6 ms·

So it turns out that the wealthy and powerful are just like the rest of us - they like getting together in private with their friends to have raucous, alcohol-f

So it turns out that the wealthy and powerful are just like the rest of us - they like getting together in private with their friends to have raucous, alcohol-fuelled fun, and tell politically-incorrect jokes to one another. I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! It's just as well we don't live in a glass house! It would be pretty embarrassing if tech industry people were to spend millions on, say a lavish, LotR-themed wedding. Or if our awards ceremonies attracted protesters.

yoha 13y ago
I have to agree with this. All the article have shown is that even billionaires are people. The fact that they make intolerant jokes or that they speak of the crisis lightly is not that shocking considering the fact that they are in a private context. From what I understood, they are here to relax, and that is actually quite similar to what you could witness in any conventional meeting in a more modest population. It would have been way more shocking if it had been done in public speech. Not because it would have been known, but because it does not convey the same meaning. In a private context, you can expect people to know you are joking, or that this is a personal opinion you are able not to impose to others. In a public context, you are expected to express yourself clearly and to take position. In regards to the conclusion of the sting, I can also understand that they would not like that kind of material to be published. Imagine someone threatening to publish recordings of you in shameful situations during a party? From what I read, they were reasonable they seem to have let him go without much trouble (I think they could have called the police and have his phone confiscated without too much hassle).
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  Agreed they are just people. The difference in this case being that they are being insensitive (even celebrating) about something they did which had negative nation wide (world wide) implications. Which is slightly different than the average person's drunken antics at a party. For a different (arguably larger) example, if someone is making light of (or celebrating) genocide/slavery/some atrocity (that they or their compatriots caused) and it comes out, that is very different than pictures of Obama/Zuckerberg/Guy down the street being blackout drunk or even doing drugs at a party.
  - Aloha 13y ago
    You've clearly not spent enough alcohol fueled time debauching yourself. Ribald, insensitive, bad humor happens when you put booze and a bunch of middle aged men in a room.
    - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
      As pointed out... The difference being that, in the largest majority of cases, said middle aged (any aged) people were not involved in the atrocious act they are lampooning. As George Carlin said "anything can be funny" (even rape). But its going to be incredibly hard for a convicted rapist to come up with a joke, about the rape he committed, that is funny, doesn't offend basically everyone, or make him come off as a total insensitive twat. Do you see the difference?
      - twoodfin 13y ago
        Who in this article, specifically, committed which "atrocious act"?
        sarreph 13y ago
        Seriously?
        twoodfin 13y ago
        Yes. That's a pretty serious claim, especially paired with a rape analogy. There are plenty of forums on the web where everyone will nod along as "Wall Street 1%'ers" are described as having obviously committed (typically unnamed) atrocities. I don't think HN should be one of them.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
- dpcheng2003 13y ago
