegated to careless jibe by a drunkard. > words are meaningful and have consequences True, but one is allowed to retract, excuse, apologize. One incident unto drastic consequences will result in heavy-handedness wielded often, a weaponization against anyone standing upto establishment or established norms (which is quite contrary to what either the left or the right would want, in the context of political discourse). > adolescents, but adults Are we being too sensitive, vindictive, projecting remorse? One look at tech Twitter (and deleted tweets) and we'd want to cancel them all. What good is that going to bring, other than create an inescapable and ever shrinking echo chamber? > some modicum of respect, or at least decency Politics gets dirty from time to time. > Wishing a slow death on someone, even rhetorically There is probably a socio-political climate in which such statements could be considered incitement, but in this case, lunatics using Garry's words to threaten and scare their victims is exactly that... a work of an opportunist lunatic who probably thinks highly of themself. That isn't on Garry.
- justin66 3y ago
  > Are we being too sensitive, vindictive, projecting remorse? One look at tech Twitter (and deleted tweets) and we'd want to cancel them all. What good is that going to bring, other than create an inescapable and ever shrinking echo chamber? It's simply nonsensical to think that there are two extremes of discourse, "echo chamber" and "people can feel free to voice threats," which are in opposition. > It is a big deal only if Garry was consistently inflammatory. Otherwise, it can be safely relegated to careless jibe by a drunkard. People on the business end of a threat certainly have a different perspective on what can be "safely relegated" to the "don't worry" category. There's nothing wrong with taking into account the perspective of those being threatened when determining whether something like this is a "big deal," as the parent poster presumably did, and as the law does. > It isn't normal for anyone else, of course. As for Garry, he is heavily invested in SF politics. How unique he is. It's hard to imagine a reality where lots of people are heavily invested in politics and behave foolishly because of it. That would be an alternate reality that is difficult to imagine.
syndacks 3y ago
He was only quoting Tupac…
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  Not totally sure if this comment is ironic or not but wanted to expand on this thought either way. Using a reference with threatening language in it that is potentially unknown by the people recieving it, makes a death threat even more sinister as it feels like you're building in plausible deniability and trying to have your cake and eat it. It's basically admitting "if I just said this it would cross a line, but if I quote it instead then it'll not cross a line for people who know it's a quote, but still cross the line for the people I'm threatening. So I get to make the threat and disclaim any intent at the same time.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    There are two related aspects to this that fascinate me the most. The first is that Tan seems to have thought that people who were upset by the statement were unaware that it was a song lyric. The second is that some people think that because it's a song lyric, it somehow doesn't count.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  And? Was he giving a recital of Tupac's lyrics / reading it out loud, or was it pulled out of that context and aimed at someone specific? I can call your mother a hamster and that your father smelt of elderberries; just because it's a quote from Monty Python doesn't mean it wouldn't be insulting to you.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    > I can call your mother a hamster and that your father smelt of elderberries Alright, that does it. Pistols at dawn.
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
I saw a clip from a popular right wing podcaster recently in which he was annoyed that his guests kept wishing death on people. He was mostly annoyed it seemed because this meant he got demonitized or had to pull some content which cost him money. And that people didn't listen to his specific pre-show instruction to not call for death. And that some of his viewers got angry at him about this (I didn't quite follow why, they weren't angry about the death threats but somehow thought his removal of episodes made him a part of the deep state or something). edit: link to short version of the clip I saw https://twitter.com/majorityfm/status/1752833975851049108 https://twitter.com/majorityfm/status/1752833975851049108
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  Love to see it; free speech absolutionists until it costs them money.
rayiner 3y ago
We can debate about whether it should be normal, but clearly it is, right? For example we have the Darwin Award, where we mock people who actually died (not just rhetorically). I’m not the least bit edgy as far as millennials go, and I’ve made the joke that “the best thing Trump could do for the GOP is to get assassinated.” It always gets a laugh.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > We can debate about whether it should be normal, but clearly it is, right? I don't think it's even close to being normal. If it were, then this wouldn't have raised the firestorm it did.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    The firestorm is entirely because Tan is rich and Asian. There’s always been a taboo on “punching down,” but in recent years in certain circles politicians have moved positions in the hierarchy.
    - 11101010001100 3y ago
      I thought the firestorm was because some who is ostensibly smart did something objectively not smart.
      - justin66 3y ago
        I mean, that's part of it, but if look at the quality of some of the analogies being made on this thread, "objectively not smart" on its own is clearly not sufficient to cause a firestorm.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > The firestorm is entirely because Tan is rich and Asian. I don't think the firestorm is because of either of those things. I think it's mostly because Tan is a powerful figure in the SV tech scene.
- 3y ago
nightwing 3y ago
Wishing slow death is indeed extremely disturbing and stupid. Politicians that way have time to do so much more harm.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
There's a big discussion going on on whether this was good or bad, or whatever, but the point remains that he represents a company, he made a public statement that puts himself in a bad light, which in turn makes the customers of said customer lose trust and respect, which in turn causes the company harm. A lot of harm. And you can't have a CEO that causes the company harm through his public behaviour.
3327 3y ago
[dead]

