3 ms·

I'm not a Googler, but would still ask commenters to show some respect for the person who died, and save your opinions about youtube for another day.

by daveed 2y ago

meiraleal 2y ago
You know that Google has an intranet, right? The CEO of a division that extracts rent from almost every living person doesn't deserve more respect than a homeless person in SF
- polotics 2y ago
  On a 1-10 scale of nefariousness, I would classify Youtube as pretty low, it's a manageable addiction and with a little bit of self control the videos you watch will be worthwhile. I am a subscriber. Then there is Youtube Kids, and whoever worked on that deserves a 9, and good bye.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
tomohelix 2y ago
Maybe I am a callous person, but I have never agreed to this "don't speak ill of the dead" thing. People live and die. It is inevitable. To the grieving family, I can understand why refraining from insulting the dearly departed is necessary. They are grieving and can be irrational. No need to make things worse for them. But between unrelated people? Why can't I discuss the legacy of the dead? We are defined by our deeds in life. It is only natural that in death, people will talk and opine about what we have done. Nothing wrong with it.
- cowsup 2y ago
  I feel like there's an unwritten "recently" in there. If you were to speak ill of Colonel Sanders, nobody would berate you for speaking ill of the dead. But when a CEO like Wojcicki, who made changes that were unpopular to the end-users (but helped turn YouTube into an actual profitable company) dies, it's considered very impolite to use that opportunity to bad-mouth decisions she made. When her son died earlier this year, that would've been a bad time to speak ill of her, as well, even though she herself was still alive. A better phrase may be "Don't say things that will hurt the feelings of those who are grieving," but that doesn't roll off the tongue so easily.
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    > "Don't say things that will hurt the feelings of those who are grieving" I for one would prefer "don't get attached to evil people"
    - nozzlegear 2y ago
      Few people are comically evil enough that you can look at them and say "Ah, yes. You are evil. I will not get attached."
      - meiraleal 2y ago
        Yep. Feathers of the same birds flock together so one is just a little bit worse than the other and nobody feels ashamed.
      - HaZeust 2y ago
        You haven't talked to enough people. I probably have that inner-thought at least once a month.
    - redsaz 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - zarzavat 2y ago
    She was a public figure. If millions of people around the world know your name then when you die, people will have things to say. Some will be good, some will be bad. The custom about “not speaking ill of the dead” makes sense in a small IRL community, not for internationally famous people.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Socrates never wrote a single thing down and was, somewhat ironically, opposed to writing. The reason is that he felt that words cannot defend themselves. They can be twisted, taken out of context, and misrepresented, with none there to defend them, provide that missing context, or what not. Fortunately his student Plato disagreed so here we can discuss him 2400 years after his death. With a dead person, I think this logic holds to an even higher degree. Personally I'm not really sure whether I agree or disagree with it, but it seems pretty reasonable, especially if we don't hyperbolically immediately leap to absurdly extreme examples like Hitler or whatever.
- sigmar 2y ago
  >But between unrelated people? Why can't I discuss the legacy of the dead? We are defined by our deeds in life. It is only natural that in death, people will talk and opine about what we have done. Nothing wrong with it. unless you have a magical way to make your comment here invisible to her family and friends, posting it to the internet is not keeping the comment exclusively "between unrelated people." Many of those replies to Pichai are vile.
  - dangcock 2y ago
    [dead]
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    There's an implied "reasonable chance" in there.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  Agreed, I don't get it either. I also wonder how many people saying this sort of thing expressed the same sentiment when someone they had a strong dislike of passed or had a close brush with death. We've had many such incidents over the recent years and at least in my anecdotal observations, people do not consistently apply this.
- DannyBee 2y ago
  "We are defined by our deeds in life" We are but most folks here basically know nothing of her deeds, or really anything about her. They see one piece of a thing she was a face of for some time period, and that they also knew mostly nothing about, but appear to love to have strong opinions on! If you want to speak of her deeds then go and learn about them. Otherwise, people aren't speaking of anything other than some small myopic view of a human being they knew nothing about. Folks don't get to say that she is defined by the small piece of stuff they saw, just because they want to have an opinion on it. Besides being disrespectful, it's not even interesting, and it says more about the people doing it than the person they are talking about. It's like saying you are defined by the small and short interactions you had with grocery store cashiers who happen to like to post about their experiences with you on the internet and nothing else.
