4 ms·

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 po

by 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.
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    https://missionlocal.org/2024/01/y-combinator-ceo-garry-tans-online-rant-spurs-threat-to-supe-police-reports/ https://missionlocal.org/2024/01/y-combinator-ceo-garry-tans... > Half a dozen lawyers and judges told Mission Local that, however ill-advised, Tan’s comments do not rise to the legal definition of a death threat. Your interpretation involves a large change to how free speech has been legally defined in America for a long time. You may be interested in this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Where the Supreme Court clarified that even more disgusting speech tinged with violence-encouraging rhetoric was, in fact, legally free speech. (Please, let's not call rhetoric itself violence.)
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      Even a supreme court can be wrong sometimes. In the US that's been happening more often of late.
      - rayiner 3y ago
        Can you give an example?
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        blackguardx 3y ago
        They call judicial output opinions for a reason.
        neon_electro 3y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
        rayiner 3y ago
        Citizens United says that something that’s undeniably speech—a movie about a politician—can’t be suppressed merely because the speakers pay for it through the vehicle of a corporation. What do you think is incorrect about that? If Citizens United has gone the other way, the Trump administration would have been able, for example, to order Facebook to suppress posts about COVID death tolls near the election.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  Whether it fits any legal definition of a death threat or not is... kind of moot, you can be a dick to someone else without violating the law. Society isn't built on laws, but on decency and respect, and wishing anything negative on someone else isn't it. A few days ago the CoC of an online community was posted, and "slow death" threats wouldn't pass their "be kind" rules either (https://www.improbableisland.com/coc.php https://www.improbableisland.com/coc.php, via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39135779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39135779).
- sumeno 3y ago
  He can dish it out but he can't take it https://missionloca.s3.amazonaws.com/mission/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/IMG_6596-e1706387563817.jpg https://missionloca.s3.amazonaws.com/mission/wp-content/uplo...
Kye 3y ago
I called someone a nerd once, but it turned out they didn't feel it had been "reclaimed" like a lot of people do. I apologized, and we had a nice chat about the paths language takes. It was nice. More situations like this should go like that, but it seems like doubling down, making excuses, or going on the attack is too easy.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
Yeah there's too much insensitivity being brushed off as "it's a reference", "it's a joke", "it's a meme", or with things like "you can't say anything anymore without anyone getting offended". That's not accepting responsibility for what you said. As is "I / he was drunk"; again, shifting blame. It's an explanation, not an excuse, and if you "become" an unpleasant person when drunk, you're an unpleasant person full stop. Stop drinking then.

by mcv 3y ago

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.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  https://missionlocal.org/2024/01/y-combinator-ceo-garry-tans-online-rant-spurs-threat-to-supe-police-reports/ https://missionlocal.org/2024/01/y-combinator-ceo-garry-tans... > Half a dozen lawyers and judges told Mission Local that, however ill-advised, Tan’s comments do not rise to the legal definition of a death threat. Your interpretation involves a large change to how free speech has been legally defined in America for a long time. You may be interested in this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Where the Supreme Court clarified that even more disgusting speech tinged with violence-encouraging rhetoric was, in fact, legally free speech. (Please, let's not call rhetoric itself violence.)
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Even a supreme court can be wrong sometimes. In the US that's been happening more often of late.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      Can you give an example?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - blackguardx 3y ago
        They call judicial output opinions for a reason.
      - neon_electro 3y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
        rayiner 3y ago
        Citizens United says that something that’s undeniably speech—a movie about a politician—can’t be suppressed merely because the speakers pay for it through the vehicle of a corporation. What do you think is incorrect about that? If Citizens United has gone the other way, the Trump administration would have been able, for example, to order Facebook to suppress posts about COVID death tolls near the election.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
Whether it fits any legal definition of a death threat or not is... kind of moot, you can be a dick to someone else without violating the law. Society isn't built on laws, but on decency and respect, and wishing anything negative on someone else isn't it. A few days ago the CoC of an online community was posted, and "slow death" threats wouldn't pass their "be kind" rules either (https://www.improbableisland.com/coc.php https://www.improbableisland.com/coc.php, via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39135779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39135779).
sumeno 3y ago
He can dish it out but he can't take it https://missionloca.s3.amazonaws.com/mission/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/IMG_6596-e1706387563817.jpg https://missionloca.s3.amazonaws.com/mission/wp-content/uplo...

Kye 3y ago

I called someone a nerd once, but it turned out they didn't feel it had been "reclaimed" like a lot of people do. I apologized, and we had a nice chat about the paths language takes. It was nice. More situations like this should go like that, but it seems like doubling down, making excuses, or going on the attack is too easy.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

Yeah there's too much insensitivity being brushed off as "it's a reference", "it's a joke", "it's a meme", or with things like "you can't say anything anymore without anyone getting offended". That's not accepting responsibility for what you said. As is "I / he was drunk"; again, shifting blame. It's an explanation, not an excuse, and if you "become" an unpleasant person when drunk, you're an unpleasant person full stop. Stop drinking then.