tedk-42 3y ago

He's paraphrased 2pac is his alcohol fuelled moment "Fuck Mobb Deep, fuck Biggie Fuck Bad Boy as a staff, record label and as a motherfuckin' crew And if you want to be down with Bad Bo, then fuck you too Chino XL, fuck you too All you motherfuckers, fuck you too (take money, take money) All of y'all motherfuckers, fuck you, die slow, motherfucker" It's immature and poor judgement but he's apologised for it so I don't think it's fair to drag him down.

littlestymaar 3y ago
> It's immature and poor judgement Which is enough to make him unfit for the position at YC and justifies his resignation. Walmart cashiers are being fired everyday for things like immaturity and poor judgment, why should YC CEO be held under lower behavior standards than blue collar workers?!
- dspillett 3y ago
  To put it in a bit more context: this was out-of-hours, and those Walmart cashiers shouldn't be sacked for immaturity and poor judgement in their personal lives if their work is life is up to scratch. I know it is more complicated than that when your actions have wider reach, especially for someone as high up as a CEO, but for all of us these days with ubiquitous social media potentially giving us all more reach, as what you do in your off-time can negatively impact the company, and your position can lead to your stupid moments having far more impact on people generally. Even a grade A class 1 drunken cockup, in personal time, shouldn't result in a firing unless it is part of a larger or repeating pattern. IMO: he has taken ownership of his actions, accepted that they were stupid, apologies for causing office (and not in the “sorry you found it offensive” non-apology sort of way), etc, so : ridicule him by all means, but sacking seems OTT at this point. And if he does it, or something else similarly foolish, again, then we break out the pitchforks.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    > this was out-of-hours There's no out-of-hours for CEO. He was using is official Twitter account to make a public statement, that's a work-related mistake. (It's not like he used some anonymous account to troll on some subreddit) > Walmart cashiers shouldn't be sacked for immaturity and poor judgement in their personal lives if their work is life is up to scratch. I don't know if they should, but they definitely are. Musk's obsession with his employees drug use out of work is an example (and also an example of double standards between CEOs and blue collar workers).
    - cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
      I agree that this guy is a tosser. I’m always first in line to give a fatcat tech bro what for. But you’re completely barking up the wrong tree with this tribalist argument. You’re holding him to a standard that you at least in part don’t believe in, but are simply saying “an eye for an eye!” when he wasn’t even the one responsible for taking the first eye. Chill.
      - foldr 3y ago
        They may think that it's reasonable to hold tech CEOs to higher standards in this respect than Walmart cashiers. So I don't think there's necessarily any inconsistency here.
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        >You’re holding him to a standard that you at least in part don’t believe in In part. but CEOs have a lot more money and PR on the line than some WalMart worker who may not even be recognized by regular shoppers at that store. And yes, some of it is spite. We're in a period of time where the economy is crashing and such C level execs will drop thousands of jobs at the drop of a hat, for people who did nothing wrong and probably made the company millions, billions. I don't really sympathize when suddenly they screw up on their own volition and may be given the sack themselves.
    - dspillett 3y ago
      > There's no out-of-hours for CEO. Unless his contract specifically says that, bull. If his contract foes specifically say that, then I doubt it is legally enforceable anyway. > He was using is official Twitter account to make a public statement, that's a work-related mistake. If he used an official work account, then yes that paints a different picture and is a more clear-cut case of abusing resources and directly bringing the company into disrepute. But @GarryTan doesn't sound like a company account to me (I'm assuming the 陈嘉兴 in the account display name “Garry Tan 陈嘉兴” is also personal name information, not company affiliation, please correct me if I'm wrong). > I don't know if they should, but they definitely are. Calling for the bad side of a double-standard to apply to all is not the way I'd choose to fix the situation. -- Of course the people threatened by the ill-advised quotes, which might indicate overly string views, are well within their rights to pursue legal action against as they see fit, but at this point I'd say it isn't a sacking matter for the company.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Note: This is a general comment and not intended forgive or incriminate anyone. Perhaps. The thing is, if we only look for leaders who have never erred (read: never fallen and gotten up) we end up with (for example) our "representatives" in Washington DC. That is, generally spineless, middle of the road, etc. The word beige comes to mind. That is, we end up with "leaders" without the toolbox of experiences necessary for effective leadership. Humans? Humans *by definition* make mistakes. Sure some are worse than others. Some demand some mistakes be paid for (in a number of socially acceptable ways). That said, one (rant) is not a pattern. The question is: What are our collective priorities? Human leaders capable of leading humans? Or perfection which effectively translates to no edges, risk adverse, and ultimately flacid and unfollowable?