- matrix87 2y ago
  > Maybe I am a callous person, but I have never agreed to this "don't speak ill of the dead" thing. If they're rich and powerful who cares... here's John Oliver's reaction to Kissinger dying [0]... tl;dr "not soon enough" [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HmrJmq7d1c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HmrJmq7d1c
sneak 2y ago
When is there a better time to discuss the works of a famous person than when they are in the news?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
asah 2y ago
In particular, Susan was a lovely soul and specifically deserves all of our respect. If you want to hate, then hate the game, not the player (especially in this case).
- somenameforme 2y ago
  This saying never made sense to me as a game is only a game if there are players.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    The point of the saying is that the player is not necessarily in position to change the rules, or at least not in the immediate short term. How far one wants to accept this as acceptable reasoning is a subjective matter.
    - sleeplessworld 2y ago
      Or maybe not that subjective when looked at closer. It may just as well be a saying that the entitled classes use to defend their selfish and less than good behaviour. Beacause the classes of the not-entitled buy this as somehow having reasonable meaning. The entitled classes have no reason to change rules that are clearly stacked in their favour. But it sounds way better to say the rules cannot be changed. But it is hard to see why this should be self-evidently true.
    - wruza 2y ago
      You can offset basically anything with it. It's another way to say "it's just a collection of atoms working by the laws of nature". Most of these proverbs are just selling bs.
  - matwood 2y ago
    A good example is taxes. Many people think the 'rich', including the rich, should pay more. Every tax form in the US has a spot where you are free to write in a larger amount to send, but I wonder how many actually do? Unless the game ends collectively, it doesn't make sense to stop playing. I will continue to pay as little taxes as possible until the game is changed.
kubb 2y ago
I’d take it as a time to reflect that no matter how much profit you make, people will remember you for what you’ve accomplished. Think about that when you get to your coveted position of power in the industry.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Those people won’t matter. Your loved ones do and will though, and they won’t measure you by your accomplishments and net worth.
surgical_fire 2y ago
I have no dog in this game - literally no opinion on what kind of person she was. I use YouTube, even though I don't particularly like it, much like every other Google product. Not sure how much of what I dislike on YouTube is her fault or not,and it doesn't really matter anyway. It is not like I hold any hopes of YouTube becoming any better now. But I find this kind of comment curious. Someone noteworthy and controversial dies, critical comments are sure to follow. Happened when people such as Kissinger or Chomsky died. No one was saying "show some respect to the person who died, save your opinions for another day". It would be fairly ridiculous to say so.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  Don't kill Chomsky, he is still alive
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    Oh lol. I thought he was dead. The point still stands
    - quonn 2y ago
      The point doesn‘t stand, because you made a claim about what people supposedly said or didn’t say after Chomsky passed away. And he didn‘t even pass.
      - peterfirefly 2y ago
        A lot of people thought he did die and they did say things about him.
      - mynameisvlad 2y ago
        This is pedantry at its finest. You can remove the name and still have a point left there. Just pretend the comment only said Kissinger, it’s really not that hard.
nailer 2y ago
[flagged]
- dgacmu 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - philipwhiuk 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - dgacmu 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - nailer 2y ago
        [flagged]
  - nailer 2y ago
    [flagged]
hungie 2y ago
Why? If a person has done measurable harm to you, and your community, why is it not acceptable to say, "this person's legacy was one of harm. They chose to hurt vulnerable people"?
peterfirefly 2y ago
I associate her with censorship. Should I respect her for that?
dangcock 2y ago
[dead]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

I'm not a Googler, but would still ask commenters to show some respect for the person who died, and save your opinions about youtube for another day.