  At a certain point, your fame/wealth/power grants you some responsibilities if you care to honor them. One of them is to be constantly mindful of what you say or do because it has leveraged, far-reaching implications on your community and for a select few, globally. Take a silly example: If Justin Bieber decides it's okay to drink sizzurp and drag race, millions of impressionable pre-teens may see this as acceptable behavior. Take a relevant example: If John Doerr says that the best startup talent tends to be white, male, nerds who've dropped out of Harvard or Stanford, this can have a negative influence on men and women of color who have startup aspirations (or dropped out of MIT). Now consider who we're talking about here in this context. Every person here benefited from the lead-up to the financial crash and then benefited from tax-paying dollars in the financial bailout. While it's debatable whether or not Wall Street was let down easy (for some, they will point to no criminal charges, watered-down finance reform, etc.), I think both sides can agree that there exists a loud, populist movement that believes Wall Street is irresponsibly reckless, benefiting from moral hazard. Knowing this, wouldn't you take some precaution to not be shown to be callous and indifferent to today's economic state? To those who say this was an entirely private affair, I'd argue the opposite. This was a dinner with place-cards and catering at the St. Regis. If they were to have this conversation truly in private (and as a former investment banker, I've participated in these private discussions), then we wouldn't be discussing this on HN. I believe an organization like this has outsized responsibilities because of the influence they wield. Do you know how hard it is to get men and women of this caliber in a single room? Imagine if they harnessed their passion towards something their community would deem constructive? I believe in individual rights so certainly, everyone is entitled to their free speech. But no one should be surprised when a backlash occurs. Edit: To the person who asked how the Justin Bieber example is relevant, I say it has to do with the fame/wealth/power and influence argument. It is not a perfect analogy and I did not intend it to be. I used a silly example to initially diffuse what I think was going to be a serious indictment of bad behavior.
  - auctiontheory 13y ago
    How is getting drunk and high and drag racing on a public street remotely private or equivalent to the story?
jmnicolas 13y ago
No it's akin (in a much worst way) to Bill Gates being caught in the nineties privately mocking its users that endure Windows crashes and having to buy the next version that is slightly less buggy. When you destroy lives (I'm referring to the financiers here, not Gates ;-) you don't make fun of it and expect normal people not to be outraged.
octonion 13y ago
You may want to look for some higher quality friends, unless your life goals revolve around being drunk and stupid.
- welly 13y ago
  Life goals? So someone going to a party from time to time where they get drunk and stupid is what you'd describe as "life goals"? Wow. Exaggeration much?
- caruana 13y ago
  a bit harsh and judgemental
ryandrake 13y ago
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
- reefoctopus 13y ago
  Have you ever been to a hacker news meetup? Did the conversation end in conspiracy against the public? Shameless related plug: By the way, I'll be organizing a Hacker News DC meetup in the near future. Check the meetup group for updates. I'll likely send something out later this week.
mathattack 13y ago
The problem specific to finance is many of these folks had to get bailed out in 2008. If they didn't, their wealth would have gone to 0. (So would many of ours as collateral damage, which is why the bailout did happen.) Just 1 year later they paid themselves enormously offensive amounts of cash. This is why people find the humor so painful. Don't laugh at the sucker who had to bail you out. The one relevant point, which you kind of get to, is that this was meant to be private conversation amongst friends.
chris123 13y ago
Don't forget the drugs and hookers. Two other things Wall St and Silicon Valley share a deep love of.
michaelwww 13y ago
So you're saying F. Scott Fitzgerald was wrong, the rich aren't different.
JackpotDen 13y ago
>It would be pretty embarrassing if tech industry people were to spend millions on, say a lavish, LotR-themed wedding. Not the same as celebrating having people lose their jobs and becoming homeless.