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - chiefalchemist 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - littlestymaar 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >What are our collective priorities? Human leaders capable of leading humans? Or perfection which effectively translates to no edges, risk adverse, and ultimately flacid and unfollowable? Sure, I'd take humans leading humans. Probably is we're in an era of humans trying to exploit other humans to appeal to semi-human stock market dynamics (likely funded by rich humans who have much better financial security). I want empathy, and representation of the people's needs. Not some infeasible goal to keep growing profits even amidst a potential recession. I don't know Tan that well, but nothing in the conversation I've read over the past few days has even mentioned him being like that. I don't necessarily have any vested interests here, but I definitely don't have sympathy.
- refurb 3y ago
  If being immature and showing poor judgement means you can run a VC fund 100% of VC funds would be firing their CEOs. Thats a ridiculous position to say he’s unfit. But I get it. He’s threading the political establishment so they’ll make hay with this to tear down an opponent. It’s politics.
  - MomoXenosaga 3y ago
    Yes it's politics and working with computers and man-children all day is poor training. Stick to your lane tech billionaires you couldn't win an election if you were the last person alive.
  - chomskyole 3y ago
    From grandparent: > Walmart cashiers are being fired everyday for things like immaturity and poor judgment, why should YC CEO be held under lower behavior standards than blue collar workers?! Parent: >> If being immature and showing poor judgement means you can run a VC fund 100% of VC funds would be firing their CEOs. USA, USA????
hef19898 3y ago
The higher up you are, and the more you represent an organisation, the less immature behavior or poor judgement you cannafford orbare entitled to. USN nuclear sub commanders get replaced for DUIs, because poor judgement is not acceptable. Creating public outrage with drunk rantabon social media falling back on an employer is nothing a normal employee woild get waway woth, let alone a CEO. But in a world where everyone seems to think they are Elon Musk, and not Steve Jobs anymore, it is no surprise this behavior is shickingly common. No, CEO and other public figures from a company should be held to even higher standards than the rank and file.
- hindsightbias 3y ago
  Think about the industry and the people you'd want to be managing an AGI. These people aren't Chuck Forbin.
jwmoz 3y ago
Heinous cringe.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  The cringe is the real crime here.
rsynnott 3y ago
> but he's apologised for it so I don't think it's fair to drag him down. So, the way this works is, he can say whatever he likes, but people shouldn't say mean things about him? How does this work? I'm genuinely curious; this, on the face of it, makes no sense to me at all. Is it because he's rich? I don't get it.
- refurb 3y ago
  Yes, when people apologize for things we generally move on since the person acknowledge their error. Let’s be honest, it’s blowing up because the California political machine is threatened by this guy, and tearing him down for a small transgression means they’ll hold onto the reins of power even longer.
  - chomskyole 3y ago
    A death threat by one of the richest persons = A small transgression when they apologise after the fact Seriously?
    - refurb 3y ago
      Nobody would seriously take that as a death threat. No one. But if you’re a politician, it makes sense to claim you “fear for your life”. Like I said, they want to get rid of this guy since he’s a political opponent.
    - framapotari 3y ago
      If I say to you "die slow", would you read it as me threatening to murder you?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - kyleamazza 3y ago
        Are you implying that it's not a threat of any kind? Regardless of how it's enacted? I would certainly rather be threatened with a nice day. Especially in this climate, where the tip of a hat causes anonymous people to pile on and send threats via mail, it wouldn't be as simple as brushing it off. The worst part isn't usually the initial threat, it's the piling on afterwards that can last for months and years afterwards.
Brian_K_White 3y ago
Somehow in all my many alcohol fuelled moments, I never said anything like that. Fuck this odious turd and anyone who would try to excuse him.
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
  "Fuck this odious turd and anyone who would try to excuse him." I think what you mean to say was: Fuck Y Combinator as a staff, message board, and as a mother fucking VC group. And if you want to be down with Y Combinator, then fuck you too. Sam Altman, fuck you too.
  - mindcrime 3y ago
    The birth of a new musical genre - "VC rap" - is happening right in front of our eyes!
stefantalpalaru 3y ago
[dead]
JohnFen 3y ago
That he was drunk makes it very likely that he was expressing what he really thinks. It's not a matter of "dragging him down" as much as "when someone shows you who they are, believe them." Apologizing is great, but it can't make people unlearn something they learned about the person.