by daveed 2y ago

I'm not a Googler, but would still ask commenters to show some respect for the person who died, and save your opinions about youtube for another day.

meiraleal 2y ago

You know that Google has an intranet, right? The CEO of a division that extracts rent from almost every living person doesn't deserve more respect than a homeless person in SF

polotics 2y ago
On a 1-10 scale of nefariousness, I would classify Youtube as pretty low, it's a manageable addiction and with a little bit of self control the videos you watch will be worthwhile. I am a subscriber. Then there is Youtube Kids, and whoever worked on that deserves a 9, and good bye.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

tomohelix 2y ago

Maybe I am a callous person, but I have never agreed to this "don't speak ill of the dead" thing. People live and die. It is inevitable. To the grieving family, I can understand why refraining from insulting the dearly departed is necessary. They are grieving and can be irrational. No need to make things worse for them. But between unrelated people? Why can't I discuss the legacy of the dead? We are defined by our deeds in life. It is only natural that in death, people will talk and opine about what we have done. Nothing wrong with it.

cowsup 2y ago
I feel like there's an unwritten "recently" in there. If you were to speak ill of Colonel Sanders, nobody would berate you for speaking ill of the dead. But when a CEO like Wojcicki, who made changes that were unpopular to the end-users (but helped turn YouTube into an actual profitable company) dies, it's considered very impolite to use that opportunity to bad-mouth decisions she made. When her son died earlier this year, that would've been a bad time to speak ill of her, as well, even though she herself was still alive. A better phrase may be "Don't say things that will hurt the feelings of those who are grieving," but that doesn't roll off the tongue so easily.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  > "Don't say things that will hurt the feelings of those who are grieving" I for one would prefer "don't get attached to evil people"
  - nozzlegear 2y ago
    Few people are comically evil enough that you can look at them and say "Ah, yes. You are evil. I will not get attached."
    - meiraleal 2y ago
      Yep. Feathers of the same birds flock together so one is just a little bit worse than the other and nobody feels ashamed.
    - HaZeust 2y ago
      You haven't talked to enough people. I probably have that inner-thought at least once a month.
  - redsaz 2y ago
    [flagged]
- zarzavat 2y ago
  She was a public figure. If millions of people around the world know your name then when you die, people will have things to say. Some will be good, some will be bad. The custom about “not speaking ill of the dead” makes sense in a small IRL community, not for internationally famous people.
somenameforme 2y ago
Socrates never wrote a single thing down and was, somewhat ironically, opposed to writing. The reason is that he felt that words cannot defend themselves. They can be twisted, taken out of context, and misrepresented, with none there to defend them, provide that missing context, or what not. Fortunately his student Plato disagreed so here we can discuss him 2400 years after his death. With a dead person, I think this logic holds to an even higher degree. Personally I'm not really sure whether I agree or disagree with it, but it seems pretty reasonable, especially if we don't hyperbolically immediately leap to absurdly extreme examples like Hitler or whatever.
sigmar 2y ago
>But between unrelated people? Why can't I discuss the legacy of the dead? We are defined by our deeds in life. It is only natural that in death, people will talk and opine about what we have done. Nothing wrong with it. unless you have a magical way to make your comment here invisible to her family and friends, posting it to the internet is not keeping the comment exclusively "between unrelated people." Many of those replies to Pichai are vile.
- dangcock 2y ago
  [dead]
- dotnet00 2y ago
  There's an implied "reasonable chance" in there.
dotnet00 2y ago
Agreed, I don't get it either. I also wonder how many people saying this sort of thing expressed the same sentiment when someone they had a strong dislike of passed or had a close brush with death. We've had many such incidents over the recent years and at least in my anecdotal observations, people do not consistently apply this.
DannyBee 2y ago
"We are defined by our deeds in life" We are but most folks here basically know nothing of her deeds, or really anything about her. They see one piece of a thing she was a face of for some time period, and that they also knew mostly nothing about, but appear to love to have strong opinions on! If you want to speak of her deeds then go and learn about them. Otherwise, people aren't speaking of anything other than some small myopic view of a human being they knew nothing about. Folks don't get to say that she is defined by the small piece of stuff they saw, just because they want to have an opinion on it. Besides being disrespectful, it's not even interesting, and it says more about the people doing it than the person they are talking about. It's like saying you are defined by the small and short interactions you had with grocery store cashiers who happen to like to post about their experiences with you on the internet and nothing else.
matrix87 2y ago
> Maybe I am a callous person, but I have never agreed to this "don't speak ill of the dead" thing. If they're rich and powerful who cares... here's John Oliver's reaction to Kissinger dying [0]... tl;dr "not soon enough" [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HmrJmq7d1c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HmrJmq7d1c

