6 ms·

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

by s_dev 3y ago

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.
      - kyleamazza 3y ago
        There's a real leap in the phrasing of "die slow" as "I do not approve of your policies and hope that others are elected to improve the city". Simply passing that off as "bad wording" is reductive and gives leeway to others who test the waters with extremism and turtle back into the shell of "I didn't mean it that way" when they get pushback. It's not that Garry literally means he wants them to die, it's that it's irresponsible for a leader to infer that idea and to normalize (unintentionally, as I would give him the benefit of the doubt here) the same type of actions as actual extremists.
      - nonrandomstring 3y ago
        > Gary hasn't bullied or abused anyone Let's say he hasn't. So what's at issue? Because this bothers me if I am to continue to participate in HN. Pursuing intellectual curiosity involves tolerance, yes, and forgiveness. And seeing a little of the other in yourself, and you in them. You know, I wouldn't presume to say anything about a person I don't know, or to psychologise too much on an individual. There's a parallel universe where I'd meet Mr Tan and enjoy some beers, we'd talk about tech, and maybe after a few we'd get all 'blokey' start comparing our lists of people who should die horribly. That's all human enough. And I come from a background that makes me not ashamed to be in touch with my own disdain, violence, unacceptable sides and masculine toxicity. We all say cringe things we wish we could take back from time to time. Shame is a good teacher if we don't leave that unexamined etc. I'm not "outraged" (the only emotion 21st century people feel) at Tan for slipping up and going a bit gangsta, channelling his inner 2Pac or whatever. Who doesn't? I've no doubt some of those Californian politicians are infuriating and cut from the same cloth as the poor shower we have over here. I'm disappointed because of how that reflects on me, on other hackers and the real tech community - you know, us grunts who actually think up and build all the stuff. He's not quite young enough to be my son. But if he were, I'd have to say "Gary, why are you hanging out with these losers? People who claim to represent utopian technological ideas, but are massively stunted as human beings? Tech billionaire trash who are actually a lot less smart and well educated than they think. They're insecure, inauthentic, cloistered, frightened of dying, doing far more drugs than is good for anyone, and hell-bent on imposing technological terror upon the world we haven't seen since the Third Reich. Please find some nicer friends." And what I'd hope to hear is like; "Yes I'm sorry to let the community down. I feel a lot of anger and frustration at the world. I realise my worldview is parochial. I see that I'm in a group whose ideas are not universal, whatever our "progressive" good intentions. Maybe I can temper myself in a way that's more congruent with the money, power and consequent responsibility to others' I carry."
  - scandox 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - jzb 3y ago
    A lot of people could do with learning more empathy. People shouldn’t have to be hard. People, especially over-privileged people like this, should learn how to behave like decent humans.
  - shermantanktop 3y ago
    My general rule is sort of a variant of Godwin’s Law: “The first person to tell their opponent ‘you shouldn’t be so sensitive’ forfeits the debate.” There are of course exceptions. But obnoxious people think that every time they say something offensive or awful, the onus is on others to make allowances.
    - narcindin 3y ago
      I have a similar rule: "The first person to tell their opponent 'your ideas are offensive' forfeits the debate". I believe my rule prevents more bad arguments.
      - shermantanktop 3y ago
        That rule is great in a monoculture but fails when good-faith participants are coming from widely differing perspectives and values. If it’s not a good faith discussion, nothing helps. But I’m not actually trying to engineer a debate ruleset, I’m mostly pointing out how people try to get away with being assholes.
hef19898 3y ago
Two fold: Legal consequences if some of the people threatened by him want to sue or have him indicted about it. And whatever YC as his employer sees fit for the resulted harm on the reputation of the company. So, in the end, it can be everything from nothing to a criminal charge and conviction with loosing his job somewhere in the middle.
- slibhb 3y ago
  There is zero chance he could be indicted for a threat based on that tweet. No responsible prosecutor would try. Even if you take "die slow motherfucker" literally, it's not a threat. A wish that someone dies is not a threat. "I will kill you" is a threat.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Good for him I guess. Leaves civil lotigation, or not, IANAL after all. As I said, nothing happening to him is a possible outcome as well.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    to clarify, in the US, "I will kill you" may or may not be considered a threat. It depends on whether or not it's actionable. If it's a tweet, it's probably not going to be considered actionable. People talk shit all the time, a lot of people in this post need to calm down and stop being so quick to be offended. Should have said it? Probably not. Does that make him a danger to anyone? Not by itself it doesn't.
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
      Is there a legal distinction for public figures? If Jodie Foster says, “I will kill you” does that change the calculus at all? Or of course, “Won’t someone do something about this troublesome priest”
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
otikik 3y ago
I am not a lawyer, but if some deranged individual who follows him takes his comment and face value and murders someone, he will face many consequences. Firstly, he would be involved on murder. That's not a great experience to have, for most people. He would at least be on trial. I don't exactly know how incitement to murder is treated in the US. It could even be considered domestic terrorism (an assassination made to intimidate a group based on an ideological agenda/government policy). Then, I don't know what would happen, exactly. The FBI would probably get involved?
- Amezarak 3y ago
  Lawyers and judges have already been consulted and concluded that no crime was committed. 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... This would not change ex post facto because of someone else's actions. In the US, what he did said is disgusting but legally protected free speech. It's conceivable that he could be opened up to a civil lawsuit, but that's about it.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - Amezarak 3y ago
      The US has a long history of "stochastic terrorism", which seems to be at a relative low compared to the violence of the early 1900s, the 1960s, and several other periods etc. I have faith in its institutional ability to handle and restrain actual violence. I am much more concerned about the normalization of the idea that we should restrict free speech. I suppose this isn't too shocking - the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed after what we would now call many instances of "stochastic terrorism" in the newspapers - but I'd hoped we'd learned our lesson and permanently repudiated these ideas.
      - paulryanrogers 3y ago
lwkl 3y ago
The consequences are a hit to your reputation (I think they call this "being canceled" nowadays). I guess you can get to a point of wealth where this doesn't really matter. But at least for 99% of people this is really harmful and takes a lot of effort to rectify.
JohnFen 3y ago
I'd say he should face the consequences that he is facing: heavy social condemnation, maybe with a touch of shunning.

