4 ms·

It's as if we'll all have to censor our thoughts before pronouncing them. You know, this really isn't a problem for people who don't have thoughts about silenc

by alexqgb 12y ago

It's as if we'll all have to censor our thoughts before pronouncing them. You know, this really isn't a problem for people who don't have thoughts about silencing critics by intimidating their families.

nailer 12y ago
From the previous discussion PandoDaily is a ValleyWag-type gossip site. If someone was writing about your own personal relationships, would you ever think you "might be justified" in doing the same?
- selmnoo 12y ago
  What do you mean "ValleyWag-type gossip site"? ValleyWag was actually calling out Valley companies for the misogynistic shit they should be called out for, while everyone else was sitting quietly on the side.
  - mc32 12y ago
    I can't speak for the OP. What I think the OP is saying is that some outlets thrive on being sensational --one thrives on Hollywood sensationalism, this one may thrive on valley sensationalism --it just so happens to coincide with a social issue in this case, but that may just be coincidental --that is, do they take on all social issues whether they drive page views or not, whether they create outrage or not? In other words, they both serve their own brand of red meat to their audiences.
- alexqgb 12y ago
  I'm sorry nailer, but do you honestly think that what you've just proposed proposed is an accurate reflection of the situation with Pando and Uber? Because there's a world of difference between journalists reporting on companies under clear bylines, and companies attempting to silence journalists through acts of personal intimidation that have their precise origins concealed. Forget apples to oranges. What you're describing is (possibly rotten) apples to hand grenades. But since you asked, no, I wouldn't dream of behaving this way. If a reporter published something demonstrably false, I'd demand a correction. If the pattern persisted, I'd take them to court. You know, like a civilized human being, not some goddamned Mafioso or a member of the KGB.
mc32 12y ago
If that's what is was, yes, i'd be a problem. But it appears, from this witness, it was not. So let's suppose this witness is a good witness. In some cultures it's natural to only say things out loud that one has thought of 'thoughtfully'. In others you say a lot out loud but without meaning much. Just imagine a conversation between two sorority sisters or two fraternity brothers. They can have some pretty horrible things they say about other people --it's quite disgusting; I've overheard them. Would it be fair to bring those conversations up later in life, or as they're being considered for a job? should those conversations be "wrong"? I'd rather people be free to have all kinds of nasty thoughts --but provide disincentive upon acting them out --not just thinking them. Another question. Now, let's say said reporter might say something under her breath to confidants. Let's suppose she's happy to see some unraveling, and let's suppose the reporter/journalist even says some hyperbolic things --should such a reporter now be attacked for expressing such feelings? People are people and I think should be free to feel enmity against others --we can't pretend we like everyone out there.
- thesteamboat 12y ago
  > Just imagine a conversation between two sorority sisters or two fraternity brothers. They can have some pretty horrible things they say about other people --it's quite disgusting; I've overheard them. Would it be fair to bring those conversations up later in life, or as they're being considered for a job? should those conversations be "wrong"? I think it's fair to judge the conversants to the extent you think it provides information about their current character. If it was a conversation years ago, well people change. If someone can't keep themselves from maliciously gossiping a week ago, then I might be reluctant to work with them. N.B. I'm solely responding to your hypothetical here, rather than the uber situation, for I don't think your analogy fits well.
  - mc32 12y ago
    It may or may, not, I think. The reason I say that is that in some specific social situations it's expected/acceptable to say some outrageous things which the speaker(s) do(es)n't actually believe in. It's part of people's bonding 'rituals'. When you're with your friend(s) you may say something which if published could put you in bad light. If that were not the case, I'd be afraid that university campuses or company water-coolers are overrun by psychopaths. We cannot take people literally at all occasions. I'm afraid I cannot trust people who have an interest (whether it be page views or even a social cause, etc.) to discern the situation in a disinterested way. The dynamics are too complicated. Unfortunately it ends up being a situation where we have multiple interpretations of something. For example, I might say "I'm very happy for you" to someone, they may retort "no, you are not, you are just saying that". Who's right?