yoha 13y ago

I have to agree with this. All the article have shown is that even billionaires are people. The fact that they make intolerant jokes or that they speak of the crisis lightly is not that shocking considering the fact that they are in a private context. From what I understood, they are here to relax, and that is actually quite similar to what you could witness in any conventional meeting in a more modest population. It would have been way more shocking if it had been done in public speech. Not because it would have been known, but because it does not convey the same meaning. In a private context, you can expect people to know you are joking, or that this is a personal opinion you are able not to impose to others. In a public context, you are expected to express yourself clearly and to take position. In regards to the conclusion of the sting, I can also understand that they would not like that kind of material to be published. Imagine someone threatening to publish recordings of you in shameful situations during a party? From what I read, they were reasonable they seem to have let him go without much trouble (I think they could have called the police and have his phone confiscated without too much hassle).

ItendToDisagree 13y ago
Agreed they are just people. The difference in this case being that they are being insensitive (even celebrating) about something they did which had negative nation wide (world wide) implications. Which is slightly different than the average person's drunken antics at a party. For a different (arguably larger) example, if someone is making light of (or celebrating) genocide/slavery/some atrocity (that they or their compatriots caused) and it comes out, that is very different than pictures of Obama/Zuckerberg/Guy down the street being blackout drunk or even doing drugs at a party.
- Aloha 13y ago
  You've clearly not spent enough alcohol fueled time debauching yourself. Ribald, insensitive, bad humor happens when you put booze and a bunch of middle aged men in a room.
  - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    As pointed out... The difference being that, in the largest majority of cases, said middle aged (any aged) people were not involved in the atrocious act they are lampooning. As George Carlin said "anything can be funny" (even rape). But its going to be incredibly hard for a convicted rapist to come up with a joke, about the rape he committed, that is funny, doesn't offend basically everyone, or make him come off as a total insensitive twat. Do you see the difference?
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      Who in this article, specifically, committed which "atrocious act"?
      - sarreph 13y ago
        Seriously?
        twoodfin 13y ago
        Yes. That's a pretty serious claim, especially paired with a rape analogy. There are plenty of forums on the web where everyone will nod along as "Wall Street 1%'ers" are described as having obviously committed (typically unnamed) atrocities. I don't think HN should be one of them.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
dpcheng2003 13y ago
At a certain point, your fame/wealth/power grants you some responsibilities if you care to honor them. One of them is to be constantly mindful of what you say or do because it has leveraged, far-reaching implications on your community and for a select few, globally. Take a silly example: If Justin Bieber decides it's okay to drink sizzurp and drag race, millions of impressionable pre-teens may see this as acceptable behavior. Take a relevant example: If John Doerr says that the best startup talent tends to be white, male, nerds who've dropped out of Harvard or Stanford, this can have a negative influence on men and women of color who have startup aspirations (or dropped out of MIT). Now consider who we're talking about here in this context. Every person here benefited from the lead-up to the financial crash and then benefited from tax-paying dollars in the financial bailout. While it's debatable whether or not Wall Street was let down easy (for some, they will point to no criminal charges, watered-down finance reform, etc.), I think both sides can agree that there exists a loud, populist movement that believes Wall Street is irresponsibly reckless, benefiting from moral hazard. Knowing this, wouldn't you take some precaution to not be shown to be callous and indifferent to today's economic state? To those who say this was an entirely private affair, I'd argue the opposite. This was a dinner with place-cards and catering at the St. Regis. If they were to have this conversation truly in private (and as a former investment banker, I've participated in these private discussions), then we wouldn't be discussing this on HN. I believe an organization like this has outsized responsibilities because of the influence they wield. Do you know how hard it is to get men and women of this caliber in a single room? Imagine if they harnessed their passion towards something their community would deem constructive? I believe in individual rights so certainly, everyone is entitled to their free speech. But no one should be surprised when a backlash occurs. Edit: To the person who asked how the Justin Bieber example is relevant, I say it has to do with the fame/wealth/power and influence argument. It is not a perfect analogy and I did not intend it to be. I used a silly example to initially diffuse what I think was going to be a serious indictment of bad behavior.
- auctiontheory 13y ago
  How is getting drunk and high and drag racing on a public street remotely private or equivalent to the story?

jmnicolas 13y ago

No it's akin (in a much worst way) to Bill Gates being caught in the nineties privately mocking its users that endure Windows crashes and having to buy the next version that is slightly less buggy. When you destroy lives (I'm referring to the financiers here, not Gates ;-) you don't make fun of it and expect normal people not to be outraged.

octonion 13y ago

You may want to look for some higher quality friends, unless your life goals revolve around being drunk and stupid.

welly 13y ago
Life goals? So someone going to a party from time to time where they get drunk and stupid is what you'd describe as "life goals"? Wow. Exaggeration much?
caruana 13y ago
a bit harsh and judgemental

ryandrake 13y ago

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

reefoctopus 13y ago
Have you ever been to a hacker news meetup? Did the conversation end in conspiracy against the public? Shameless related plug: By the way, I'll be organizing a Hacker News DC meetup in the near future. Check the meetup group for updates. I'll likely send something out later this week.

mathattack 13y ago

The problem specific to finance is many of these folks had to get bailed out in 2008. If they didn't, their wealth would have gone to 0. (So would many of ours as collateral damage, which is why the bailout did happen.) Just 1 year later they paid themselves enormously offensive amounts of cash. This is why people find the humor so painful. Don't laugh at the sucker who had to bail you out. The one relevant point, which you kind of get to, is that this was meant to be private conversation amongst friends.

chris123 13y ago

Don't forget the drugs and hookers. Two other things Wall St and Silicon Valley share a deep love of.

michaelwww 13y ago

So you're saying F. Scott Fitzgerald was wrong, the rich aren't different.

JackpotDen 13y ago

>It would be pretty embarrassing if tech industry people were to spend millions on, say a lavish, LotR-themed wedding. Not the same as celebrating having people lose their jobs and becoming homeless.