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

by s_dev 3y ago

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

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.
    - kyleamazza 3y ago
      There's a real leap in the phrasing of "die slow" as "I do not approve of your policies and hope that others are elected to improve the city". Simply passing that off as "bad wording" is reductive and gives leeway to others who test the waters with extremism and turtle back into the shell of "I didn't mean it that way" when they get pushback. It's not that Garry literally means he wants them to die, it's that it's irresponsible for a leader to infer that idea and to normalize (unintentionally, as I would give him the benefit of the doubt here) the same type of actions as actual extremists.
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      > Gary hasn't bullied or abused anyone Let's say he hasn't. So what's at issue? Because this bothers me if I am to continue to participate in HN. Pursuing intellectual curiosity involves tolerance, yes, and forgiveness. And seeing a little of the other in yourself, and you in them. You know, I wouldn't presume to say anything about a person I don't know, or to psychologise too much on an individual. There's a parallel universe where I'd meet Mr Tan and enjoy some beers, we'd talk about tech, and maybe after a few we'd get all 'blokey' start comparing our lists of people who should die horribly. That's all human enough. And I come from a background that makes me not ashamed to be in touch with my own disdain, violence, unacceptable sides and masculine toxicity. We all say cringe things we wish we could take back from time to time. Shame is a good teacher if we don't leave that unexamined etc. I'm not "outraged" (the only emotion 21st century people feel) at Tan for slipping up and going a bit gangsta, channelling his inner 2Pac or whatever. Who doesn't? I've no doubt some of those Californian politicians are infuriating and cut from the same cloth as the poor shower we have over here. I'm disappointed because of how that reflects on me, on other hackers and the real tech community - you know, us grunts who actually think up and build all the stuff. He's not quite young enough to be my son. But if he were, I'd have to say "Gary, why are you hanging out with these losers? People who claim to represent utopian technological ideas, but are massively stunted as human beings? Tech billionaire trash who are actually a lot less smart and well educated than they think. They're insecure, inauthentic, cloistered, frightened of dying, doing far more drugs than is good for anyone, and hell-bent on imposing technological terror upon the world we haven't seen since the Third Reich. Please find some nicer friends." And what I'd hope to hear is like; "Yes I'm sorry to let the community down. I feel a lot of anger and frustration at the world. I realise my worldview is parochial. I see that I'm in a group whose ideas are not universal, whatever our "progressive" good intentions. Maybe I can temper myself in a way that's more congruent with the money, power and consequent responsibility to others' I carry."
- scandox 3y ago
  [flagged]
- jzb 3y ago
  A lot of people could do with learning more empathy. People shouldn’t have to be hard. People, especially over-privileged people like this, should learn how to behave like decent humans.
- shermantanktop 3y ago
  My general rule is sort of a variant of Godwin’s Law: “The first person to tell their opponent ‘you shouldn’t be so sensitive’ forfeits the debate.” There are of course exceptions. But obnoxious people think that every time they say something offensive or awful, the onus is on others to make allowances.
  - narcindin 3y ago
    I have a similar rule: "The first person to tell their opponent 'your ideas are offensive' forfeits the debate". I believe my rule prevents more bad arguments.
    - shermantanktop 3y ago
      That rule is great in a monoculture but fails when good-faith participants are coming from widely differing perspectives and values. If it’s not a good faith discussion, nothing helps. But I’m not actually trying to engineer a debate ruleset, I’m mostly pointing out how people try to get away with being assholes.