mcv 3y ago

Yeah, apparently it was a pop reference, and that makes it okay? The problem with references is that not everybody gets the reference, and without that (and possibly even with) this is a death threat. And with today's highly polarized and volatile political situation, you need to be really careful with that. I've come to expect this sort of behaviour from random internet trolls, but a CEO really should know better. I think this counts as a disqualifying lapse of judgement.

alpaca128 3y ago
It's not uncommon to add a minimal amount of plausible deniability to a toxic comment/threat (by calling it a joke or reference, following it up with "in Minecraft" etc), but imho that's intentional abuse of other people's good will and should be treated as such. Either way knowing how to communicate responsibly is part of a CEO's job, that's one of the reasons they get paid so much.
- noobermin 3y ago
  >Either way knowing how to communicate responsibly is part of a CEO's job, that's one of the reasons they get paid so much. Dealing with people in management positions disabuses you of this notion.
zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
[flagged]
- this_steve_j 3y ago
  If his rapper persona had tweeted the lyrics to a diss track but clarified the theatrical kayfabe by breaking the fourth wall, that arguably could be less of a threat but still demonstrate questionable judgment, so I agree with you there. But violent rhetoric certainly increases the likelihood that others will escalate violence against the target, and so the risk (threat) of death and harm very much does increase as seen in many unfortunate cases. That is how asymmetric information warfare has a chilling effect on democracy and infringes others’ fundamental liberties (life, pursuit of happiness), and is different from “free speech”. It doesn’t require sophisticated thinking to discern the difference, but X is where discourse goes to die.

jacobriis 3y ago

Are you also aghast about Tupac? Oh my this rapping is outrageous! Mr. Tupac pull up your pants and clean up your language young man! And Gary isn’t a rap artist anyway! Well isn’t he?

asahiliker1 3y ago
> Are you also aghast about Tupac? Tupac was a gangster who'd been convicted of sexual assault. Personally I try to separate the artist from the human because humans are consistently awful creatures, and otherwise we'd never be able to enjoy any art ever. But I wouldn't be in support of Tupac running Y Combinator, or to be the CEO of pretty much any company, ever. I like Freddie Gibbs and Danny Brown. Both release music that is extremely misogynistic. Deeper, Freddie (+ Madlib, ofc) > Slammin', half a thang of heroin in the bathroom > Keep an AK and the backup in the backroom > Cook a meal clean and she suck me like a vacuum If I tweet at a woman I disagree with that she should be in the kitchen cooking me a meal clean and then sucking me like a vacuum, that's okay right? Because I'm just aping my favourite popular rapper?
- mlrtime 3y ago
  The interesting thing about 2Pac is he grew up intelligent and was taught to respect women. Some of his earliest lyrics were very pro-women. He changed his tone later in life as he was betrayed many times. “Since we all came from a women, got our name from a women, and our game from a women. I wonder why we take from women, why we rape our women, do we hate our women? I think its time we killed for our women, be real to our women, try to heal our women, cus if we dont we'll have a race of babies that will hate the ladies, who make the babies. And since a man can't make one he has no right to tell a women when and where to create one”
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    Wonder how much of that change was personal and how much marketing. He'd be far from the first artist to appeal to the "thug life" despite having a relatively comfortable and conflict-free childhood. But in the 90's the music industry went HARD on selling that image.

s_dev 3y ago

>but adults should understand that words are meaningful and have consequences What consequences should Gary face?