by alexqgb 12y ago

nailer 12y ago

From the previous discussion PandoDaily is a ValleyWag-type gossip site. If someone was writing about your own personal relationships, would you ever think you "might be justified" in doing the same?

selmnoo 12y ago
What do you mean "ValleyWag-type gossip site"? ValleyWag was actually calling out Valley companies for the misogynistic shit they should be called out for, while everyone else was sitting quietly on the side.
- mc32 12y ago
  I can't speak for the OP. What I think the OP is saying is that some outlets thrive on being sensational --one thrives on Hollywood sensationalism, this one may thrive on valley sensationalism --it just so happens to coincide with a social issue in this case, but that may just be coincidental --that is, do they take on all social issues whether they drive page views or not, whether they create outrage or not? In other words, they both serve their own brand of red meat to their audiences.
alexqgb 12y ago
I'm sorry nailer, but do you honestly think that what you've just proposed proposed is an accurate reflection of the situation with Pando and Uber? Because there's a world of difference between journalists reporting on companies under clear bylines, and companies attempting to silence journalists through acts of personal intimidation that have their precise origins concealed. Forget apples to oranges. What you're describing is (possibly rotten) apples to hand grenades. But since you asked, no, I wouldn't dream of behaving this way. If a reporter published something demonstrably false, I'd demand a correction. If the pattern persisted, I'd take them to court. You know, like a civilized human being, not some goddamned Mafioso or a member of the KGB.

mc32 12y ago

If that's what is was, yes, i'd be a problem. But it appears, from this witness, it was not. So let's suppose this witness is a good witness. In some cultures it's natural to only say things out loud that one has thought of 'thoughtfully'. In others you say a lot out loud but without meaning much. Just imagine a conversation between two sorority sisters or two fraternity brothers. They can have some pretty horrible things they say about other people --it's quite disgusting; I've overheard them. Would it be fair to bring those conversations up later in life, or as they're being considered for a job? should those conversations be "wrong"? I'd rather people be free to have all kinds of nasty thoughts --but provide disincentive upon acting them out --not just thinking them. Another question. Now, let's say said reporter might say something under her breath to confidants. Let's suppose she's happy to see some unraveling, and let's suppose the reporter/journalist even says some hyperbolic things --should such a reporter now be attacked for expressing such feelings? People are people and I think should be free to feel enmity against others --we can't pretend we like everyone out there.

thesteamboat 12y ago
> Just imagine a conversation between two sorority sisters or two fraternity brothers. They can have some pretty horrible things they say about other people --it's quite disgusting; I've overheard them. Would it be fair to bring those conversations up later in life, or as they're being considered for a job? should those conversations be "wrong"? I think it's fair to judge the conversants to the extent you think it provides information about their current character. If it was a conversation years ago, well people change. If someone can't keep themselves from maliciously gossiping a week ago, then I might be reluctant to work with them. N.B. I'm solely responding to your hypothetical here, rather than the uber situation, for I don't think your analogy fits well.
- mc32 12y ago
  It may or may, not, I think. The reason I say that is that in some specific social situations it's expected/acceptable to say some outrageous things which the speaker(s) do(es)n't actually believe in. It's part of people's bonding 'rituals'. When you're with your friend(s) you may say something which if published could put you in bad light. If that were not the case, I'd be afraid that university campuses or company water-coolers are overrun by psychopaths. We cannot take people literally at all occasions. I'm afraid I cannot trust people who have an interest (whether it be page views or even a social cause, etc.) to discern the situation in a disinterested way. The dynamics are too complicated. Unfortunately it ends up being a situation where we have multiple interpretations of something. For example, I might say "I'm very happy for you" to someone, they may retort "no, you are not, you are just saying that". Who's right?