hef19898 3y ago

Two fold: Legal consequences if some of the people threatened by him want to sue or have him indicted about it. And whatever YC as his employer sees fit for the resulted harm on the reputation of the company. So, in the end, it can be everything from nothing to a criminal charge and conviction with loosing his job somewhere in the middle.

slibhb 3y ago
There is zero chance he could be indicted for a threat based on that tweet. No responsible prosecutor would try. Even if you take "die slow motherfucker" literally, it's not a threat. A wish that someone dies is not a threat. "I will kill you" is a threat.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Good for him I guess. Leaves civil lotigation, or not, IANAL after all. As I said, nothing happening to him is a possible outcome as well.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  to clarify, in the US, "I will kill you" may or may not be considered a threat. It depends on whether or not it's actionable. If it's a tweet, it's probably not going to be considered actionable. People talk shit all the time, a lot of people in this post need to calm down and stop being so quick to be offended. Should have said it? Probably not. Does that make him a danger to anyone? Not by itself it doesn't.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
    Is there a legal distinction for public figures? If Jodie Foster says, “I will kill you” does that change the calculus at all? Or of course, “Won’t someone do something about this troublesome priest”
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago

otikik 3y ago

I am not a lawyer, but if some deranged individual who follows him takes his comment and face value and murders someone, he will face many consequences. Firstly, he would be involved on murder. That's not a great experience to have, for most people. He would at least be on trial. I don't exactly know how incitement to murder is treated in the US. It could even be considered domestic terrorism (an assassination made to intimidate a group based on an ideological agenda/government policy). Then, I don't know what would happen, exactly. The FBI would probably get involved?

Amezarak 3y ago
Lawyers and judges have already been consulted and concluded that no crime was committed. 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... This would not change ex post facto because of someone else's actions. In the US, what he did said is disgusting but legally protected free speech. It's conceivable that he could be opened up to a civil lawsuit, but that's about it.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    The US has a long history of "stochastic terrorism", which seems to be at a relative low compared to the violence of the early 1900s, the 1960s, and several other periods etc. I have faith in its institutional ability to handle and restrain actual violence. I am much more concerned about the normalization of the idea that we should restrict free speech. I suppose this isn't too shocking - the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed after what we would now call many instances of "stochastic terrorism" in the newspapers - but I'd hoped we'd learned our lesson and permanently repudiated these ideas.
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago

lwkl 3y ago

The consequences are a hit to your reputation (I think they call this "being canceled" nowadays). I guess you can get to a point of wealth where this doesn't really matter. But at least for 99% of people this is really harmful and takes a lot of effort to rectify.

JohnFen 3y ago

I'd say he should face the consequences that he is facing: heavy social condemnation, maybe with a touch of shunning.