tempestn 3y ago
The main consequence to him so far has been a lot of people thinking less of him. It was also consequential for the subjects of the tweet, and to a much lesser extent, to all of us who've been exposed to it.
- s_dev 3y ago
  Okay sounds like he faced those exact consequences and a bunch of people are acting like victims because they chose to take him too literally. I don't think Gary really cares what you or some others think. He's developed a thick skin for this sort of stuff maybe others should too. I think more of him though. Sort of like when a polite old woman tells someone to fuck off and they're literally shook. A lot of people could do with hardening up a bit.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    > A lot of people could do with hardening up a bit. How often have I heard that from bullies who shit themselves, whine and go running to mommy as soon as they get a little of what they give? You actually mean "shut up, roll over and passively accept abuse." Anyone who hardened-up, as in speaking their honest feeling and the truth about this sort of bully would be banned from here in 5 seconds! We don't have the option to "harden up", because we value civility and intellectual curiosity, and all know it would make this forum a much worse place.
    - s_dev 3y ago
      Pursuing intellectual curiosity involves tolerating ideas or language or phrasing you don't like. The world is messy. Gary hasn't bullied or abused anyone. That is where the line is. The real answer is here is Gary could have phrased his words better and he would have been more effective in communicating his message. That's it.

ChildOfChaos 3y ago

But you would say this kinda thing to friends, people joke around all the time, it’s good to show that strength of emotion about something instead of having to PR speak your entire live.

willis936 3y ago
You can be professional and be genuine (distinct from PR speak). Sure, you're not fraternizing with your subordinates as much as you could, but you're doing your job better and your subordinates will be happier.
tom_ 3y ago
It maybe isn't on Twitter though! It is a public place, of a sort, which should always be borne in mind.
chomskyole 3y ago
Mate, no I don't say this to my friends, but even if I take your point: if I say it to my friends there won't be any impact on anyone's life. Gary's rant absolutely has a potential to impact lives. So you chose your words to the occasion, no?
JohnFen 3y ago
> But you would say this kinda thing to friends No, I wouldn't. I have never said anything like that to my friends (nor have my friends ever said anything like that to me), and I can't imagine ever doing so.
- tempestn 3y ago
  Exactly. And that holds regardless of how drunk I might be, fwiw.
bashinator 3y ago
Yikes, talk about normalizing violence in political discourse.

nonrandomstring 3y ago

Reading this article by Rebecca Solnit [0] posted on HN here [1] absolutely helped me make sense of the Garry Tan story, and what is going on in Californian politics. It's well worth reading, but is a long and initially tedious article bemoaning the passing of a gentler, humane culture. Then about halfway through it grew some balls and teeth, and frankly I found it shocking. I had no idea California was this degenerate. And for those too close to it, no, this isn't just how every country's politics is. It reads like Chicago in the 1920/30's, or perhaps more like Mexico or El Salvator, with billionaires instead of drug lords. Read alongside "The Californian Ideology" [2] it's eye opening and paints a great picture of the slow trajectory of San Francisco and California from a left-liberal counter-culture to extremist far-right billionaire technofascism. [0] https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n03/rebecca-solnit/in-the-shadow-of-silicon-valley https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n03/rebecca-solnit/in-th... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39226296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39226296 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology

AniseAbyss 3y ago
[dead]
dandanua 3y ago
> Tech billionaires often seem more interested in surviving the apocalypse than preventing it. - pretty much sums everything we observe today. And it's only getting worse, despite tech advancements. Great article.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I find it interesting that you added "despite tech advancements". I don't see how the level of technological advancement enters into this equation at all.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    Maybe the connection dandanua is alluding to is that mythology from the beginning of the "Information Age" (circa 1980) that technology would "bring us all together in a giant conversation of humankind". As if. Now, here we are having this conversation on a platform owned and run by those same "bunker men" who probably bought the laws that destroyed the peered Internet that was our hope. We're still stuck in 1980, holding out that "technology will save us".

ignoramous 3y ago

> normal It isn't normal for anyone else, of course. As for Garry, he is heavily invested in SF politics. > no big deal It is a big deal only if Garry was consistently inflammatory. Otherwise, it can be safely relegated to careless jibe by a drunkard. > words are meaningful and have consequences True, but one is allowed to retract, excuse, apologize. One incident unto drastic consequences will result in heavy-handedness wielded often, a weaponization against anyone standing upto establishment or established norms (which is quite contrary to what either the left or the right would want, in the context of political discourse). > adolescents, but adults Are we being too sensitive, vindictive, projecting remorse? One look at tech Twitter (and deleted tweets) and we'd want to cancel them all. What good is that going to bring, other than create an inescapable and ever shrinking echo chamber? > some modicum of respect, or at least decency Politics gets dirty from time to time. > Wishing a slow death on someone, even rhetorically There is probably a socio-political climate in which such statements could be considered incitement, but in this case, lunatics using Garry's words to threaten and scare their victims is exactly that... a work of an opportunist lunatic who probably thinks highly of themself. That isn't on Garry.