sneak 2y ago

When is there a better time to discuss the works of a famous person than when they are in the news?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

asah 2y ago

In particular, Susan was a lovely soul and specifically deserves all of our respect. If you want to hate, then hate the game, not the player (especially in this case).

somenameforme 2y ago
This saying never made sense to me as a game is only a game if there are players.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  The point of the saying is that the player is not necessarily in position to change the rules, or at least not in the immediate short term. How far one wants to accept this as acceptable reasoning is a subjective matter.
  - sleeplessworld 2y ago
    Or maybe not that subjective when looked at closer. It may just as well be a saying that the entitled classes use to defend their selfish and less than good behaviour. Beacause the classes of the not-entitled buy this as somehow having reasonable meaning. The entitled classes have no reason to change rules that are clearly stacked in their favour. But it sounds way better to say the rules cannot be changed. But it is hard to see why this should be self-evidently true.
  - wruza 2y ago
    You can offset basically anything with it. It's another way to say "it's just a collection of atoms working by the laws of nature". Most of these proverbs are just selling bs.
- matwood 2y ago
  A good example is taxes. Many people think the 'rich', including the rich, should pay more. Every tax form in the US has a spot where you are free to write in a larger amount to send, but I wonder how many actually do? Unless the game ends collectively, it doesn't make sense to stop playing. I will continue to pay as little taxes as possible until the game is changed.

kubb 2y ago

I’d take it as a time to reflect that no matter how much profit you make, people will remember you for what you’ve accomplished. Think about that when you get to your coveted position of power in the industry.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Those people won’t matter. Your loved ones do and will though, and they won’t measure you by your accomplishments and net worth.

surgical_fire 2y ago

I have no dog in this game - literally no opinion on what kind of person she was. I use YouTube, even though I don't particularly like it, much like every other Google product. Not sure how much of what I dislike on YouTube is her fault or not,and it doesn't really matter anyway. It is not like I hold any hopes of YouTube becoming any better now. But I find this kind of comment curious. Someone noteworthy and controversial dies, critical comments are sure to follow. Happened when people such as Kissinger or Chomsky died. No one was saying "show some respect to the person who died, save your opinions for another day". It would be fairly ridiculous to say so.

meiraleal 2y ago
Don't kill Chomsky, he is still alive
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  Oh lol. I thought he was dead. The point still stands
  - quonn 2y ago
    The point doesn‘t stand, because you made a claim about what people supposedly said or didn’t say after Chomsky passed away. And he didn‘t even pass.
    - peterfirefly 2y ago
      A lot of people thought he did die and they did say things about him.
    - mynameisvlad 2y ago
      This is pedantry at its finest. You can remove the name and still have a point left there. Just pretend the comment only said Kissinger, it’s really not that hard.

nailer 2y ago

[flagged]

dgacmu 2y ago
[flagged]
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dgacmu 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - nailer 2y ago
      [flagged]
- nailer 2y ago
  [flagged]

hungie 2y ago

Why? If a person has done measurable harm to you, and your community, why is it not acceptable to say, "this person's legacy was one of harm. They chose to hurt vulnerable people"?

peterfirefly 2y ago

I associate her with censorship. Should I respect her for that?

dangcock 2y ago

[dead]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]