justin66 3y ago
> Are we being too sensitive, vindictive, projecting remorse? One look at tech Twitter (and deleted tweets) and we'd want to cancel them all. What good is that going to bring, other than create an inescapable and ever shrinking echo chamber? It's simply nonsensical to think that there are two extremes of discourse, "echo chamber" and "people can feel free to voice threats," which are in opposition. > It is a big deal only if Garry was consistently inflammatory. Otherwise, it can be safely relegated to careless jibe by a drunkard. People on the business end of a threat certainly have a different perspective on what can be "safely relegated" to the "don't worry" category. There's nothing wrong with taking into account the perspective of those being threatened when determining whether something like this is a "big deal," as the parent poster presumably did, and as the law does. > It isn't normal for anyone else, of course. As for Garry, he is heavily invested in SF politics. How unique he is. It's hard to imagine a reality where lots of people are heavily invested in politics and behave foolishly because of it. That would be an alternate reality that is difficult to imagine.

syndacks 3y ago

He was only quoting Tupac…

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
Not totally sure if this comment is ironic or not but wanted to expand on this thought either way. Using a reference with threatening language in it that is potentially unknown by the people recieving it, makes a death threat even more sinister as it feels like you're building in plausible deniability and trying to have your cake and eat it. It's basically admitting "if I just said this it would cross a line, but if I quote it instead then it'll not cross a line for people who know it's a quote, but still cross the line for the people I'm threatening. So I get to make the threat and disclaim any intent at the same time.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  There are two related aspects to this that fascinate me the most. The first is that Tan seems to have thought that people who were upset by the statement were unaware that it was a song lyric. The second is that some people think that because it's a song lyric, it somehow doesn't count.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
And? Was he giving a recital of Tupac's lyrics / reading it out loud, or was it pulled out of that context and aimed at someone specific? I can call your mother a hamster and that your father smelt of elderberries; just because it's a quote from Monty Python doesn't mean it wouldn't be insulting to you.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  > I can call your mother a hamster and that your father smelt of elderberries Alright, that does it. Pistols at dawn.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

I saw a clip from a popular right wing podcaster recently in which he was annoyed that his guests kept wishing death on people. He was mostly annoyed it seemed because this meant he got demonitized or had to pull some content which cost him money. And that people didn't listen to his specific pre-show instruction to not call for death. And that some of his viewers got angry at him about this (I didn't quite follow why, they weren't angry about the death threats but somehow thought his removal of episodes made him a part of the deep state or something). edit: link to short version of the clip I saw https://twitter.com/majorityfm/status/1752833975851049108 https://twitter.com/majorityfm/status/1752833975851049108

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
Love to see it; free speech absolutionists until it costs them money.

rayiner 3y ago

We can debate about whether it should be normal, but clearly it is, right? For example we have the Darwin Award, where we mock people who actually died (not just rhetorically). I’m not the least bit edgy as far as millennials go, and I’ve made the joke that “the best thing Trump could do for the GOP is to get assassinated.” It always gets a laugh.

JohnFen 3y ago
> We can debate about whether it should be normal, but clearly it is, right? I don't think it's even close to being normal. If it were, then this wouldn't have raised the firestorm it did.
- rayiner 3y ago
  The firestorm is entirely because Tan is rich and Asian. There’s always been a taboo on “punching down,” but in recent years in certain circles politicians have moved positions in the hierarchy.
  - 11101010001100 3y ago
    I thought the firestorm was because some who is ostensibly smart did something objectively not smart.
    - justin66 3y ago
      I mean, that's part of it, but if look at the quality of some of the analogies being made on this thread, "objectively not smart" on its own is clearly not sufficient to cause a firestorm.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > The firestorm is entirely because Tan is rich and Asian. I don't think the firestorm is because of either of those things. I think it's mostly because Tan is a powerful figure in the SV tech scene.
3y ago

nightwing 3y ago

Wishing slow death is indeed extremely disturbing and stupid. Politicians that way have time to do so much more harm.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

There's a big discussion going on on whether this was good or bad, or whatever, but the point remains that he represents a company, he made a public statement that puts himself in a bad light, which in turn makes the customers of said customer lose trust and respect, which in turn causes the company harm. A lot of harm. And you can't have a CEO that causes the company harm through his public behaviour.

3327 3y ago

[dead]